Drug testing of high school students justified?

Personally, I think it's highly intrusive and should be reserved for activities and jobs for which certain drug usage would cause a specific danger. You might argue that this could include certain athletics. You could also that the policy discourages students, even non drug users, from participating.

They called me in to test me right after lunch, and I'd just been to the restroom. They watch me guzzle nearly a gallon of water and then counted my test positive. I was ENRAGED.

That's definitely would have discouraged me if it wasn't my last year. I doubt I'll get picked again.

I would disagree with this to a certain point. If these tests were required of everyone in the public school system then I think a stronger case could be made agaisnt them. However, if it's billed that it is required if you enter into any extra-curricular school activities then I believe all's fair. It's about time that those who would be the role-models in this country learn to set a good example.

Personally, I think that it is a serious invasion of privacy. I think though, if the school has any probable cause that a student is using drugs, and is exhibiting the effects of drugs IN SCHOOL, that the school has the right to test. To me it is the same as if a student came to school falling down drunk.

As far as the student's after school use of drugs, IMO that is the responsibility of his parents, and the schools have no right to get into it.

Leave drug testing to professional sports and parents...beyond that it is nobody's business. High school kids should not be subjected to this type of treatment. If the school suspects drug or alcohol abuse they should contact a parent or guardian and with the student present discuss it openly. If the student continues to exhibit drug induced behaviors and is disruptive then the appropriate action would be suspension.

I go along with that Phoenix, while continuing to disagree with Questioner. This routine forfeiture of rights for participating in voluntary acts should have been nipped in the bud. Driving is presented as a privilage, not a right. It certainly isn't mandatory, and I concede to no one the right to search my car.

Aren't there times when police do random stops?

I can agree that it discourages students from joing up, but am still having a difficult time coming up with much for the negative. All the kids know that by joining up, they may be subject to randomized drug use. When they sign the agreement, they're saying they are cool with that. I disagree with the way the testing is done, but this isn't a policy debate, so not much can be said about that.

School officials picking out students exhibiting so called "drug-induced behaviors" is less constitutional than random drug tests, and opens the possibility of a whole slew of law-suits for the school. If you go by that rule, employees will peg kids who look the part, and they'll be right less then half the time. The kids that'll get picked are goths, rockers, blacks, hispanics--stuff like that. Mostly, it's the kid that you would never expect that gets into them. So it would be ineffective, and the school would have to deal with parents raving everyday about discrimination.

I know it doesn't seem like it, but I really am trying to find a down side to drug testing. I hate agreeing with it. I HATE the way they have the tests set up.

Is this topic statewide or nationwide? The topic doesn't say...

What forfeiture of rights? If you sign up for sports, putting your name on a document that specifies you will undergo random drug testing, where is the violation?

I think drug testing of high school students should not be allowed. If young student athletes feel that they need to dope up to get an edge I say let them. They will go on to college or the pros and get caught.

You sign up for sports, put yor name on a cocument that specifies you will undergo random drug testing, and you ask "What forfeiture of rights?"? What I meant is that they are forfeiting rights by signing up. LMdaPirate suggests the police do random stops, but in fact, police do not randomly stop and search cars without probable cause.

Roger is right. There have been a number of court rulings which prevent the police from setting up arbitrary checkpoints even to check for alcohol-related offenses during peak holiday periods. A cop must have a valid reason for stopping a motorist to check out his/her condition. In practice, of course, it's always easy for a police officer who is challenged as to why he/she stopped a vehicle to say that the driver's "method of operating the vehicle" looked suspicious. That's probable cause right there, even though it's only the cop's personal judgement.

I would be furious if I found out my child had been randomely tested. I don't apply for jobs that require them, and I won't have my children thinking such an invasion is appropriate.

And, why would it be more important in extracurricular activities than in academic ones? What message does that send?


Think she's doing drugs? Call me. I'll take care of it at home.

There is absolutely NOTHING going for the negative here. The problem with school officials saying, "Dude. I think that kid does drugs," then calling parents is that if they're wrong, you ended up with some truly enrage mommies and daddies. There'd be a lot of "How DARE you imply that my child--" and quite a few law suits. Let's face it. Parents are not going to want to face up to the fact that their kid is screwed up. Maybe one set of parents out of fifty will do something about a call like that. Parents aren't raising their kids anymore. They're just letting them grow up.

The social contract states that we give up certain rights for government protection. For example, teachers also submit to random drug testing. Why? Because a drugged out teacher could be a danger to students. Just like a drugged out jock is a danger on the field. The government requires drug testing in order to protect the people.

I don't like drug testing. I hate it. But I honestly can't come up with a substantial reason why it shouldn't be allowed. Students don't really have rights. Freedom of speech, dress, assembly, and press are already limited. The government won't think much of a little privacy invasion too, if in the end it benefits society. If you hold a threat of drug testing over their heads in high school, they'll be less likely to ever get started, which will in turn benefit our society. Crime rate would be an example.

The judges for this topic are going to be teachers and adults who will most likely approve of current drug testing standards. I can't really think of anything that'd knock 'em off their feet on the negative. No documents or substantial proof that drug testing is wrong. Saying that "It's a forfeiture of rights" in an LD round is just going to sound like kids whining.

I don't know a good lawyer who would encourage you to forfeit any rights. Your school does. It also discourages participation, even among non-drug users. Does sounding like whining make either less true, or less negative? You don't like the answers, come up with your own, and quit whining.

I must ammend my statement. Drug testing does discourage EC participation.

My point was that schools are always going to be allowed to take away certain rights from the students, because they are charged with the students well-being for a third of the day, sometimes more if the participate in other activities. That's why the Supreme Court sided 6-3 for drug testing.

I'm not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. The judges are gonna go AFF.

grrrr im starting to hate this topic b/c i cannot what i need. i can think of what to write for aff. and neg. but what i think isnt what i need i want the facts can anyone help me plz just email me at [email protected] if you help
ty

cyas 8~D

Could somebody please translate that last group of words?

Better, Sturg?

I have to disagree with most of you. I actually think this topic is leaning more toward the Negative. I've found it quite easy to find evidence for the Neg but I'm having trouble on the Aff. Drug testing sucks, how are we supposed to defend a corrupt system?