Pubdate: Fri, 10 Feb 2006
Source: Tiger, The (Clemson U, SC Edu)
Copyright: 2006 The Tiger
Contact:  http://www.thetigernews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2490
Author: Milli Jacobs
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States)

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake