Students often roam the hallways of a school which to them feels increasingly more like a prison in each succeeding day. This may be because of an accumulation of small issues such as the new principal who is always 'out to get' the students or because of the teacher that won't accept the late assignment. However, there is also a big issue present, illegal student drug use, which could eventually lead students to a real prison one in which criminals reside. The rate at which students use illegal drugs is of great concern for many reasons. For one, the students, if not veered away from using drugs, can develop habits of drug use that interfere with their own personal lives. Also, school environments are disrupted when students bring their drug usage into the school settings and disrupt others who do not partake in illicit drug usage. Now the real question becomes "How do we solve this?" Do we hire more law enforcement officers to better patrol the streets at night? Do we bust open the door to a man's house just because we think his son may have $20 worth of marijuana? No, the problem can simply be solved by the school's inclusion of a mandatory-random student drug test. Drug testing not only decreases the number of number of students using illicit drugs, but also helps to create and maintain a healthy school environment. The drug use issue and need for drug testing will be highlighted in the first half of the essay while the feasibility of such testing will be discussed in the second half of this essay. I believe that the application of the mandatory-random student drug testing process targeting students participating in interscholastic and extracurricular activities will help to reduce drug usage in students and overall create a healthier school environment.

It is very important to recognize why schools implement mandatory-random student drug testing programs. The schools implement the programs to maintain a healthy environment that is free from outside danger to the students. The outside dangers that are associated with schools can involve any amount of things, but the most important is drug usage which can easily be controlled.  Robert Cloud, Professor of Higher Education at Baylor University, states "the far reaching problems associated with drug abuse in today's society are a major concern of officials in public schools." (School Law 60) This drug abuse, if controlled properly, can lead to the creation of a much safer school environment. Looking at the situation from an outside perspective, the school's chief duty is to provide the students with a complete education. That includes educating students about the effects of drug use; these negative effects can range anywhere from skin discoloration all the way to death by overdose. This is where the school's responsibility of fostering a safe and healthy environment comes in through education. Classes that educate students of the negative side effects alone do not necessarily change the students' minds, so there needs to be another component. School officials have become aware of this issue and have justified why schools they feel the need to drug test. Ryoko Yamaguchi, an Educational Psychiatrist from the University of Michigan, agrees in "Drug Testing in Schools" with many school officials that student drug testing is an "effective strategy for schools with problematic student illicit drug use," (Yamaguchi 159). Robert Cloud also highlights that "without a doubt, ensuring the safety of children is a priority of educational officials in every community," (School Law 60) which together with Yamaguchi's idea creates the schools need for a process controlling drug usage. This process is the aforementioned mandatory-random student drug testing and it works very well in schools to not only provide drug troubled students with the help they need, but to also serve as a preventative and deterring measure.

Most students believe that the drug tests are out to get them and punish them when in reality the tests are merely used as a means of prevention. In imposing the risk of a drug test many students will often be less inclined to partake in activities including drug usage. As stated in "Should Student Be Drug Tested?", CNN's YouTube video, "it will serve as a deterrent," (CNN) not a means of personal prosecution against the tested students. The threat of possibly being temporarily suspended or sent to therapy sessions really is the prime deterrent to students because if the student were to get a positive test back they would be very embarrassed to have to attend therapy sessions or serve suspensions in the eyes of their peers and teachers. "Differing Views on Value of High School Tests", a New York Times article written by Mary Pilon, backs up the claims in the video. Pilon mentions a quote offered by Kurt Gibson, associate executive director of the Illinois High School Association, "'We continue to view that our program is accomplishing what it set out to do,' Gibson said. 'It's another tool in the student's toolbox to say no to these substances. Our program serves more as a deterrent rather than being designed to punish students,'" (Pilon) which offers a great deal of support in claiming that the drug tests a strictly preventative measures. Also the presence of the testing allows for students to justify amongst peers their reasons for saying 'no'. If the other students who are participating in the drug usage are aware of the risks and consequences present, then they will more than likely accept the student's reasoning for not wanting to participate. This also deters a lot of students because many kids just do not feel comfortable saying no if they feel like they have no reason that will be accepted by peers. However, when the reason is the student not wanting to get caught on a drug test to avoid trouble with school officials it will be more accepted. The reason is more "accepted" by peers because there are consequences for failing these drug tests.

To retouch and expand on the ideas of prevention and consequences of a positive test, the prevention is the schools primary focus in implementing mandatory-random student drug testing and the consequences are the "punishments". The means in which schools prevent drug usage is not actually through just having student drug tests that say who is positive. The school uses the test "to identify the students who have been abusing substance and drugs and give them proper counseling," ("School Drug Testing | All You Need to Know About Drug Screening at Schools.") Then "consequences" are purposely assigned to students that may have a test come up positive. It is key to notice that I use quotations around the word consequence, and that is because these so called "consequences" are actually beneficial to the student. These consequences are not the end of the world for the student, but instead are the start to a better, healthier, and safer one. There is no end all punishment, instead the consequences seek to, in a sense, call out the student and make them aware of the serious consequences of drug use. Many therapy, drug counseling, and drug abuse programs are implemented to provide help to the student learn how to either control their problem or stop it all together; stopping the drug use all together is the main goal, but realistically speaking for some individuals, learning to control the drug is the key to an eventual completed and sustained withdraw. 

However, student drug testing as a means of prevention was not fully accepted by society. Parents and guardians of many in the past have seen the testing as a possible infringement of their Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment reads "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."(Fourth Amendment) Those are in opposition of the implementation of student drug testing believe that the Fourth Amendment is infringed, but that is because they only read the first half of the definition. People who believe this are however just misinformed because in the Vernonia School District v. Acton the court decided that "the interference with privacy interests was not great ...  since schoolchildren are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations and vaccinations." (Justia). This legal case had decided that students, especially in interscholastic sports, already sacrifice their privacy when they join the team as they publically display and represent the school that they attend. The testing was then seven years later extended to all school run extra curricular activities and clubs. The court upheld their decision because it "depended primarily upon the school's custodial responsibility and authority," (Justia) also they decided that even though there wasn't evidence of a huge drug problem "there is no 'threshold level' of drug use that need be present." The key in both of these situations is that these extracurricular activities are considered privileges to the students that can easily be taken away if they can not adhere to the drug policies set out by the school in the first place. Also This extension of students to be added to the new pool for testing allows for a very large portion of the school to be legally tested and therefore deterred and hopefully set off the path of future drug use and abuse. As far as other oppositions go the only other one that deserves debunking is the idea that the drug tests are very costly and inversely yield less positive results than wanted. In "School Drug Tests: Costly, Ineffective, and More Common Than You Think" written by Christopher Ingraham, writer for The Washington Post, argues that "it costs $3,000 for each positive test, or about 1 positive for every 125 students tested," (Ingraham) and while his math is all good and well it seems that his idea of a drug test is to simply return positive results. That is simply not true, as I mentioned before the whole point of implementing a random drug test is for prevention, which if drug use is prevented will yield little to no positive results. So the school officials shouldn't necessarily be looking for numerous positive test results because that would only mean that drug testing is not an effective preventative measure. The officials instead should hope for the drug tests to be all or mostly negative. The mandatory-random student drug testing is not to be confused with suspicion testing. Suspicion testing is drug testing that hopes for positive results to prove a point that a student is taking drugs that are affecting their school work while mandatory-random student drug testing simply monitors students and offers aid as needed.

There is also another aspect to this debate that is often overlooked; the reciprocal effect shown amongst other students not involved in the drug testing is non-existent. When speaking of a lack of a reciprocal effect I mean that there is no visual or empirical data to show distraction in students who attend the school, but are not necessarily in the drug testing pool. A report posted by the National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance states that "In the one-year period studied, there was no evidence of any "spillover effects" to students who were not subject to testing -- the percentage who reported using substances in the past month was the same at both treatment and control schools,"("The Effectiveness of Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing") proves that the positive absence of the effect was evident in studies conducted regarding the subject. This aspect mainly applies to the parents of students that are not in the random pool of names to show that there will be no negative side effects on the untested side of the student body, which is not the target group of the testing.

What it comes down to in the end for most people however, is the actual effectiveness of the drug testing. Does the drug testing help to stop, prevent, and deter drug use among students? The answer to that question is, yes, it does; the results from a study, preformed by The Office of Nation Drug Control Policy, offered by Clare Gerada, Director of RCGP Substance Misuse Unit, and Eilish Gilvarry, Consultant Physiatrist in Addictions say,

Random drug testing in schools has been effective in reducing drug use and, most importantly, deters drug use among adolescents. Drug testing was responsible for a significant reduction in cigarette smoking among 8th grade students (13-year-olds) from 35.9% to 24.4%, alcohol use from 39.9% to 30%, and cannabis use from 18.5% to 11.8%. (Random Drug Testing in Schools)

These statistics offer empirical proof that the testing has been effective in many schools that it resides in. With about ten percent less use in both the cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption it is very clear to see that the drug testing works in at least lowering the actual use amongst students. There is little to suggest that there could be any other factor present that would cause so much change in percentages. So with the effectivity proven well and the legal stage laid out it is about time to start thinking of a way to fix the problem.

My solution is to have the students who are involved in all extra-curricular activities and interscholastic sports to sign a waiver, with their parent's signature as well, approving the student's name admittance into the pool of names to be randomly chosen for drug testing. Each student, and parent of that student, that joins an extra curricular activity or an interscholastic sport must sign a waiver admitting that student's name into a pool of names. This waiver binds the student to be subject for testing and therefore, also makes them responsible for the consequences of a positive test they may or may not have to deal with; the need of a parent's signature requires both parties, the student and the parent, to be informed about what the drug testing process requires. Then on each Monday the school officials who are in charge of administering the tests pick four random names from the new pool. Schools are in session for about ten months out of the year and with holidays there are an average of three Mondays a month, so that comes to about 120 total tests over the year. Whatever the test results are, positive or negative, there must be a clear "establish[ed] procedures to maintain the confidentiality of test results," (Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing) so that there is no legal conflict in the passing of private information. There will also be a lack of law enforcement involvement in student affairs pertaining to drug tests. The absence of law enforcement is primarily because mandatory-random student drug testing is used as a preventative means, not as a means to identify drug users and lead them the into legal conflicts. This is a very important aspect of the testing as well; the testing must stay interscholastic in all its consequences, testing location, and discussion. The program is very feasible and also offers the most effective action that has already been deemed legal. Therefore, this is the most effective and rational way to combat the drug usage evident in adolescents. It is time to stop the relatively "smaller" problem before the students develop unhealthy habits and directly affect the quality of our schools, our niece's and nephew's school, the godson of the elder woman across the street's school. This issue if left uninterrupted will eventually diminish the safety in our schools and also possibly diminish the life of a student who overdoses his or her freshman year of college because he or she is now addicted to Oxycodone after using for several years in high school. The time to act is now and the action needed is simple, implement mandatory-random student drug testing to a select group of students, such as the interscholastic athletes and extracurricular club members, as a preventative means and only a preventative means in order to control and hopefully get rid of a majority of drug use in high schools around the world.

