Introduction
"Students are taught that under the U.S. Constitution, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Random drug testing undermines both lessons; students are assumed guilty until they can produce a clean urine sample, with little regard given to students' privacy rights" (Gunja et al., 2004:17).

The paper by Gunja et al. (2004) illustrates that predicament in balancing students' rights with the public's desire to discourage adolescent drug use. The consequences from, and feelings created by, student drug testing may soon impact the lives of a great many public middle and high school students across the nation. President Bush called for an expansion of student drug testing in his 2004 State of the Union Address. This paper examines the wisdom and constitutionality of suspicionless drug testing among students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities. Suspicionless drug testing creates the possibility that every child will be randomly tested for illicit drug use, not requiring any probable cause or suspicion.

The constitutionality of student drug testing was first addressed in 1995 in the United States Supreme Court case of Vernonia School District v. Acton (515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386; 132 L. Ed. 2d 564; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4275; 63 U.S.L.W. 4653; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4846; 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 229; 1995).

The constitutionality of employee drug testing was addressed in 1989 in the cases of Treasury Employees v. Von Raab (489 U.S. 656; 109 S. Ct. 1384; 103 L. Ed. 2d 685; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 6033; 57 U.S.L.W. 4338; 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P38, 792; 1989 OSHD (CCH) P28, 589; 4 BNA IER CAS 246; 1989) and Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. (489 U.S. 602; 109 S. Ct. 1402; 103 L. Ed. 2d 639; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1568; 57 U.S.L.W. 4324; 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11,001; 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P38, 791; 1989 OSHD (CCH) P28, 476; 4 BNA IER CAS 224; 130 L.R.R.M. 2857; 13 OSHC (BNA) 2065; 1989).

The Vernonia, Oregon school district established a program of random drug testing of athletes as a response to a perceived crisis of illicit drug use by students involved in competitive athletics. After the Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, permitted drug testing in those limited circumstances, many school districts began, and others expanded, student drug testing beyond athletics. Suspicionless drug testing for all participants in extracurricular activities was challenged and upheld in 2002 in a 5 to 4 decision by the United States Supreme Court, Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Lindsay Earls (536 U.S. 822; 122 S. Ct. 2559; 153 L. Ed. 2d 735; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4882; 70 U.S.L.W. 4737; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5761; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7275; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 483; 2002). These cases will be discussed in detail below.

President Bush's Policy
Currently, the United States spends approximately $50 billion on federal, state, and local funds for anti-drug programs, including incarceration costs. President George W. Bush and John Walters, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, report Federal anti-drug spending in FY 2004 as $7.2 billion, however this is a dramatic reduction from prior calculations. They propose in FY 2005 to direct $25 million in federal funds to student drug testing initiatives in local schools.

Bush advocates the expansion of student drug testing, claiming that random drug testing has reduced illicit drug use among teenagers. With only 5% of schools in the country participating in any kind of random drug testing, it is erroneous to conclude, and misleading to assert, that a recent minor reduction in adolescent drug use on one scale is a direct result of random drug testing in schools. Data gathered from 76,000 students nationwide in the Monitoring the Future Survey found that the practice of student drug testing does not effectively deter drug use among young people (Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Lloyd D. Johnston & Patrick M. O'Malley, Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug-Testing Policies," Journal of School Health, April 2003, Vol. 73, No. 4, p. 164.).

The Bush administration proposed a budget for FY 2005 that allots roughly $3.7 billion for drug treatment (National Drug Control Budget Summary, National Drug Control Strategy. 2004, p.51) Out of context, this may appear to be a large sum of money, but in comparison to the vast sums (more than $30 billion federal, state, and local) spent on drug law enforcement and incarceration for drug offenses, it is evident that treatment is a low priority in the national anti-drug budget. When examining the most recent data from the White House on the drug problem, the strategy of the Bush administration, like that of its predecessors, has not been effective in addressing it (National Drug Control Strategy, 2002, pp.51-116). Rather the administration seeks to escalate the war on drugs, in part by violating students' rights. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) conducted a series of media events billed as "summits" promoting student drug testing. These "summits" were staged on March 16, 2004 in Chicago, March 18, 2004 in Fresno, March 25, 2004 in Atlanta, and April 8, 2004 in Denver.

Currently, there is a bill pending in the Congress "to authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to local educational agencies and private schools to establish drug-free school demonstration programs, and for other purposes" (H.R. 3720,108th Congress, 2d Session). The act has been titled, "Empowering Parents and Teachers for a Drug-Free Education Act of 2004." This act encourages public schools to randomly drug test students, as long as the procedures do not violate Fourth Amendment rights. The act defines a "student" as a child in grades 8 through 12, and also sets forth confidentiality and reporting guidelines. The bill proposes an addition of $25 million for FY 2005, 2006, and 2007, for drug-free school demonstration programs, particularly drug testing.

Vernonia v. Acton
Two Supreme Court cases have examined the constitutionality of student suspicionless drug testing in light of the Fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth amendment declares in part, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, […] against unreasonable searches […], 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 (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution)."

The first U.S. Supreme Court case to address student drug testing was Vernonia v. Acton. The school district in Oregon enacted drug testing of all competitive athletes in all schools to limit drug use in the high school, which it claimed was in a crisis. The policy required written consent of both parents and athletes to conduct the drug testing procedure. The student athletes were drug tested at the beginning of each sports season and randomly tested throughout the season. To ensure the validity of the urine sample, a monitor was stationed behind the male students standing at a urinal. Female students produced urine specimens in a stall with a female monitor listening for "normal sounds of urination" (Smiley, 2001). In practice students had to disclose any prescription medication to prevent "true" false positives (e.g. a positive for opiates triggered by use of prescribed codeine medication), but it was not required by school district policy. If a child tested positive, the school offered two options - undergo a six- week drug-counseling program, or suffer a suspension from the sports team for the rest of the season.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 split, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, concluded that the acquisition of urine samples was done in a non-intrusive manner, and held that drug testing did not violate students' fourth amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that privacy expectations vary by situation and affirmed that public school students have a "lesser expectation of privacy than members of the population generally" (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)).

In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. (469 U.S. 325 (1985)), Justice Powell stated that the, "special characteristics of elementary and secondary schools […] make it unnecessary to afford students the same constitutional protections granted adults and juveniles in a non school setting." Justice Powell emphasized that schools have a "moral duty to maintain student discipline and to protect children from violence that occurs while they are attending the very schools which the state has bound them to attend."

In the Veronia case, it was noted that athletes have even lower expectations of privacy given the practice of "communal undress" in the athletes' locker room, and the general requirement of frequent physical examinations. The court found that the Veronia school district had a specialized type of "compelling interest" to justify the search: to reduce drug use among its students; to protect their health; to prevent disruption of the educational process; and to protect athletes from injury.

The drug testing policy was a reaction to a perceived increase in drug use among high school students, which established a "special need". The District Court found in the high school, "a large segment of the student body, particularly those involved in interscholastic athletics, was in a state of rebellion," and that, "disciplinary actions had reached 'epidemic proportions.'" The school district justified drug testing of athletes as a part of its legal and moral responsibility to provide a safe environment for the students. This "reasonable" search flows, in part, from "the schools' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children." Given "decreased expectation of privacy, the relative unobtrusiveness of the searching, and the severity of the need met by the search", the court found the policy "reasonable and hence constitutional."

Justice O'Connor, dissenting for herself, and Justices Stevens and Souter, saw the situation very differently. "Millions of students who participate in interscholastic sports, an overwhelming majority of whom have given school officials no reason whatsoever to suspect they use drugs, are open to an intrusive bodily search," upon the majority's ruling.

"For most of our constitutional history, mass suspicionless searches have been generally considered per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." O'Connor, citing one of the most exhaustive histories of the Fourth Amendment ever undertaken, observed that "what the Framers of the Fourth Amendment most strongly opposed, with limited expectations wholly inapplicable here, were general searches..."

The abuses of general searches were not cured by the Framers by imposing a requirement of "evenhandedness," such as arguably exists when the search is purely random (such as in random drug testing). The cure was to raise the individualized suspicion requirement to an "objective probable cause." The Collection Act of 1789 was the most significant of all early search statutes, for it identified the techniques of warrantless search and seizure that the Framers believed were reasonable. In that Act, for searches at sea where it would be impractical to obtain judicial warrants, revenue officials were limited to searching only those vessels "in which [a collector] shall have reason to suspect" any goods subject to duty shall be concealed.

State compelled, state monitored collection and testing of urine, while perhaps not the most intrusive of searches (e.g. visual body cavity searches), is still "particularly destructive of privacy and offensive to personal dignity" (citing Justice Scalia's dissent in Treasury Employees v. Von Raab). Prior to the employee urine testing cases to assure involving the critical safety requirement that transportation employees not be impaired by drug use (e.g. testing railway workers following a serious accident) and the integrity of law enforcement personnel (e.g. customs service agents and inspectors), the only suspicionless bodily searches found constitutional (aside from those incident to an arrest) were those of prison inmates, relying upon the uniquely dangerous nature of the prison environment (Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520; 99 S. Ct. 1861; 60 L. Ed. 2d 447; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 100) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/441/520.html. (It is tragic that, in six years, American constitutional law has devolved to the point that the rights of American public school students are comparable to those of convicted prison inmates-Eric Sterling).

In the Veronia school district, nothing barred the District from establishing a suspicion-based testing regime. Disciplinary regimes already exist to determine student wrongdoing, and the Veronia District had an elaborate regime, identifying at least seventeen types of misconduct warranting a disciplinary action. Indeed, in a school, where students are in a near constant state of supervision, actual conduct serving as the basis for individualized suspicion is easily observed.

The Veronia District's claim of a drug problem is based upon numerous instances in which particular students were identified passing joints back and forth, or skipping school to use drugs at a student's home.

The question is, recognizing that students have diminished Fourth Amendment protection while in school, just how diminished should that protection be? In New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Court held that the warrant requirement and the probable cause requirement were not available. But O'Connor argued, the most basic, categorical protection, the "strong preference [of the Fourth Amendment] for an individualized suspicion requirement" should not be eliminated.

It should be noted that the required of a physical examination to participate in sports is not accusatory, and is frequently performed by the student's personal physician (and subject to medical privacy rules), not by a school official.

The facts regarding the alleged drug problem in the Veronia high school were not applicable, and not demonstrated in the record, at the Washington Grade School where James Acton was a student when he sued to resist being tested for drug use. Indeed, O'Connor saw the school district's focus upon the athletic program for its drug testing to be motivated more by a belief that it would pass Constitutional muster than "by a belief in what was required to meet the District's principal disciplinary concern." "The true driving force behind the Districts adoption of its [athlete-focused] drug testing program was the need to combat the rise in drug-related disorder and disruption in its classrooms and around campus," she wrote.

Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls
The student drug testing issue resurfaced in 2002 when the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of the Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Lindsay Earls (536 U.S. 822; 122 S. Ct. 2559; 153 L. Ed. 2d 735; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4882; 70 U.S.L.W. 4737; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5761; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7275; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 483). Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, enacted a policy under which all students who engaged in competitive extracurricular activities were subject to suspicionless drug testing as a prerequisite for participation. Unlike the Veronia school district, which had evidence of a dramatic drug problem, Pottawatomie County did not claim such a problem or interest other than a general desire to deter drug use among students. Consequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found the County failed to demonstrate an "identifiable drug problem among a sufficient number of those subject to the testing, such that testing will actually redress its drug problem." The school board appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reviewing the procedures, Justice Thomas writing for the Court's five-member majority, stated that the urine samples in the Earls case were gathered in a manner similar to that approved in Veronia. If a student were to test positive, the results were not reported to the police, nor did the student suffer any academic repercussions or punishment. The only consequence of a positive drug test was removal from the extracurricular activity.

The Supreme Court again found suspicionless drug testing constitutional when there is a "special need" in a safety or administrative context (e.g. outside the realm of law enforcement) where a warrant and probable cause requirement is "impracticable." Justice Thomas found "some […] clubs and activities require occasional off campus travel and communal undress" and that the presence of faculty monitors limit student's expectation of privacy. The intrusion upon privacy by the urine collection was less than negligible. The non-disciplinary, non-academic, and non-law enforcement consequences, lead to a finding that the "invasion of students privacy is not significant." Pottawatomie County and the majority reasoned that the drug testing policy appropriately served the school's interest in detecting and preventing drug use. The policy was "reasonable" given the custodial responsibility that the school takes on during school- related activities.

Justice Breyer wrote a concurring opinion justifying the need for student drug testing on the basis of the nationwide scale of the illegal drug use phenomenon among students, the failure of the supply side interdiction program, the need for "effective ways" to deal with the drug problem, and changing the school environment to combat "peer pressure."

Breyer suggested that the privacy intrusion of urine testing was not "negligible." But because the District held public meetings to enable "the entire community" to participate in developing the policy and the record as presented suggests there was "little, if any objection" at such public meetings. Breyer infers that no one in the Pottawatomie Schools was "seriously embarrassed" by the presence of a monitor listening outside a restroom stall for the sounds of urination.

Because the entire school is not tested, "a conscientious objector" to testing can choose not to participate in extracurricular activities. Finally, Breyer prefers this mass approach to "individualized suspicion" fearing that, "subjective criteria that may unfairly target members of unpopular groups." Justice Ginsburg, leaving the majority in Veronia, wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Stevens, O'Connor, and Souter. Ginsberg focused on the fact that in the Pottawatomie County schools, it was repeatedly reported to the government that the District did not have a persistent or major drug problem. There was no "special need" to combat a student drug culture that had reached "epidemic proportions" that justified testing, as was the case of Veronia. The dissent distinguished between athletic activities and other extracurricular programs, in that the "communal undress" in athletics, with its reduced privacy, does not exist in other activities such as the debate team. The target group for the urine testing in Veronia was specially identified as having especially high rates of drug use.

She pointed out that extracurricular activities are an important factor for competitive college applicants, and thus participation in any activity subject to urine testing in Pottawatomie was in some sense, less "voluntary" than the athletic participation in Veronia. To indirectly restrict students from these positive activities hurts them rather than helps.

Just as there was no special need to justify urine testing candidates for state office in Georgia (Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 321, 137 L. Ed 2d 513, 117 S. Ct. 1295), there was no such need here. Lastly, she concluded that, "the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all circumstances, of the search" (New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325; 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083).

How has drug testing impacted schools and drug use thus far?
The objective of school drug testing programs is to deter drug use by students. Public schools have targeted students that participate in extracurricular activities because they doubt they can drug test without cause the entire student population. They rationalize this practice on the grounds of protecting athletes from injury due to drug- induced impairment and to facilitate athletes presenting themselves as positive and drug-free role models for the student body. While the latter goal may be beneficial if it does not stigmatize those who cannot or choose not to participate, drug testing seems to be directed at the wrong population. Students who participate in sports and other extracurricular activities are less likely to engage in routine drug use. Glancy et al. (1986) explain that students who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to engage in criminal and violent behavior and drug use, and are more likely to do well in school. The current drug testing policy focuses on the students who run the smallest risk of illicit use seems like a waste of money.

Drug testing is also expensive. In 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union reported the cost of drug testing to be $10-$30 for a urine test, $60-$75 for a hair test, and $20-$35 for a sweat patch. The high cost is one of the primary reasons why 95% of the nation's public schools have not implemented these programs.

Schools that test prefer urine tests to hair tests primarily because of the lower cost and arguably lesser invasion of privacy. Urine tests do not detect use of harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine more than a few days before the test, as opposed to a hair test, which can reveal drug use for 90 days after it occurred, but cannot reveal very recent use. One less harmful drug, marijuana, can be detected in urine long after use because its metabolites are fat-soluble and can stay in the body for weeks after use. The longer period for potential detection of marijuana compared to more dangerous drugs, has in the presence of a urine testing program, led many teenagers to replace their marijuana intoxication experimentation and practices with alcohol and more dangerous drugs like cocaine that are only briefly detectable (Taylor, 1997).

All drug tests can come back with some fraction of false positive readings, leading to devastating consequences for an innocent student. Many drug users try to find a way to clean up before a drug test with products or techniques found with a simple Internet search (Nelson, 2003). Attempting and preventing the adulteration of urine tests creates a disruptive cat and mouse game in school. Suspicionless drug testing also undermines the trust between students and faculty.

Another unintended consequence of drug testing is that some students are discouraged from participating in extracurricular activities. These students are deterred not because they would rather "smoke up" or snort cocaine than join the choir, but rather because they are genuinely embarrassed to be forced to pee in a cup while a monitor listens for "normal" sounds of urination. This unintended deterrence of participation in extracurricular activities may outweigh the benefits of discouraging drug use because fewer students will take part in school organizations and the wide variety of extracurricular activities that build self-esteem and community. Furthermore, these students are left with little to occupy their time between the hours of three to five o'clock PM, leaving them unsupervised and at risk.

One reason drug testing may appeal to parents and school administrators, is the documented failure of drug education programs to reduce drug use in schools, such as D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Despite the program's inability to deter teenage drug use, a 1999 fact sheet report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice estimated that 8.5 million children were taught the D.A.R.E. curriculum. Additionally, 26 million children nationwide were estimated to be affected by D.A.R.E., through visitation lessons, special programs, and after school activities.

Random drug testing stems from a punitive paradigm: banishment from participation in extracurricular activities is retribution for teenage drug experimentation. This punishment does not instill a will to reject drug use among adolescents, but fosters resentment of the adult authority figures in the educational community. Brown, D'Emidio-Caston, and Horowitz, in a 1996 article published by the Drug Policy Foundation, interviewed students to collect their reactions to the punitive nature of school drug policies. Students expressed that, "The school thinks disciplinary action helps. It doesn't at all […]. When you get suspended, you're going to do it while you're suspended. You'll smoke more or do more of whatever. The school cares about you not doing it on school campus, that's all they care about […] They don't care about your health" [sic] (Brown, D'Emidio-Caston, and Horowitz, 1996:22). There are better ways to combat drug use in our schools than using shame, invading privacy, and restricting constitutional rights.

What programs would be more beneficial?
In referring to drug prevention programs, Jordan E. Horowitz states, "what is needed is a qualitative change" (Brown, D'Emidio-Caston, and Horowitz, 1996). Drug education programs need to adjust so that honest and factual information is presented (Rosenbaum, 1996). School directors and researchers have created programs that successfully deter teenage drug use. Practical drug education programs should integrate aspects of both family and school (Brown, D'Emidio-Caston, and Horowitz, 1996). Teaching students to accept responsibility for their actions, while promoting strong parent-child communication can attain these goals (Merrill, 2003). Students benefit from the availability of health care professionals to evaluate drug use and risk among students. This intervention allows trained professionals to assess adolescents for any drug use in a non-intrusive manner, offering treatment in appropriate cases. Providing support services to students with drug problems is an effective way to combat adolescent drug use (Brown, D'Emidio-Caston, and Horowitz, 1996). Counseling should address the psychological needs of the student. Individualized and group counseling techniques would dually aid in the success of effective drug abuse prevention programs.

Drug education with a focus on public health (Safety- First) appears to have promising effects on treatment (Rosenbaum, 1996; Rosenbaum, 1999). An education program built on the pragmatic foundation that some drug experimentation and use will exist will enable adolescents to be informed about drug use, abuse, risk factors, and risk mitigation techniques (Skager, 2002). Safety-First techniques incorporate the importance of culture and are more promising in reducing harmful drug use as compared to traditional "just say no" abstinence programs (Rosenbaum, 1999). When programs such as D.A.R.E. misinterpret all drug use as abuse, they lose coherence and credibility (Shepard, 2002; Clayton, 1996; Rosenbaum, 1999). Roona et al. (2002) point out that a distinction must be made between drug use and abuse when designing a prevention program. Programs presuming that all adolescents will and must always reject any drug use are not consistent with the culture, economics, and dynamics of drug prohibition, because they make a demand of an environment of total abstinence, which is impossible for all adolescents (Rosenbaum, 1999). It must also be recognized that drug and alcohol experimentation is typical teenage behavior (Newcomb and Bentler, 1989). The importance of creating a realistic drug education program is supported by the consistently substantial prevalence of use and perceived availability of drugs by middle and high school students since 1975 (Monitoring the Future, 2002). Relationships based upon trust and respect between parents and teens result in positive attitudes and responsible youth behavior as opposed to relationships fostered by resentment and mistrust (Rosenbaum, 1999). Relationships based not only on classroom learning, but also emphasizing both individual psychological needs and societal needs would aid in creating a stronger bond between teachers and students (Brown, D'Emidio-Caston, and Horowitz, 1996). Community partnerships can aid in creating these relationships through cooperation between religious and social organizations, law enforcement, and the media (Merrill, 2003).

Given the limited amount of research conducted on student drug education programs, Roona et al. (2002:7) point out that "favorable effects within the first year should be construed as evidence that prevention programs have delayed the onset of use or suspended use behaviors for some use, not prevented use." Interactive programs, encouraging students to exchange ideas, information, and engage in role-play are recommended for the enhancement of drug prevention programs (Roona et al., 2002; Tobler et al, 1998).

When is a Urine Test Permissible?
A constitutional alternative to mass drug testing in schools is a standard by which students may be searched for drug use when there is a valid reason for suspicion of an individual (Mitchell, 1998). Justice O'Connor states, in her dissenting opinion in Veronia, that, "by invading the privacy of a few students rather than many, and by giving potential search targets substantial control over whether they will, in fact, be searched, a suspicion-based scheme is significantly less intrusive." In adopting such a policy, school officials must be educated on the legalities of a proper search and seizure. Factors for suspicion of drug use (or trafficking) must be narrowly limited to exclude hair styles, clothing styles, choice of music, political activity, research projects, etc. or behavior that evinces a simple desire for privacy and to avoid surveillance. Reporting of the results of urine testing must be done in a reasonable time to the administration for review and detailed guidelines for handling drug violations must be determined (Mitchell, 1998). Such a policy would ensure students' Fourth Amendment rights and adhere to the principle that "students do not 'shed their constitutional rights […] at the schoolhouse gate" (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969))

Conclusion
A new goal for educational institutions is to teach students that if they are not drug abstinent, what activities are relatively safer or more dangerous when engaging in alcohol and drug use. A well recognized example of such a principle is the designation of a driver who will not consume any alcohol during the activity, or a parental reminder that they will always willingly pick up their son or daughter when called, without punishment or chastisement. Instilling fear and distrust among students toward faculty and school administrators with a urine testing program is counterproductive in reducing drug and alcohol use and protecting the safety and health of young people.

Schools are a learning environment where children should be encouraged to flourish intellectually and creatively. They are inevitable places of experimentation and mistakes. Drug testing hinders the creation of an encouraging environment and should be reassessed by administrators for its appropriateness in public schools. As Justice Ginsburg concluded, "schools tutelary obligations to their students require them to 'teach by example' by avoiding symbolic measures that diminish constitutional protections." Ginsburg adds "that [schools] are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." (West Virginia Bd. Of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 637, 87 L. Ed. 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178; 1943). Justice O'Connor stated in Veronia that she "cannot avoid the conclusion that the District's suspicionless policy of testing all student-athletes sweeps too broadly, and too imprecisely, to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

Bailey, William J. Suspicionless Drug Testing In Schools. Indiana University. Available at http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/issues/suspicionless.html Accessed on 2/9/2004.

Boire, Richard Glen. Dangerous Lesson: Drug Testing In Public Schools (July 10, 2002). Available at http://www.counterpunch.org/boire0710.html Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Bowman, Darcia Harris. Student drug testing gathers prominent support. Education Week. Washington: September 17, 2003. Vol. 23, Issue 3; pg.1. Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Brady, Lisa. Is random drug testing right for your school? Principal leadership (Middle level ed.). Reston: December 2003. Vol. 4, Issue 4; pg. 64. Accessed on 2/2/2004.

Brown, Joel H.; D'Emidio-Caston, Marianne; and Horowitz, Jordan E. Listening to the Students. The Drug Policy Foundation Letter: 1996.

Clayton, R., Cattarello, A., & Johnstone, B. (1996). The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project D.A.R.E.): 5-year follow up results. Preventive Medicine, 25, 307-318.

Crickenberger, Ron. Stop Treating Students Like Criminals (April 2, 2002). Available at http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0402b.html

Gearan, Anne. Justices asked to extend drug tests to students in nonathletic activities (March 20, 2002). Associated Press. Available at http://www.philly.com. Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Gillespie, Nick. School Drug Testing Decision's Impact on Public Education (July 22, 2002). Available at http://www.newsmax.com Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Glancy, Maureen; Willitis, Fern K.; and Farrell, Patricia. Adolescent Activities and Adult Success and Happiness: Twenty-Four Years Later. Sociology and Social Research. 70, 3 (1986): 242-246.

Gunja, Fatema; Cox, Alexandra; Rosenbaum, Marsha; and Appel, Judith. Making Sense of Student Drug Testing: Why Educators are Saying No (January 2004). American Civil Liberties Union. Available at http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy

Hazen, Don and Forbes, Daniel. Bush's Drug War Strategy: Escalate It (May 28, 2001). Available at http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10927 Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Holliday, Heather. Drug Testing Dispute. Scholastic Scope. New York: Jan. 19, 2004. Vol. 52, Issue 11; pg. 16. Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Julin, Brian S. Drug Testing - Is it worth it? (1993). Available at http://www.drugwar.com/news39.shtm Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Merrill, Jeffrey C. Multiple responsibilities can counter teen substance use. The Journal of School Health. Kent: October 2003. Vol. 73, Issue 8; pg. 291. Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Mitchell, J. Chad. An alternative approach to the Fourth Amendment in public schools: Balancing students' rights with school safety. Brigham Young University Law Review. Provo:1998. Vol. 1998, Issue 3; pg. 1207, 34 pgs. Accessed on 2/2/2004.

Moore, Amanda and Russell, Jane Marie. Drug Testing. Teen People. New York: September 2003. Vol. 6, Issue 7; pg. 142. Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Nelson, Rob. "Jeff Schools trim drug test loophole; Hair samples will be required by policy." The Times Picayune. July 11, 2003.

Newcomb, M.D. and Bentler, P.M. (1989). Substance use and abuse among children and teenagers. American Psychologist 44 (2), 242-8.

Richards, Cindy. Just Say No to Drug Tests. Chicago Sun-Times (March 27, 2002). Available at http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread12376.shtml Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Roona, Michael R.; Streke, Andrei V.; and Marshall, Diana G. Effective School-Based Drug Education Programs for Adolescents. Social Capital Development Corporation: June 2002.

Rosenbaum, Marsha. Lessons in Harm Reduction. The Drug Policy Foundation Letter: 1996.

Rosenbaum, Marsha. Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens, Drugs, and Drug Education. The Lindesmith Center: 1999.

Schnirring, Lisa. School Drug Testing of Non-athletes Survives Test. The Physician of Sports medicine. Minneapolis: December 1998. Vol. 26, Issue 12; pg. 25. Accessed on 2/2/2004.

Shepard, Edward. A new study finds…We Wasted Billions on D.A.R.E. The Reconsider Quarterly; 1, 4 (Winter 2001-2002).

Skager, Rodney. On Reinventing Drug Education, Especially for Adolescents. The Reconsider Quarterly; 1, 4 (Winter 2001-2002).

Smiley, Jennifer E. Rethinking the "Special Needs" Doctrine: Suspicionless Drug Testing of High School Students and the Narrowing of Fourth Amendment Protections. Northwestern University Law Review; Winter 2001; Vol. 95, Issue 2; Pg. 811.

Smith, Philip. Bush's Drug Policy Troika (May 14, 2001). Available at http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10856 Accessed on 2/3/2004.

Soronen, Lisa E. Suspicionless Student Drug Testing. Principal Leadership. Reston: Jan. 2004. Vol. 4., Issue 5; pg. 59. Accessed on 2/2/2004.

Taylor, Robert. Compensating Behavior and the Drug Testing of High School Athletes. Cato Journal. Washington: Winter 1997. Vol. 16, Issue 3; Pg. 351, 14 pgs. Accessed on 2/2/2004.

Tobler, Nancy S.; Roona, Michael R.; Ochshorn, Peter; Marshall, Diana G.; Streke, Andrei V.; and Stackpole, Kimberly M. School-Based Adolescent Drug Prevention Programs: 1998 Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 4, 2000.

Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Johnston, Lloyd D., and O'Malley, Patrick M. Relationships Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug Testing Policies. Journal of School Health. April 2003, Vol. 73, Issue 4; pg. 159-165.

Other Websites:

http://www.newsmax.com

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/VoteMatch/q12.asp

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W_Bush_Drugs.htm

http://www.mapinc.org.drugnews/v01.n579.a06.html

http://www.drugtestingfails.com/costs

http://dpf.org/safetyfirst/

http://www.nida.nih.gov/prevention/PREVOPEN.htm

Supreme Court Cases:

Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Lindsay (536 U.S. 822; 122 S. Ct. 2559; 153 L. Ed. 2d 735; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4882; 70 U.S.L.W. 4737; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5761; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7275; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 483)

New Jersey v. T. L. O." (469 U.S. 325; 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083)

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. (489 U.S. 602; 109 S. Ct. 1402; 103 L. Ed. 2d 639; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1568; 57 U.S.L.W. 4324; 111 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11,001; 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P38,791; 1989 OSHD (CCH) P28,476; 4 BNA IER CAS 224; 130 L.R.R.M. 2857; 13 OSHC (BNA) 2065)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969)

Treasury Employees v. Von Raab (489 U.S. 656; 109 S. Ct. 1384; 103 L. Ed. 2d 685; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 6033; 57 U.S.L.W. 4338; 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P38,792; 1989 OSHD (CCH) P28,589; 4 BNA IER CAS 246)

Veronia v. Acton (515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386; 132 L. Ed. 2d 564; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4275; 63 U.S.L.W. 4653; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4846; 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 229; 1995)