The participating schools are hoping that giving random drug tests will scare students from doing drugs. If a student tests positive they will be forced to seek treatment before the substance abuse gets worse in their life.

Young and teenage students who do have drug abuse problems are hurting many other people besides themselves physically. Drug abuse in schools affects the teaching environment, other students, family, friends and anyone they come in contact with.

The purpose of conducting student drug testing is not to discipline the student, but to help them. Counseling and follow-up screening would result in hopes to intervene before the drug problem gets out of hand. The positive testing drug abusers can also be refereed to substance treatment programs to start a recovery process.

Although some might argue that school drug testing could be considered harassing teenagers and an invasion of privacy, the truth is that teens are vulnerable and susceptible to drug abuse. The choices they make in high school affects their future in ways they can’t yet imagine. If a teen decides to do ingest mind altering substances, the more likely it is that student will develop an addiction or permanently damage their brain. Likewise, studies show that teens that do not do drugs are less likely to have a drug abuse problem later in their life.

Studies have been conducted and although random drug testing has not made schools 100% drug free, the numbers are decreasing.

There are several methods that schools use to test students. It is up to the school to decide what type sample collection would work best for them. The standard student drug testing method screens urine for the following five substances: marijuana, cocaine, opioids, amphetamines, and PCP. The other methods of collection are hair, sweat or a saliva drug test.

In the 80s, most courts shot down mass school drug testing. In an unrelated but similar incident, firefighters in Tennessee won a case (called Lovvorn v. City of Chattanooga), in the late 80s that was ruled a violation of the 4^th Amendment if they were being drug tasted en masse without reasonable suspicion. Other similar cases that are of importance to note as well include: Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v. Board of Ed., 119 A.D. (1986), where teachers won against drug testing, and Jones v. McKenzie, 628 F. Supp. 1500, (D.D.C. 1986), where school bus drivers won a similar suit that protected them from mass drug testing.

Today, while some private schools mandate that all submit to student drug testing as a method of rooting out bad students and problems, most public schools only drug test athletes. While only reasonable suspicion – as opposed to probable cause – is required to conduct random searches on students for drugs, unless they are an athlete and have signed some sort of waver of their rights, drug testing students at random is generally prohibited. If such cases were brought before the courts again, chances are in favor of them being shot down – as they were during the 80s – under the premises of civil liberties.

Source: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4935

In 2007, White House drug czar John Walters stated that  “testing is the single most important step schools can take, and it’s becoming increasingly hard to dismiss administrators who say that testing works for them and can be done fairly cost effectively.” While students in schools without drug testing programs inevitably feel the brunt of peer pressure, random drug testing provides a legitimate reason to live a drug free life. Today there are more than 1,000 middle schools and high schools in America which conduct random drug testing, and the number is expected to increase steadily as the benefits of school drug testing become evident.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-05-07-edit_n.htm

By tying the drug testing programs to extracurricular activities, school officials have found that students are simply not willing to sacrifice their participation in athletics, clubs or scholarly associations to use illegal drugs. With recent innovations in the production of school drug testing kits, which are now designed to be as non-invasive as possible, school drug testing programs are now streamlined and efficient. This means that school districts around the country, many of which are struggling with budget issues, can institute drug testing programs secure in the knowledge that their money is being well spent. The school drug testing movement has gained legitimacy throughout years of successful trials, and today more schools than ever before rely on drug testing to provide a drug free educational environment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/25RDRUG.html?pagewanted=all