Pros And Cons Of Drug Testing

In many high schools around the country, student athletes are using drugs. “The percent of students that have drunk alcohol is 72.5% while the number of students who have used marijuana is 36.8%” (Report: Nearly Half of High School Students Using Drugs, Alcohol). The students believe that since they are athletes that they do not need to abide by the rules because they feel more superior and that the narcotic will not hurt or affect them. Implementing random drug tests for athletes will create a positive image and not hurt others or themselves. Schools need to have drug tests for student athletes because drugs effect relationships, using drugs have consequences, and lastly they have a major effect on the body.

The performance of random drug testing has seen its fair share of scrutiny in terms of cost, test result reliability, and constitutionality. Drug testing has been fraught with controversy for decades by both employers and employees alike and there are three valid reasons as to why the testing is not ideal. One of the main elements that is a cause for concern is an employee’s invasion of privacy. When an employee tests positive, there is a strong possibility and fear that they will be permanently stigmatized. Any explanation given to the employer, whether it’s voluntary or forced on contingency of employment, violates their HIPAA Rights. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, has referred to the practice as a "needless indignity" (DeCew, 1994).

Drug testing athletes or even just college students is against the students and Linn State’s fourth amendment rights. College students have the right to be secure in themselves, house, and papers. “On the con side of the argument, the American Civil Liberties Union along with with students attending Linn State say that drug testing of all college students is against the law and violation of their fourth amendment right” (Clabaugh 3). According to Jason Clabaugh, students have a right to not be drug tested because of their fourth amendment of having the right to be secure of themselves. Also sometimes test can lead to false positives. “On the con side of testing the college student athlete population, drug tests can often lead to false positives” (Clabaugh 4). Although, it’s likely to be a false positive it might not

I am certain in my belief that most students who have attended any university in the US have in one way or another been around drugs. However, whether or not they partook in them is debatable. They have more than likely made a decision: to do the drug, or not to do the drug. If they are like me, they did not do the drug, but continued to socialize with those that did partake. If they are not like me, they may have taken the drug and continued to socialize with those they are around. Drugs have become a large part of college culture, and more ultimately, human culture. The reasons vary as much as the reasons why people personally choose to partake in the drug of their choice. Peter De Marneffe states in his article “Decriminalize, Don’t Legalize”, that “people use drugs because they enjoy them; they find them fun and relaxing. If it is easier, safer, and less expensive to do something fun and relaxing, more people will do it and do it more often” (De Marneffe, 200). Currently, the US is dealing with drug prohibition (War on Drugs) which has become a topic of hefty discussion. As David Boaz states in his article “Drug-Free America or Free America?”, political entities have attempted to stop the use of various drugs since drugs were first used. He goes on to say the most familiar example to the American people is the prohibition of alcohol (Boaz, 194). In this position paper, I will do the following: I will define

The issue of drug testing in the workplace has sparked an ongoing debate among management. There are many who feel that it is essential to prevent risks to the greater public caused by substance abuse while on the job. However, others believe that the costs far outweigh the benefits and that it is an invasion of privacy. Putting all ethical issues aside, evidence presented in this paper supports the latter. The costs of drug testing are excessive and only a small percentage of employees are actually found to be substance users. Drug testing in the work place has a negative effect on productivity; contrary to what was originally intended. It actually decreases productivity

Poverty has been a growing problem in many cities around the United States. Because of this growing problem,many state governments currently give welfare benefits to people that may not be able to provide for themselves. However, there are some some taxpayers that object to these benefits being given out. It is because they imagine that the people receiving these benefits will spend the money on drugs instead of what the benefits are intended for. It is because of this thinking that since 2009 seven states have enacted legislature to drug test those receiving government assistance. By drug testing citizens receiving government assistance, the government is unfairly assuming that welfare recipients are using their money that they receive on drugs. There are people arguing for both sides, I for one am against drug testing for government assistance.

Should drug testing be mandatory in the workplace? Many factors, including safety, productivity and reducing the number of employees who use drugs, enhance companies to do mandatory drug testing. On the other hand, many employees feel that drug tests are unfair, an invasion of privacy, and a violation of rights. Suppose an airline company had two pilots standing by their planes. The agency told the travelers that both pilots were flying the same route and that they could choose either plane. One pilot held a sign that said, “I am drug free”. The other pilot’s sign said, “I’m high on cocaine”. Which plane do you think most people would choose? Drug testing should be mandatory in the workplace.

After years of delays, rising tensions and hours of discussion, a proposal to randomly drug-test Zionsville High School students was approved Monday night.The Zionsville School Board voted 3-2 in favor of the new policy which requires any students who elect to participate in extracurricular activities or park on school property to consent to random drug tests.Students who fail a drug test will be required to enter and complete a drug counseling program.The approved plan is a variation of one supported years ago by the Zionsville Student Rights Union. They also proposed that only students who park or participate in afterschool programs be tested, but the union plan wanted students to face no consequences at school, and for positive results to

Drug testing welfare applicants is unconstitutional under the fourth amendment doctrine, but changing the welfare program to require consent to testing may be constitutional under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions applies to benefits that the government permits but is not compelled to provide in which receipt of the benefit is conditional. The recipient the benefit must have free choice to participate and may be required to perform or forego an activity to receive the benefit. The condition must be connected to the benefit in some way that is typically known as germaneness.

The amount of homicides have increased by 7.4 percent in the past few year all of them were drug related. Drug testing High school athletes is a good idea because it has the kids pick a priority in life. It also teaches them responsibility and the consequences

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

This initial test is given in the form of a survey. Those being surveyed can respond as honestly or dishonestly as they want. After the surveys are reviewed, those who have met certain requirement are asked to take a drug test. If they do not comply their benefits are not given. Those willing to take the drug test are notified of the date of their test a few weeks prior to the appointment. Many illegal drugs (amphetamines and barbiturates) are out of a human’s urine within 4 days (Larson 3). This allows people to work around the system. Because of this, random drug testing is the only way to

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.

Introducing the fear to students on drug testing that will directly affect them, will most likely decrease the use of drugs being abused. The president of the Institute for Behavior and Health explains that RSDT (Random Student Drug Test) could be used on any athlete, any day, and any time without notice (DuPont et al ¶6). Making the testing random will help eliminate any cheating or strategizing that the students who would test positive could be doing. Keith Ablow, MD and psychiatrist published an article in 2011 said that, both varsity and junior varsity teams should be tested with results kept private (¶6). To only test Varsity athletes would be unacceptable because JV athletes could cause just as much harm to athletes around them as to themselves. To make it fair and because kids follow by example, coaches would test also (Ablow ¶ 9). When a positive test appears, there should be punishment, but not to the extent of expulsion. Guidelines to RSDT programs say it is not supposed to end up in punishment for drug tests (DuPont et al ¶25). Not giving any punishment would defeat the purpose because then kids would not care to stop their drug use. Random drug tests to not only student-athletes, but students in general will promote a healthier lifestyle without drug use (DuPont et al ¶5). Students should be on edge not knowing if they are going to be tested or