Random Drug Test example essay topic

Random Drug Testing: Waste of Time 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 and similar programs really show young people what they are getting into when they try drugs? What we really need is a drug education program for middle school students, one that shows, and brutally, the dangers of drug abuse and addiction.

These kids need to hear firsthand, from recovering addicts, the details of their struggles. They need to hear what it is like to be on the very brink of death, and how it feels to give up everything; house, car, family, and friends, just to get high. They need to hear what a lonely place it is to be an addict. They need to know about the risks of trying a drug, even once, and how addiction can come from the first injection of heroin, a coma can be induced from the first dose of Ecstasy (Urban 75 Drug Info). This is a much more powerful tool than making a half-hearted attempt at saving those who have already succumb to the pressures of adolescence, those already addicted, those who could have been saved years before if they had only received a good education on the matter. People who are pro urinalysis also believe that with the threat of random drug testing, the population of students who decide to use drugs will be much smaller, because they Dwiggins 3 fear the consequences (Drug Testing in School Activities 2).

The risk of being discovered might be enough to deter some young people from experimenting with drugs, but this small danger will not be enough to scare off a true addict. Those who are truly addicted are supposed to be the target for the most serious help. If a student is determined to use drugs and not be discovered, there are plenty of ways to get around a positive test result. Some methods that have proven successful are drinking mass amounts of water, eating very hearty portions of red meat, taking Vitamin B, using diuretics, or products designed for the very purpose of passing a urine test, such as Goldenseal, Ultimate Blend, and Detoxify Carbo Clean (Urban 75 Drug Info 21-25) Some people even go so far as to use a process known as Catheterization; they insert a catheter into their genitals and inject clean urine into their empty bladder through the catheter (Urban 75 Drug Info 37) Even worse, some desperate people inject clean urine into their empty bladder via needle, in order to pass even the strictest of drug tests (Urban 75 Drug Info 38) Even if the supervisors are watching you like a hawk, there is no way this method would be detectable. As careful as an overseer might be, there is always a way to get around a positive test result if one is resolute about it. A drug test by urine is completely intrusive; the person who is present to ensure that no tampering occurs will undoubtedly cause the student to be very embarrassed (Greenberger 2).

What ever happened to an American's right to privacy? Why is it that these days it is considered OK to watch another person urinate, against their will, to prove their innocence (Lane 2)? The law is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. The Fourth Amendment, protecting Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures is clearly being violated (Greenberger 2). With a random drug test, there is not even any suspicion of drug use in the Dwiggins 4 student (Drug Testing in Schools Should be Sensibly Restricted 2). The students chosen for a random drug test are just that, random.

It is hit or miss. The student tested could be a straight-A student who is a star athlete or just some burnout (Biskupic 2). Why should a student who is doing very well for themselves, and is under no suspicion of drug use, be subjected to a humiliating Urinalysis? No one should be forced to do so. It is not just in this moment that they will be embarrassed either, undoubtedly other people will be informed of this incident, and there is a possibility that this will have great effect on their life.

Many will wonder why this particular person was chosen for drug testing, and if in fact there was some suspicion of drug use (Greenberger 2). People are naturally suspicious and will automatically assume the worst and the innocent will be wrongfully judged. Not only is the Urinalysis a complete embarrassment, it is an invasion of privacy. A Urinalysis reveals not only the presence of illegal drugs, but also the existence of many other physical and medical conditions, including pregnancy or genetic predisposition of disease. If the wrong person got a hold of a positive test result for pregnancy or a genetic predisposition of disease, it could be used in a wrongful manner, discriminating against the individual who submitted to the test.

Despite the great advancements in society, there are still prejudices against people who differ from the norm, whether that is because of a pregnancy or perhaps an innate disease. This is an aspect of a person's life that could be their most private secret, and the results of this test make that available to anyone who can get their hands on them. Human error in the lab, or the test's failure to distinguish between legal and illegal substances, can make even a small margin of error add up to a huge potential for false positive results. Public schools can send their Urinalysis away to any lab of their choosing, Dwiggins 5 which is most likely the cheapest they can find.

These labs do not require NIDA (National Institute of Drug Abuse) standards, and are more susceptible to error. Several common household medications can cause false positives in a Urinalysis. These include the over the counter pain reliever ibuprofen, common cold remedies, diet pills, and certain antibiotics. (Urban 75 Drug Info 16) Even a substance like Novocain can cause a false positive for cocaine. If the person tested consumes enough poppy seeds, they will come up positive for opiates.

(Urban 75 Drug Info 15) With so many risks for false positives, you would think in today's modern society that we would be able to come up with a better solution. Although drug use in American public schools is a definite problem, the best way to go about solving it is definitely not by randomly selecting a small percentage of students to humiliate. The best way to go about helping the youth of today is to prevent the problem by educating them about the dangers before an addiction can even begin.

Bibliography

Biskupic, Joan. "Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated". USA Today 20 March 2002, A 02".
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.
web fall 97. 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, B 5.
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, A 10".
Legal Issues of School Drug Testing". web (25 February 2002)".
Student Drug Testing News". web (25 February 2002)".
Urban 75 Drug Info" web (5 March 2002).