Drug Testing Persuasive Essay
Please Pee In This Cup
In January 2005, a school in Kent becomes the first state school in the UK to report the introduction of random (‘suspicionless’) drug testing. Testing is already widespread in independent boarding schools, with three-quarters of schools reported to be using some drug testing. Although the enthusiasm from teachers and parents for testing, a few practical studies have examined the effects of drug testing in schools. One thing that makes this problem difficult to address is the issue of violating the kid’s individual rights. Drug testing is conducted by taking blood, urine, saliva, hair, breath or sweat tests. The different methods each have their own faults. For example, while urine testing is cheap and …show more content…
As for the least pricey, immunoassay (any laboratory method for detecting a substance by using an antibody reactive with it.) (ditctionary.com) urine test, and costs around $14-$30 per test; but confirmatory tests also add to the cost. False …show more content…
In a school district in US, students who were facing a hair test shaved their heads and body hair. (google.com) Others have argued that drug testing can lead to distrust and resistance from students and, so, recklessly bring about problems, mostly in inner city schools. The lack of trust inevitable from testing must not be underestimated. By subjecting a young person to testing, even with the student's and parental consent, implies a loss of trust. The process of testing may be long and involved with initial screening tests and then confirmatory tests if the result is positive. This process may be harmful for the child, leading him or her to be labeled as a user to their peers and family. If drug testing is introduced it must therefore be supported by treatment and a supportive environment. At present there is little evidence that random testing in schools prevents drug use in those that have not started or stopped those already engaged in drug taking. In addition, it has been argued that “random testing fails the Department of Health screening criteria.”
In January 2005, a school in Kent becomes the first state school in the UK to report the introduction of random (‘suspicionless’) drug testing. Testing is already widespread in independent boarding schools, with three-quarters of schools reported to be using some drug testing. Although the enthusiasm from teachers and parents for testing, a few practical studies have examined the effects of drug testing in schools. One thing that makes this problem difficult to address is the issue of violating the kid’s individual rights. Drug testing is conducted by taking blood, urine, saliva, hair, breath or sweat tests. The different methods each have their own faults. For example, while urine testing is cheap and …show more content…
As for the least pricey, immunoassay (any laboratory method for detecting a substance by using an antibody reactive with it.) (ditctionary.com) urine test, and costs around $14-$30 per test; but confirmatory tests also add to the cost. False …show more content…
In a school district in US, students who were facing a hair test shaved their heads and body hair. (google.com) Others have argued that drug testing can lead to distrust and resistance from students and, so, recklessly bring about problems, mostly in inner city schools. The lack of trust inevitable from testing must not be underestimated. By subjecting a young person to testing, even with the student's and parental consent, implies a loss of trust. The process of testing may be long and involved with initial screening tests and then confirmatory tests if the result is positive. This process may be harmful for the child, leading him or her to be labeled as a user to their peers and family. If drug testing is introduced it must therefore be supported by treatment and a supportive environment. At present there is little evidence that random testing in schools prevents drug use in those that have not started or stopped those already engaged in drug taking. In addition, it has been argued that “random testing fails the Department of Health screening criteria.”