Drug testing, while it can help prevent much of drug use/abuse with adolescents in high schools all over the U.S., is not always the best method to prevent drugs. In sports at high schools, it makes more sense to have drug testing on the players, because they have don't have as great of an "expectation of privacy" as the rest of the student body does, because the players don't have expectations of privacy when changing into sports uniforms and showering, as stated in the case of Vernonia School District v. Acton. With other extra curricular activities, however, it is not a necessity to have students drug tested if they are not participating in a physical activity.
There is a large portion of students in high schools who do take drugs, but don't participate in any activity at all, probably because they would rather spend time smoking whatever than playing a sport or talking to other students in clubs. If there was a drug testing thing going on at DHS, then how would those students be tested. It would cost far too much money through donations from other companies to get every student drug tested, without forcing parents, who may not want their child to be drug tested, to pay money for the drug tests.
Furthermore, drug testing does violate the right parts of the Fourth Amendment. While there are rights from the Fourth Amendments from the Constitution that can be limited for students in schools, it is still required of teachers and school officials to have a "reasonable" cause for any type of search at a school.
It doesn't really make much sense for any student to be drug tested unless a staff member has a "reasonable" cause they is based on some sort of suspicion. A teacher of school official would have to actually have some sort of piece of evidence, such as a piece of paper with information about someone taking drugs, to be able to have a suspicion at all. It would be wrong for a teacher to rely on what one student says about another taking drugs.
No comments:
Post a Comment