Persuasive Essay On Drug Testing

The school board of Vernonia, Oregon implemented this policy in their school. This applied even more so to athletes, who were seen as the “leaders of the drug culture” at the time. The policy “...required all those who wished to play on interscholastic athletic teams to submit to urinalysis drug testing.” (“Vernonia School District. [Brit.]) In the year 1991, after the policy was put into place for two years, a student challenged the policy. He, known by the name of James Acton, as well as his parents, refused to sign a consent form for the drug testing. Due to this, he was not allowed to be a part of football team, and is what led to their first trials. They were named “Wayne and Judy Acton, guardians ad litem (representing) for James Acton v. Vernonia School District 47J”. In these very first cases, the plaintiff were the Actons, and the defendant was the school district. The family lost in the U.S District Court, but later had the decision overturned by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who claimed that the district had truly violated Acton’s Fourth Amendment rights. The school district attempted to overturn the decision again, which led to the Supreme Court case, Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton,

2. The Supreme Court established that a warrant isn’t necessary in school due to the fact that students aren’t under the protection of police officers but instead by the school. The court decided that a search is reasonable if a) “specific facts, together with rational inference from those facts, justified the intrusion, and b) the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying it. Also, there can be random drug testing for students in school involved in extracurricular activities, and

In response to the issues, the school district made an effort to quell the issue by inviting speakers, and several different presentations to limit the drug use of students help the comprehend it’s dangers and negative impacts. However, this did not stop the problem. To solve this issue, a policy of drug testing had been adopted. One student in particular, James Acton-- had refused to participate in these random testing. Upon his refusal, he was then denied participation in his school’s American Football Program. After this case was taken to the Supreme Court, an argument for James Acton was that the random drug testing policy violated the clauses in the 4th amendment that protected for unreasonable searching. The Supreme Court decided that the search was in fact reasonable due to the schools attempt to quell the issue of drug use and keep students safe. The majority opinion stated that the search was reasonable. There was hard evidence that there was definitely a drug problem in the school. To quote an excerpt from acclaimed author Johnson Scott F “Fourth Amendment rights, no less than First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, are different in public schools than elsewhere; the "reasonableness" inquiry cannot disregard the schools ' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children. For their own good and that of their classmates, public school children are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations and to be vaccinated

The Court ruled that it did not violate students' federal or state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches. The Court reasoned that the state, as schoolmaster of children, must exercise a degree of supervision and control greater than it could exercise over adults. They also said that public school children have lesser privacy expectations with regard to medical examinations and procedures than the general population, and student athletes have even less legitimate privacy expectation. The school district had immediate and legitimate concern in preventing student athletes from using drugs.

Both Brann and Superintendent Steve Mazingo said the North Carolina High School Athletic Association may soon mandate that area school districts drug test their athletes. It is a step in the right direction in terms of protecting our athletes from substances (Mazingo) On June 26, 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled that middle and high-school athletes can be required to submit to drug tests as a condition of athletic participation, according to the Cato

They cited the Vernonia School District 47J v. Action case , where the Supreme Court ruled that suspicionless drug testing of student athletes was constitutional , the federal district court supported the policy, granting the board’s motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals , however, they agreed in favour of Earls and James , deciding that the policy did violate the Fourth Amendment . They found that schools “must demonstrate that there is some identifiable drug abuse problem among a reasonable number of those subject to the testing , such that testing a group of students will actually solve their drug problem.” The Tenth Circuit agreed that the school district had failed to meet this requirement. Then the Court agreed that the policy should be kept confidential . Then the Court came to the agreement that the student’s privacy was not important

Resourse officers, teachers, and administrators with experience in this practice of drug searches often discover talking about the drug problem wasn't enough and action is needed. High school students do and think whatever they want. I know this because I am a high school student. Mary White, who is a principal at Longmont High School, reported that "we had used the tradional methoods of drug education. We had brought in speakers to talk to the parents and the kids but that didn't seem to be enough." (Robinson) Obviously, students make their own desicons no matter if it's good or bad for them. This kind of search and seizure pratice leads the students to not listen because the want to be rebilous and want to try different things in life. According

According to Essex(2012), drug testing students would be in violation of the fourth amendment and would be difficult to justify because the students are protected under their privacy protection rights.As discussed in the text it was decided in the year 2002 during the case of Board of Education V. Earls when the supreme court had ruled that students who are participating in extracurricular activities must undergo a mandatory drug screenings and it became constitutional (Essex, 2012,p.35).

Slowly pushing students to become addicts, drug testing high school student athletes may or may not be to blame. In Facts & Statistics on Random Drug Testing of High School Students, Dr. M.H. Davis stated, “In the early 1990s, many school districts began to look into drug testing as a way to curb student drug use, which led to two U.S. Supreme Court cases involving student privacy. The court upheld the constitutionality of drug testing student athletes in 1995, and in 2002, the court expanded high school drug testing policies to include all students who participate in a competitive extracurricular activity. In those rulings, the court stated deterring student drug use was more important than privacy” (Davis). Drug testing high school athletes

I understand that in Braxton High School there has been an incredible increase in student arrest for drug possession during the mist of last school year. Two students died after using drugs at post prom party. The school would now like to activate random drug test. I also understand that a large group of students and parents

High School Students- If they’re going to drug test a student, it has to be random. If a person suspects a person is coming to school drunk/high, they should be able to test them then and there, with or without parent consent. Now if a student reports that another student is out every weekend and goes home after performing in games and gets high

2. The issue is whether public school districts can perform random drug screening of students who participate in school athletic programs under state or federal law.

There are many reasons why the school must have drug testing. A student must submit a urine that should be used for detection.(Mo/2011/par.1). The school must have a mission that there should be no drug users in the campus. Everyone must succeed in life. One reason is to preparethe studentsfor profitable employment. They are schools which have advisory councils that are made up of businesses taht would be potential businesses to hire the students that support their expertise. Through this, the school is moving forward toward its mission. If someone is tested positive, there should be no punishment. They have to meet with a counselor and they can participate in an activity which can help in avoiding drug abuse and

Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.

It seems that drugs have become a major epidemic within teenagers in the last few years. There is only so much that can be done to try and eliminate drug use, while not dramatically changing anything in the community. Drug testing the district’s student athletes provides many reasons that it is a worthwhile expense. Lawyers, Mark Vetter and Daniel Chanen, stated in the Sports Law Institute Newsletter “First, student-athletes were the leaders of the drug culture” (Vetter and Chanen ¶3). This simple statement proves that athletes need to be drug tested; it will improve multiple circumstances within the district and the lives of athletes. Drug testing student athletes at the high school level is a step every school district needs to take in order to improve their schools, and the students’ lifestyles despite the high price tag on these tests.