What do you think of random drug testing of high school students?

I'm not against random drug testing in principal. I have one proviso; anyone who approves the testing of another party, should be subjected to the same treatment.

In this situation, it seems like an absurd expense considering all the whining that goes on about the lack of money to fund the public school system...

I think that this is wrong. The state should provide education and the right to education should not be withdrawn on the basis of a drug test. This policy won't lead to reduced drug use, but reduced school attendance following drug taking. Someone could smoke some weed on Saturday night and then be scared to go to school on Monday. It doesn't help. Then there's the fact that it's an invasion of privacy.

I disagree with their decision. Testing should only be done if there are indications that the student is using drugs.

The same answer I gave on the other drug testing survey.

that seems unnecessarily invasive, and unwarranted. I'm not sure wat basis schools have for doing this.

Again, invasion of privacy!

Sounds like a waste of taxpayers' money to me. It's their parents' problem, not the school's.

As far as testing kids who want to participate in extra curricular activities goes -- how stupid! First of all, the biggest drug users probably aren't interested in those activities, so it'll do nothing to stop their drug use. Secondly, hey, let's take away the right of these kids to participate in these healthy and legitimate activities and give them MORE time to do drugs. Duh!

Good point about reduced school attendance!

I was drug-tested when I was a senior in high school (1998). They did the hair test. I don't see a problem with it since kids shouldn't be using drugs anyway. It's a good way to get help for those addicted at a young age.

My thoughts haven't varied from my response on the other similar survey.

I kind of agree but the reality of it could increase the 'cool' factor of taking drugs if you make such a big thing of it.

So now I disagree. I think though that drugs tests should be made available as part of suspicion.

I disagree with this, if they're just minding their own business and not getting into trouble, I think random testing is going a bit too far.

I can see a concern if the student is going out for athletics and they want to make sure that the student isn't taking performance enhancing substances, but for Chess Club, Choir...come on, give me a break!

Drugs are illegal. When I was doing them I was breaking the law. Nothing really reminded me about how illegal it was. Maybe this will help everyone take illegal drugs a little more seriously, not because they are "bad", but because it's the law.

If drugs aren't bad, why should they be against the law?

It depends. I don't think that they should go around drug testing any student who wants to be involved in after school activities. If they exhibit behavior that is know in drug users, then a parent should be contacted. If the parent wants to have the student tested, that would be fine. No minor should be drug tested unless the parent has given consent. There are cases that would not require parent's consent, such as if the child is in trouble with the law and things like that. But, for the sake of this question, parents should always give consent. The high school that I attended didn't have a football team one year because all the team members protested and refused to take drug tests.

I wanted to check "I think drug testing of anyone for any reason is an invasion of privacy", but I heard about a recent case of a heroin-addict mother who wanted to see her kids, and testing seemed appropriate. In general, I don't think it's a big deal is someone smokes pot on the weekend or something. It wont affect their work and if it did, their boss should bring up their work not their drug use habits. If someone is high on the job or in school that is unacceptable, though.

I did'nt say they should or should'nt be. I honestly believe that marijuana should be legal and taxed. The only reason I do not smoke it is because it is illegal.

I gave up breaking the law a long time ago.

If the government wanted to test everyone of any age, regardless of whether they had a job or went to school, would you be willing to submit to one?
If it was a pee test and you had a 'shy bladder' (hard time peeing in a cup) would you be willing to submit to one?
If you had to take two busses across town would you?

so you're honestly saying that you'd smoke marijuana if it wasn't illegal?? you really don't think it does any damage to you? isn't alcohol bad enough already?

I disagree. As long as the students are not doing it at school it is none of there business. It's up to the parents to take those measures. It is a private decision, one that teachers should not be allowed to make. If you see a student with drugs, or if a student is high then suspend, expell. But if the student does not bring it in the school, they need to leave the discovering up to the parents.

It depends:

1. Scag and speed users should get some help and possibly treatment. You also have a crack problem there, and that's really serious crap. But you won't solve it by putting all those youngsters into jail.

2. No one should face any serious consequences for smoking some pot in their freetime every now and then.

Sure. Go for it.

I know a girl who had done drugs in the past and then quit using them. She applied for a job and had a pre-employment urine type drug test and passed it. Her company also did random tests. They changed the type of tests that they do while she was working there. They switched from urine testing to hair testing. When they test your hair they can find out that you did drugs years ago depending on the length of your hair. She was subjected to a hair test and failed because she had done drugs in the past. She was fired even though she had never done drugs while she was employed with that company. This seemed very unfair and unreasonable.

Not to go all constipated-dog-like on you, but pot, although it is one of the "lightest" drugs, is kind of bad for you (although as long as you don't overdo it, I guess it's fine). One joint is the equivalent of smoking 20 cigarettes.

Yeah, I really would, and I have taken two buses across town to take a drug test. It's the LAW.

No it's not fine! I was wrong O.K. I've had enough experience with drugs in the past to know how damaging they are. You keep your tight veiws Lady. You will go far.

O.K. O.K. Maybe it's not the only reason. Still, for me marijuana was so much a part of my life for such a long period of time, I know I could do it again every once in a while in good faith, but only knowing it was legal.

I see

Drugs are against the law, but there's no law that says you MUST submit to a drug test. If there was one, you wouldn't fight it? What if they wanted to search every house for drugs or other illegal items? Would you favor or fight that?

Where did you hear that?

Cosmo

BLAH!!! read this:"Even though a direct link with lung cancer is unproven, pot smoke does contain cancer-causing chemicals (known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), so it's not that farfetched, either."

From: http://www.doitnow.org/pages/126.html

not good. even worse is how they affixed it to extra-curricular activities. That reminds me of the communist party system where you had to be a part of the entire party-line system or be labelled a dissident and out of every loop.

My husband brought up an interesting point. If you are involved in extracurricular activities, and you test positive, they can kick you out of the activity. If they test kids who aren't involved in anything and they test positive, they can't punish them. They can't kick them out of school, because they didn't violate a school rule, so there's no point.

I think its bullcrap and is unconstitutional. I can't believe its legal in the first place.

I think that is the biggest bunch of fudging bullcrap I've ever fudging heard of. It's an infringement of a persons rights, regardless if they're minors. And you all know gosh darn well that those fudging football players won't get tested because they might get kicked off the team. Heaven forbid. And the administrators are going to single out all of the "freaks" or whatever they wanna call them. It's fudging ridiculous. It really pisses me off. Because I know if I was still in highschool I would get singled out because of the way I dress. And I do really well in school and it shouldn't matter what I do in my personal time, it's nobodys business that I smoke pot and drink or that I've done other things that probably should'nt be mentioned. What matters is that I went to school I never once even got a detention and I tried my hardest and got good grades.

I don't understand the law or the case well enough to have an opinion on whether the Court's decision was legally correct, but I do think that Justice Ginsberg was right to say that requiring students to submit to a drug test as a precondition to participation in extracurricular activities "is not reasonable, it is capricious, even perverse."

Whether or not these tests are legal, they are still wrong.

There are a lot of reasonably smart people who do like pot and stuff, I don't agree with it as long as you are making good grades and are not doing it at school , what you do in your own spare time off of school grounds should be your own buisiness.

I'm glad this was kept "multiple" - even though at first glance it looks like there's no reason for that.
I checked "...invasion of privacy", "I don't know" and "Other".
"I don't know" - haven't read enough yet.
I do think it's an invasion of privacy to mandate this testing. But, my 3rd grade history teacher said something I'll never forget, defining "individual rights": "Your rights end where someone else's begins." If not knowing what kids are using drugs is somehow infringing on the rights of others, then "invading" an individual's privacy no longer stands protected by law. That is, if this testing is the only way to discover them. At the point I understood all that, I'd then vote "I agree".
"Other" = I intend to read more about the issue, it's very interesting.

Interesting article and more interesting area. I couldn't get back to the redirecting link, which I wanted to. That has to be an area for editorials, right? Thanks for the link!

im constantly stonned in school and have been told random drug tests are possible!i think its a crap idea if i want to fudge up my school let me because im not hurting any one else!

Diiiiid. Partee on, diiiiiid. Rowk straight, mon!

Gettin' a life is for total looosers, man.

How can not knowing what others are up to be considered an infringment upon a person. Back in HS I hung out with several groups that I kept a secret from each other, becausoe none of them would have anything to do with each other. That included French Club, Fantasy Gamers Club, Pole-Vaulters/X-country, backwards cartoon fans, academic intellectual types, surfers, punk rockers, disco types, and every other weekend, stoners. I think testing would screw up the lives of a lot more students than it would help, and that is the acid test, though i suppose the justice philosophy bugs me too. I'm a live and let live to the max degree sort of person. In arguement for discipline, however, I must say I was once a D student in geometry. I transferred to a new school district and an algebra-2 teacher who's policy was no excused field trips from other classes, and if you missed more than three homework assignments you were out of the class (or dropped a grade - I forget which now). Anyhow, I ended up getting an A.

"How can not knowing what others are up to be considered an infringment..."
My mind always travels forward, to the courtroom with questions like these.
DA: So, Principle Skinnard, you say you had no clue that the defendant, young Mr. Simpson here, was in the habitual practice of indulging in illegal drugs, is that so?
Skinnard: No, no I'm afraid I didn't. Past his infectious, underachieving attitude and periodic outburst for me to consume his undergarments...I had no idea the use of drugs was a factor in his behavior.
DA: 'Behavior', hm. Showing to school, stony-eyed and equipped with an Ouze in each hand, ranting how "Santa's Little Helper2" made him do it as he blew away two faculty, one Scottish janitor and 16 classmates?
[DA leans in close]
DA: Is this the...'behavior' you speak of, sir?

(A little dramatic, but you get the point.)

Interesting note: If you've ever watched the Simpsons...you know that Scottish janitor? That's a character based on the father of a friend of mine. His father came from Scotland, was a janitor at one of the writer's school back in his day. That friend, Craig, worked on the first two seasons of the show - he has a small collection of hand-drawn, nicely-framed illustrations signed to him by Matt Groening.
He was just a PA on the show. He said he loved the job. He got to chase meals for the writers when they'd stay late, then listen in on their brainstorming. His said it was always a laugh-fest for all of them.

That seems strange to me. Test all students in case there are some who may be on drugs and may later go bonkers on everyone. How would testing *everyone* (even kids who never exhibited nutty behavior) prevent the drug using kids from making chaos?
Your example seems difficult, too. If a kid is acting a little weird (but harmless) you can't expect the principal to know he's on the verge of making chaos. What's wrong with testing the trouble makers? Why test everyone?
Excuse the incoherence. It's early, I just woke up. I'm a bit inarticulate before my second cup of coffee.

'eeeeek', I mean 'ARGHH'.
To tie three stories together, I met one of the writers when doing jury duty (a case about an Angelyne billboard with a grandfather clause at an ex-hughes office building) back when I was drawing simpsons comic test sheets to get a job with my next-door neighbor on the comic book staff.
With your arguement, you would support tight surveillance in everyones home tied into behavior analysis software that predicted what any citizen might do in the future (just in case). Some of our greatest creative talents like symphony conductors, genetics researchers, etc. get their creative inspiration on drugs; it would be a shame if they hadn't been allowed to participate in extra-curricular school activities when younger. I know very few people who haven't taken drugs. My guess is those who never did must not generally be very interesting people.I think the drug problem would be greatly reduced if sales were banned (oh, wait, they are banned), and folks were limited to consuming whatever they could grow at home and share with friends. {senses that behavior analysis software getting nervous already}.
Matt was one our homegrown heros in Santa Cruz. His 'Life in Hell' cartoons were on exhibition at the county building.
I was frequently (twice a week) pulled over as a teen on my way home from work at 3am. Sometimes they'd make up an excuse like one of my taillights was a bit dim, other-times they'd cut right to the 'please follow my finger with your eyes'.
I'm generally down on the entire concept of forced responsibility. I liked the ancient system where if you were generally agreed to be a detriment to society, they sent you packing through the desert/forest to have a fresh start with society elsewhere.Life now is absurd; I have to wonder if it's indecent exposure to go changing clothes in front of my neighbors damn security camera pointing into my window.
I might not mind total surveillance if they made everything they discovered a large share of people do anyhow, legal. If 8% are gay, 40% smoke weed, 2% chew on shoes, let it ride. Then we would be free to have the last thing corporate america wants to have happen, a transparent society that has no secrets. If three people whisper that they want to put up protest signs in front of a business without a permit, it's conspiracy (a grave crime). However, if three exec.s have a secret board meeting to launch a subliminal ad campaign against protestors, that's proper business as usual.
The public has hardly a chance to know what's going on. Prop 37 was hushed the moment it passed, and judging by news stories of celebrity drug arrests, you'd figure it hadn't. I have a problem with a society that's glad to manufacture pharmaceuticals that encourage people to shop happily, while worrying about eradicating wild herbs no one thought to put on a list yet. I have one friend working on making cell phones that tell you when you're approaching a brand of yogurt you might want to try, or switch a digital billboard to a soft-drink when cell phone demographics of the freeway at that moment suggest a high percentage of 18-34's just off work, on a hot day, that stay up late, and shop near that exit. Think those cell phones are going to alert people when the company figures new tech which allows cell phones to directly detect what sort of soda a physiology is susceptable to? I think not.Power was once land, soldiers, gems - now it is demographic share of consciousness; 400,000 people at this very moment believing whatever you have to tell them, never mind what the news said yesterday, today it's healthy to eat corn chips. Whose turn is it to Spin the globe? My only consolation is that the logos is always present in the media on a slightly higher vibration. To my dismay though, even advertisers are aware of the logos's methods these days, so now one has to discern between engineered conversations, and the real word, not just whatever appears to speak to them directly on their television. If you ask me, that's grounds for a holy war in itself. Life is getting more complex every year.

i think that they should NOT be able to give random UA's at school, because its there own business, and i think its invasion of privacy.

Drug use shouldnt be illegal anyways. fudge it.

PEACE

*gives up debate, prepares to shoot up for first time*
(quickly asks for help as heroine drips freely from the chamber of 9mm pistol)

I imagine a scenario like this:

Principal: We suspected, by his bizarre behavior, that he might be using drugs, so we tested him
Lawyer: And what did the tests show?
Principal: They came back negative. But it's our policy to test every student who exhibits bizarre behavior, every time they begin acting weird.
Lawyer: Is that why this same kid was tested 17 times in one school year?
Principal: Yes
Lawyer: Was this kid a docile, passive kid before all the testing?
Principal: Yes, and then he became bitter and angry, leading to his violent behavior...

(substitute 'violent behavior' with 'current drug use' for a cheesy ironic twist)

Oooo. Good point.
*mulling, mulling*

yeah, I think high schools should have the students test drugs. Sounds like a good marketing tool. Uh, that right? Ohh, test the students for using drugs. Nah, let them destroy themselves.

If there is no reason to suspect me of using drugs, there is no reason I should be tested. However, if there is some reason to suspect me, because I am not guilty, I would gladly submit. But again....there's no reason to suspect me.

What if the 'reason' they gave to suspect you was a dumb reason? What if there was a really weird, quirky kid, and every time he acted bizarre, they tested him. Pretty soon he would quit 'gladly' submitting. I know if I was in high school, and they decided to test me based on an assumption like that, I wouldn't gladly submit.

I took the comment to be tongue in cheek facetiousness. Perhaps not, in which case.. that's suspicious, the suspiciously exxagerated innocence, let's test her.
I used to get pulled over driving with lame excuses like "One of your taillights looked a bit dim", then given the drunk tests, on my way home from tiring work near bar time. Do you even have bar time there?

No, I wasn't being facetious, I was serious. A quirky, bizarre kid would likely arouse suspicion in the types who think every other kid is using drugs. A lot of people don't stop long enough to consider other reasons for the odd behavior.
What do you mean, bar time? There is probably time during the night when the roads are full of bar traffic going home. (closing time)

*Pulls out hair* No! I meant perhaps she was being facetious. Yes I meant closing time, which is 2am here in CA.

ok i see now. I can't imagine people getting suspicious enough to test over 'exagerated innocence' but it probably wouldn't surprise me. If a kid can be suspected for yelling at a lock that won't open, a kid can be suspected for making it a point to appear innocent.

Me being weird is not reason to suspect me. I was once asked to submit to a random drug test and I refused because the reason they gave me was that they smelled pot somewhere in the English building. They wanted to test everyone in the building at the time. However, I did submit to them checking my bag for cigarettes when an administrator walked into the bathroom and saw a still-smoking cigarette on the floor. I was the only person in the bathroom at the time, and while the cigarette wasn't mine, they suspected me. Fine....they can search me then. You can decide for yourself what a good enough reason is. I'm not saying that you should be willing to gladly submit to any reason given to you. I figure you're smart enough to decide what's a good reason and what isn't, right?

Yep. I'm a little more strict than the average person when it comes to what constitutes a good reason, though. For example, if a kid simply smelled like smoke, that's not a good reason. A lot of people think it is. I might have put up a fuss about the ciggy on the floor though. I don't know. I was called out of class once because I smelled like smoke. Only it was stale smoke. The smell was on my coat, because my parents smoke. Now some student bothered to call security, who tracked me down in class, to smell my coat and ask if I smoke, because I smelled like STALE smoke. Absurdity at it's finest. *rolling eyes* I said "No I don't smoke, but my parents do." Whoever called security must have been a control freak dork, looking to get someone in trouble. I'm glad it didn't happen.

I don't think it works, first of all, and second, I don't think in these cases that it makes any sense. The only place I really think it does make sense is testing athletes for performance-enhancing drugs.

I'm an American not a Nazi

My boyfriend used to play highschool football and he was an awesome football player. The athletic directors son was almost as good as him, but because he was better his son never got much playing time. Mike (my boyfriend) moved up to northern Wisconsin just a year before the football season, from Chicago, Illinois. Because it was Senior year the athletic director knew that there would be scouts out watching for the players, and he wanted his son to get more playing time. I'm sure you can see where this is going. Mike isn't a very big guy at all, so it is pretty obvious that he wasn't using steroids. The athletic director called Mike down to his office one day during school and made him take a drug test. He took it, and he passed. A week later the A.D. called him down to his office again and had him take yet ANOTHER drug test. (Isn't this supposed to be random drug testing?! Quite coincidental if you ask me...) This time traces of nicotine showed up in his urine sample. Mike came clean with then A.D. and told him that he smokes cigarrettes. Mike was eighteen years old at this time, therefore making it legal for him to be smoking. But, apparently, according to a small athletic code under all of the drug testing failures, it stated that a student shall not be allowed to resume an extracurricular activity if the following things are found in their urine. And,...nicotine was one of those substances.
So, I guess the better question would be: Is it okay to boot students out of extra curricular activities if they are doing some sort of drug that isn't benefitting their physical abilities?
I do believe that if a guy/girl in wrestling, or swimming, or football, etc.. looks suspiscious when it comes to steroid use, they should definitely be tested. Although, it doesn't seem acceptable that a student at the age of 18, gets kicked out of a sport that is keeping them out of trouble, for legally smoking cigarrettes.

I agree, hopefully the chavs would be caught and arrested when found they were under the influence of cocaine during their science exam last week >:(