Imagine a student who has always wanted to play football and finally gets the chance to. All he needs to do is get drug tested. But he has serious medical issues and has to take different types of medicines that are not allowed. The drug tests would show that he is taking drugs and never get to be on the football team. Student-athletes should not be drug tested because it violates the Fourth Amendment, it is expensive, and it bans necessary medications.
Student-athletes should not be drug tested because it violates the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “But providing this ‘alibi’ could pose other dimensions, such as revealing contraceptive use or private medical information” (Kowalski). Drug
…show more content…
“Still another method uses expensive electrical equipment to scan for unique color patterns produced by specific chemicals.” “Still, no method of drug testing is foolproof, so positive results are usually confirmed by a second round of sampling” (Kowalski). Since drug testing is not foolproof, athletes are to be tested twice to check for inaccuracy.
Finally, student-athletes should not be drug tested because it bans necessary medications. “Many nutritional/dietary supplements contain NCAA banned substances. In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not strictly regulate the supplement industry; therefore purity and safety of nutritional/dietary supplements cannot be guaranteed. Impure supplements may lead to a positive NCAA drug test. The use of supplements is at the student-athelete’s own risk” (Nslabaugh). There are no dietary supplements that are approved anywhere. For example, the NCAA.
Student-athletes should not be drug tested because it violates the Fourth Amendment, it is expensive, and it bans necessary medications. People may argue that even if drug testing violates the Fourth Amendment, it helps protect people. While this may be true, people have their rights and should not have to take a drug test if they do not want to. What is the point of drug testing if there are so many negatives along with
By now, four years had passed since the issue had first started. In the end, the court had ruled six to three in favor of the district. The court answered the question of whether or not the student athletes’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated with a strong no. The court claimed that student athletes already subject themselves to more exposure than most other students, and that these drug tests had just as much of a reasonable cause behind them as a vaccine requirement or scoliosis check done in-school. Moreover, the court also stated that the results would only be shared with limited personal, which made the tests arguably more private than what athletes were exposing in their open locker rooms. In their opinion, stated by Antonin Scalia, “We find that the privacy...by the process of obtaining the urine samples (is) negligible, since samples are collected under conditions nearly identical to those routinely encountered in public restrooms. Furthermore, the test looks only for standard drugs not private medical conditions and the results of the test are released only to a limited group of school officials who have a need to know the information. The nature and the immediacy of the government's interest and the efficacy of this means for meeting it, also contribute to our conclusion that the policy is reasonable. The importance of deterring drug use by public school children
The NCAA does legitimate interest in the well being and health of these student-athletes, and the student- athletes are well aware of the testing the NCAA does and their reasoning, since they all submit to physical examinations prior to participation. Leading up to this trial the court case was in favor of Hill. Hill’s position was that the extensiveness of these NCAA administered tests do violate the student athletes rights by requiring them to disclose medications they were using, doing a drug test in front of a monitor, and providing a urine sample to undergo more test to reveal chemicals and other substances in the body. The trial for this case explained how the NCAA was overboard because it banned the use of over the counter prescriptions and medicines that were designed to improve the health of an athlete. The issue that was arising in trial that lead to the court case was if the NCAA was violating the student athletes Fourth Amendment, after analysis and deliberation that answer would turn out to be
In 1995 the Supreme Court stated that schools could randomly drug test their athletic students. By 2008, 16 percent of school districts had started to take on some kind of drug testing program (John 2). Even though the Supreme Court has a certain amount of ruling on who is tested at the schools, some schools have expanded their range of students, a few going all the way to the whole student body (John 2/3). One of the main reasons the supreme court ruled towards testing the student athletes is because they are supposed to be seen as the role models and influencers of the school, and outside the school. Seeing athletes doing drugs might increase the drug use of the school. (John 3). Student
College athletes must make sure there body is performing as good as their mind wants to compete. All drugs should be banned in college due to it being a no brainer and they are banned for everyone. There is a controversial subject in which the extra list of “banned substances”, also known as performance enhancing drugs, are banned for college athletes, yet not for everyone of the student body. Every year more and more drugs get added to the list that college athletes can’t use or they will get tested and end up ruining their practice time, game time, and more importantly their career if they drink the wrong protein drink. Athletes should be able to drink whatever supplement they want and not have to be worried about a drug test. It isn’t fair to athletes in college when everyone else gets
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
Rains, B. (2009). Testing Student Athletes for Drugs is Appropriate. In C. Watkins, Sports and Athletes (pp. 192-196). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
The use of illegal substances is rapidly increasing in the college sports due to the expansion of supplements used by athletes that are being banned. In a study done, athletes were asked if illicit drugs would negatively impact their performance. Majority of them responded “yes”, their main reasoning being; the effects of illicit drugs were both mental and physically damaging. Illicit drugs come in many forms, but the testing procedures are all the same for any substance. There is almost always a consequence with the use of prohibited substances. Drug testing is appropriate to help ensure the safety of student athletes while they participate in intercollegiate contests. (Krotee, M 555).
In recent years the number of athletes caught using drugs has increased dramatically. The use of a illegal or unprescribed drugs can cause serious problems and unfairness in many ways. Certain drugs can cause harm to the user and the people around the user, most student athletes do not even know what they are putting into their bodies. With all the risks many persons propose student athletes to be drug tested at random.
Testing for performance-enhancing drugs protects student-athletes who play by the rules by being clean (NCAA Drug Testing Program). When all of the players are restricted from steroid use it makes the game fair and allows it to be correctly played. In addition, steroid use has become a supplement for many who simply do not want to put in the work or effort to become a better athlete (Steroids and Football). Furthermore, replacing workouts with drugs isn’t a fair tradeoff for those who do become stronger and a more efficient athlete by strengthening themselves. Everyone should have to play by the rules of the game and respect them. In the 1960s, before drug-testing laws were implemented, football coach Sid Gillman actually gave each player a steroid to improve their performance before they stepped onto the field (Steroids and Football). Obviously now that has changed due to testing years later, but the impact it made on each player and the game continues to show why it is so imperative that drug testing for student-athletes should be
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
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.
Another issue of drug testing student athletes is that it is also known to be ineffective. Drug testing will not point out students who are facing drug abuse and will not be able to help them. Studies found no difference between drug use in schools with and without testing. “A 2003 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse – the largest of its kind – examined 94,000 students at 900 schools in the U.S. and found no difference between levels of drug use at schools that test their students and those that do not,” (Cosner). Drug use will still be existent in high schools. Studies conclude that drug use in schools that use testing and those that don’t. In fact, students may stop using drugs easy to detect like marijuana, and start using cocaine, heroin, and drugs similar to those. Students who really enjoy getting involved in sports, but have a strong attraction to drugs, may end up using harder drugs so they won’t get caught. As discussed in the article on The New York Times webpage,
Making a person take a drug test violates their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights under the constitution of the United States of America. Recently, there has been an increase in companies and schools using drug test. Some companies force their employees to submit to a drug test before being hired and randomly while employed. High school sport regulations require that all student athletes give consent to being randomly drug tested. Other schools are going as far as making all students give consent to being randomly drug tested.
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
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