The writer, as has many other people he has known, did not object to drug testing by an employer as he did not (and does not) use any illegal drugs. However, after studying the Constitution of the United States, the Federalists Papers, the rights of individuals, the meaning of liberty along with being “free”, considerations of justice, and delving into the statutes of the federal, state, and local governments, he has had a serious change of thinking and heart.

This AM, after reading an January 29th article by Linda Kane of the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal (Texas) concerning student drug testing, I felt compelled to write my conclusions concerning this matter. This naturally expanded into businesses making the same requirement on prospective employees.

Drug testing of students commenced (if as scheduled) on Tuesday, February 1. Superintendent Raymond Lusk made this statement in regards to the necessity for testing prior to testing beginning. “It’s a long story, but society has just brought us to this point. We do a lot of things (now) that at one time we would say was not the school’s job to do. Schools have kind of become all things and our job description has expanded.”

This is pure crap and clearly shows Lusk to not be familiar with the Constitution of the United States. Hence, the only accurate part of his statement is “not the school’s job to do.” Drug testing without just cause is not the duty of any organization and violates the rights of individuals to be secure in their being.

Once a student (or any person) is scheduled for drug testing, it immediately destroys the precept our judicial rights are based on, ‘the presumption of innocence.” From the time the person is scheduled to be tested, it then is up to the person to prove their innocence by submitting to testing.

This is made quite clear in that any refusing to test will be punished. As a matter of fact, in the case of the Lockney school district, Lusk also stated that any parents who would not sign the consent form “...that the tests would be assumed postive, and students subjected to repercussions.” If this isn’t presumption of guilt, what is?

In the case of punishment of the student, ANY punishment violates “due process” and even students (since they are citizens) must not have their 5th Amendment rights removed simply because an arbitrary group of people say they can do it. The Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution (see US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2), states they do not have the power, regardless of any ‘reasoning’ or 'justification' to the contrary.

The 4th Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ...” A person’s body is their own and taking of blood constitutes unreasonable search without “probable cause” having been shown.

Without probable cause, the school has ‘assumed’ the duty of investigative law enforcement bodies and of a judge qualified to issue a search warrant. Without such a warrant, no person has to submit to such testing.

In addition, the school has in effect established a “law” with ‘penalities’ which it does not have the power to do. Not even Congress has the power to pass a law repugnant to the Constitution.

By establishing and carrying out punishment for offenses to a bogus “law”, the school has acted as judge and jury, even though there has not been an arrest or presecution. Thus, the school is in violation of the 5th Amendment which states, in part: “...nor shall be compelled ... to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law;..."

Punishment could be a 21-day suspension from extracurricular activities, three days of in-school suspension (hm, must be so the school still receives daily governmental funding - guess the school doesn’t want to punish itself), and three sessions of drug counseling.

These ‘punishments’ are in violation to the Preamble, and Amendments VIII, IX, XIII, and XIV. Without due process, the school simply does not have the power to prevent a student from participating in extracurricular activities based on refusal to submit to unconstitutional demands, nor can it require ‘confinement’ (in-school suspension). And to require ‘drug counseling’?

What part of this nation is this school in - Gestapo, Germany’s Branch Office located in Lockney, Texas (or wherever any school might be that forces drug tests on the student body.)?

Actually, the solution to the parents’ and students’ problem is quite easy to fix. Schools cannot afford to lose funding. But, students can be pulled out of school at any time for ‘in-home schooling’. Or, students can simply be kept home as there isn’t any constitutional requirement that one attends a government school (all federally and state funded schools) or any other organized educational institution.

So, simply keep your children home if you disagree with anything a school does. Should enough do that, watch the disagreeable, or illegal, policy change within a few days. Remember, People, you have the power and the school has absolutely none except as allowed by the people.

Thus, parents can take control and solve the problem. But, it is not so simple when considering drug testing as part of the interviewing problem. The same violations to the Constitution occur with punishment being the interviewee no longer being considered for the job or the employee assumed guilty for refusing to take the test.

It would equally be as easy for all interviewees to refuse to participate and/or all people quit interviewing with any business that requires drug testing. But, how does one get them all together in refusal? Any school is easy since it would only take a few parents to stand together behind their children plus the school has a ‘known to each other" and essentially "captive’ student body.

But, not so when interviewing since it is possible one interviewee doesn’t know any of the other interviewees plus it really doesn’t matter to the business as long as there are interviewees who will submit to testing without considering their constitutional rights.

And getting people together to boycott any business requiring unconstitutional drug testing of innocent citizens is about as probable as getting citizens together in order to force the federal government to support and defend the Constitution and govern within the limits established in the document. It could be done but it would take extremely large numbers while a few could do it with a school.

Now, there are those who would say it is constitutional to require drug testing. However, it is never constitutional to remove a right of an innocent citizen for any reason, let alone to interview for a job. Nor can a jury or a majority of 100,000,000 verses the one have the right to determine whether something is constitutional or not.

Thus, it is up to the individual to deny submitting to drug testing. Should it happen that all innocent citizens end up doing the same, eventually, providing there is limited population to supply the workers for the business, the business will have to hire on proper critieria.

Having once believed it is okay since I do not use illegal drugs, this is quite a switch. But, what right has a business or any agency have to violate people’s liberties in an interview process? I think none so I will not submit in the future should the occasion arise. I will be happy to answer a question concerning whether I use drugs or not but to have my body violated to prove my innocence sucks.

I believe that only under suspicion of usage on the job leading to proper investigation and observance of the 5th Amendment by the authorities should any person be subjected to drug testing. By proper is meant the authorities should not just take the opinion of the reporting person at the workplace as few are trained in detecting users of drugs. Just cause must be established and a valid warrant issued.

If others believe differently, then let us start with Congress and force all to submit to drug testing without any one knowing what day his test will occur. That is fair and it is prudent.

You see, when Congress submits to drug testing and makes it a law applying to all citizens of the District of Columbia, including themselves, then they are serious about stopping drug use and sales. Then, (since laws made for federal jurisdiction do not apply to the 50 states, or, state jurisdiction) if Congress gets enough states to ratify an amendment that requires work place drug testing (and in schools, churches and so on) without ‘just cause’, then I will go along with it and defend it as a constitutional law.

Of course, the amendment would have to repeal any parts of other amendments or articles of the Constitution or their entirety that now protect a person’s rights concerning his person, property, and so on. Otherwise, forget it.

But, as it now stands, drug testing without just cause is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America regardless of any common beliefs to the contrary.

And, that’s how it is in this nation founded on the principles of liberty and the rights of individuals.