DRUG TESTS UNJUSTIFIED

In a May 2003 issue of the Journal of School Health, an article
entitled "Relationship between student illicit drug use and school
drug-testing policies" studied 76,000 students across the United
States and found no difference in drug use rates between students of
schools that have drug testing programs and those that do not. In an
era when steroid abuse is rampant across the media, one has to wonder
whether school districts will jump on the band wagon and push for
mandatory drug testing of their students to help control what the
media portrays to be an impending epidemic.

Within in the last fifteen years there have been two Supreme Court
cases rendered that pertain to the constitutionality of drug testing
in public schools.

The first, Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) and the second,
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of
Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002). Both cases dealt with the
constitutionality of drug testing of participants of extra-curricular
activities. According to George S. Yacoubian Jr. of the Pacific
Institute of Research and Evaluation, the Court has recognized that a
student relinquishes certain rights to privacy when he is entrusted
to a school for supervision. The relinquishment of these rights, the
Court stated, was critical because the state was responsible for
"maintaining discipline, health, and safety." The case of Earls
showed that the invasive nature of the urine tests was minimal
because there were no legal repercussions for a failed test; after
two failed tests a student could no longer participate in school
sanctioned extra-curricular activities.

As the court stated after its verdict in the Earls' trial, "the
nationwide drug epidemic makes the war against drugs a pressing
concern in every school." While drug testing previously held no legal
ramifications within public schools, I'm fearing that much sooner
than later the courts will uphold the constitutionality of urine,
hair and other forms of drug testing within the realm of middle and
high schools.

Further concerns against school-based drug testing are threefold
according to the American Civil Liberties Union: searches in the
school context must be based on individualized suspicion, the nature
of the privacy intrusion is significant, and drug testing is not a
proven solution to deterring or preventing illicit drug use.

Off the top of my head, the first issue with drug testing is that the
courts have already confirmed that drug tests are a search;
therefore, mandatory drug testing in school would violate our rights
to privacy and might also be construed as illegal search and seizure.
Unless there is a preponderance of evidence pointing towards the use
of illegal substances, I don't see how any school administrator would
have a right to test an entire student body just to find a minority
of students smoking the reefer.

Drug testing will boost the economy for drug concealing products such
as the "Whizzinator" more than slow the aggregate drug use that is
supposedly becoming an epidemic raging through the United States and
soon the world!

Give students a little credit; students are savvy and no one will
prevent them from consuming large amounts of blueberry yum yum, love
lettuce, or chronic if that's what they choose to do. It's a waste of
time and resources for schools to search students who are incredibly
discrete with their extra-curricular activities. And, if suspicion
isn't alerted, then why test everyone to find the best actor?

One scenario where I fathom drug testing in schools to be permissible
is in the realm of student athletes.

With the growing collegiate programs, and the associated heavy
recruiting, it would seem entirely fair for student athletes to be
tested to ensure schools that they are paying for a clean product.

What exactly do these student athletes have to fight?

They must prepare for the mandatory drug tests administered through the NCAA.

While it is assumed legal officials around the nation will try and
crack down on illicit drug consumption, one has to wonder how far the
government will go to apprehend recreational drug consumers.

The great thing about our constitution is that it molds with the
times; more rights shall be added with growth in technology and
modern society. However, my civil rights shall not be infringed upon
to make it easier for the po po to crack down on the middle school
meth addict. To pee or not to pee, that is the real question.