Her grades fell. She was always tired. She never seemed to be able to focus at school.

Classes she used to be interested in became utterly mundane. Friends she used to care
about became replaceable. She stopped spending time with her family. She sat on the
bench at every soccer game instead of becoming the star player her coaches thought she
could. This is what addiction to drugs can do to a young person’s life. Addiction can take
away everything that once made that young person happy. The only thing that matters
anymore is the drug, getting high, and getting higher. It is a horrible and tragic thing that
destroys so many young lives. Some people think that in order to prevent these
situations, the best solution is random drug testing. But this is not a reasonable solution
whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they roam around the
campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive process. Random student
drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in public schools; it is
unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved.

Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a
small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem,
because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in
School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a
better chance for rehabilitation. This is true, and with this approach, maybe one life can
be saved (Legal Issues of

Dwiggins 2

School Drug Testing 1). Of course it is worth all the trouble of drug testing many innocent
students if one drug addict can be identified and helped, but would it not be much better
if that same student’s drug problem, and hundreds more, could have been prevented
altogether? (Student Drug Testing News 1)

We cannot identify a drug problem in a significant number of students if only a small

percentage is tested; a solid drug education program would be much more effective. It
takes something a lot more earth shattering than the DARE program to steer young
people away from experimenting with drugs. Sure, DARE does a great job at teaching kids
different ways to say no, but do they ever really learn why they are saying no? Does
DARE ...

... middle of paper ...

... Joan. “Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated.”
USA Today 20 March 2002, A02.

“Drug Testing In Schools Should Be Sensibly Restricted.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2002,
18.
Franz MD, Joseph C. “Drug Testing in School Activities.” Fall 1997.
<http://www.nfhs.org/sportsmed/iaa_fall97.htm> (14 April 2002)

Greenberger, Robert S. “Court to Hear Arguments on Case Pitting Drug Tests Against
Privacy.” The Wall Street Journal 15 March 2002, B5.

Lane, Charles. “Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools; Justices to Decide if Choir, Club
Members’ Privacy, Like Athletes’, May Be Breached.” The Washington Post 17 March 2002,
A10.

“Legal Issues of School Drug Testing.” <http://www.drugfreeschools.com/legal.html> (25

February 2002).

“Student Drug Testing News.” <http://server3003.freeyellow.com/sportsafe/page3.html>

(25 February 2002). Her grades fell. She was always tired. She never seemed to be able to
focus at school. Classes she used to be interested in became utterly mundane. Friends
she used to care about became replaceable. She stopped spending time with her family.
She sat on the bench at every soccer game instead of becoming the star player her
coaches thought she could. This is what addiction to drugs can do to a young person’s life.
Addiction can take away everything that once made that young person happy. The only
thing that matters anymore is the drug, getting high, and getting higher. It is a horrible
and tragic thing that destroys so many young lives. Some people think that in order to
prevent these situations, the best solution is random drug testing. But this is not a
reasonable solution whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they
roam around the campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive
process. Random student drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in
public schools; it is unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved.

Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a
small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem,
because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in
School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a
better chance for rehabilitation. This is true, and with this approach, maybe one life can
be saved (Legal Issues of

Dwiggins 2

School Drug Testing 1). Of course it is worth all the trouble of drug testing many innocent
students if one drug addict can be identified and helped, but would it not be much better
if that same student’s drug problem, and hundreds more, could have been prevented
altogether? (Student Drug Testing News 1)

We cannot identify a drug problem in a significant number of students if only a small

percentage is tested; a solid drug education program would be much more effective. It
takes something a lot more earth shattering than the DARE program to steer young
people away from experimenting with drugs. Sure, DARE does a great job at teaching kids
different ways to say no, but do they ever really learn why they are saying no? Does
DARE ...

... middle of paper ...

... Joan. “Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated.”
USA Today 20 March 2002, A02.

“Drug Testing In Schools Should Be Sensibly Restricted.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2002,
18.

Franz MD, Joseph C. “Drug Testing in School Activities.” Fall 1997.

<http://www.nfhs.org/sportsmed/iaa_fall97.htm> (14 April 2002)

Greenberger, Robert S. “Court to Hear Arguments on Case Pitting Drug Tests Against
Privacy.” The Wall Street Journal 15 March 2002, B5.

Lane, Charles. “Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools; Justices to Decide if Choir, Club
Members’ Privacy, Like Athletes’, May Be Breached.” The Washington Post 17 March 2002,
A10.

“Legal Issues of School Drug Testing.” <http://www.drugfreeschools.com/legal.html> (25

February 2002).

“Student Drug Testing News.” <http://server3003.freeyellow.com/sportsafe/page3.html>

(25 February 2002). Her grades fell. She was always tired. She never seemed to be able to
focus at school. Classes she used to be interested in became utterly mundane. Friends
she used to care about became replaceable. She stopped spending time with her family.
She sat on the bench at every soccer game instead of becoming the star player her
coaches thought she could. This is what addiction to drugs can do to a young person’s life.
Addiction can take away everything that once made that young person happy. The only
thing that matters anymore is the drug, getting high, and getting higher. It is a horrible
and tragic thing that destroys so many young lives. Some people think that in order to
prevent these situations, the best solution is random drug testing. But this is not a
reasonable solution whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they
roam around the campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive
process. Random student drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in
public schools; it is unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved.

Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a
small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem,
because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in
School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a
better chance for rehabilitation. This is true, and with this approach, maybe one life can
be saved (Legal Issues of

Dwiggins 2

School Drug Testing 1). Of course it is worth all the trouble of drug testing many innocent
students if one drug addict can be identified and helped, but would it not be much better
if that same student’s drug problem, and hundreds more, could have been prevented
altogether? (Student Drug Testing News 1)

We cannot identify a drug problem in a significant number of students if only a small

percentage is tested; a solid drug education program would be much more effective. It
takes something a lot more earth shattering than the DARE program to steer young
people away from experimenting with drugs. Sure, DARE does a great job at teaching kids
different ways to say no, but do they ever really learn why they are saying no? Does
DARE ...

... middle of paper ...

... Joan. “Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated.”
USA Today 20 March 2002, A02.

“Drug Testing In Schools Should Be Sensibly Restricted.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2002,
18.

Franz MD, Joseph C. “Drug Testing in School Activities.” Fall 1997.

<http://www.nfhs.org/sportsmed/iaa_fall97.htm> (14 April 2002)

Greenberger, Robert S. “Court to Hear Arguments on Case Pitting Drug Tests Against
Privacy.” The Wall Street Journal 15 March 2002, B5.

Lane, Charles. “Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools; Justices to Decide if Choir, Club
Members’ Privacy, Like Athletes’, May Be Breached.” The Washington Post 17 March 2002,
A10.

“Legal Issues of School Drug Testing.” <http://www.drugfreeschools.com/legal.html> (25

February 2002).

“Student Drug Testing News.” <http://server3003.freeyellow.com/sportsafe/page3.html>

(25 February 2002). Her grades fell. She was always tired. She never seemed to be able to
focus at school. Classes she used to be interested in became utterly mundane. Friends
she used to care about became replaceable. She stopped spending time with her family.
She sat on the bench at every soccer game instead of becoming the star player her
coaches thought she could. This is what addiction to drugs can do to a young person’s life.
Addiction can take away everything that once made that young person happy. The only
thing that matters anymore is the drug, getting high, and getting higher. It is a horrible
and tragic thing that destroys so many young lives. Some people think that in order to
prevent these situations, the best solution is random drug testing. But this is not a
reasonable solution whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they
roam around the campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive
process. Random student drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in
public schools; it is unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved.

Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a
small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem,
because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in
School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a
better chance for rehabilitation. This is true, and with this approach, maybe one life can
be saved (Legal Issues of

Dwiggins 2

School Drug Testing 1). Of course it is worth all the trouble of drug testing many innocent
students if one drug addict can be identified and helped, but would it not be much better
if that same student’s drug problem, and hundreds more, could have been prevented
altogether? (Student Drug Testing News 1)

We cannot identify a drug problem in a significant number of students if only a small

percentage is tested; a solid drug education program would be much more effective. It
takes something a lot more earth shattering than the DARE program to steer young
people away from experimenting with drugs. Sure, DARE does a great job at teaching kids
different ways to say no, but do they ever really learn why they are saying no? Does
DARE ...

... middle of paper ...

... Joan. “Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated.”
USA Today 20 March 2002, A02.

“Drug Testing In Schools Should Be Sensibly Restricted.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2002,
18.

Franz MD, Joseph C. “Drug Testing in School Activities.” Fall 1997.

<http://www.nfhs.org/sportsmed/iaa_fall97.htm> (14 April 2002)

Greenberger, Robert S. “Court to Hear Arguments on Case Pitting Drug Tests Against
Privacy.” The Wall Street Journal 15 March 2002, B5.

Lane, Charles. “Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools; Justices to Decide if Choir, Club
Members’ Privacy, Like Athletes’, May Be Breached.” The Washington Post 17 March 2002,
A10.

“Legal Issues of School Drug Testing.” <http://www.drugfreeschools.com/legal.html> (25

February 2002).

“Student Drug Testing News.” <http://server3003.freeyellow.com/sportsafe/page3.html>

(25 February 2002). Her grades fell. She was always tired. She never seemed to be able to
focus at school. Classes she used to be interested in became utterly mundane. Friends
she used to care about became replaceable. She stopped spending time with her family.
She sat on the bench at every soccer game instead of becoming the star player her
coaches thought she could. This is what addiction to drugs can do to a young person’s life.
Addiction can take away everything that once made that young person happy. The only
thing that matters anymore is the drug, getting high, and getting higher. It is a horrible
and tragic thing that destroys so many young lives. Some people think that in order to
prevent these situations, the best solution is random drug testing. But this is not a
reasonable solution whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they
roam around the campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive
process. Random student drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in
public schools; it is unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved.

Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a
small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem,
because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in
School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a
better chance for rehabilitation. This is true, and with this approach, maybe one life can
be saved (Legal Issues of

Dwiggins 2

School Drug Testing 1). Of course it is worth all the trouble of drug testing many innocent
students if one drug addict can be identified and helped, but would it not be much better
if that same student’s drug problem, and hundreds more, could have been prevented
altogether? (Student Drug Testing News 1)

We cannot identify a drug problem in a significant number of students if only a small

percentage is tested; a solid drug education program would be much more effective. It
takes something a lot more earth shattering than the DARE program to steer young
people away from experimenting with drugs. Sure, DARE does a great job at teaching kids
different ways to say no, but do they ever really learn why they are saying no? Does
DARE ...

... middle of paper ...

... Joan. “Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated.”
USA Today 20 March 2002, A02.

“Drug Testing In Schools Should Be Sensibly Restricted.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2002,
18.

Franz MD, Joseph C. “Drug Testing in School Activities.” Fall 1997.

<http://www.nfhs.org/sportsmed/iaa_fall97.htm> (14 April 2002)

Greenberger, Robert S. “Court to Hear Arguments on Case Pitting Drug Tests Against
Privacy.” The Wall Street Journal 15 March 2002, B5.

Lane, Charles. “Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools; Justices to Decide if Choir, Club
Members’ Privacy, Like Athletes’, May Be Breached.” The Washington Post 17 March 2002,
A10.

“Legal Issues of School Drug Testing.” <http://www.drugfreeschools.com/legal.html> (25

February 2002).

“Student Drug Testing News.” <http://server3003.freeyellow.com/sportsafe/page3.html>

(25 February 2002). Her grades fell. She was always tired. She never seemed to be able to
focus at school. Classes she used to be interested in became utterly mundane. Friends
she used to care about became replaceable. She stopped spending time with her family.
She sat on the bench at every soccer game instead of becoming the star player her
coaches thought she could. This is what addiction to drugs can do to a young person’s life.
Addiction can take away everything that once made that young person happy. The only
thing that matters anymore is the drug, getting high, and getting higher. It is a horrible
and tragic thing that destroys so many young lives. Some people think that in order to
prevent these situations, the best solution is random drug testing. But this is not a
reasonable solution whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they
roam around the campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive
process. Random student drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in
public schools; it is unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved.

Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a
small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem,
because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in
School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a
better chance for rehabilitation. This is true, and with this approach, maybe one life can
be saved (Legal Issues of

Dwiggins 2

School Drug Testing 1). Of course it is worth all the trouble of drug testing many innocent
students if one drug addict can be identified and helped, but would it not be much better
if that same student’s drug problem, and hundreds more, could have been prevented
altogether? (Student Drug Testing News 1)

We cannot identify a drug problem in a significant number of students if only a small

percentage is tested; a solid drug education program would be much more effective. It
takes something a lot more earth shattering than the DARE program to steer young
people away from experimenting with drugs. Sure, DARE does a great job at teaching kids
different ways to say no, but do they ever really learn why they are saying no? Does
DARE ...

... middle of paper ...

... Joan. “Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated.”
USA Today 20 March 2002, A02.

“Drug Testing In Schools Should Be Sensibly Restricted.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2002,
18.

Franz MD, Joseph C. “Drug Testing in School Activities.” Fall 1997.

<http://www.nfhs.org/sportsmed/iaa_fall97.htm> (14 April 2002)

Greenberger, Robert S. “Court to Hear Arguments on Case Pitting Drug Tests Against
Privacy.” The Wall Street Journal 15 March 2002, B5.

Lane, Charles. “Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools; Justices to Decide if Choir, Club
Members’ Privacy, Like Athletes’, May Be Breached.” The Washington Post 17 March 2002,
A10.

“Legal Issues of School Drug Testing.” <http://www.drugfreeschools.com/legal.html> (25

February 2002).

“Student Drug Testing News.” <http://server3003.freeyellow.com/sportsafe/page3.html>

(25 February 2002). Her grades fell. She was always tired. She never seemed to be able to
focus at school. Classes she used to be interested in became utterly mundane. Friends
she used to care about became replaceable. She stopped spending time with her family.
She sat on the bench at every soccer game instead of becoming the star player her
coaches thought she could. This is what addiction to drugs can do to a young person’s life.
Addiction can take away everything that once made that young person happy. The only
thing that matters anymore is the drug, getting high, and getting higher. It is a horrible
and tragic thing that destroys so many young lives. Some people think that in order to
prevent these situations, the best solution is random drug testing. But this is not a
reasonable solution whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they
roam around the campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive
process. Random student drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in
public schools; it is unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved.

Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a
small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem,
because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in
School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a
better chance for rehabilitation. This is true, and with this approach, maybe one life can
be saved (Legal Issues of

Dwiggins 2

School Drug Testing 1). Of course it is worth all the trouble of drug testing many innocent
students if one drug addict can be identified and helped, but would it not be much better
if that same student’s drug problem, and hundreds more, could have been prevented
altogether? (Student Drug Testing News 1)

We cannot identify a drug problem in a significant number of students if only a small

percentage is tested; a solid drug education program would be much more effective. It
takes something a lot more earth shattering than the DARE program to steer young
people away from experimenting with drugs. Sure, DARE does a great job at teaching kids
different ways to say no, but do they ever really learn why they are saying no? Does
DARE ...

... middle of paper ...

... Joan. “Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated.”
USA Today 20 March 2002, A02.

“Drug Testing In Schools Should Be Sensibly Restricted.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2002,
18.

Franz MD, Joseph C. “Drug Testing in School Activities.” Fall 1997.

<http://www.nfhs.org/sportsmed/iaa_fall97.htm> (14 April 2002)
Greenberger, Robert S. “Court to Hear Arguments on Case Pitting Drug Tests Against
Privacy.” The Wall Street Journal 15 March 2002, B5.

Lane, Charles. “Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools; Justices to Decide if Choir, Club
Members’ Privacy, Like Athletes’, May Be Breached.” The Washington Post 17 March 2002,
A10.

“Legal Issues of School Drug Testing.” <http://www.drugfreeschools.com/legal.html> (25

February 2002).

“Student Drug Testing News.” <http://server3003.freeyellow.com/sportsafe/page3.html>

(25 February 2002). Her grades fell. She was always tired. She never seemed to be able to
focus at school. Classes she used to be interested in became utterly mundane. Friends
she used to care about became replaceable. She stopped spending time with her family.
She sat on the bench at every soccer game instead of becoming the star player her
coaches thought she could. This is what addiction to drugs can do to a young person’s life.
Addiction can take away everything that once made that young person happy. The only
thing that matters anymore is the drug, getting high, and getting higher. It is a horrible
and tragic thing that destroys so many young lives. Some people think that in order to
prevent these situations, the best solution is random drug testing. But this is not a
reasonable solution whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they
roam around the campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive
process. Random student drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in
public schools; it is unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved.

Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a
small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem,
because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in
School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a
better chance for rehabilitation. This is true, and with this approach, maybe one life can
be saved (Legal Issues of

Dwiggins 2

School Drug Testing 1). Of course it is worth all the trouble of drug testing many innocent
students if one drug addict can be identified and helped, but would it not be much better
if that same student’s drug problem, and hundreds more, could have been prevented
altogether? (Student Drug Testing News 1)

We cannot identify a drug problem in a significant number of students if only a small

percentage is tested; a solid drug education program would be much more effective. It
takes something a lot more earth shattering than the DARE program to steer young
people away from experimenting with drugs. Sure, DARE does a great job at teaching kids
different ways to say no, but do they ever really learn why they are saying no? Does
DARE ...

... middle of paper ...

... Joan. “Drug-testing case generates sparks; Lawsuit over school policy hotly debated.”
USA Today 20 March 2002, A02.

“Drug Testing In Schools Should Be Sensibly Restricted.” Tampa Tribune 22 March 2002,
18.

Franz MD, Joseph C. “Drug Testing in School Activities.” Fall 1997.

<http://www.nfhs.org/sportsmed/iaa_fall97.htm> (14 April 2002)

Greenberger, Robert S. “Court to Hear Arguments on Case Pitting Drug Tests Against
Privacy.” The Wall Street Journal 15 March 2002, B5.

Lane, Charles. “Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools; Justices to Decide if Choir, Club
Members’ Privacy, Like Athletes’, May Be Breached.” The Washington Post 17 March 2002,
A10.

“Legal Issues of School Drug Testing.” <http://www.drugfreeschools.com/legal.html> (25

February 2002).

“Student Drug Testing News.” <http://server3003.freeyellow.com/sportsafe/page3.html>

(25 February 2002).