Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Random drug testing among students and teachers reaction paper
Mandatory drug tests for students
Random drug testing among students and teachers reaction paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Her grades fell. She was always tired. She never seemed to be able to focus at school. Classes she used to be interested in became utterly mundane. Friends she used to care about became replaceable. She stopped spending time with her family. She sat on the bench at every soccer game instead of becoming the star player her coaches thought she could. This is what addiction to drugs can do to a young person’s life. Addiction can take away everything that once made that young person happy. The only thing that matters anymore is the drug, getting high, and getting higher. It is a horrible and tragic thing that destroys so many young lives. Some people think that in order to prevent these situations, the best solution is random drug testing. But this is not a reasonable solution whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they roam around the campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive process. Random student drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in public schools; it is unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved.
Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem, because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a better chance for rehabilitation. This is true, and with this approach, maybe one life can be saved (Legal Issues of
Dwiggins 2
School Drug Testing 1). Of course it is worth all the trouble of drug testing many innocent students if one drug addict can be identified and helped, but would it not be much better if that same student’s drug problem, and hundreds more, could have been prevented altogether? (Student Drug Testing News 1)
We cannot identify a drug problem in a significant number of students if only a small percentage is tested; a solid drug education program would be much more effective. It takes something a lot more earth shattering than the DARE program to steer young people away from experimenting with drugs. Sure, DARE does a great job at teaching kids different ways to say no, but do they ever really learn why they are saying no? Does DARE ...
... middle of paper ...
... Joan. “Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated.” USA Today 20 March 2002, A02.
“Drug Testing In Schools Should Be Sensibly Restricted.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2002, 18.
Franz MD, Joseph C. “Drug Testing in School Activities.” Fall 1997. <http://www.nfhs.org/sportsmed/iaa_fall97.htm> (14 April 2002)
Greenberger, Robert S. “Court to Hear Arguments on Case Pitting Drug Tests Against Privacy.” The Wall Street Journal 15 March 2002, B5.
Lane, Charles. “Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools; Justices to Decide if Choir, Club Members’ Privacy, Like Athletes’, May Be Breached.” The Washington Post 17 March 2002, A10.
“Legal Issues of School Drug Testing.” <http://www.drugfreeschools.com/legal.html> (25 February 2002).
“Student Drug Testing News.” <http://server3003.freeyellow.com/sportsafe/page3.html> (25 February 2002).
“Urban75 Drug Info“ <http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/testing2.html> (5 March 2002)
The decision of the Supreme Court regarding the use of screening procedures for student athletes is incorrect. . After an intense beginning in court, the judge denied the Actons.... ... middle of paper ... ... Works Cited Andrews, Mackenson.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
Between 1985 and 1989 the Vernonia School District began to see a marked increase in disciplinary problems, drug use by students, athletic injuries, use of drugs by athletes and a student body preoccupation with the drug culture. The school district adopted a policy requiring students who participated in interscholastic athletics to sign a consent of both routine and random drug testing.
Fraser (1986). During a student assembly, Senior, Matthew Fraser gave a campaign speech to elect his friend to student government. Fraser’s speech was rife with sexual innuendo. Consequently he was suspended and his name removed from the list of possible graduation speakers—he was second in his class at the time. In this case, the Court established that there is a monumental difference between the First Amendment protection of expression for “dealing with a major issue of public policy and the lewdness of Fraser’s speech” (“Key Supreme Court Cases,” 2015). Comparatively, Foster’s high school points out that there is a monumental difference between Foster’s desire to express his individuality and impress girls, and the school’s desire to regulate the serious public concern of gang activity within the school. Indeed, in the petitioner’s application of Tinkering and Chalifoux court cases, the defense notes, in both First Amendment cases the students were addressing a major public issue—political and religion statements. Foster’s message of individuality, however, decidedly lacked a message that would safeguard his First Amendment
Blue, Adrianne. “Performance Enhancing Drugs Should Be Legal.” Farmington Hills: New Statesma, Ltd., 2006. Print.
In many high schools around the country, student athletes are using drugs. “The percent of students that have drunk alcohol is 72.5% while the number of students who have used marijuana is 36.8%” (Report: Nearly Half of High School Students Using Drugs, Alcohol). The students believe that since they are athletes that they do not need to abide by the rules because they feel more superior and that the narcotic will not hurt or affect them. Implementing random drug tests for athletes will create a positive image and not hurt others or themselves. Schools need to have drug tests for student athletes because drugs effect relationships, using drugs have consequences, and lastly they have a major effect on the body.
Some high schools require athletes to submit to random chemical testing for illegal drug use. On the other hand, other schools and coaches believe that random drug testing is stating that all athletes are guilty of wrongdoing instead of believing they are innocent. There can be advantages and disadvantages to both sides, although random chemical testing for illegal drug use is the smartest idea. Having random drug tests is used for precautions, influences some to not do drugs if they are considering it, and encourages students to be their best.
An example of an issue with mandatory drug testing was the Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton case. In this case the Vernonia School District, which is located in Oregon, requires any student who wants to participate in activities such as athletics, for example football or basketball, to sign consent forms to allow for random drug testing throughout the particular sports season. One testing is at the beginning of the season and during the season every week the students are placed into a “pool” and 10% of the athletes are chosen for random drug testing. What happened in this case was a student by the name of James Acton wanted to play football for his school but in this school district the student and the par...
The United States government projected $25 million to support schools in school-based drug testing and other drug-free programs. In 2003, many schools across the nation provided their own funding for student drug testing programs. The President wants to increase this program for 2005. He also wants to continue funding for ONDCP. This media campaign sends anti-drug messages to young adults via web sites, functions, and events on drug awareness. This approach will include information for parents and youth to encourage early intervention against drug use in 2005.
The ethics of drug testing has become an increased concern for many companies in the recent years. More companies are beginning to use it and more people are starting more to have problems with it. The tests are now more than ever seen as a way to stop the problems of drug abuse in the workplace. This brings up a very large question. Is drug testing an ethical way to decide employee drug use? It is also very hard to decide if the test is an invasion of employee privacy. “The ethical status of workplace drug testing can be expressed as a question of competing interests, between the employer’s right to use testing to reduce drug related harms and maximize profits, over against the employee’s right to privacy, particularly with regard to drug use which occurs outside the workplace.” (Cranford 2) The rights of the employee have to be considered. The Supreme Court case, Griswold vs. Connecticut outlines the idea that every person is entitled to a privacy zone. However this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively especially when the work may be physical it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract. Employers have the right to know many things about their employees.
High school students are leaders to younger kids and many others in their community. As a leader these student must show others what good character is like, but instead they are destroying their lives by doing drugs. In the past decade the drug use among high school students is on the rise once again. With the internet, their exposure to drugs is much greater. High school students are convinced that they are able to get away with using drugs. These drug addicts soon influence other students into doing the drugs because there isn’t a rule preventing drug use. In order to protect these student’s future, drug tests must be enforced among all students ensuring a safe environment for students to learn successfully. Allowing random drug testing in high schools will shy away students from trying these harmful drugs. The stop of drug use among high school students is crucial because drugs prevents student from learning leading them to dropping out of high school. Students that become overwhelmed by these harmful drugs will ruin their lives forever, but if steered in the right direction they can be saved.
After interviewing my teenage cousin whom has been in several altercations at home and school, enlightened me on the ways that teenagers in her age group gets involved in drug use. Kids start as young as ten years of age using, selling, and experimenting with drugs. My teenage cousin was expelled from public schools when she started experimenting with drugs. She was surrounded by many challenges when she enrolled in the alternative behavioral school. Many students, whom attend the alternative behavioral school use drugs, sell drugs, are on probation, have been arrested, engage in sexual activity and drink alcohol.
The first step when beginning to implement drug education in a classroom or school is for the individual that is considering the topic to deem why the implementation is important. There are three main reasons teachers have found the implementation to be important. The first reason is that students are more likely to come in contact with drugs by hearing about them, or using them. By having a program implemented into a classroom or school, it can assist individuals to gain knowledge about the topic. The purpose of this is to help individuals make healthy, responsible decisions about drugs now and in the future that will reflect the individual’s identity and morals.
Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.
Mandatory drug testing is proven to help reduce the number of kids who do drugs (Journal of General