Roxanne E.

De Guzman Logic

“Students should face the mandatory drug test.”

I disagree.

I believe that drug testing, particularly random drug testing, should not be allowed in public schools for the following
reasons.

My first reason supporting that random drug testing should not be allowed in public schools is because they simply do
not work.

My second reason is that the current technology of drug testing is fraught with error. There have been a number of
incidents of false positive results caught after the student has been punished, and even more that have yet to be
uncovered.

My third is that random drug testing can lead students to more risky behavior. The standard drug test currently does not
detect many drugs frequently used by adolescents such as alcohol, MDMA (Ecstasy), or inhalants.

Fourthly, this is a waste of money.

My fifth reason is that this is a clear violation of the constitution. Random, suspicionless, drug testing is a violation of the
fourth amendment, which states that no person is permitted to having themselves or their property searched without
reason.

My sixth and final reason is that this is an invasion of privacy to students. Students must urinate in a cup in front of a
strange adult, and let them take the urine for examination. They must also submit any medication they are currently
taking.

Employers all over conduct random drug tests of their employees as conditions of their employments; however, this is
allowed because drug use is unlawful, the employees are legal adults who can enter into legally binding contracts,
testing is a condition of their work contract, and testing is not done to disenfranchise any particular group of employees.
Under the Law, children less then the age of eighteen can have their Constitutional freedoms modified for their own
protection; this is done to ensure guardians have the authority to keep their children out of harms way while it also
limits the ability of adolescents to enter into contractual obligation as they most often lack the judgment needed to
understand the consequences of a contract. As schools are not parents, they do not have the authority to contract an
agreement that school attendance is conditional on submission to random drug tests. Forcing parents to consent is a
clear violation and disrespect of parental rights, thus, the school would be going one step beyond the intent of its
authority. Furthermore, as school attendance is mandatory and the authority of the state supersedes that of the schools,
the Law cannot tolerate a practice that uses the legal obligation of parents to ensure their children attend school to
leverage voluntary participation in a program required by school regulations. Moreover, the majority of students do not
have criminal convictions demonstrating they have engaged in illegal drug use, so the school has no reason to obligate
all students to drug testing, an unlawful search of person.

If schools are to conduct random drug testing, it must focus on students who have been prosecuted for drug use;
thereby, safeguarding other students from the negative effects of drug use, but the Law must obligate drug abuses
participation in a drug testing program as consequence of violating drug laws. On the other hand, schools were never
intended to act as agents of the police nor do they have the authority to take on such a role; therefore, drug testing
should be conducted by police agencies as drug abuse falls under the authority of the justice department. Schools
should act as educational bodies not as an extension of law enforcement.