This House supports random drug-testing in schools

In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Vernonia School District v. Acton that schools could randomly test
student athletes for drug use, after a student, James Acton, was banned from trialling for his school football team without
consenting to a test[1]. The legal battle for the schools right to drug-test has gained and lost ground for many years in
the USA; in 1998 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Todd v. Rush County Schools upheld an
Indiana school board program that banned students from participation in extracurricular activities without first passing a
random drugs test. This was however later struck down as being against state constitutional law.[2] And in 2001 the
Tenth Circuit in Willis v. Anderson Community School Corporation ruled that tests imposed unreasonable searches upon
students in violation of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.[3]
A study conducted in the United Kingdom in 2004 by the Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work found that
attempts by employers to force employees to take drug tests could potentially be challenged as a violation of privacy
under the UK Human Rights Act and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.[4]
This debate should focus on societys desire to combat what it perceives as a growing drug abuse problem, pitted against
children and families right to privacy. Tests can be conducted on urine, hair, breath or occasionally blood.
PROS
NO
1

POINT
Prevent drug use
There is a clear and present problem with drug use
among children and teenagers in many countries.
According to the UK Department of Health, in 20022003 38% of 15 year olds had used illegal drugs, as
had 8% of 11 year olds[1]. The fact that all of these
children would have been in schools at the age of
15 shows that current policies of targeting the

COUNTER POINT
Drug users' decisions are influenced by an irrational
desire to fulfil the chemical need they feel (to get
their 'high'). As a consequence many drug users in
schools will simply look for ways to evade drug
testing regimes that are put in place. This is a
problem as drug testing is most likely to catch
cannabis users (the most widely-used drug among
teenagers)[1], as cannabis endures longer in the

supply train of drugs (for example by arresting drug

dealers and intercepting drug shipments) is failing
to protect children. Therefore a more direct
approach that intervenes at the point of
consumption is needed, most crucially for children
and teenagers, as their years in education are
crucial for both their personal development and
their realization of their future education and
employment potential.
Drug use at a young age may lead to lifelong use
and addiction. Random drug testing in schools will
allow for vulnerable children's drug problems to be
discovered, and assist the state in getting them the
help they need to get off drugs. Random testing is
especially valuable in this scenario because many
infant and teenage drug users will try to disguise
their drug use from parents and teachers and so
avoid detection through avoiding suspicion, a tactic
which will prove of no use against random drug
tests which will likely affect all students at one point
or another. It should also deter many students from
starting taking drugs in the first place as the
prospect of them being caught becomes far more
likely, as they know disguising their drug use will be
of no use.
2

School's duty of care

body than other more dangerous drugs such as

heroin and cocaine. This can potentially lead wouldbe cannabis users to switch to these harder drugs,
most of which generally have significantly shorter
detection times and/or are less likely to be tested for.
[2] This harm clearly outweighs the benefits of
catching or deterring a few more cannabis users.

None of these benefits apply if the peer pressure

simply switches to harder drugs which are harder to

Peer pressure drives most drug use among children

and teenagers.[1] The fact that the state requires
all children to be engaged in education means that
most of them will be gathered into large groups in
schools for most of the day, five days a week,
essentially creating the necessary conditions for
peer pressure to take place and be powerful. This
occurs as some children face ostracism or exclusion
from their peers in the social environment that the
state compels them to be in if they refuse to take
illegal drugs, if drug use is deemed necessary to be
'cool' or 'popular'.
It is, generally, the state that operates a western
liberal democracys education system. Under
circumstances in which children are placed into the
care of the state, and are made vulnerable to peer
pressure the state has a duty to ensure that
children are not coerced into using drugs. This
means that concerns of 'privacy' are secondary to
protecting the choice not to take drugs, as ensuring
the 'privacy' of all students by not having random
drug tests empowers some students to socially
coerce other students into using drugs when they
otherwise would not.
Random drug tests help prevent cultures or norms
of drug-taking (by which it can become the 'cool'
thing to do) by ensuring that most drug users will
be caught and helped to quit, thus protecting the

test for or less likely to be tested for.

Moreover, peer pressure can exist outside of schools,
and amongst older teenagers who have the choice to
vary their attendance of sixth forms, FE colleges or
senior high schools. Random drug testing could lead
to older children being pressured to cut classes for
prolonged periods of time, in order to take drugs, in
order to be thought of as cool.
Teenagers are also notorious for believing that
nothing bad can happen to me, even if that bad
thing becomes more likely (such as being caught
with a random drugs test). This is demonstrated by
the fact that many teenagers already engage in
illegal drug use despite the reasonably high chances
that an adult will see them using drugs, smell smoke
or notice the drug's effects on them in the status
quo.[1]

choice of others not to be pressured into drug use.

3

No harm to non-drug users

Random drug tests will pose no harm to students
who do not use illegal drugs, as they have nothing
to fear from this fact being certified. If anything it
serves as a vindication of their law-abidance and
good character.
Random drug tests will only catch those who are
actively taking drugs, as tests can be used which
are unlikely to make a 'positive' reading from
secondary exposure (for example, being near
someone else smoking cannabis).
Those actively taking drugs need help in getting off
drugs far more urgently than they need their right
to 'privacy', as addiction at a young age could have
a significant negative impact upon the remainder of
their time in education. Therefore, non-drug users
have nothing to fear from testing. As a result
random checks are in the best interests of drug
users.

Students who do not use illegal drugs do have

something to fear - the violation of privacy and loss
of dignity caused by random drug tests. They may
well feel that they are being treated as under
suspicion with no evidence or cause, and resent this
imposition upon their privacy. Indeed, the indignity of
drugs testing may compel children who are already
in a position of vulnerability as a result of social
marginalisation or personal or family problems to
drop out of school entirely.

CONS
NO

POINT

COUNTERPOINT

Right to privacy

Even if a right to privacy (which would prevent random drug

testing with no reason for suspicion) does not exist in law in
every country, many students being affected by drugs tests will
perceive that the notional right to privacy which they believe
they possess is being violated. Because they would perceive this
violation as a harm, it should not be imposed without good
reason. This problematizes the nature of 'random' testing, which
by definition means forcing drug tests on individuals on whom
there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use.
Firstly, the majority of those being tested will most likely test
negative (as the previously cited statistics suggest) and so a
majority will be harmed for no fault of their own, but rather as a
consequence of the crimes of others. This may be seen as the
equivalent of searching all homes in a neighbourhood for an
illegal weapon on the suspicion that one of them was hiding it
-an action which would be illegal in almost every western liberal
democracy.
Further, however, even if students do engage in illegal drug use,
random drug tests will additionally catch only those on whom
there was previously no suspicion against (as students who show
signs of drug use are already usually tested). In order to not
already be under suspicion, these drug-using students would have
to be engaging in their education, not disrupting the education of
others, and not displaying erratic or harmful behaviour. As they
are not actively harming others, these students should be subject
only to the same standards as individuals in other areas of

The students in question may not realize the long-term

harms of drug use or fully understand the risks of addiction,
and as they are not yet fully adult and responsible for
themselves, the state has the right to ensure that they do
not exercise their 'right to privacy' in a way that could be
harmful to them.

society: to only have their privacy violated by drugs tests if their

behaviour actively brings them under suspicion.
2

Keeping teenagers in education

Studies in Michigan in the USA have found that random drug

tests in schools do not deter drug use, as schools with and
without random tests have similar levels of drug use among their
pupils.[1]
It seems unlikely that random drug tests will, in fact, deter
students from taking drugs. What such tests will result in,
however, is a greater number of exclusions and disciplinary
actions resulting from catching student drug users, which as the
studies have shown has no guarantee of lowering drug use
overall.
Faced with a situation of continuing to be caught and
reprimanded for drug use in school due to random drug tests,
many older teenagers who reach the age whereby they may
choose to leave school may choose to do so in greater numbers.
This may well be compounded by an adolescent desire to rebel
and reject authority when it tries to prevent them doing what they
want, and so a greater number of teenage students may drop out
of school so as to allow themselves to continue doing what they
want more easily that is, taking drugs. Leaving school at such
an age for no other reason than to pursue a drug-using lifestyle is
almost certainly more harmful than the worst-case alternative,
whereby they at least remain in education even if they continue
to use illegal drugs, comparatively improving their future career
and education choices. Simply driving teenagers out of education

Using random drug tests would mean that a greater number

of teenage drug users would be caught and put into drug
rehabilitation programs, which would surely help at least
some of them. The school's duty of care means that they
must at least be given this chance to give up drugs, even if
they refuse it, as opposed to simply allowing them to keep
using, which will most likely disrupt their education severely
anyway.

with random drug tests benefits no-one.

3

Safeguarding the teacher-student relationship

Random drug tests change the student-teacher
relationship from one of trust into one of suspicion,
whereby the teachers and the school establishment
become a body which many students will perceive as
being out to catch them, and suspicious of all. The
destruction of this trust makes it far harder for teachers
to impart useful information on illegal drugs and the
consequences of their use to students, and students
may be less willing to seek teachers out on this
information. This would lead to students relying
increasingly on their peers and the internet for
information on illegal drugs, and this information is far
more likely to be of questionable policy or influenced by
notions of drug use as 'cool' or glamorous. Thus schools'
anti-drugs message may be harmed by random drug
tests.

Random drug tests may actually help remove mistrust

between teachers and students. Individual suspicion will no
longer be the cause of drug tests for students, but rather
these tests will be something al students will face at one
time or another. This means students may actually feel freer
to approach their teachers, and they may feel the need to
more keenly, as they know they may be tested at any time.