Social Justice Society (Sjs), Petitioner, vs. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (Pdea), Respondents. Facts: in Its Petition for Prohibition Under Rule 65, Petitioner Social Justice Society (Sjs)

For many years, drugs have been the center of crime and the criminal justice system in the United States. Due to this widespread epidemic, President Richard Nixon declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971 with a campaign that promoted the prohibition of illicit substances and implemented policies to discourage the overall production, distribution, and consumption. The War on Drugs and the U.S. drug policy has experienced the most significant and complex challenges between criminal law and the values of today’s society. With implemented drug polices becoming much harsher over the years in order to reduce the overall misuse and abuse of drugs and a expanded federal budget, it has sparked a nation wide debate whether or not they have created more harm than good. When looking at the negative consequences of these policies not only has billions of dollars gone to waste, but the United States has also seen public health issues, mass incarceration, and violent drug related crime within the black market in which feeds our global demands and economy. With this failed approach for drug prohibition, there continues to be an increase in the overall production of illicit substances, high rate of violence, and an unfavorable impact to our nation.

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

Still in debate, the Supreme Court has yet to decided whether drug testing would interfere with the Fourth Amendment in such a way that it would restrict rights. Several individuals and states wish that the Court would rule in the drug testing favor, but from cases in the past, the chances are slim. The reason being that, unless they make it and requirement, random drug testing for the use of welfare is considered an unreasonable search.

Drug policy is a crucial topic in the country today. Substance abuse, as well as drug-related crime rates, are a huge problem. This is a fact. The way to fix the problem of substance abuse, however, is widely disagreed upon. Some think that stricter laws regarding drug possession and use would solve the problem, while others believe that loosening the restrictions would be a better option. The issue of legalizing drugs, especially marijuana, is one that is debated all the time. In fact, in 1995, a survey was conducted on the most important policy issues and eighty five percent of the country placed drugs at the top of the list (Falco 1996). Many states are actually beginning to decriminalize, and even

Drug abuse has always been a very delicate question as it always it deals with the health, well-being and even lives of human beings belonging to any country. Many people have argued that mandatory drug testing is a violation of their civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment grants you the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, otherwise known as a person's right to privacy. However, employers have the right to know whether or not the people working under them are stable to do their jobs. Indeed, for safety of all the humans randomly drug testing is the best way to maintain the quality of the employees.

For one to be forced to complete a drug screening, merely because they are asking for government assistance is unconstitutional. The fourth amendment of the United states Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Goldman & Cheeseman, 2011). This Amendment was put in place to protect citizens from warrantless

Some people may say that mandatory drug testing is a violation of the athletes’ Fourth Amendment right. According to some people, these tests are unnecessary and therefore violate these rights. The author of “Mandatory Drug Testing Violates Rights” believes that drug testing is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; “Courts have ruled that drug tests are a search. A search is a privacy issue, and there has to be a reason for the search.” This is true. Drug tests are a search, and in some cases they may violate the rights of some citizens. Professional athletes, on the other hand, do not get their rights violated by this. This does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the athletes have already agreed to the rules of participating in the sport. Deborah Lee and Ann Griswold, authors of “Point: Athletes Should be Tested for Drugs” explains that “in none of these cases have athletes’ Constitutional rights been abrogated because the participation in athletic events is always voluntary and never mandatory. The ‘mandate’ only comes into play after the athlete has agreed to participate, thereby voluntarily agreeing to obey the rules of the sport.” This explains how the athletes have agreed to the rules of the activity, which in most cases prohibit the use of many performance enhancing substances, so since they have agreed to these conditions, the mandatory drug testing of athletes is not a violation of their rights. An athlete’s rights are not being violated by

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina entered judgements for defendants, and the patients appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Court affirmed. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that: (1) urine tests were “searches” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) the reporting of positive test results to police were unreasonable searches without patients consent, in view of the policy’s law enforcement purpose. Reversed and remanded. – STEVENS, J., joined by O’CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ” (Samaha,

The current drug policies and officers are very good at drug busts(Jones). Stopping trafficking of drugs is the current wars strongest winning points(Jones). The current method has reduced drug use and certain crimes(Jones). In most of the cases in the past the “no Tolerance”attitude has paid of(Jones).

When an employer pays a person to perform a job, the employer has the right to conduct a drug test. The law requires employers to protect the health information of their employees so therefore, if the results of a drug test are kept private, then the employee’s privacy was not invaded.

At first Chapman does not limit his perspective to one side of criticizing the use of illegal drugs in society. Instead, he deals with this subject in a broad way. He argues over the fact that the use of these prohibited drugs costs the government a lot of money, police time and prison space and how in spite of taking several administrative steps, the government has suffered from a colossal failure in stopping the drug abuse. He provides the data in support of his argument which is direct and precise. Through the example of Bennett, he tries to convey the message that people are not willing to have the spread of drug abuse in citizenry. A survey was conducted asking people to respond to the following question: if illegal

Studies have shown that states are spending large sums of money, and are finding very few drug test results that come back positive. This brings up a few other issues regarding the effectiveness of tests used, and whether drug users are able to cheat the system. Because of the complaints about the testing being unconstitutional, only those recipients who have “reasonable suspicion” may be tested.

One the many controversies in our country today, regards the prohibition of illegal narcotics. Deemed unhealthy, hazardous, and even fatal by the authorities that be; the U.S. government has declared to wage a “war on drugs.” It has been roughly fifteen years since this initiative has begun, and each year the government shuffles more money into the unjust cause of drug prohibition. Even after all of this, the problem of drugs that the government sees still exists. The prohibition of drugs is a constitutional anomaly. There are many aspects and sides to look at the issue from, but the glaring inefficiency current laws exude is that any human should have the right to ingest anything he or she desires. The antagonist on the other end

1. The U.S. Supreme Court on the court case this is the case of 2009 where the Supreme Court agreed that this had been against the sixth amendment right of confrontation for anyone who is under suspicion to be given a chemical drug test report and not having a testimony of the person who is carrying out the test. In spite of the ruling that such practices were not allowed by the constitution, it also rules out that the “notice-on-demand” statues were in line with the constitution. The state was not in a position of violating the constitution by this statue by notifying the defendant that the prosecution was able to submit a test even though they didn’t have a testimony from the person who carried it out, as it will also give the defendant enough time to object the results.