What do you think of random drug testing for students?

Test the teachers first.

I wouldn’t mind if it was my child, or if it was me. Many places of employment do random drug testing – why not schools, too? It is basically your “job” for at least 12 years of your life. If school sports have grade requirements, they should be able to deny the druggies the opportunity to play as well. And, more importantly, get them help before they become serious drug users.

I can’t believe they’d have the right to do that in your country. I don’t like it one bit.

I would prefer random drug testing for politicians, followed by anyone in an administrative position. These people. the ones who have power and influence, are the ones who should be tested because they have a much greater ability to fuck things up for others.

I think it’s awful. Drug testing in general tends to only punish pot smokers, not users of harder drugs because hard drugs metabolize much more quickly. In college the Air Force Academy kids would drive over to our parties and not be able to smoke with us, and instead bring loads of booze, coke, and meth. Unless these schools lay out the cash for hair or blood tests, all they are doing is addressing a non-problem, contributing to the marginalization of marijuana users, and encouraging kids to find more dangerous ways to get high.

Meth takes 1–3 days to leave your system while cocaine takes 2–3 days. THC will show up on a test for about 2 weeks with light/moderate use. If these tests are truly random, no one is safe. When I was drug testing probationers, they knew very well when they might be drug tested (they only reported to me once a month), and yet meth, benzodiazepines, and cocaine showed up on their urine tests quite often.

Poor weed smokers…if only there was a way to avoid all the hassle. Not using is clearly not an option.

If I were a parent, I’d want to know if my kids were on drugs (even the “not-so-bad” ones). Considering drug use affects driving, behavior, and school performance, I don’t see why this would be so awful for schools to monitor. In many cases, they see our kids more than we do. The longer a teen is using substances, the more likely they are to develop a serious addiction/dependence problem in adulthood. Whatever we can do to reduce teen drug use can’t be that horrible. In what way would it be harmful to the child?

@livelaughlove21 “In what way would it be harmful to the child? ”

I think that @wildpotato just gave an excellent example of how it could be harmful to the child.

@glacial Which is why I addressed those concerns before posing my question.

Not allowing drug testing because it “encourages” use of harsh drugs in some way doesn’t hold much weight, especially when the tests are random. I’d love to see actual evidence of that hypothesis, though, if such a thing exists.

@livelaughlove21 But if the tests are random, some students may conclude (for this very reason) that there is simply no point in smoking weed, and opt for the meth or cocaine that decrease their risk. I’m not sure how what you said addresses this point.

@glacial It could have that effect, but you could say similar things about just about any policy/law out there. Unless there’s solid evidence that such a thing is likely to happen, it’s not enough to overcome potential positive effects of that policy.

You could also guess that students will conclude that drug use of any kind is risky and they might choose not to use any substance at all in order to avoid getting into trouble or being kicked off of their sports team. I’d bet some kids will think this way. Some may think in the way you suggest as well, but we can’t say for certain either way. If the positive effects can outweigh the negative, why not give it a shot? No policy is free of potential negative effects.

I don’t think most kids (or even adults, really) have enough sense to successfully fool the tests for any great length of time, and it would probably catch up with them either way, and the issue could then be addressed.

Oh, and there’s no “point” in taking any drug, including pot. They’re all pretty pointless in the grand scheme of things.

Triple-L, you’re an enormous sweetheart and all, and such an obviously sensitive person in many ways, so I feel like a dick for saying this but…it honestly scares me sometimes that you are going to be a psychologist. I know you have reasons for feeling the way you do, but I hope to God that none of the therapists I have seen or will see are so judgmental about drug use.

I am totally, unalterably and always opposed to random drug testing.

@wildpotato Hm, well that’s okay because I’m not going to be a psychologist. My undergrad major is psychology, but I’m going into the criminal justice field (my minor). And you’re wrong, I’m not all that sensitive about most things, which is why I’d never be a psychologist. My mother always tells me, “It’s a good thing you quit nursing school, because you’re not compassionate enough to be a nurse.” And it’s true.

I’m actually enrolled in a course now called Psychology of Drug Use and Effects. I know what drugs do to your brain and your body and I understand that addiction/dependence is a serious psychological condition. I don’t know of any psychologist that would encourage a patient to use illegal drugs to self-medicate.

I grew up around weed. My dad calls himself a “professional pot smoker.” My mom and sister also smoke on a daily basis. I’ve had friends that smoked. I’ve seen the psychological dependence these people have over this stupid drug. My sister is also addicted to narcotics. And to top it all off, I’ve spent the last two summers working with probationers and parolees, most of which are using some type of substance. Maybe that’s why I’m so judgmental about, but no one will ever convince me that there is an valid reason to use or abuse an illegal substance, weed included.

I’d never tell someone that is addicted to heroin that they’re idiots for using and they should just be able to stop because using heroin is stupid. I get that it’s more than psychological at that point and they can’t just quit on their own. However, I’m not going to tell someone that they should snort some coke or smoke some weed because they’re stressed out or just wanting to have fun at a party. There’s a difference between the two. And a child using drugs is NOT something that should be taken lightly.

What’s the purpose? To teach them how meaningless we think the US Constitution is? Flushing freedom down the toilet is a lousy way to defend it.

I think that if the parents want to know if their kids are using drugs, they go to their local pharmacy and buy a home drug test kit. The schools and the government should not be a nanny state.
I would love to see the cost comparison between how much it costs if the school pays for ransoms for students as opposed to the parents buying one themselves. Something tells me that the school testing will cost much more, especially when the politicians who pass these laws often own drug testing facilities.
I am also against drug testing for employment that does not involve public safety.

@ETpro Freedom to break the law?

@SquirrelEStuff My husband has always worked in factories and warehouses and all of his employers told him they did random drug testing. He didn’t work with the public, but any time someone was injured or property was damaged, such as in a forklift accident, they were required to drug test because their insurance and worker’s comp wouldn’t pay for any damage/injuries caused by someone under the influence. In that case, I can’t blame them for covering their own asses with the random testing clause. If someone wants to show up to work high, they can do it at a different company. I hear McDonalds is hiring.

I’ve only worked at one company that didn’t have the power to do random drug testing, and that was a restaurant. Luckily, that’s no problem for me.

The cost thing is a good point, though. I was thinking more about the idea behind it, not the cost of implementing it. That’s definitely something that should be considered.

@livelaughlove21 Yes, freedom to break the law. How do you prevent including that in freedom? Let the secret police kick down every door? Monitor thoughts 24 hours a day? Random search and seizure without warrants? How much of a police state do you want? You may fear wrongdoers, but it you think government can do no wrong, you need to add a side course to your studies. Learn history.

I guess they built a new jail they need to fill. w00t for for profit prisons run by companies.

@ETpro I’m failing to see how random drug testing for school athletics is unconstitutional, or how it’s equivocal to the police breaking down your door and searching your home without a warrant. And I never said the government could do no wrong, so I’d appreciate words not being put into my mouth. I’d also appreciate that it not be implied that I’m an idiot when I only asked you a question. Of all jellies, I’d expect a little more from you.

Firmly against.

I’ve never touched an illicit drug in my life, and have used an opiate on exactly two occasions – one surgery, and once a life threatening hemorrhage – and I will simply not accept a job that requires a drug test.

If I am performing my job duties well, it shouldn’t matter what I do in my spare time. If I’m not performing my duties well, you have the right to eject me from the position.

You do not have the right to test the chemical composition of my blood to suit your biases. And if you would think to do so for my underage offspring, they will simply not attend your totalitarian school system.

@livelaughlove21 Random drug testing amounts to an illegal search. Our Bill of Rights was the first thing added to the Constitution because the Framers had seen what government does when too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few.

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Randomly searching people without any probable cause or warrant violates their right to be secure in their persons. It is unconstitutional.