Random Drug Testing Argument Essay
Substance abuse is a growing issue throughout schools and communities, with an increasing fear of abuse of drugs such as heroin and methamphetamines. Many schools are trying to solve the issue and prevent these harmful substances from being abused by their students. One route that many schools are taking is by performing random drug tests on their students in hopes that they will find those who are using illicit substances. Administrators are also hoping that other students will be deterred from drug use due to the harsh consequences that come with a positive test, often suspension and loss of driving privileges. This is a very controversial topic as some believe this will help to reduce drug use among young people throughout communities, while others believe it is an invasion of privacy and is overall a very ineffective method of reducing drug use.
…show more content…
In the article “Random Drug Testing is Harmful and Infringes on Students’ Rights”, Judith Appel debates that drug testing is not only ineffective, but harmful to innocent students.
The author argues that since tests are mostly performed on students in extracurricular activities, the tests represent a population of kids who are less likely to participate in drug related activities, according to the article. The article also states that many lawsuits have been filed to state courts over the legality of random drug tests in schools, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court striking down the drug testing. Another topic of concern is that the drug tests can be inaccurate. Most tests analyze urine samples, and these tests can often produce positive results for drugs that the student did not necessarily consume, ruining a student’s reputation. Finally, the authors explain that students may resort to using less traceable and more harmful drugs in order to not receive a positive result from a random drug
test. However, Joseph McKinney does not believe that this is the case. He states that as drug use is on the rise among students, random student drug testing is an effective method to help prevent drug use and aid those that do use illicit drugs. On surveys reported by high schools in Indiana that use random drug testing, 58 percent reported that drug use by students decreased, while 0 percent reported that drug use increased. He also argues that extracurricular participation was not limited because of it, stating that 0 percent of high schools reported a reduced amount of students involved in activities and 45 percent of schools reported an increase of students involved in extracurricular activities (McKinney). Overall, McKinney argues that random drug testing is a needed action that all schools should take. While both authors’ opinions are drastically different, there is some common ground that can be found. Both authors recognize that there is a great need for action to be taken in order to keep students safe from drug use in their communities. Both authors also agree that not enough is being done by schools to help protect their students from illicit drug use. Another similarity is that both articles stress the importance of stopping drug use in schools without reducing the number of students involved in athletics and other extracurricular activities. Overall, both authors are greatly concerned for the safety of students and the increased drug use among them. However, the opinions of each author on resolving drug use through random testing greatly differ from each other. The first area of disagreement is whether or not random drug testing by schools is an invasion of privacy. Appel argues that students can be wrongly accused of drug use due to that non illicit substances can be recognized as illegal drugs. For example, decongestants can run a positive test for amphetamines, and poppy seeds positively identify for opiates. This could lead to the destruction of a student’s reputation. Schools also may not protect the private information provided by students who perform the random tests. Appel explains that at Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma, the choir teacher left personal information of students where others could examine it. However, McKinney states that this is not the case. McKinney says that in the study that 100% of principals reported that morale in classrooms was the same or better than before random drug testing. It is unclear what steps what steps were taken by these schools to ensure privacy. Another difference of opinion comes from student participation in extracurricular activities. Those against random drug testing would argue that students would be deterred from participating in activities due to fear of failing a random drug test. Appel debates that testing students in extracurricular activities is an inaccurate sample to choose from, stating that students involved in extracurricular activities are less likely to use illicit substances. Those in favor of random drug testing disagree, arguing that it would not affect extracurricular participation. McKinney states the opposite, actually, saying that 55 percent of schools using random drug tests in Indiana saw an increase in extracurricular participation. While both sides stand firmly on opposite ends of the argument, the common ground can be used to make a solution. Random student drug testing should not be mandatory for all students involved in extracurricular activities, and should only be performed if a school has reasonable cause that a student needs one. There is a problem with this solution, however. There would be debate over what would qualify as reasonable cause, and would open up a whole other debate regarding the guidelines of what school administrators can and cannot use as justification for a random drug test. While this solution is not flawless, it does present the beginning of a compromise that could help to alleviate and prevent drug use among students. This solution would help to satisfy both sides of the issue. This compromise first solves the debate of privacy infractions. Critics such as Appel and other can be satisfied in the fact that not all students will be tested, and will not be mandatory for students involved in activities. Since only students with reasonable cause will be tested, this will help to make sure that students’ reputations stay intact and are not ruined over an inaccurate drug test. Students involved in extracurricular activities will likely have a lesser chance of being tested, and extracurricular participation will likely not decrease. On the other hand, those who support McKinney’s side of the argument can also be satisfied that students will still be drug tested. This more moderate solution may also invite more schools to adopt drug testing in hopes of ending drug use by students. Overall, a solution of non mandatory drug testing presents many benefits that could be the beginning of finally solving the issue of increased drug use among middle and high school students. With a more moderate approach on testing students for illicit substances, states could begin to pass mandates requiring schools to have drug testing programs in place. While there is still plenty of debate to be had over the guidelines of what qualifies as reasonable cause, the basics of this compromise can be agreed on by both sides of the issue, likely causing a more docile and understanding debate for the future.
Works Cited
Appel, Judith. “Random Drug Testing Is Harmful and Infringes on Students’ Rights”, Students Rights, Jamuna Carroll, Greenhaven Press, 2005, Web.
McKinney, Joseph R. “Random Drug Testing Can Prevent Student Drug Abuse”. Addiction, Christina
Fisanick, Greenhaven Press, 2009, Web.
In the article “Random Drug Testing is Harmful and Infringes on Students’ Rights”, Judith Appel debates that drug testing is not only ineffective, but harmful to innocent students.
The author argues that since tests are mostly performed on students in extracurricular activities, the tests represent a population of kids who are less likely to participate in drug related activities, according to the article. The article also states that many lawsuits have been filed to state courts over the legality of random drug tests in schools, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court striking down the drug testing. Another topic of concern is that the drug tests can be inaccurate. Most tests analyze urine samples, and these tests can often produce positive results for drugs that the student did not necessarily consume, ruining a student’s reputation. Finally, the authors explain that students may resort to using less traceable and more harmful drugs in order to not receive a positive result from a random drug
test. However, Joseph McKinney does not believe that this is the case. He states that as drug use is on the rise among students, random student drug testing is an effective method to help prevent drug use and aid those that do use illicit drugs. On surveys reported by high schools in Indiana that use random drug testing, 58 percent reported that drug use by students decreased, while 0 percent reported that drug use increased. He also argues that extracurricular participation was not limited because of it, stating that 0 percent of high schools reported a reduced amount of students involved in activities and 45 percent of schools reported an increase of students involved in extracurricular activities (McKinney). Overall, McKinney argues that random drug testing is a needed action that all schools should take. While both authors’ opinions are drastically different, there is some common ground that can be found. Both authors recognize that there is a great need for action to be taken in order to keep students safe from drug use in their communities. Both authors also agree that not enough is being done by schools to help protect their students from illicit drug use. Another similarity is that both articles stress the importance of stopping drug use in schools without reducing the number of students involved in athletics and other extracurricular activities. Overall, both authors are greatly concerned for the safety of students and the increased drug use among them. However, the opinions of each author on resolving drug use through random testing greatly differ from each other. The first area of disagreement is whether or not random drug testing by schools is an invasion of privacy. Appel argues that students can be wrongly accused of drug use due to that non illicit substances can be recognized as illegal drugs. For example, decongestants can run a positive test for amphetamines, and poppy seeds positively identify for opiates. This could lead to the destruction of a student’s reputation. Schools also may not protect the private information provided by students who perform the random tests. Appel explains that at Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma, the choir teacher left personal information of students where others could examine it. However, McKinney states that this is not the case. McKinney says that in the study that 100% of principals reported that morale in classrooms was the same or better than before random drug testing. It is unclear what steps what steps were taken by these schools to ensure privacy. Another difference of opinion comes from student participation in extracurricular activities. Those against random drug testing would argue that students would be deterred from participating in activities due to fear of failing a random drug test. Appel debates that testing students in extracurricular activities is an inaccurate sample to choose from, stating that students involved in extracurricular activities are less likely to use illicit substances. Those in favor of random drug testing disagree, arguing that it would not affect extracurricular participation. McKinney states the opposite, actually, saying that 55 percent of schools using random drug tests in Indiana saw an increase in extracurricular participation. While both sides stand firmly on opposite ends of the argument, the common ground can be used to make a solution. Random student drug testing should not be mandatory for all students involved in extracurricular activities, and should only be performed if a school has reasonable cause that a student needs one. There is a problem with this solution, however. There would be debate over what would qualify as reasonable cause, and would open up a whole other debate regarding the guidelines of what school administrators can and cannot use as justification for a random drug test. While this solution is not flawless, it does present the beginning of a compromise that could help to alleviate and prevent drug use among students. This solution would help to satisfy both sides of the issue. This compromise first solves the debate of privacy infractions. Critics such as Appel and other can be satisfied in the fact that not all students will be tested, and will not be mandatory for students involved in activities. Since only students with reasonable cause will be tested, this will help to make sure that students’ reputations stay intact and are not ruined over an inaccurate drug test. Students involved in extracurricular activities will likely have a lesser chance of being tested, and extracurricular participation will likely not decrease. On the other hand, those who support McKinney’s side of the argument can also be satisfied that students will still be drug tested. This more moderate solution may also invite more schools to adopt drug testing in hopes of ending drug use by students. Overall, a solution of non mandatory drug testing presents many benefits that could be the beginning of finally solving the issue of increased drug use among middle and high school students. With a more moderate approach on testing students for illicit substances, states could begin to pass mandates requiring schools to have drug testing programs in place. While there is still plenty of debate to be had over the guidelines of what qualifies as reasonable cause, the basics of this compromise can be agreed on by both sides of the issue, likely causing a more docile and understanding debate for the future.
Works Cited
Appel, Judith. “Random Drug Testing Is Harmful and Infringes on Students’ Rights”, Students Rights, Jamuna Carroll, Greenhaven Press, 2005, Web.
McKinney, Joseph R. “Random Drug Testing Can Prevent Student Drug Abuse”. Addiction, Christina
Fisanick, Greenhaven Press, 2009, Web.