Missouri School Will Cut Students' Hair for Mandatory Drug Tests

It's being called a 'colossal waste of money'

A high school in Kansas City, Missouri, has announced it will cut samples of students' hair to perform random drug testing.

Rockhurst High School will cut 60 strands of hair per student and test for drugs including marijuana and cocaine. If students test positive, parents will be informed and other interventions considered. The school will not involve the police, and records of the test will be destroyed and no information passed to future employers or colleges.

The hope is that testing will help change perceptions about drug-taking. "When you asked our students if everyone else is doing it, they said, 'Yes.' But, in fact, they weren't," said the school principal. "It's that perception I think among teenagers today that fuels the peer pressure...there's this idea that 'Everyone is doing it, so I guess I have to do it myself.'"

While the testing is perfectly legal, at $50 per drug test it's being called a "colossal waste of money" by the ACLU.

In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that schools could randomly drug test students. But since then various circuit and district courts have struck down mandatory, suspicionless drug testing in schools on the grounds that it violates 4th amendment rights concerning warrantless searches and seizures.

Via CBS Local. Story idea from Politix user DARSB.

Is random, mandatory drug testing in schools a good idea?

[Buzzfriendly]

Those who don't support big government should be coming in to support this in 3.....2....1

[Yank]

Many of us, who do not support big government, also support the constitutional amendment against unreasonable search and seizure as well as oppose the failed drug war in the first place.

[Penn1699]

@Yank Yeah!!!

[Buzzfriendly]

@Yank I'll be the first to sign your petition. But as you know most who don't support big government do support over tuning Roe v. Wade, not budging on our silly drug policies etc.

[Yank]

@Buzzfriendly abortion has nothing to do with this topic. You also seem to forget the role the left plays in the drug war. The right wants the drug war because drugs are immoral, and the left wants the drug war because they have to protect us from ourselves. There are also groups on both sides who want it ended.

[Buzzfriendly]

@Yank Its all ties in together thus we have the word agenda. Being Libertarian I don't think the government needs to be involved in any of this.

[NTBFW]

It does violate their 4th amendment rights.

[GmanGSW]

I agree with you & also it is a waste of money!

[AceLuby]

They don't have those rights once they are on school property. Just like they don't have 1st amendment rights.

[NTBFW]

@AceLuby it's still wrong. Unless that student demonstrates some kind of behavior that they are using drugs then this is uncalled for.

[hwyangel]

@AceLuby

I agree with you on this one. As a truck driver I'm required by federal regulations to submit to random drug testing. School is government property. Now if someone wants to home school their kids where they can't influence other kids with their drug habit.......

[NTBFW]

@hwyangel if the parents want them drug tested then let them do it.

[Medicinebow]

What a waste.

[Medicinebow]

If this happens in Colorado will the schools tell the federal gov't if a student pops positive for marijuana?

[Happy2BeHere]

Good question.

[GmanGSW]

Also, like GOOD2BEHERE(?), good question. Also, it does vilate their 4th amendment rights. Then, I imagine, there will be a court case brought about regarding any of the cases brought about above. More $s will be lost...

[GmanGSW]

@Happy2BeHere Meant "Happy2BeHere." :^)

[cleverusername]

Did Colorado make it legal for kids to do drugs?

[Medicinebow]

@cleverusername I know the ballot initiative passed but am unsure of the details. Perhaps DARSB has more details. I believe he's better informed on this than I am. Nevertheless, I won't be using the stuff.

[Raptor]

They had better take that money and put it to good use, like hiring more teachers and improve the test scores of the students, people have lost their minds on this drug paranoia, it has become a phobia.

[Real4WheelDrv]

Or they could hire BETTER teachers instead of more, and toss them an increase in pay, make the pay attractive enough so that they might actually care if they get fired. But that would mean we would actually need a way to evaluate good teachers vs. bad, which means we would need to purge most current school administrations and...nah, forget it.

[harold_lloyd]

they don't have to , it's a private school.

http://www.rockhursths.edu/s/1280/start.aspx

[cleverusername]

@harold_lloyd Thanks for that...politix tricky tricky as usual.

[Happy2BeHere]

The parents would be in an uproar here at our local schools.

[hwyangel]

I disagree. Drugs are especially harmful to children. Especially if they get a hold of some bad drugs. Personally I wouldn't even let my kids eat unwrapped candy on Halloween let alone drugs.

[Happy2BeHere]

@hwyangel. I would never allow someone even a doctor to drug test my children. That's a very private situation that should be taken care of by family. I realize there are situations where what I've stated isn't feasible. But as for MY children, they will never take a drug test until they are old enough to consent for themselves. I'm not all worried about harmful "drugs" when there are much more dangerous LEGAL things for them to get hurt by than evil, evil, "drugs."

[AceLuby]

Well... it's really not unconstitutional as they are minors attending a public school, however, it IS a giant waste of money. Even a small school of 1,000 students it would cost $50k... per time. Enough for two full classrooms of iPads, an experienced teacher, or to put towards an IB or AP program or 5... So many other things this money could be used for to actually benefit the students.

[Raptor]

$50k times 12 for each year the students are in school thats asuming the don't start teasting the kindergarden students, and it costs alot more than that, in KY they charge $980 per drug test.

[Denizen_Kate]

"... it's really not unconstitutional as they are minors attending a public school ... " The SCOTUS decisions of 1995 and 2002 specific stated that random drug testing was constitutional only for those students involved in extracurricular activities.

[harold_lloyd]

It's not a public school, it's Catholic.

http://www.rockhursths.edu/s/1280/start.aspx

[cleverusername]

just learned that it is a private school. Politix sure is tricky. So by all means it is up to the parents if they know about it and send their kids their then cool.

[norezen]

It would be unconstitutional if it were a public school. Children are required by law to attend school. Its not like they are there out of choice. So it is more important to protect the constitutional rights of people in public schools.
Drug testing of anyone should only be done with consent - in this case the consent of the parents.

[mimi57]

I have mixed feelings on this...obviously you can't have kids in school 'high', it is not
condusive to learning. So, I would think they would be a candidate for dropping out
of school, a high school drop-out will not be employable, and will most likely to
have to go on the system, more entitlements...more taxpayers money. 50.00 is a
drop in the bucket compared to the alternative. Just sayin'...

[Happy2BeHere]

That's so true. And after re reading the article and seeing they are taking special precautions that a positive test not be used against a student in future. Also, involving no police makes me consider it really is in the best interest of the kids. I can see where this could be helpful if used like they've stated here.

[Happy2BeHere]

But why choose the most expensive way to test? Why not use urine test, or nowadays they have test in the form of a Q-tip, swirled around in the mouth. I think any form would achieve the same end result here, so why choose hair folicle test?

[mimi57]

@Happy2BeHere I think it's because urine testing can be unreliable due to 'fake pee', it comes in powder form and they keep it near their bodies to get a more accurate temp., as it has to be real close to 98.6.. Also, hair testing can detect a
longer period of drug use. I trained a girl at work and could not figure out why she
just didn't seem to 'get' it and moved so very slowly. I later found out she had been fired from her previous job, after wrecking the company car while being high. She
always wore very baggy clothes and kept the fake pee very close to her body in
case she was randomly tested. Anyway, she got fired for being incapable of doing her job.

[Denizen_Kate]

@Happy2BeHere - Good question. Most of corporate America is switching to the saliva test because it is so cheap and easy. If you're going to invade the privacy of a captive audience in the form of underage public school students, the least you can do is find the cheapest method of doing so. The only reason they want the hair test is because, at least in the case of cannabis, it will test positive if you've used the stuff during the life of that entire hair, which could be months or even years.

[ACTSmom]

@Denizen_Kate ..saliva testing shows positives basically when taken so I guess if they're testing to check someone for being high at that moment, it's a good test. But if they're looking for longer term usage, urine is the best bet but as mimi said, so often that is faked. Hair shows even long-term use but is not easily faked. Guess it depends on the purpose of the test in the first place.

[Canoochee]

I think Politix may just get this poll answer thingy worked out in our lifetimes but I will not hold my breath.

As the saying goes not just 'No' but 'HELL NO!' I can and do support dress codes or preferably uniforms. I have no problem with strict rules regarding acceptable behavior in the schools.

But don't think you or your surrogate can put your hand on my child's person without consequence!

Are we really that concerned over drug use or is that just an excuse to promote the idea that the state may do as it wishes to us and we should not object? Government schools already do much to promote the concept of community property. They let me back on campus at my son's elementary school, but, not before returning all of his school supplies which they had thrown into a common pool to be shared by all.

[mimi57]

My daughter-in-law is a teacher, you would be surprised at the number of kids who
come to school high, and even do drugs at school...It's against school policy, if the
rules are broken, as in any other school rule, if they are found to have drugs in their system, it may be a good time for drug counseling or in some cases early reha The
age of drug abusers is getting younger all the time.

[Canoochee]

@mimi57 Actually, mimi, I probably wouldn't. What I am surprised at is how often this behavior is tolerated by school administrators. And parents who contribute greatly to administrators reluctance to actually do something.

We also can't be sure that we can close that door once it is opened. We give the government permission to randomly test our children for suspected drug use we open the door to random testing for other things. There is also the problem with false positives, creating a new market for drug masking supplies.

I don't know about you, but, I would not have been happy to get a letter from my child's school chastising me for feeding him pizza the night before. Or wondering why there is a pain killer in his system but they have no record of him having the prescription.

[mimi57]

@Canoochee If my child was using drugs in or out of school...and they will, once they get that drivers license, you have NO idea what they do. I would appreciate
knowing it as soon as possible so I could take the appropriate measures to 'correct' it.
(:

[cleverusername]

didn't mean to vote up canoochee

[Canoochee]

@mimi57 Mine is turning 22 in a couple of months. I have already traveled that road. I don't know about where you are, but, here I learned what the school officials are telling you is often true. The times when it is not are what makes it where you can't trust anything they tell you. Especially where it concerns suspicion of drug use.

There is no good answer granted. I preferred to keep my own tabs on my son and did not trust the government to do it for me. Nor will I give the government permission to start. A private school considering this policy would be up for discussion.

[Roco]

Maybe I did not quite understand the Supreme Court ruling but that ruling stated that random testing was constitutional. But if the school is taking samples of all students, how can that be random or am I looking at this wrong?

[Roco]

Never mind! I re-read it and got the picture.

[harold_lloyd]

Yes, you are looking at this wrongly, it's a private school.

http://www.rockhursths.edu/s/1280/start.aspx

[cleverusername]

The Supreme court said it was fine? So just like those who defend the supreme court ruling on Obamacare you MUST also defend this then if that is the case.

[Denizen_Kate]

It's usually best to look up the details before passing judgement. FYI:

A 1995 Supreme Court decision said that random drug testing of students participating in athletics was constitutional. Specifics:

1) the drug test is a “search” according to the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment;
2) such a search is reasonable because the school has legitimate interests in deterring drug use and protecting students’ health and safety;
3) public school student athletes cannot expect as much privacy as other members of the general public with respect to urinalysis for drug-testing purposes.(One must assume that a hair test would be considered by the SCOTUS as even less invasive than a urine test.)

A 2002 Supreme Court decision said that random drug testing of students participating in ANY extracurricular activity (even choir or Drama Club) was constitutional. Specifics:
1) public students in extracurricular activities can expect only a limited amount of privacy;
2) the collection of drug test samples from such students is only “mildly invasive” of privacy;
3) test results are used only for counseling and rehabilitation, without any criminal or disciplinary actions;
4) testing is a reasonably effective way to address legitimate concerns about detecting, deterring and preventing student drug use.

IMO, all of this is unconstitutional according to the 4th Amendment, but it seems the SCOTUS in all it's questionable wisdom has deemed otherwise.

[cleverusername]

@Denizen_Kate Thanks for the info. The SCOTUS is always questionable ;)

[Denizen_Kate]

@cleverusername - Agreed!

[AceLuby]

Students 'rights' at school are different according to the SC.

1st Amendment - Can't wear whatever you want at school.
2nd Amendment - Can't bring a gun on school grounds
4th Amendment - You and your car can be searched at any time while on school grounds

[Denizen_Kate]

@AceLuby - Yes, and it doesn't seem right to me.

[Knight80]

Maybe they should test the teachers and faculty as well. You may be surprised how may teachers smoke weed and other drugs. Oh and while your at it, make sure you test a lot of the coaches as well for PED's. I know many that do them too!

[cleverusername]

Where I live the teachers union refused to do teacher drug tests for ANY reason.
I agree with you though the teachers should have to do them. Especially if they/we are going to expect kid to do them.

[RobertJHarsh]

Waste of money. I can guarantee not a single minority will be tested, just whites...the school won't want a lawsuit.

[mimi57]

* should read, early rehab*

[theroadtohell1]

Why would a urine sample not suffice for drug testing,cutting a young girls hair is verging on assault, absolutely disgusting !!!!!

[cleverusername]

uh huh because adults watch kids pee is soooo much better.

[theroadtohell1]

@cleverusername,why would they watch them?

[cleverusername]

@theroadtohell1 That is how urine tests are done. That way they don't swap, use chemicals etc etc etc. Unless you want a full body search. Hair is the best route for many reasons.

[theroadtohell1]

@cleverusername seems to me their is very little trust,guilty until proven innocent.

[Denizen_Kate]

@cleverusername - Actually, there is a saliva test gaining popularity in corporate America. Simple cheek swab, and the test is instant, and CHEAP. No indignity of having someone watch you pee, and no cutting the hair.

The reason they want to use the hair test is that it shows cannabis use as far back as a particular hair has been growing on your head, which could be months or years. If you so much as had a puff off a joint at a party six months ago, you could test positive. That's why the hair test is ridiculously expensive.

[cpeter133]

It's not the school's place to play cop, especially randomly. What does this say to the kids beyond "guilty until proven innocent?"

I wonder how many kids will shave their heads?

[Denizen_Kate]

I would have, regardless of the bullying that would ensue. But then, I was taught to question authority.

[stepped_in_it]

HMMM.....most jobs require for you to be "guilty until proven innocent". Most jobs, if you have a small, inexpensive accident want that same test. Some jobs I've been on (CDL driver) require you to do this randomly 1 to 2 time a year.
Their are more spots on the body than the head to get hair. One driver I knew was bald as a billiard ball, had no chest/arm/leg hair to speak of.....guess where got his sample from? Thank goodness HE didn't have a bikini wax....;-)

[cpeter133]

@stepped_in_it These are kids who are mandated to be in school; they aren't employees.

Any school representative who takes hair ANYWHERE but the top of the head will get a quick trip to the police station. That's definitely a "bad touch."

[cleverusername]

The fourth amendment is a relic. It was done by old white men a long long time ago. They had no idea that criminals would be doing what they are doing today. "Let's not have a self-protection argument as it was never the Framers intent." "The "FOURTH" Amendment has been voided by history " "When it comes to the "FOURTH" Amendment, the Founders' intent was voided long ago"
I say screw the fourth amendment. ;)

[Knightkore]

Not Constitutional....

This is your government {roadkill}, this your government on drugs {roadkill frying in a forest fire}....any questions?

[harold_lloyd]

One question, what are you on?

You are so disconnected from reality.

It's a private school. Catholic.

http://www.rockhursths.edu/s/1280/start.aspx

Think first, speak later...

[Knightkore]

@harold_lloyd Well, I can take myself a less seriously than most and say, yeah, you're right....I didn't check that one out....

{My funny about the government still stands in many of it's decisions though....but does not apply here....}

A private school generally has different rules but I still think it isn't warranted and is a bit like the school acting like the TSA....

[harold_lloyd]

@Knightmare
"Firmly rooted in Jesuit ideals and Catholic educational tradition..."

[Len_in_NY2]

This is nothing more than another chapter of Reefer Madness and paranoia. Testing when a child, or an adult for that matter, gives no reason to suspect is a blatent assult on privacy and personal liberty. But then again, one of the sectors that promotes cannabis prohibition (let's face it, that's what they're really looking for) is the drug testing business. There is your real motivation for this. I wonder who got paid off to enact this rule and I wonder what their relationship is to the manufacturer of the drug kits.

[Denizen_Kate]

That's an excellent point. Always follow the money. Who benefits from use of these expensive tests?

[harold_lloyd]

That would carry more weight if this weren't a private catholic school.

http://www.rockhursths.edu/s/1280/start.aspx

[Len_in_NY2]

@harold_lloyd - whether it's public or private, money is a very big influence when it comes to things like this. Just because it is not a gov't entity does not make it any more right. Drug testing without any sort of reasoning is still a detriment to a free society whether public or private.

[harold_lloyd]

@Len_in_NY2 "Just because it is not a gov't entity does not make it any more right."

If you want to start a discussion about the difference between 'right' and 'legal', we'll be here a long time.

"Drug testing without any sort of reasoning is still a detriment to a free society whether public or private. "

Why?

[Len_in_NY2]

@harold_lloyd - Well we already know that just because something is "legal" does not make it right. Take a look at the "legal" things our gov't leaders are allowed to do (such as insider trading, etc.). Slavery was "legal" for a long time, did that make it right ?
So you really think that there can be a free society when people are forced to submit to testing when those in authority demand it regardless of the fact that they've done nothing to interfere with anyone else's rights or safety?
Also, there has been more than enough evidence that the whole drug war and the curtailing of personl liberties that come with it is based moreso in profit than anything else.