mandatory drug testing
It has become all too common for governmental institutions across the nation to pass rules saying that certain people are subject to random drug testing. The central question that is raised deals with the righteousness of being subjected to testing even when there is no overwhelming warrant. Under the protection of the unreasonable search and seizures, including bodily searches, in the fourth amendment of the constitution, certain people, such as students and welfare recipients, to name a few, feel that their rights as citizens and human beings are being violated when they have to submit to mandatory drug tests, but on the other side there are those who believe that if someone is willing to participate in a program, then they should be subjected to these tests. Disagreements happen because of the belief that drug test are used to protect and save lives and to improve the environment that the person is present in. Even though this may be true, others believe that mandatory testing is unjust and biased towards certain people. Controversy arises when the people that have to take the tests are chosen. While the controversy may center on the validity of the act, the real problem is that the effects of implementing
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
, Munro Krauss, Applicants Drug, Cato Institute, Munro Krausss, Calvert Institute, Club Taylors, Judge Blocks, Eric Bukovinsky, Union ACLU, drug testing, welfare recipients, mandatory drug, munro krauss, mar 2000, mandatory drug testing, calvert institute, school athletes, 1999 27 mar, testing school athletes, testing school, amendment constitution, behavior drug, maryland screen welfare, screen welfare applicants,
Approximate Word count = 1909
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
