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 such programs comes at a large expense. In one case, arguments form because of the mentality that all athletes should take a test due to the fact that they are more prone to taking drugs, but then what about the student who is not involved in any extra curricular activities and does drugs? Is the athlete being discriminated against because of a generalization? Also in the case of welfare recipients, they are asked to submit to these tests, just because they are more apt to take illegal substances, does that mean the they should always be checked for drugs? If implementation does occur, the sacrifices would relate to the monetary cost, lose of privacy, and violation of the constitution.
To understand the arguments being ...
Page 1 of 8