We are aware there are strong arguments, policies, and opinions marshaled on both sides of this debate, but we are concerned only with the policy’s constitutionality. And while we are loath to disturb the decisions of a local school board, we will not hesitate to intervene when constitutional protections are implicated. 

   No matter the drawbacks or merits of the school district’s random drug testing, we cannot let the policy stand if it offends our constitution. Students “do not ’shed their constitutional rights’ at the schoolhouse door.”

The question before us is narrow: Whether Wahkiakum School District’s blanket policy requiring student athletes to submit to random drug testing is constitutional. The United States Supreme Court has held such activity does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution. But we have never decided whether a suspicionless, random drug search of student athletes violates article I, section 7 of our state constitution. Therefore, we must decide whether our state constitution follows the federal standard or provides more protection to students in the state of Washington. 

The decision continues, explaining the reasoning of the justices:

Though we have not considered drug testing in public schools, we have a long history of striking down exploratory searches not based on at least reasonable suspicion….  

 In Mesiani, this court held a random roadblock sobriety checkpoint program initiated by Seattle police was “highly intrusive” search and violated “the right to not be disturbed in one’s private affairs guaranteed by article I, section 7.” In Kuehn, this court held a search of student luggage required by school officials as a condition of participation in a school-sponsored trip to Canada violated both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7. We opined, “[i]n the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, the search is a general search. ‘[W]e never authorize general, exploratory searches,’” (alteration in original) and such searches are “anathema to the Fourth Amendment and Const. art. 1, § 7 protections.” 

In conclusion, Justice Richard B. Sanders wrote:

We cannot countenance random searches of public school student athletes with our article I, section 7 jurisprudence. As stated earlier, we require a warrant except for rare occasions, which we jealously and narrowly guard. We decline to adopt a doctrine similar to the federal special needs exception in the context of randomly drug testing student athletes. In sum, no argument has been presented that would bring the random drug testing within any reasonable interpretation of the constitutionally required “authority of law.”      

The concurrences for the case are available here, here, and here.

With technological advances in surveillance techniques, the privacy-protection question is no longer whether police have physically invaded a constitutionally protected area. Rather, the inquiry is whether the surveillance invaded a constitutionally protected legitimate expectation of privacy.    

In writing a partial dissent, Associate Justice John Dooley wrote:

The essential question is when aerial surveillance will be considered a search. We do not serve the public interest if the answer to that seemingly simple question can be determined only in hindsight, after evaluating myriad factors.    

It seems that a reasonable expectation of privacy is in the same realm of “myriad factors” that police deal with everyday when considering suspicious activity and alleged crimes. The Burlington Free Press published an editorial applauding the decision, calling it a common sense ruling and including the following apt comparison:

If someone were to climb on a ladder to peer over a fence into our yard, we would consider that an invasion of our privacy. Looking down into the yard from a helicopter hovering 100 feet above would be taking the act of peeking over the fence to the nth degree.   

source:Burlington Free Press

The report is not entirely positive, however. To quote RAND DPRC’s summary:

The author could not determine whether this effect persisted over time, but he cited a different RAND study which observed that probationers randomly assigned to biweekly drug testing were less likely to have a full-time job during the twelve-month follow-up than those assigned to no testing. Thus, this new study raises fresh questions about the dynamic and differential effects of a common criminal justice practice.

The chart above shows that young black parolees did not show an increased likelihood to be employed or in school. While drug testing may increase overall likelihood for parolee success, parole violation for drug crimes must also exacerbate the revolving door approach to criminal justice.

In a report titled “Not Enough Graves: The War on Drugs, HIV/AIDS, and Violations of Human Rights,” Human Rights Watch estimates that “more than 2,000 persons” were murdered by extra-judicial killings executed during the Shinawatra drug war.

The current Thai Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung gave a glimpse of the calculus Thailand’s administration is using in its attempt to “quickly, consistently and permanently eradicate the spread of narcotic drugs and to overcome narcotic problems”. “When we implement a policy that may bring 3,000 to 4,000 bodies, we will do it,” Yubamrung was quoted as saying.

Time will tell whether Thailand will be more successful than Newt Gingrich, who in 1998 vowed to make the U.S. ”drug free” by 2002.

The chart below is included:

This policy brief unfortunately lacks any footnoting or indication of the research that forms the basis of their program effectiveness rankings. While the numbers speak for themselves, the relative effectiveness of treatment compared to interdiction has still not been demonstrated clearly enough to impact the the federal budgeting process. Failing to source the claimed effectiveness of treatment diminishes from the value this policy brief.

Marijuana has been smoked for its medicinal properties for centuries. Preclinical, clinical, and anecdotal reports suggest numerous potential medical uses for marijuana. Although the indications for some conditions have been well documented, less information is available about other potential medical uses.

The position paper makes five position statements including:

Position 4: ACP urges review of marijuana’s status as a schedule I controlled substanceand its reclassification into a more appropriate schedule, given the scientific evidenceregarding marijuana’s safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions.

It goes on to explain:

The concern that marijuana is a “gateway” drug also hinders opportunities to evaluate itspotential therapeutic benefits. However, the IOM concluded that marijuana is a gateway drugonly in the sense that its use normally precedes, rather than follows, initiation of other illicitdrugs. Marijuana has not been proven to be the cause or even the most serious predictor ofserious drug abuse.

The report conclusion holds that “[e]vidence not only supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions but also suggests numerous indications for cannabinoids”.

The proportion of 8th graders reporting use of an illicit drug at least once in the 12 months prior to the survey was 24 percent in 1996 but has fallen to 13 percent by 2007, a drop of nearly half. The decline has been less among 10th graders, from 39 percent to 28 percent between 1997 and 2007, and least among 12th graders, a decline from the recent peak of 42 percent in 1997 to 36 percent this year.

The study breaks down trends by drug, with heroin, crack, and OxyContin all showing no decline in the 2007 survey. Concerning anabolic steroids, the study notes:

Monitoring the Future tracked a fairly sharp increase in the use of anabolic steroids by male teens in the late 1990s, with peak levels reached in 1999 among 8th-grade males, in 2000 among 10th-grade males, and in 2001 and 2002 among 12th-grade males.

Since those peak years, the annual prevalence rate has dropped by more than half among the 8th and 10th grader males (to 1.1 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively), and by 40 percent among 12th-grade males (to 2.3 percent annual prevalence in 2007).

Also covered where alcohol and tobacco usage, usage of both having decreased in the 2007 study.