After a Supreme Court decision deemed the practice legal, schools across the country have been administering random drug tests to students involved in extracurricular activities. The intent is to find student drug users, and expose them to counseling in order to “help” them kick drugs and stay clean, both for their own health and safety and that of others.
This practice in schools is an invasion of privacy. It should not be the school’s responsibility to determine who is using drugs, especially when there is a large chance that the drugs are not being used on school grounds. A student whom the school has no reason to be suspicious of cannot be victimized in having to be checked for drugs. If there is no apparent reason for the school to test a student for drugs, then the school should not be allowed to do so.
The consequences for the student would be ineffective. If, for example, the student is offered amnesty so as not to be punished by the law, yet receives drug counseling, it might not be efficient. If a student, especially one that considers herself/himself to be a “healthy drug user,” is caught and the counseling is not wanted, there is no way it can be effective. If a kid does not recognize the problem, there is no hope for a “recovery.”
Likewise, criminal punishment or involvement with the law seems like too large of a punishment for what could be seen as just a petty crime. There are so many different extremes in the drug realm that one definite consequence would not be fair, or successful. The issue is brought up between the punishment of students who are positive for heroine, and those students who are positive for marijuana. Even though in reality these drugs are on far different levels, they are classified similarly and the punishment, under this school regulation, would be the same. The student using heroine is in a more dire situation than the marijuana user, but they would be treated the same.
Along with the ineffectiveness of the ramifications, the costliness is simply not efficient. Instead of spending money on educational programs, or keeping kids in groups that promote healthy living (such as athletic teams), the school would be putting money into a program that simply recognizes the damage that has already been done. The money, if spent at all, should be used to support preventative measures to stop the drug-abuse before it even starts. Akin to health care, the easiest thing to do is to advocate prevention. A school really needs to think about where the money is most needed before implementing drug tests that can cost upwards of thousands of dollars per year.
Not all drugs are easily detected in drug tests. The most common means of screening for drugs is via a urine sample. Marijuana, which is a commonly detected drug among high school students, stays in an individual’s system and is able to be detected for very long periods of time. Other drugs, such as alcohol—also highly popular among high school students—can leave one’s system once oxidized. (In alcohol’s case, one ounce of ethyl alcohol per hour.) “Whether it’s an adolescent or an adult, if they want to partake in drug use. . .they are going to be as creative as they need to be to still use,” said Advanced Studies Program director Mike Ricard.
Schools should consider the future of their reputations before they implement drug testing. Anyone, including the parent of a potential student, could look at a school and wonder why that school needs to have drug testing. In a way, it could imply that the school has a problem. This could turn away many people from a school, or even a town if they are that affected by it. There is always the chance that a school could seem more responsible for this, but in general the effect is detrimental.
No comments:
Post a Comment