Drug-Testing in Schools Summary: Should school students face mandatory drug-tests?

print this page Discuss topic Introduction Author: Eliot Jones ( Tunisia ) Eliot Jones is a freelance communications consultant. Created: Monday, November 06, 2000 Last Modified: Monday, November 06, 2000 Context In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Vernonia School District v. Acton that schools could randomly test student athletes for drug use, after a student, James Acton, was banned from trialling for his school football team without consenting to a test. Debaters take note: the Todd case in the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) in 1998 extended the right to test to all participants in extra-curricular activities. The legal battle for the schools right to drugtest has gained and lost ground for many years in the USA; in 2000 the Indiana Supreme Court banned such testing where the student concerned was not suspected of drug-taking. The debate is about societys desire to combat a growing drugs problem, pitted against the constitutional or notional right to privacy. Tests can be conducted on urine, hair or breath. Arguments Pros Cons

There is a clear and present problem with drug use among teenagers in many countries. Current measures to tackle drugs at the source (i.e. by imprisoning dealers and breaking the supply chain) are not succeeding. It is especially important to protect teenagers, at an impressionable age and at the time when their attitude to education greatly affects their entire lives. Some sacrifice of human rights is necessary to tackle the drug problem. Most justice systems hold to the notion of innocence until proven guilty. To enforce random drug testing (thereby invading the privacy of students about whom

there is no suspicion of drug use) is to view them as guilty until proven innocent. Nothing justifies the sacrifice of human rights for innocent people. Students who do not break the law by taking drugs have nothing to fear. Innocent students do have something to fear the violation of privacy and loss of dignity caused by a drug test. The purpose of random drug testing is not so much to catch offenders but to prevent all students from offending in the first place. The idea of prevention goes to the root of the drug problem; other methods of deterrence are less invasive, such as encouraging extra-curricular activities, fostering better parental relations, tackling poverty and safety and so on. Peer pressure is the primary cause of experimentation with drugs. Discouraging drug use amongst athletes, model students etc. sends a powerful message to the entire student body. Teenagers, especially drug-taking teenagers, are attracted by rebellion and the chance of beating the system. Draconian, Big Brother-style tactics of random drug testing will only provoke resentment and encourage students to break the law. Peer pressure is increased as they unite against school authorities. Urine, hair and breath samples can be used to detect use of most common drugs, especially cannabis, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine or PCP. Drug users will only turn to drugs that are more difficult to test, such as designer drugs, or use masking agents before being tested. Motions This House supports random drug-testing in schools This House believes in a students right to privacy