Should Smoking Be Banned in All Public Places?

Argus of Testing Student-Athletes for Drugs

The use of drugs and alcohol by athletes is a major issue discussed by teachers, parents and instructors. Drugs and alcohol seem to be a constant problem in all athlete systems. Many student-athletes use drugs such as steroids and anabolic illicit drugs before going to any tournaments. Steroid can be used in two ways: Oral or injected. This medication is used to treat inflammation in the body. It effects arise from the fact that each atom within a molecule occupies a certain amount of space. If atoms are brought to close together, there is an associated cost in energy due to covering electron clouds, and this may affect the molecule's preferred shape and reactivity.

The Supreme Court in June 1995 supported that the school has the rights to test the student-athletes for drugs. Rabbi Nosson Scherman who is an American Haredi Orhodox argues that this decision was strong. Scherman emphasizes that children are not necessarily granted with the same rights as adults. The policy of random drug testing was accepted, along with very detailed procedures to ensure the accuracy of the testing. Under this policy, all students in the district who wish to participate in interscholastic athletics are required to sign the form consenting to be drug tested and must obtain the written from of their parents. Athletes are tested at the beginning of their seasons. They were selected random; once each week; thereafter 10 percent of all athletes were selected from a pool for an additional drug test. The Athletic Department believes that random drug testing is appropriate to ensure the health and safety of the student-athletes. This department recognizes its responsibility to provide educational programming that will support a positive decision-making process.

How Dave Kindred thinks that the rights to test student-athletes for drugs was giving unfair. Kindred contends that the drugs test disturb students' rights because students can be tested without showing any evidence of substance abuse. He also claims that drugs are not relevant among student-athletes. Dave said that this decision was made wrong.

After making research, I discover that about one of every five middle and high schools surveyed initiated drug testing for athletes, and in some schools, for some students involved in other extracurricular activities. The athletes were singled out with rationales that ranged from safety to being good role models with the notion that, if athletes reduced their drug use, the rest of the school body would follow. That notion was used to justify coercive invasion of students' privacy. It was really consequence for positive results, including forced counseling and disqualification from team. Refusal to compete resulted in the student being prevented from athletic activities. The mandatory testing program for student athletes, requiring students to submit to urine tests in order to be allowed to play, was challenging in court. How Justice Anthony Scalia argued that all student-athletes are taking shower together and getting dressed for sports in the locker room was proof positive that "school sports are not for the bashful." According to Scalia, reduced expectations of privacy ant it was, therefore, all right to demand they provide urine samples under the watchful eyes of "discrete maturation observers" because students who participate in sports are allegedly not "bashful" and shower together, they have. But according to Supreme Court, taking communal showers was enough to say that these athletes did not deserve the privacy protection of the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution! A few years later, Justice Clarence Thomas reaffirmed this strange "reasoning" and expended those who did not deserve Fourth Amendment protection to others engaged in extracurricular activities.

The other study was from the University of Michigan, considered the best group in the country of evaluating student drug use. The reporter investigated that 18 percent of schools