Asta the Broken
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:39:58 +0000
dequindre_313
Ok, so they're making this bullshit thing in Michigan, where you have to undergo random mandatory drug testing for pot and steriods if you are a school athlete. What do you say? I say hell no. If you would, plz support your argument (you don't have to).
They had this debate when I was in high school (NJ). Luckily, I graduated before it could be put into effect. I didn't use drugs/steroids in high school, and don't now (unless you count the occasional [legal] alcoholic beverage). The fact that the testing is random, and only for athletes, makes it completely unfair.
First of all, it is completely possible to have a positive test without taking drugs. Everybody knows about how poppy seeds can make a person test positive for heroin. But there are other possibilities too. What if a person is friends with people who smoke, but doesn't smoke themselves. If a person can get sick from second-hand tobacco smoke, couldn't it be possible that a person could get a positive test from second-hand pot smoke? If someone goes to a party with no plans of drinking or taking drugs, but half the people at the party smoke up, if this party is taking place in an enclosed area, I'd bet it's completely possible for someone to get the chemicals in their system.
Next, what about the one-time mistakes? It boils down to peer pressure. If someone smokes up once, and never does again, the chemicals are in their bloodstream for an entire month. If the drug test is completely random, there are roughly 22 days out of the school year that a student can test positive. 22/180 isn't the greatest odds.
This also pulls up another bias in random testing. Marijuana stays in the body for a full month. Heroin stays in the bloodstream for a week. Heroin is the more dangerous drug, but who's going to be caught? The person doing marijuana. This is a problem with the test itself, and can be seen in workplace drug testing as well.
Of course, there are social reasons why random testing of athletes is unfair. Athletes and other students who participate in extracurricular activities are LESS likely to use drugs. Instead of testing athletes, if they really wanted to catch drug users, they would be testing the kids who don't participate in anything.
There are only two ways this testing can be made fair. Either every student gets tested, or only those students suspected of drug use should be tested. There are pros and cons to both.
If every student gets tested, the positives show themselves right away. ALL students who use drugs will be caught. If a student knows that he/she is going to be tested, then (assuming that this student possesses common sense), he/she will abstain. If each student had to participate in quarterly drug tests, there wouldn't be time to get the chemicals broken down in the body, and, therefore, the drug use among students would plummet. No one student or group of students would be singled out if everyone had to take the test. However, this is not cost-effective, and is sure to be met with more resistance than any other drug-testing plan.
The other alternative is to test only those suspected of drug use. The signs of drug use are easy to spot, and include red eyes, missing classes, extreme tiredness, change in mood, change in weight. Many of these also apply to treatable conditions, such as depression. If teachers are vigilant, then both drug users and students with social/emotional/mental problems will be able to get help. This is cheaper than testing everyone, and will still pose a threat to those who would use drugs. However, not everyone will be caught, and students will be singled out.
While neither of these solutions is perfect, they are still better than random drug testing of populations of students that are less likely to use drugs to begin with.
