Playtime
Drug Testing for Extracurricular Activities
By Daniel Muniz

School districts across the country have sought meaningful ways to stem the rising tide of illicit drug use among kids. One particular idea that is now gaining traction are mandatory drug screenings for students involved in extracurricular programs such as athletics.

Many local communities feel that such mandatory programs can be an effective tool in discouraging drug use among teenagers while providing an excellent reward to those who avoid falling victim to peer pressure and other enticements. The desire to participate in a football team or any other sport or competitive activity can be a tremendous incentive that can help dissuade a student from engaging in destructive behavior.

Drug screenings will penalize the students who make the decision to use illegal drugs by banning them from participating in the extracurricular programs offered by their school district. And for recurring violations, many schools simply make the ban permanent after subsequent positive test results.

Although there will always be some type of resistance to a mandatory program like this, educational and local community leaders assert that extracurricular activities are a privilege instead of a requirement for graduation. Consequently, since these functions are purely voluntary, school districts are allowed to set more stringent rules for them.

Naturally, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) doesn’t see it that way.

They insist that a student has a right to privacy even if it involves the concealment of illicit drug use among minors. First of all, this is a hollow argument for a competitive activity like football because professional sports already require drug testing for its players and they mete out harsh penalties against violators. And the same goes for quite a few jobs in a wide spectrum of industries.

However, to the chagrin of the ACLU, the school districts have the Supreme Court on their side because of a 2002 ruling that permits such screenings for anyone participating in an extracurricular program. Schools are now completely free to test students involved in competitive activities for drug use.
 

Story Continues Below ê

Today's Top Stories

● The Real Barack Obama - Will He Please Stand Up ● School Vouchers - What’s all the Hullabaloo? ● Modern Poverty - What It Means To Be Poor ● Missing in Action - What Happened to Skeptics? ● Officer Killed - Our Failed Immigration Policy ● Insensitive Co-worker - Dealing with Racial Remarks

Yesterday's Top Stories

● Canada’s Health Care - Does Their System Really Work? ● Self-Sufficiency - Alternative Energy Sources ● Public Relations - Schools Don’t Need Advertising ● Hannah Montana - Is Miley Cyrus a Role Model? ● Voting Integrity - Show Me Your Photo ID ● Deporting Illegals - It Definitely Can Be Done

But overall, mandatory drug testing does work.

For instance, in the small town of Fredericksburg Texas, the first positive drug screening may result in a suspension of 45 days, which can be a fairly large chunk of a playing season. Accordingly, a suspension like that can serve as an effective deterrent for students who want to be part of a team. And by the third drug violation, that student will then be prohibited from participating from any competitive program for the remainder of their time in high school.

A permanent ban is definitely the ultimate deterrent which provides a pretty big incentive for a kid to avoid using drugs.

Although such rules are strict and unforgiving, they have impacted and changed the minds of certain educational leaders. The superintendent of the Fredericksburg school district, Marc Williamson, explains:
 

"Initially, I was not really an advocate for it," Williamson said. "But I have really come full circle on that. (The students) visit with me, and they have really indicated to me that for the rank and file of students it has really proved to be a deterrent in some social situations." Source: The San Antonio Express-News

As shown above, if done properly mandatory screening can be effective.

In addition, this example also shows a mandatory program that is not a zero tolerance policy. I have never been a fan of the zero tolerance mentality because oftentimes it ends up being zero common sense which opens the doors for using bad judgment and exercising poor decision making.

Instead, the school district in Fredericksburg shows flexibility and restraint in dealing with violators.

The first violation results in a severe punishment but it also gives plenty of room for someone to clean up his or her act so that they can still be part of the program for the future. And the chance to redeem one’s self may also serve as a therapeutic form of encouragement. But by the third violation, the leniency is over, which is rightly so.

I personally feel that most people can live with a “three strikes and your out” policy when it is properly implemented. But most importantly, the “three strikes” rule also provides an excellent opportunity to allow someone to learn from their mistakes, which offer a good balance between moderation and severity.

Although there are plenty of areas in which a zero tolerance policy is sensible and prudent, this is just not one of them and perhaps that is the approach more schools ought to utilize.

Of course there will always be some kids in which consequences have absolutely no value whatsoever thus they won’t care if they get kicked off a team or program. Mandatory drug screening will not solve the problem of teenage drug abuse. It is a tool, not a solution, but it can still be a useful tool.

And for everyone else in schools that have such programs, avoiding drugs will now carry a tangible reward of being allowed to participate in something that they want to be a part of. Hopefully more schools can adopt such programs especially now that the Supreme Court has paved the way for it.

We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about this article. Click the Your Feedback menu item to send us your comments.