Background

All of the states and the federal government have increased the criminal penalties for those found guilty of possessing and or selling drugs. The exception to this is the variation in how states charge those with possession of small amounts of marijuana. In some states, possession of a few ounces of marijuana may be a citable offense, a misdemeanor, or a felony. Alaska is the only state to allow the cultivation of marijuana for personal use. It is clear, however, that penalties involving "hard" drugs are considerably tougher today than several decades earlier. The intent of the penalties is to discourage drug use.

Whether these penalties have been successful in lessening recreational use of drugs such as cocaine and stimulants is debatable. Indeed, there are periods when teenage use of drugs goes down only to increase several years later. This became an issue in the 1996 presidential campaign when Republican challenger Bob Dole criticized President Bill Clinton for not doing enough to combat drug usage. As Dole noted, marijuana use had decreased yearly from 1985, but there was a dramatic upsurge in marijuana use by twelve to seventeen year olds beginning in 1992. The federal government has waged several "wars on drugs" to stem the flow of narcotics from foreign countries into the United States, and different federal agencies attempt to coordinate antidrug policies under the direction of a federal drug czar.

According to civil libertarians, efforts to curb drug use pose some threats to individual privacy. One basic issue involves drug testing and language in the Fourth Amendment that protects people "against unreasonable searches and seizures" except where there is "probable cause." According to the Supreme Court, drug testing is reasonable for employees such as railroad engineers and airline pilots, as well as for those who carry firearms, because they are in "safety-sensitive" jobs (Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association (1989); National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, (1989). The Court has also recognized that some forms of drug testing are more intrusive than others. For example, breath and urine tests are held to be less intrusive than taking a blood sample from an individual where there is penetration of the skin. Many companies routinely require drug testing as a prerequisite for obtaining employment.

Resource

Junior High School Athletes And Drug Testing

Student and his parents brought action against school district, challenging random urinalysis requirement for participation in interscholastic athletics. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon upheld the policy, and the student appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, and certiorari review was sought. The Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, held that public school district's student athlete drug policy did not violate student's federal or state constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches.

For this exercise, read Vernonia School District v. Acton, found at the class website.  NOTE: You must have downloaded and installed the free Adobe Acrobat Reader for this exercise.

Download and print the assignment sheet/questions to be addressed.  Turn in the assignment, as directed.

Cathedral Home Page | Irish WebMail | Course Outline | American Government Main Page