Does school-based student drug testing really help?

Question

Substance abuse has a negative impact on our society.

So any effective measure to lessen that impact is a good thing for now and for our future, right?

Is school-based student drug testing among the effective measures?

Answer 1

"Substance abuse has a negative impact on our society.

So any effective measure to lessen that impact is a good thing for now and for our future, right?"

Not at all. We have to balance the benefits against the risks. Performing strip searches on random citizens on the street would definitely lessen the impact of illegal drugs on our society. However, most people would agree that the damage to personal privacy and dignity would outweigh the benefits of fighting drugs.

Courts have ruled that drug testing in schools is legal, because states have a compelling interest in protecting students from other students under the influence of illegal substances. This does NOT give schools carte blanche authority, however. In order for the school to perform random testing, they must establish that the compelling interest exists, ie. that there is actually a drug problem at the school.

Random testing does not come without detriments, however:
1) Many studies have shown that random testing is not an effective deterrant to drug use.
2) Urinalysis is expensive. There are much better ways that schools could be spending their money.
3) Testing is not 100% accurate. False positives do occur. Blanket random testing ensures that some innocent students will be punished.
4) Forcing students to urinate in a cup in order to check for criminal activity is VERY likely to breed animosity and distrust between students and faculty.
5) Drug tests are not effective for detecting the most harmful drugs. Alcohol and LSD are undetectable in urinalysis. Cocaine, amphetamines, ecstacy, and methamphetamines are only detectable within a few days of use.
6) Imposing disciplinary actions (or criminal prosecution) against young drug users further retricts those students' access to drug education and outreach programs that operate through the schools. Essentially, it takes those students who are most at risk and places them further away from the help they need.

Personally, I think drug testing of students is unnecessarily invasive and diminishes the effectiveness of programs that actually work. After-school programs, outreach programs, awareness education, counseling, legal aid, community service, and student-parent cooperation have all been proven to be effective tools in fighting drug abuse. All of these efforts come at a much smaller cost to schools, parents, and students.

Our money should go towards programs that are proven to be effective, not intrusive measures with the potential to do serious harm.

Answer 2

If it is tested totally at random times with no warnings it will be effective.
I have seen how random testing is done for adult probation cases and it was always a surprise call to be there in a matter of perhaps one or two hours. It was set up to serve two purposes,one of course was to test for drugs and the other to make the point that when you apply for probation your life is no longer in your control.

Answer 3

The term is life like suspicion and RANDOM drug show screen. on the grounds which you're being pulled in on multiple activities it fairly isn't any longer random, i might have your discern(s) get entangled sit down with the crucial and ask him what his life like suspicion is? some thing is unusual on the grounds which you have handed numerous tests and he retains calling you into the place of work. If in fact you're "harmless" enable your discern(s) comprehend what is going on, they should help communicate this. is likewise that this a "witnessed" drug show screen have been the crucial is "gazing" you pee in the cup? if so there could be extra to this than he's prepared to communicate and getting different adults in touch is quite reliable theory.