In our very own school, we see it happen. Kids smoke marijuana after school, get busted, and continue to smoke. Most people even know who the drug users are, and yet they do not speak up, allowing the druggies to boast about it during class and gather more people into their drug club.

The teachers and parents take the initiative to educate and caution the kids against drugs, but with the common teenage desire to rebel, adults do not get very far, and drug use does nothing but go up.
Over the past few years, drug usage has increased greatly. In an effort to squash the rising storm, the Bush administration raised $15 million dollars towards drug testing. But when students throughout the nation continued to find ways to evade or beat the tests, random drug testing was proposed, which allows teachers to test students for drugs at any time they wish, therefore taking away time for drug users to prepare (Grim).
The idea of random drug testing is to stop drug use before the long term effects like cancer, heart problems, and other health risks kick in by testing students at any given time, hence the “random” component. In a few individual cases, the goal is achieved (Fuller). However, the goal is achieved only in a few lucky cases, and everyone else’s money goes down the drain. Though I understand that the concept of random drug testing was established with good intentions, I do not agree that random drug testing is a good idea. We ought to prohibit random drug testing in schools with the exception of those who already have suspicion surrounding them and their health because the test results are invalid, the drug tests don’t deter drug use, privacy is infringed upon, and the situation is worsened for both users and non-users.
What is drug testing? In most cases, drug testing involves a student going into the bathroom to produce a urine sample. A monitor stands behind to make sure the sample is not being tampered with and listens for the proper noises. The sample is then taken to the lab for testing. Around a week later, the results come in. Students who test positive are disciplined, and students who test negative go on with their lives as usual (Cornel University Law School).
Though theoretically with the presence of a monitor the tests are close to impossible to beat, a lot of the time random drug testing produces invalid results. In other words, students will adapt to their situations and develop their own solutions, such as skipping, or treating their samples with chemicals that will “beat” the tests. One example of this is at Burlington-Edison High School in Washington State. The assistant principal in charge of the testing program heard rumors that students were “beating the tests with substances such as goldenseal or by drinking dandelion tea.” Also at Burlington, a survey revealed that 58% of the school’s population knew someone beating the tests (Fuller). Similarly, I knew a classmate in gymnastics who beat drug tests by using a friend’s urine samples (and everyone knew about it). If the students are beating the tests, then the results cannot be relied upon to be valid and cannot be used to determine the success of the program, as they have been in several schools. Many argue that students will be caught beating the tests eventually, but in my limited experience, most of the time students that get busted will continue to do drugs after they are caught. In addition, the drug tests aren’t “random” despite the name. Word spreads fast, and Clem, a student at Burlington, says, “By the time we get to practice, its old news” (Fuller). If everyone knows about the drug testing before they get to sports practice, then students have more time to beat the tests, which make the “random” drug testing no different from any other drug test. With the tests being beaten in many cases right and left, the results cannot be deemed 100% reliable and probably isn’t the best source of data for people to wave in the air proclaiming success.
As well as producing invalid results, random drug testing does not deter drug use. As seen in many real life situations as well as junky TV shows, teens don’t like to respond to any prodding from adults on the personal aspects of their lives. Upon announcement that a student-made drug documentary was to be shown for all the freshman at my high school in hopes that kids would be turned against drug use, a girl said loudly, “You’re not convincing me!” Once she had it in her head not to listen, she was not going to listen (in fact, she even spoke of skipping the documentary altogether). By closing her mind against being convinced to stop doing drugs, she created a barrier against anything the documentary tried to make her understand and blocked the message out of her mind, as many teenagers probably would.
In addition, the statistics suggest that the percentage of students using drugs does not go down by a significant amount when schools use random drug testing. For instance, a 2003 study compared rates of drug use in schools that used random drug testing and concluded that there was no significant difference overall (Grim). Also, the Monitoring the Future study at the University of Michigan reported that in 1997, approximately 42% of seniors had used drugs in the past year, and after instituting drug testing in 2001, approximately 41% of seniors had used drugs in the past year (Wilgoren). Going down one percentile in four years hardly means anything. The decrease in drug use (by only 1%) cannot be attributed to the random drug tests conducted on the seniors. A 1% decrease does not support the effectiveness of the test, rather does the opposite by suggesting that the tests made hardly any progress in decreasing drug use.
For tests that for the most part do not deter drug use, it is not right to make students suffer through them and allow their privacy to be infringed upon. According to the fourth amendment to the US constitution, all citizens have a right to privacy. Schools will argue that they give up that right by joining the school, and that in loco-parentis they have the authority to test students as it is their “duty of care.” Nevertheless, the conditions of the drug testing exposes students to feeling a certain vulnerability at their loss of dignity that has been known to lead to depression (Anderson). Part of it is that in order to make sure the tests are not tampered with, students are allowed minimal privacy. In some schools students are even forced to perform the tests without stalls (Cornel University Law School). Some may argue that since most drug testing has been conducted for teen athletes and that there is not a lot of privacy in sports to begin with, what with communal showers and changing rooms and all, but one person in one bathroom with another person watching him or her is crossing the line. It is a violation of privacy and is a complete disgrace to those who do right and do not do drugs. Since the majority of people do not do drugs and they have to go through these tests for the minority of people who do, the students are being punished for a crime they didn’t commit. To support this, Justice Sanders of the Washington Supreme Court states, “A student athlete has a genuine and fundamental privacy interest in controlling his or her own bodily functions” (O’Hagan). In my opinion it is an extreme offense to force people into something that violates their privacy while not even working for those that actually need it. Why force kids who made good choices to suffer for kids who made bad choices? It is as if the bad is winning out after all.
The bad will win over even more when the situation is worsened for both users and non-users. In the case of non-users, one might argue that drug testing does not harm those who do not participate in drug use. Unfortunately, there is a risk involved. A common effect of the random drug testing is the harm to the teacher-student relationship and the school’s overall message. Knowing that teachers can force them into drug tests at any moment causes the students to not trust adults at school, which has an effect on how many possibly suicidal students will get help when they are at their worst. Also, the fact that students are forced into drug testing with no say in the matter creates general resentment of the authorities in and outside of school (Angell). Distrust of authority is harmful, and unfortunately will potentially make students more rebellious and in my opinion more likely to do drugs because of their newfound contempt for authority.
Despite the intentions of those in charge of the tests to guide users to a safer environment, random drug testing in many cases harms drug users further. For example, experts say that “testing can be counterproductive by making drugs seem more appealing to rebellious teenagers or driving them to harder core drugs, like heroin, that are less easily detected in urine tests” (Wilgoren). In simple terms, students frustrated with adults telling them what and what not to do may begin drugs to rebel or start using more dangerous drugs to rebel even further or to squeeze by more easily in urine tests. Furthermore, when “faced with a situation of continuing to be caught and reprimanded for drug use in school due to random drug tests,” more students choose to drop out of school rather than continue on (Anderson). Drug users often turn to more dangerous drugs, which they will too often cut class to take as yet another act of rebellion. In general, when adults try to get teens to stop doing what they want to do, they will rebel.
Despite my position on the matter, I understand that in some cases further drug use is prevented, like in the case of Sarah Hollis, a cheerleader at Burlington-Edison High. She herself quit smoking because the district decided to instate a mandatory drug testing program (Fuller). I also understand that drug use does go down—or at least according to some drug test results. According to Arlene Hulton, spokeswoman for the Lake Stevens school district, says  that due to the random drug testing, “suspensions and expulsions have gone down 20% since [2006]” (O’Hagan). Though I understand where the random drug tests are coming from, too much evidence suggests that not enough students will choose to quit drugs for the testing to be worth the time and money, and since the results have already been proven to be invalid, test results cannot be trusted to support any claim on the side of the drug testing and these invalid results come at a great cost. Even at Hulton’s school, only 10 of 500 tests tested positive for drugs and alcohol (O’Hagan). Each test costs between $10 to $75 per student (Angell). If only 10 test positive for drugs and alcohol, then the other 490 are paying a senseless $50 on a test that violates their privacy and doesn’t even mean anything for them in any way. I admit I do not know the normal amount of tests per year, but say there are four random tests for each student in one year. That’s a whole $200 wasted for each kid. Hollis herself said, “Instead of penalizing one person, they’re penalizing the whole team” (Fuller). How can it be worth it to stop one person while harming all the other people in the process?
As previously mentioned, the random drug testing is an infringement on privacy and is embarrassing for students, which sends the message that they are “guilty until proven innocent” (Anderson, 2012). The conditions of the testing discourages many students from joining extracurricular activities and as a result are more likely to become depressed, drop out, or get pregnant with the lack of community and support the extracurricular activities provide. In addition, students are asked to provide a list of prescription drugs so as not to be “a false positive.” If students are taking anti-depressants or birth control pills, the school is immediately aware of the situation despite the right to privacy that every citizen of the United States should have (Angell). Would anyone want the school prying into their lives? Would anyone want the school to invade upon their personal space? Would anyone want to feel like the school was out to get them? No one would. But that’s how people might feel if random drug testing in their school.
With everything said, random drug testing should not be used in schools. Since the tests are invalid, they don’t deter drug use, privacy is infringed upon, and they harm both users and non-users, the tests simply aren’t worth it. An alternative idea proposed for Roosevelt is to bring in drug-sniffing dogs. But like random drug testing, according to marijuana researcher Roger Roffman, the outcome would be “egregiously harmful” (Young). Unfortunately, sometimes adults propose ideas like random drug testing because they see no other alternative but to watch their kids rot away from drug abuse, and are consequently driven to test the entire school population (or athletic population) to bust as many people as they possibly can and save them before it’s too late. Unfortunately, when forced by their superiors into unreliable drug tests that violate their privacy, teenagers often feel compelled to rebel instead of let themselves be squashed down. With a worsened situation, what is gained by the drug tests that cannot be relied upon to work? What is gained? What little is gained is only lost in greater numbers. In the end, the random drug tests do hardly anything. In the end, the bad wins out.
On a much brighter note, a new study finds that “students treated with respect are 20% less likely to start doing drugs” and students who already began drugs who go to schools where students are treated with respect are more likely to quit and will “escalate at a slower rate” (Vimont). Instead letting the bad win out in respect to the consequences of random drug testing, a positive environment should be promoted in schools. As a result, students will be more engaged and willing to succeed, and drug use may finally begin to slip back down the hill, and the good will make great progress in the battle against drugs.

Works Cited
"Eliminate the Harmful and Costly Student Drug Testing Grants." Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Web. 21 May 2014. .
Fuller, Tom. "Drug Testing Gets Passing Mark." Seattle Times. 18 June 1997. Web. 15 May 2014. Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”.  Slate. March 21, 2006. Web. 15 May 2014. .
Jordan Anderson. "This House supports random drug-testing in schools ." idebate.org. 2 Mar 2012. idebate.org, Web. 21 May 2014. .
O'Hagan, Maureen. "WA High Court Says Random School Drug Testing Unconstitutional." Local News. 13 Mar. 2008. Web. 21 May 2014. .
Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton (94-590), 515 U.S. 646, 26 June 1995, Cornell University Law School, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-590.ZO.html
Vimont, Celia. "Study Finds Random Drug Testing Doesn’t Deter High School Students’ Substance Use." Partnership For Drug Free Kids, 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 15 May 2014. .
Wilgoren, Jodi, ‘Court Rulings Signal a Shift on Random Drug Tests in Schools’, The New York Times, 25 March 2001. .
Young, Bob. "Pot Laws Have Parents Worried about Effect on Kids." Seattle Times, 12 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 May 2014. .