Is public school drug testing really appropriate? Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing (MRSDT) and school-based Suspicionless Random Drug Testing (SRDT) are two of many approaches that school districts could use to help prevent and lower the rates of drug and substance use (James-Burdumy 1). MRSDT was introduced in the late 1980’s when the United States Military created other programs to control substance use (James-Burdumy 1; Russell 169). The United States Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) program sponsors and supports random drug testing in public schools as a way to fight the high rates of substance use of adolescents (James-Burdumy 2). For instance, in a recent study report it was stated that 27% of students reported drinking alcohol, 13% reported smoking cigarettes, and 15% reported using marijuana within the last 30 days (Sznitman 146). These facts are the cold, hard truth; moreover, students have a higher rate of using drugs than studying for a test in school (Sznitman 146).
On the other hand, each view can reach an agreement that all drug rates throughout the United States are drastically increasing. There are drug programs already being practiced in public schools. Students will feel safer and perform better academically without the presence of drugs (Russell 170). Although, school-based Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing could lower the rate of drug use in our communities it could create destructive, disrespectful teenagers (Barrington 49; Russell168).
OPPOSED TO SCHOOL DRUG TESTING
There has always been serious debate on whether drug tests are really appropriate in today’s public schools (Evans 452). Based on national survey results there were no significant difference in drug use in public schools with drug testing programs and schools without drug testing programs (James-Burdumy 1). There are many concerns that could keep public schools from not using drug testing (Russell 168). Drug testing can become inefficient and extremely costly; consequently, some schools who have had drug testing had to drop the program (Russell 168). For example, a Ohio public school came to the conclusion that their $35,000 per year drug testing program was no longer needed since they could not keep funding them (Russell 168). One would understand why such events could become very frustrating for school districts (Evans 450).
Some students believe that random drug testing is against their right to privacy; thus leading students to feel violated when they are asked to urinate on command in the presence of another person (Evans 452; Russell 168). Even more concerns are evident with student’s relationships with their teachers and school officials when they feel like they have to be drug tested (Russell 169). Most students could be embarrassed to give a drug test at school if a school faculty member administers the test. Parents and teachers should be able to trust their students (Barrington 51). The students in...