A growing number of school districts and states are proposing policies that require teachers and support staff to take random drug tests, citing student safety concerns, but their efforts are running afoul of unions who say such tests violate privacy rights.
For example, Hawaii adopted a policy allowing teachers to be randomly tested, but implementation was stalled after the teachers union sued to block the policy as unconstitutional. Elsewhere, attempts to implement random testing are facing court challenges, with teacher groups, unions and civil libertarians invoking the Fourth Amendment that guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Supporters say teachers and other school staff need to be tested for drug use because of a safety issue: children spend most of their waking hours in the company of teachers. Opponents of teacher drug testing say mandates such as ongoing, random tests are unnecessary, expensive and invasive.
Would random drug testing be expensive? Most assuredly. Could the results produce false positives and thus false accusations of drug abuse? Of course. Would dependents switch to other drugs such as alcohol to avoid detection? Possibly. Would the random tests make a marked difference in improving school safety and school instruction? Don't know for sure.
Besides invasion of privacy, cost and other seemingly apparent valid reasons not to test, I wonder what the bottom line is. Like most issues, reading between the lines is very important. Who, in their right mind, could deny the tremendous responsibility given to school teachers and support staff?
Don't We All Believe the Following?
Teachers and other school employees should be held to a higher standard than most other employees.
They deal with impressionable, vulnerable young people. These employees must set a very good example for students as they stand in loco parentis (in the place of a parent).
People who abuse drugs should not be teachers. We entrust teachers with the immense responsibility of helping form the thoughts and opinions of our children. People who are under the influence of drugs are obviously not thinking with clear minds. Their behavior could be tainted when dealing with our children in the classroom.
In fact, public school employees use government/taxpayer money and are in a union so they shouldn't be any different than private industries. Since they are using taxpayer money and are not a private industry the penalties should be harsher.
The Bottom Line (As I See It)
(A) Marijuana
To me, the real problem many people have with the random drug testing of school employees is marijuana. Many adults regard the occasional use of cannabis as acceptable behavior, much like social or occasional drinking of alcohol. Without a doubt, many teachers and other staff do engage in smoking marijuana. Drug testing would likely expose the extent of this negative behavior.
Of course, some favor marijuana as a drug for pain treatment. Statistics (Gallup) say that 70% of American voters support medical marijuana. Surely, some school employees are prescribed medical marijuana.
Support for legalizing marijuana is directly and inversely proportional to age, ranging from 62% approval among those 18 to 29 down to 31% among those 65 and older.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), "Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States." The National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2009 found that "16.7 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, an increase over the rates reported in all years between 2002 and 2008." (Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey, 2010)
According to NIDA, daily Marijuana use increased among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders from 2009 to 2010. Among 12th graders it was at its highest point since the early 1980s at 6.1%. Marijuana use is now ahead of cigarette smoking on some measures (due to decreases in smoking and recent increases in marijuana use). In 2010, 21.4 percent of high school seniors used marijuana in the past 30 days, while 19.2 percent smoked cigarettes.
(B) Alcohol
Besides the concern over finding cannabis use in school employee drug tests, the public also fears that the detection of alcohol consumption could eventually be used to punish and fire people. We all know alcohol is a legal drug governed by certain age limits and other legal restrictions. So, is the thinking that the government will eventually "come down" on alcohol just a slippery slope or a reality?
Well, most pot proponents say, "Compared to alcohol, marijuana is astonishingly safe." These people (www.saferchoice.org) claim marijuana is much less addictive than alcohol, with just nine percent of users becoming dependent, as opposed to 15 percent for booze.
And marijuana is much less toxic than heavy drinking. Heavy drinking is well-documented to damage the brain and liver, and to increase the risk of many types of cancer. Proponents (NORML) love to say, "No one has ever died from using marijuana."
But, research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: (1) respiratory disease due to smoking and (2) accidental injuries due to impairment. Studies by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of injuries, presumably from accidents.
These figures are significant, though not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination at complex tasks including driving.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012) say 50.9% of adults 18 years of age and over are current regular drinkers of alcohol (at least 12 drinks in the past year), and 13.6% of adults 18 years of age and over are current infrequent drinkers (1-11 drinks in the past year).
About one-fifth of the populace is classified as "binge drinkers" and about seven percent listed as "heavy drinkers." (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2006)
Binge drinking is considered having five or more drinks one occasion at least once in the past 30 days. According to the survey results, 23 percent, or about 57 million people over age 12, met that definition.
Heavy drinking is considered binge drinking five or more times a month. The 2006 NSDUH survey indicated that an estimated 6.9 percent of the population, about 17 million people over age 12, were heavy drinkers.
And how about the scary statistics on youth drinking? For young adults, between the ages of 18 and 25, the rate of binge drinking and heavy drinking is almost double that of the general population. In 2006, the rate of binge drinking in this group was 42.2 percent and the rate of heavy drinking was 15.6 percent.
The survey also showed that the rate of binge drinking in adolescent drinkers -- those ages 12 to 17 -- is about 10.3 percent, with the percentage of heavy drinkers at 2.4 percent. All of these rates are basically unchanged from the 2005 NSDUH results.
There is no denying that alcohol is commonly accepted as the number one drug problem in America, and more than 12 million people in the U.S. are alcoholics.
(C) Opiates
And, how many teachers are currently using opiates? Very few you say? You may want to research this because "high times" have surely changed. According to the United Nations World Drug Report, 2008, in any given year, 0.6 percent of Americans between the ages of 15 and 64 use opiates.
Each year the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration releases its National Survey on Drug Use and Health that reports the prevalence of illicit drug use in the US population age 12 or older. The growth in the use of opiates, specifically heroin and pain relievers, has been dramatic. In the nine years since 2002, among the drugs showing the largest “lifetime” growth in users were pain relievers at +17.4% over 2002 and heroin at +12.5% over 2002.
“Monthly” usage of heroin at +44% and pain relievers at +16.5% grew the most quickly over their 2002 respective user populations. There were an estimated 5.1 million users of illicit pain relievers in 2010, over 700,000 more than in 2002.
Here is a list of the commonly abused opiates:
Last Words
My take is that the fuss over teachers and school staff taking random drug tests relates less to Fourth Amendment rights than to the detection of the use of (1) marijuana, (2) alcohol, and (3) opiates. Hell, I bet most Constitution thumpers don't even know how the Fourth Amendment reads. Just for educational purposes, here it is:
"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."
Did that text help with the issue of drug testing school employees? The constitutionality of drug testing, the United States Supreme Court has said, depends upon the "reasonableness" of the employee drug testing in that situation.
What is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of each drug testing case. Unfortunately for everyone involved in drug testing, the definition of "reasonableness" has evolved over the years and continues to evolve by decisions concerning individual employee drug testing laws and cases.
There is no constitutional prohibition or drug testing laws against private individuals or organizations conducting or requiring what would otherwise be unreasonable drug testing for conditions of employment or other similar reason. For example, a private employer may require an employee to submit to random drug testing as a requirement of continued employment even if that employee has never had any history of using drugs and is not currently suspected of using drugs. Employee drug testing laws and constitutional rights will not protect him (much).
As an ex-teacher, I am sure of one thing: Clear-thinking, responsible parents want school employees to report ANY and EVERY occurrence of their child's using, distributing, or buying drugs of any kind. (In fact, most parents want to know of any signs of drug abuse.) Why? Because schools must be drug-free environments for the safety of all children. The drug-free zone laws put a restricted area around schools where higher penalties await those accused of drug crimes.
Parents demand that schools inform them of all problems with drug abuse. Whether the child involved with drugs is theirs or whether the child involved with drugs is another person who poses a threat to their child, parents do not waver about their right to know. These parents will storm the school waving hangman's nooses if they believe a drug problem has been covered up by school officials.
Do you see where I'm going with this? The final question becomes transparency. Does it benefit the student body to be served by an administration that has taken a REASONABLE precaution to insure their adult employees abide by the same guidelines expected to be followed by their young students?
Are national statistics reason enough for PROBABLE CAUSE? In certain areas such as Scioto County, which is caught in the grips of a drug abuse epidemic, do the circumstances tip the "scale of cause" towards "YES"?
"Seize me! Search me! Let me pee in a cup!" I say.... "UNLESS I'm drunk, rolling lots of killer weed and popping 80s.... Then, by the good grace of the Fourth, the Union, and the ACLU, tell the kids that recess is over. Today's lesson, class -- the Bill of Rights."
5 comments:
I agree that teachers are in a position that can be highly influential to students but I also believe that this is also not a good enough reason to breach their privacy. In fact I believe they deserve our respect for the jobs they do and with respect comes trust, they are already trusted to teach our children and care for them in the place of their parents during their time in school and I would act in the child’s best interests. To me this means a trust that should teachers and school staff choose to partake in drugs or alcohol, they would do so away from schools and at a time where the effects would not carry over to schooling hours. Of course I’d prefer teachers and anyone who is to take care of children to be completely drug free but there are a lot of things I’d prefer people not do and I would never dream of invading their privacy just in case they are doing it. Just because teachers should perhaps be held to a higher standard doesn’t give us the right to invade their privacy for our peace of mind. Evaluations can show us the performance of teachers, if the fear is that drug use is affecting their teaching ability then performance is our concern and simple observation can tell us what we need to know and doesn’t involve us intruding on their personal lives.
And on the topic of this high standard that teachers must be held to, stating that teachers stand in loco parentis as the reason for this and that this is a good reason for them to be drug tested (my interpretation of what you’ve said) implies that parents should be subject to random testing also, especially if a drug-free environment is the aim. Parents are our first teachers and they generally stay with us throughout our life, much longer than a teacher does. Not only that, parents using drugs can directly affect a child’s welfare, surely if teachers should be tested to prevent drug use from negatively impacting on children parents should be tested too.
References
Doup, K. (2011, May 25). Ohio's secret Problem: Prescription Drug Abuse. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from Athens Midday: http://athensmidday.scrippsjschool.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=353:ohios-secret-problem-prescription-drug-abuse&catid=7:featured-stories&Itemid=2
Helmenstine, A. M. (2009, January 1). How Long Can Drugs Be Detected in a Person's System? Retrieved May 22, 2012, from About.com: http://chemistry.about.com/b/2009/01/01/how-long-can-drugs-be-detected-in-a-persons-system.htm
Linder, D. (2011). The Right of Privacy. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from Exploring constitutional law: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
T, B. (2012, April 30). How Long Does Marijuana Stay in the Body? Retrieved May 22, 2012, from About.com: http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/marijuana_test.htm
There is a first half to that comment that doesn't seem to want to be posted, not sure what is happening there.
Is it really alright to just brush aside the breach of privacy like you seem to be doing? I’m all for reading between the lines but when one of those lines says that something is interfering with someone’s right to privacy it surely has to be taken into account. Now I’ll admit I’m no expert on the American Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution and the little I have read in regards to the American people’s right to privacy suggests that the level of that right is questionable (Linder, 2011), but I find it hard to believe that any interpretation of a right to privacy doesn’t cover one’s freedom to spend their free time as they wish, their own bodily fluids and the information received from analysing it. And yes, I do believe that even if that something that people are doing in their leisure time is drugs they have a right to do so and keep it private, as long as it does not interfere with their work. Drug tests aren’t an effective way to detect this as they can be detected in the system long after use (Helmenstine, 2009), most researchers agree that marijuana can be detected through urine for up to 13 days after use yet the effects fade quite quickly (T, 2012).
Even if those who are fighting drug testing are more concerned about drugs being found in their system than they are about their right to privacy (something I’m not convinced of though I’m sure there are a few in the bunch with this motive) does the motive behind the argument really mean that the argument itself is invalid? In the same vein as this, you mentioned Scioto County and its problems with drug abuse, from what I’ve read this is drug abuse overall by the general populace (Doup, 2011), if it had been teachers in particular I’d say you maybe had more of a point but as it is enforcing drug tests on teachers and school staff because of a rise in drug abuse in the county is in effect punishing or accusing them for something they may well have nothing to do with. So I would say, no, national statistics are not reason enough for probable cause, it seems somewhat like knocking on the door of a random persons house and saying “There has been a rise in theft in this area, we are going to search your home for stolen goods”. Clearly, at least in my eyes, this would be an unreasonable search, something the Fourth Amendment give people the right against.
Also in relation to the Fourth Amendment, you put emphasis on ‘probable cause’ but what about the part just after that, “supported by oath or affirmation" to me at least, it would seem you have to be pretty sure, to the point you would swear its true, that a particular person is using drugs in order to force a drug test on them. I believe that under the Fourth Amendment you could not just say, “There are people in this group that may be taking drugs. I’d like to test them and to try and catch out the sneaky ones I’ll test them randomly. To keep things fair I’ll test them all, even those I don’t believe are doing drugs.” For this reason, random drug testing on a group of people, employees, teachers, etc. seems unconstitutional to me. Random drug testing of a proven or rather previous drug user though would be reasonable; if you want to test someone with no previous proof of use then you better have pretty strong reasons to do so otherwise I believe they would have a pretty strong argument to be taken to court.
Sorry about the mess, you can probably tell from the presence of references this is for an assignment so I felt I had to try get everything up here and at least it lets you see everything.
Just to make it clear the proper order they were supposed to be was third post, fourth post then the first post.
Post a Comment