1

“Drug testing”

Thesis Statement: Although there is an increase in the cost of drug testing and the intelligence

level of our high school students in the past 10 years, drug testing has emerged as a solve all

solution to high school drug issues.

Outline

I. Introduction

A. What is drug testing

B. Opinion

II. Safety of drugs

A. Success

B. Believes of others.

C. Drug use

III. Positives of drug testing

A. Harmful

1. Brain affects

2. Physical changes (irreversible)

3. Memory loss

4. Changes academic achievement

 2

B. Rise of drug testing

1. Supreme Court

2. Deters drug use

3. Discourage kids

IV. Fourth Amendment

A. Privacy

C. Warrants

D. Public schools

V. Rewards

A. Special incentives

B. Life outcome

C. Drug free life

VI. Random drug testing

A. Most effective

B. 23 of 50 states

C. Indirectly encouraged

VII. False positives

 3

A. Costs

B. Poppy seeds

C. Teas

VIII. Detection time

A. Urine test

B. Problematic

C. Misuse

IX. Costly

A. Exceeding expenditure

B. 11 positive

X. Smarts and trusts

A. Experimental of drug use

B. Outsmart the tests

C. Mistrust leads to problems

XI. Urine cons

A. Can be altered

B. Embarrassing
 4

C. Biological hazards

XII. Media

A. NCAA

1. Championship events tested

2. Consequences

3. Texas increases testing

XIII. Conclusion
 5

“Drug Testing”

A drug test is commonly a technical examination of urine, hair, blood, semen, sweat, or

oral fluid samples to determine the presence or absence of specified drugs or their metabolized

traces (Wiki). Although there is an increase in the cost of drug testing and the intelligence level

of our high school students in the past 10 years, drug testing has emerged as a solve all solution

to high school drug issues. My opinion is to let a drug testing be an option of those who aren’t in

sports. Driving to school shouldn’t be a reason to drug test, it is just a way the school can say

they’re trying to help stop drug problems.

Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that random testing of student athletes and others in

competitive extracurricular activities did not violate the students' privacy rights. The Bush

administration has made testing middle school and high-school students a priority. President

Bush has asked Congress to increase grant money for testing by 45% next year, to $15 million.

Some school will be subject to random testing not only athletes and students in clubs, but also

those who drive to campus and anyone who wants to attend a school dance, prom or class party.

Students for a Sensible Drug Policy say there is no proof that testing deters drug use. They say

testing could discourage kids from joining sports teams or after-school clubs (Lenwand).

Testing is already widespread in independent boarding schools, with three-quarters of

schools reported to be using some drug testing. There is no doubt that for governors, teachers and

parents drug testing seems an attractive solution both to prevent and deal with illicit drug use

among their pupils. Despite the enthusiasm from teachers and parents for testing, few empirical

studies have examined the effects of drug testing in schools. With adults, an Independent Inquiry
 6

into Drug Testing at Work cautioned against introducing random drug testing in the workplace,

concluding that it was inappropriate to drug test as a means of policing private behavior of

employees or improving productivity, except perhaps in safety-critical industries (Random).

Thanks to advances in medical technology, researchers are now able to capture pictures

of the human brain under the influence of drugs. The pleasurable sensations produced by some

drugs are due to actual physical changes in the brain. Many of these changes are long-lasting and

some are irreversible. Introducing chemical changes in the brain through the use of illegal drugs

can therefore have far more serious adverse effects on adolescents than on adults. Marijuana’s

effects, for example, are not confined to the “high”; the drug can also cause serious problems

with memory and learning, as well as difficulty in thinking and problem solving. Use of

methamphetamine or Ecstasy (MDMA) may cause long-lasting damage to brain areas that are

critical for thought and memory. Students on drugs cannot perform as well in school as their

drug-free peers of equal ability. So if testing reduces students’ use of illicit drugs, it will remove

a significant barrier to academic achievement (Drug).

In rural Autauga County, Alabama, students have a special incentive to stay off drugs. As

part of a voluntary drug-testing program, participating students who test negative for drugs in

random screenings receive discounts and other perks from scores of area businesses. Those who

test positive must relinquish their cards and any special privileges. The whole purpose is to

reward kids who stay clean and help them see the benefits of a drug-free lifestyle (Drug).

Drug use can quickly turn to dependence and addiction; trapping users in a vicious cycle

that destroys families and ruins lives. Students who use drugs or alcohol are statistically more
 7

likely to drop out of school than their peers who don’t. Dropouts, in turn, are more likely to be

unemployed, depend on the welfare system, and to commit crimes (Drug).

Random drug testing is the most effective format. In the USA, random drug testing is

used by a growing number of corporations, drug rehab centers, prisons, the military, police and

fire departments, government agencies, and more recently, schools. Currently, this method is

used in 23 of the 50 United States. The goal of random testing is to discourage drug use among

employees, inmates, or students by not telling anyone who, when or where they are to be tested

in advance. It has been suggested that this could indirectly encourage the use of much more

dangerous and harmful drugs that are excreted from the body faster (Wiki).

Although the Fourth Amendment protects privacy, countless defendants have discovered

that its protections are far from absolute. Practically speaking, the decision gave school officials

greater latitude to conduct searches. Under T.L.O., they need neither warrants nor probable

cause, but merely to have “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that a search will produce

evidence of a violation of the law or school rules. All athletes were to be tested at the start of the

season; in addition, during each week of the season, a drawing would select the names of ten

percent of the players for random testing. In Acton, the family of a student athlete sued the

school, alleging that tests violated the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected the contention. The

first clause clearly forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. The second clause clearly requires

specific warrants. Beyond that, the amendment says nothing about how they shall work, either

alone or together. In certain settings, restrictions on searches are eased; public schools are one

such place. Public schools, government officials say, are another setting where the Fourth

Amendment’s reach is reduced (Cretan).

 8

Detection times include is 1–3 days for urine, 1–36 hours for saliva and 1–14 days for

sweat. Each method carries its own problems. For example, while urine testing is cheap and able

to detect most drugs of misuse, observed tests are problematic in students. Hair testing is more

expensive, can provide qualitative and quantitative analysis of drug use over previous weeks

although cannot detect very recent use (Random).

There are significant problems associated with testing. The cheapest form of testing is the

low-cost immunoassay urine test, which costs around US$14–30 per test; confirmatory tests also

add to the cost. False positives can be found from commonly taken medications; codeine

products and poppy seeds can produce false-positive tests for opiates; ibuprofen, a false positive

for cannabis; and decongestants, false positive for amphetamines. Even herbal teas can produce

false-positive results. To avoid false positives it would be important to ask the student to list

prescribed and non-prescribed medication (Random).

Even using the cheapest screening test the whole procedure can be costly for schools,

especially as frequent testing increases a potential deterrent effect of testing. The cost of testing

is likely to exceed most schools' entire expenditure on drug education, prevention or counseling.

In one school district in US, the cost of detecting only 11 students who tested positive amounted

to US$35,000 (Random).

It is possible that a random drug testing policy may inadvertently move users from

experimental into problematic use if drug testing ‘captures’ social use and makes problematic

what is currently transient and non-problematic. Students can outsmart their testers and find

ways of cheating the tests. A Google search for ‘passing a drug test’ resulted in over 900,000 hits

in less than 1 second (Random). Simply drinking 2 liters of water is generally sufficient to defeat
 9

a urine-based test, without triggering dilution issues (Wiki). Others have argued that drug testing

can lead to mistrust and resistance from students. Thus, inadvertently perpetuate problems,

particularly in inner city schools. The lack of trust implicit on testing must not be

underestimated. By subjecting a young person to testing, even with the student's and parental

consent, implies a loss of trust (Random).

Urine specimens can be adulterated, substituted, or diluted. They also have a limited

window of detection. The tests are sometimes viewed as invasive or embarrassing. The

specimens also have to have Biological hazard for handling and shipping to labs (Wiki).

The NCAA has the National Center for Drug Free Sport test all divisions of its athletes at

team and individual championships, with Division I and II athletes also subjected to infrequent

off-season tests. NCAA championship events, athletes can be selected randomly for testing or

chosen based on position, playing time or place of finish. One positive test incurs a one-year ban;

a second means a loss of NCAA eligibility (Lemire).

The high school athletic associations in New Jersey have a program, which was launched

in the ‘06-‘07 school year, with 500 student-athletes initially tested. Only state-championship

qualifiers are screened on a random basis with 60 percent of tests targeting football, wrestling,

track and field, swimming, lacrosse and baseball. One teen tested positive in the first year of

testing. The governing body of high school sports in Texas announced the nation's largest and

most comprehensive program, with plans to test between 40,000 and 50,000 student-athletes in

all sports between February and the end of the ‘08-‘09 academic years at a cost of $6 million.

That is far greater in scope than either the NCAA (13,000 tests per year) or the U.S. Olympic

Committee (8,347 in '07) programs (Lemire).

 10

Drug testing and the intelligence level of high school students have increased over the

past 10 years. Even though drug testing costs have increased it has come to be a “solve all”

solution for drug issues. In my opinion, drug testing is not a “solve all” solution, the issue I pose,

is that in some cases drug testing is pushing students to skip pot all together and go straight to

cocaine or heroin. Drug testing in some ways is a waste of money. I strongly disagree in drug

testing after all my research on this matter.

 11

Works cited

Cretan, Richad J. Forth Amendment constitutional amendments. 2000 ed.

“Drug Test.” Wikipedia.2-15-09, Wikipedia encyclopedia.2-17-09,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/drug_test

Drug Test in School. Drugs of Abuse Testing. CINIVA.

1/12/09. http://www.drugsofabusetesting.com/custom.aspx?id=4

Lemire, Joe “The Screening Process.” Sports Illustrated. March11, 2008.

Lenwand, Donna “More schools test for drugs” USAToday.7/11/2006.

Random drug testing in schools. RCGP, 7-1-05, BR J Gen Pract. 2-17-09,

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1472793