Should schools conduct random drug tests?

Last week the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy announced that it will be holding four meetings to decide whether there will be random student drug testing in public middle and high-schools. This program has already been introduced in nearly 1000 schools and requires students to do a drug-test if they wish to participate in competitive extracurricular activities like athletics.
Schools have been doing it voluntarily since the 1990’s, but when the Supreme Court stepped in it became more formalized. Once grants from the Department of Education were available, guidelines were developed.

How then does the whole procedure work?
First, a child is chosen at random and asked to go to the nurse’s office where it has to deposit a urine sample. This sample is then tested for cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy and steroids. If students test positive, the school will remove them from their extracurricular activities for the rest of the year, and sometimes even for the rest of their school career. Some schools provide counselling, but this always depends on the school’s financial situation.

Of course, opinions on this topic differ.
Proponents like to talk about one statistic in particular. The U.S. military has been doing such tests for 20 years, and the results are phenomenal. In the beginning, 27% of the tested were positive, and in the course of less than a decade there has been a steep decline. Now, only 1.5 % of the tested are positive, and this number has been steady for years.
Opponents are not sure about the moral correctness of applying a military program to school children. Soldiers are very different from high-school students and therefore should also be treated differently. Critics back up their argument with a statistic as well. Researchers compared 94 000 students in 900 schools with and without drug-testing programs. The result? There was no difference in drug-abuse among students from the two sets of schools.
Another argument against such programs is the message that is being delivered to the young people. Shouldn’t we believe them when they tell us that they don’t do drugs rather than test them? Many have concerns that testing can weaken the relationships, widen the generation-gap, hinder open communication and stop students from participating in extracurricular activities. This last point is especially problematic, since these activities help students to feel integrated and connected.
Finally, there is the question of privacy. Does random drug-testing violate the student’s rights to privacy? In this case, the proponents are the ones with the stronger argument. Of course, privacy is very important for adolescents. But if children are doing something illegal that can harm them, the more important value has be to protect them.
And that’s what opponents and proponents agree on.