I am having to write a position paper and then debate the pro-position of drug testing in schools.
It relies heavily on one source (Jacobs) and I need to do further research to offset this. It is strictly a rough draft and isn't due till the end of Oct.
I believe some of you will enjoy reading it :shrug:
so have fun if you plan to indulge, you might learn something :0corn
No Harm, No Foul: Drug Testing in Schools
Pro-Drug Testing in Schools
[Pick the date]
While watching the news or reading a local newspaper, you will hardly ever come across an article about drug testing in schools. It is a policy that is buried under many other things, such as the war in Iraq and the glooming economy. According to Dr. Luby in her article, ?School Drug Testing: What is the role of Intervention,? school based drug testing was for the first time a key item on the agenda at a conference in Washington on October 26, 2006. Dr. Luby states further in the article that this is in part because of the $10 million in federal grants for this testing (Luby). James Jacobs backs up this lack of attention in his article by stating, ?What definitely can be said of school drug testing is that it has received neither the scholarly nor the policy attention devoted to other issues of schools and drugs, such as curriculum and other prevention strategies? (Jacobs).
Drug Testing and the 4th Amendment
In this paper, we will be discussing the pros of school drug testing in public schools. Since privately run schools do not receive government funds or grants, their rule of drug testing is more lenient than public schools funded by the government and tax-payers.
First of all, the legality of drug testing is tied to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In this Amendment, it guards against unreasonable searches and seizures from government actors. A drug test is a kind of search, so therefore this amendment states the government actor must have probable cause, or in some cases, reasonable suspicion, in order to further his search. In the Supreme Court case Vernonia School District v. Acton regarding school drug tests for athletes, Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the court and stated, ?We have found such ?special needs? to exist in the public school context. There, the warrant requirement ?would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures [that are] needed,? and ?strict adherence to the requirement that searches be based upon probable cause? would undercut ?the substantial need of teachers and administrators for freedom to maintain order in the schools.? T.L.O., 469 U.S., at 340, 341, 105 S.Ct., at 742. The school search we approved in T.L.O., while not based on probable cause, was based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. As we explicitly acknowledged, however, ? ?the Fourth Amendment imposes no irreducible requirement of such suspicion,? ? id., at 342, n. 8, 105 S.Ct., at 743, n. 8 (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 560-561, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3084, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976)). We have upheld suspicionless searches and seizures to conduct drug testing of railroad personnel involved in train accidents, see Skinner, supra; to conduct random drug testing of federal customs officers who carry arms or are involved in drug interdiction, see Von Raab, supra; and to maintain automobile checkpoints looking for illegal immigrants and contraband, Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and drunk drivers, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653-654, (1995). This paragraph written by Justice Scalia states why there is no warrant needed in the public school setting, as created by New Jersey v. TLO.
In this TLO case, two students were caught smoking in a restroom and were escorted to the principal?s office. One of the girls, T.L.O., denied the allegations of smoking in the restroom and the principal ordered her to give him her purse. He searched T.L.O?s purse, and it yielded drug contraband, a roll of money, and letters implicating T.L.O in dealing marijuana. The Court held in New Jersey v. T.L.O., ?Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject? New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325, 326 (1985). This statement made by the Court can go hand in hand with drug testing.
The Merits of Drug Testing
Schools need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place, so if one comes to school inebriated from drugs or alcohol, it could cause a disturbance. Also stated in T.L.O., School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search T.L.O, at 326. This statement made by the Court can also be tied into drug testing. The school must have reasonable suspicion as to why they are ordering a student to give a drug test. In the case Board of Education v. Earls, the Court held that all students who participate in extracurricular activities at the school must submit to drug testing. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion and stated that the policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, therefore it is constitutional.
The Board of Education's general regulation of extracurricular activities diminished the expectation of privacy among students and that the Board's method of obtaining urine samples and maintaining test results was minimally intrusive on the students' limited privacy interest.
Justice Thomas writes, ?Within the limits of the Fourth Amendment, local school boards must assess the desirability of drug testing schoolchildren. In upholding the constitutionality of the Policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom. Rather, we hold only that Tecumseh's Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the School District's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren? Board of Education v. Earls 536 U.S. 832. (2002). This case furthered Vernonia School District by stating that the school can test every student that participates in extracurricular activities, not just athletes.
This case law can be furthered by the research of drug use. Practically everyone who starts taking drugs is in school at the time (Gerstein and Hendrick). Though trends indicate declining drug use among high school seniors since the late 1970s, the United States still has the highest rate of drug use of any industrialized country. In 1987, more than half of high school seniors reported using marijuana at some point in their lives; one third reported use of drugs other than marijuana; 15 percent had used cocaine (Johnston). Also, since the mid-1980s, public opinion has been solidly in favor of drug testing students (Gallup). The reasons just listed should be enough justification to issue drug tests to students, but some still object the idea.
Arguments Against Drug Testing
According to Mr. Jacobs, many people argue that school drug testing cannot pass the 4th Amendment muster, but as I stated earlier, The Supreme Court has stated that school officials can search a person if reasonable suspicion arises. This however, is not extended to drug testing. The school may test students that participate in extracurricular activities on a random basis, but they can?t test a student that is apparently inebriated and disturbing class?
I agree with the argument that random drug testing of all students violates the 4th Amendment. There must be some reasonable suspicion in order to give school officials a reason to test an individual. Also, if the urine collection were carried out in a manner that respected student privacy, and if the program were not linked to criminal prosecution or to severe in-school discipline, we believe its chances of passing constitutional muster would be very good (Jacobs).
If we take a look at a recent case involving road blocks, it will show that random drug testing will probably pass this constitutional muster. In the case Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, the Supreme Court held that drunk driving checkpoints or roadblocks do not violate the 4th Amendment. The Court noted that "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The Court then found that "the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight? Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990). However, some might argue that driving is a privilege and cannot be compared to school, since students are compelled to attend school. According to Mr. Jacobs, this argument proves too much. He then states if it is taken seriously, it might mean that students should not be subjected to dress codes, IQ tests, disciplinary codes, or even certain kinds of mandatory curricula (Jacobs).
Another argument against drug testing is that it is too costly. According to Mr. Jacobs, many firms and agencies are purchasing screening programs with confirmatory testing for under $25 per person. Cost is always going to be an issue with school districts, but it is worth noting that they already investing funds in drug-prevention programs and curricula. Some schools may be stretched fiscally, but Mr. Jacobs states in his article that this fiscal explanation for disinterest in drug testing is undermined, at least to some extent, by the availability of federal funds under the 1989 Coats Amendment. He also states that drug testing industry has been eager to expand its business by underwriting drug testing in schools.
One might argue that drug use trends are declining. In 1982, 66 percent of high school seniors reported that they had ever used any illicit drug (other than alcohol). By 1990, that figure had dropped to 48 percent. Cocaine and crack use has declined steadily since 1985, when 6.7 percent reported use within the previous thirty days, to 2.8 percent in 1989 (Sullivan). Mr. Jacobs also states that despite positive trends, most schools still report "a drug problem," and some schools report an extremely serious problem.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is puzzling and somewhat funny how the United States has declared ?war? on drugs, and our school systems have sounded the alarm to drug use, but no one has really listened. Many federal agencies have enacted drug testing for people in ?safety-sensitive? positions, and the professional and amateur sport?s associations have implemented drug screening. We have programs in place such as D.A.R.E and others, but these programs are not deterrents. I applaud the way the government and the U.S. Board of Education are trying to become proactive in the subject of student drug use and adding the technology of drug screening will further this.
Works Cited
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822. (2002).
Gallup, Alec. ?The 18th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools.?
Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 68 (Sep 1986). P. 45-46.
Gerstein, Dean, J. Harwood Hendrick, eds. ?Treating Drug Problems.? Washington D.C:
National Academy Press. Vol. 1 (1990). P. 4.
Jacobs, James. ?The Curious Rejection of Drug Testing by America?s Schools.? Teachers
College Record. Vol. 94. Issue 2. Dec 1992. 7 Oct 2008. <http://web.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=106&sid=1cf21eb9-b634-4e24-8653-78c82c6d3d79%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9305055327>.
Johnston, Lloyd. ?Drug Use Among American High School Seniors, College Students and
Young Adults, 1975-1990.? Government Printing Office. Vol. 1 (1991). P. 52, Table 10.
Luby, MD, Joan. ?School Drug Testing: What is the Role of Intervention?.? Brown University
Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter. Vol. 23. Issue 1. Jan 2007. 7 Oct 2008. <http://web.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=107&sid=b29d5b71-17a8-440c-b282-2a69bd46cee9%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=23538456>.
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325. (1985).
Sullivan, Lewis. ?Press Conference to Release the National High School Senior Drug Abuse
Survey.? Secretary of Health and Human Services. (Jan 24, 1991). P. 3.
Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646. (1995).
It relies heavily on one source (Jacobs) and I need to do further research to offset this. It is strictly a rough draft and isn't due till the end of Oct.
I believe some of you will enjoy reading it :shrug:
so have fun if you plan to indulge, you might learn something :0corn
No Harm, No Foul: Drug Testing in Schools
Pro-Drug Testing in Schools
[Pick the date]
While watching the news or reading a local newspaper, you will hardly ever come across an article about drug testing in schools. It is a policy that is buried under many other things, such as the war in Iraq and the glooming economy. According to Dr. Luby in her article, ?School Drug Testing: What is the role of Intervention,? school based drug testing was for the first time a key item on the agenda at a conference in Washington on October 26, 2006. Dr. Luby states further in the article that this is in part because of the $10 million in federal grants for this testing (Luby). James Jacobs backs up this lack of attention in his article by stating, ?What definitely can be said of school drug testing is that it has received neither the scholarly nor the policy attention devoted to other issues of schools and drugs, such as curriculum and other prevention strategies? (Jacobs).
Drug Testing and the 4th Amendment
In this paper, we will be discussing the pros of school drug testing in public schools. Since privately run schools do not receive government funds or grants, their rule of drug testing is more lenient than public schools funded by the government and tax-payers.
First of all, the legality of drug testing is tied to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In this Amendment, it guards against unreasonable searches and seizures from government actors. A drug test is a kind of search, so therefore this amendment states the government actor must have probable cause, or in some cases, reasonable suspicion, in order to further his search. In the Supreme Court case Vernonia School District v. Acton regarding school drug tests for athletes, Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the court and stated, ?We have found such ?special needs? to exist in the public school context. There, the warrant requirement ?would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures [that are] needed,? and ?strict adherence to the requirement that searches be based upon probable cause? would undercut ?the substantial need of teachers and administrators for freedom to maintain order in the schools.? T.L.O., 469 U.S., at 340, 341, 105 S.Ct., at 742. The school search we approved in T.L.O., while not based on probable cause, was based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. As we explicitly acknowledged, however, ? ?the Fourth Amendment imposes no irreducible requirement of such suspicion,? ? id., at 342, n. 8, 105 S.Ct., at 743, n. 8 (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 560-561, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3084, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976)). We have upheld suspicionless searches and seizures to conduct drug testing of railroad personnel involved in train accidents, see Skinner, supra; to conduct random drug testing of federal customs officers who carry arms or are involved in drug interdiction, see Von Raab, supra; and to maintain automobile checkpoints looking for illegal immigrants and contraband, Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and drunk drivers, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653-654, (1995). This paragraph written by Justice Scalia states why there is no warrant needed in the public school setting, as created by New Jersey v. TLO.
In this TLO case, two students were caught smoking in a restroom and were escorted to the principal?s office. One of the girls, T.L.O., denied the allegations of smoking in the restroom and the principal ordered her to give him her purse. He searched T.L.O?s purse, and it yielded drug contraband, a roll of money, and letters implicating T.L.O in dealing marijuana. The Court held in New Jersey v. T.L.O., ?Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject? New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325, 326 (1985). This statement made by the Court can go hand in hand with drug testing.
The Merits of Drug Testing
Schools need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place, so if one comes to school inebriated from drugs or alcohol, it could cause a disturbance. Also stated in T.L.O., School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search T.L.O, at 326. This statement made by the Court can also be tied into drug testing. The school must have reasonable suspicion as to why they are ordering a student to give a drug test. In the case Board of Education v. Earls, the Court held that all students who participate in extracurricular activities at the school must submit to drug testing. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion and stated that the policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, therefore it is constitutional.
The Board of Education's general regulation of extracurricular activities diminished the expectation of privacy among students and that the Board's method of obtaining urine samples and maintaining test results was minimally intrusive on the students' limited privacy interest.
Justice Thomas writes, ?Within the limits of the Fourth Amendment, local school boards must assess the desirability of drug testing schoolchildren. In upholding the constitutionality of the Policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom. Rather, we hold only that Tecumseh's Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the School District's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren? Board of Education v. Earls 536 U.S. 832. (2002). This case furthered Vernonia School District by stating that the school can test every student that participates in extracurricular activities, not just athletes.
This case law can be furthered by the research of drug use. Practically everyone who starts taking drugs is in school at the time (Gerstein and Hendrick). Though trends indicate declining drug use among high school seniors since the late 1970s, the United States still has the highest rate of drug use of any industrialized country. In 1987, more than half of high school seniors reported using marijuana at some point in their lives; one third reported use of drugs other than marijuana; 15 percent had used cocaine (Johnston). Also, since the mid-1980s, public opinion has been solidly in favor of drug testing students (Gallup). The reasons just listed should be enough justification to issue drug tests to students, but some still object the idea.
Arguments Against Drug Testing
According to Mr. Jacobs, many people argue that school drug testing cannot pass the 4th Amendment muster, but as I stated earlier, The Supreme Court has stated that school officials can search a person if reasonable suspicion arises. This however, is not extended to drug testing. The school may test students that participate in extracurricular activities on a random basis, but they can?t test a student that is apparently inebriated and disturbing class?
I agree with the argument that random drug testing of all students violates the 4th Amendment. There must be some reasonable suspicion in order to give school officials a reason to test an individual. Also, if the urine collection were carried out in a manner that respected student privacy, and if the program were not linked to criminal prosecution or to severe in-school discipline, we believe its chances of passing constitutional muster would be very good (Jacobs).
If we take a look at a recent case involving road blocks, it will show that random drug testing will probably pass this constitutional muster. In the case Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, the Supreme Court held that drunk driving checkpoints or roadblocks do not violate the 4th Amendment. The Court noted that "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The Court then found that "the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight? Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990). However, some might argue that driving is a privilege and cannot be compared to school, since students are compelled to attend school. According to Mr. Jacobs, this argument proves too much. He then states if it is taken seriously, it might mean that students should not be subjected to dress codes, IQ tests, disciplinary codes, or even certain kinds of mandatory curricula (Jacobs).
Another argument against drug testing is that it is too costly. According to Mr. Jacobs, many firms and agencies are purchasing screening programs with confirmatory testing for under $25 per person. Cost is always going to be an issue with school districts, but it is worth noting that they already investing funds in drug-prevention programs and curricula. Some schools may be stretched fiscally, but Mr. Jacobs states in his article that this fiscal explanation for disinterest in drug testing is undermined, at least to some extent, by the availability of federal funds under the 1989 Coats Amendment. He also states that drug testing industry has been eager to expand its business by underwriting drug testing in schools.
One might argue that drug use trends are declining. In 1982, 66 percent of high school seniors reported that they had ever used any illicit drug (other than alcohol). By 1990, that figure had dropped to 48 percent. Cocaine and crack use has declined steadily since 1985, when 6.7 percent reported use within the previous thirty days, to 2.8 percent in 1989 (Sullivan). Mr. Jacobs also states that despite positive trends, most schools still report "a drug problem," and some schools report an extremely serious problem.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is puzzling and somewhat funny how the United States has declared ?war? on drugs, and our school systems have sounded the alarm to drug use, but no one has really listened. Many federal agencies have enacted drug testing for people in ?safety-sensitive? positions, and the professional and amateur sport?s associations have implemented drug screening. We have programs in place such as D.A.R.E and others, but these programs are not deterrents. I applaud the way the government and the U.S. Board of Education are trying to become proactive in the subject of student drug use and adding the technology of drug screening will further this.
Works Cited
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822. (2002).
Gallup, Alec. ?The 18th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools.?
Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 68 (Sep 1986). P. 45-46.
Gerstein, Dean, J. Harwood Hendrick, eds. ?Treating Drug Problems.? Washington D.C:
National Academy Press. Vol. 1 (1990). P. 4.
Jacobs, James. ?The Curious Rejection of Drug Testing by America?s Schools.? Teachers
College Record. Vol. 94. Issue 2. Dec 1992. 7 Oct 2008. <http://web.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=106&sid=1cf21eb9-b634-4e24-8653-78c82c6d3d79%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9305055327>.
Johnston, Lloyd. ?Drug Use Among American High School Seniors, College Students and
Young Adults, 1975-1990.? Government Printing Office. Vol. 1 (1991). P. 52, Table 10.
Luby, MD, Joan. ?School Drug Testing: What is the Role of Intervention?.? Brown University
Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter. Vol. 23. Issue 1. Jan 2007. 7 Oct 2008. <http://web.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=107&sid=b29d5b71-17a8-440c-b282-2a69bd46cee9%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=23538456>.
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325. (1985).
Sullivan, Lewis. ?Press Conference to Release the National High School Senior Drug Abuse
Survey.? Secretary of Health and Human Services. (Jan 24, 1991). P. 3.
Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646. (1995).
Last edited:
