In Acton v. the Vernonia School District, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a school had the right to test student athletes for drugs. In 1988, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this right to cover all participants in extracurricular activities. In 2000, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a student could only be tested if there was a reason to suspect drug use, as opposed to random testing.
The Debate
In the ongoing war on drugs, there is a conflict between the need to keep children and adults free from the damaging effects of drug use and the perceived right to privacy. The prevalence of drug testing began in 1986, when the Reagan administration encouraged employers to test their employees as part of the war on drugs. This practice, and the accompanying debate, has moved from the boardroom to the classroom.
Pros
Proponents of drug testing contend that the dangers of teenage drug use overshadow privacy concerns. They further claim that an innocent student has nothing to fear from a drug test. Proponents also say that the possibility of random testing will prevent people from experimenting with drugs in the first place, and will reduce the demand for illegal narcotics.
Cons
Those against the idea of random testing say that random testing violates the concept of innocent until proved guilty. These people further believe that instead of discouraging drug use, the testing will only encourage teenagers to try to beat the system as a way of rebelling. In addition, this point of view holds that even innocent teens will face a loss of privacy and dignity from enduring the testing process.
Criteria
Currently, samples of urine, hair and even breath can be used to test a student for the most common illegal drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, PCP and methamphetamine. One concern is that random testing will cause students to seek other, more dangerous, drugs to ingest.
Tags: random testing, drug testing, testing will, Court ruled, Court ruled that, random testing will, ruled that
