Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here
What Can I Do?


Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP
Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE
Resources
Resources
Find useful publications, online documents & more.


DrugScreening.org


 

Random Student Drug Tests Banned in State of Washington
March 17, 2008

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

The Washington state Constitution prohibits random testing of student athletes for drugs, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

"We cannot countenance random searches of public school student athletes," Justice Richard Sanders wrote. "We require a warrant except for rare occasions which we jealously and narrowly guard."

The Seattle Times reported March 14 that the Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of high-school athletes who sued the Wahkiakum School District because they were required to submit to urine testing to take part in sports. The state's highest court said that drug testing is not justified under the state constitution unless there is reason to believe that the student is using drugs.

The decision effectively puts an end to random student drug testing in Washington; other states do permit such testing, and it also is considered legal under the U.S. Constitution. "A student athlete has a genuine and fundamental privacy interest in controlling his or her own bodily functions," Sanders wrote.  "Even if done in an enclosed stall, this is a significant intrusion on a student's fundamental right of privacy."

 "The justices concluded, as we had contended, that it violates the state Constitution to require a student to give their urine without any reason to believe they've done anything wrong," said ACLU of Washington spokesperson Doug Honig. 

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Craig on 24 Mar 08 04:40 PM EDT
I wholeheartedly support the drug testing of young students (but not urine testing because these tests are highly inaccurate) and I think it is wrong for many school administrators not to make clear to parents the limitations of urine testing. These urine tests do not detect the most dangerous drugs if they are used over the weekend (or student vacation periods) and they do not detect the multitude of prescription drugs, such as hydrocodone. According to Lab Corp, one of the largest drug testing corporations in the United States, the drug detection times are as follows: Alcohol - 10–12 hours via traditional method Amphetamines (except methamphetamine) - 1 to 2 days Methamphetamine - 2 to 4 days Cannabis (Light Use) - 1 to 2 days Codeine - 1 day Morphine and Heroin - 2 days LSD - 2 to 24 hours Moreover, the Supreme Court only allows these tests to apply to those who participate in extracurricular activities (sports, latin club, marching band, choir, etc.). Hardly the group of students we need to be targeting.

Posted by Anonymous on 24 Mar 08 04:21 PM EDT
In he question regarding whether "random Ongoing Drug testing has occurred the protecion of safety of the emoloyer must be included in the analysis of the justice of rights to 4th Amendment search and seizure inquiry. relative to the 4th amendment search and seizure concerns of employees Recently courts have found that a policy against anning nonemployees form employer propery is allowable as long as it is done in a nondiscriminatory way, no matter what the purpose for the banning is for. It follows that nonemployees may be searched /drug-tested while on their premises bebauses e they are non-employees.. In Gayfers, it was established that because the employeess were not "emoloyed regularly and excusively" on the property they were "invitees" did not enjoy the same section 7/right to protection against illegal search and seizure.

Posted by Kyle Prueter, Great Lakes Biomedical on 21 Mar 08 01:42 PM EDT
It is unfortune that there is so much disinformation on RSDT. It does work and there are numerous studies to prove it. There is not one study that actually says that it does not work. U of M study is flawed and simply said it could not prove the effectiveness of testing not that it doesn't work. American Pediatrics is against testing in schools but think that it fine to test in their clinics. Current studies show RSDT show decreases in drug use, increases in athletic participation and increases in testing scores.

Posted by Randy on 21 Mar 08 11:26 AM EDT
I certainly agree that preventing, detecting, and treating substance use problems in young people is a priority. Available research, however, does not indicate that urine drug screening attains any of these ends. Before such testing is instituted, there needs to be rational agreement on how to handle the results. Urine testing detects drug use, not addiction. Do we refer all teens with positive tests for treatment? This would be inefficient and inappropriate use of an already strained community resource, particularly given that the majority of individuals at least try some illicit substance before graduation (the vast majority of whom never develop a substance use problem).

Posted by Jocelyn Andrade on 19 Mar 08 09:28 AM EDT
I don't agree with that comment. Rather than take such a punitive and untrusting stance I feel that schools should provide more prevention and information to students about the harmful effects drugs including alcohol can be to young people. If adults are going to ask youth to be subjected to drug testing then we should lead by example. Let's see how adults will feel if we all are subjected to random drug testing in the work place. I bet this country would be up in arms. There are better ways to keep our youth drug free. Let's afford them a little dignity.

Posted by Roger Morgan, Califorians for Drug-Free Schools on 18 Mar 08 12:56 PM EDT
The Washington State ruling that bans Random Student Drug testing is a tragedy that will condemn the lives of many young people. Almost all addiction starts with kids. They need adult protection, not the private right to ingest drugs that can kill them, or worse, annhiliate their lives and ours.

Your Turn! Post a public comment (read guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 200
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for all, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, and on-topic. Comments are meant for thoughtful discussion of the article published above.

  2. Do not post promotional links to organizations, products or services, or personal requests for assistance (get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercially-motivated posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments not conforming to these guidelines. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.