WA high court says random school drug testing unconstitutional
OLYMPIA, Wash. — The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that random drug testing of student athletes is unconstitutional, finding that each has “a genuine and fundamental privacy interest in controlling his or her own bodily functions.”The court ruled unanimously in favor of some parents and students in the lower Columbia River town of Cathlamet who were fighting the tiny Wahkiakum School District’s policy of random urine tests of middle school and high school student athletes.
The high court wrote, “we can conceive of no way to draw a principled line permitting drug testing only student athletes.”
“If we were to allow random drug testing here, what prevents school districts from either later drug testing students participating in any extracurricular activities, as federal courts now allow, or testing the entire student population?” Justice Richard Sanders wrote for the court’s plurality. Joining him were Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justices Susan Owens and Tom Chambers.
“In particular, the school district has failed to show that a suspicion-based regime of drug testing is inadequate to achieve its legitimate objectives,” [Justice Barbara] Madsen wrote.
Madsen wrote that if there is not an observable drug problem in the school, “the school’s interest in detecting drug use does not justify nonconsensual drug testing.”
She wrote that if drug use is a problem, then schools have the individualized suspicion necessary to require a drug test.
“Thus, it is difficult to see how a suspicionless drug testing program is necessary,” she wrote.
Hooray for the Pacific Northwest (yeah, I’m biased)! It’s nice when your state constitution provides you more privacy protections than the United States Constitution… just ask the people of Alaska, where personal possession of <1oz. of cannabis at home and growing <25 plants is protected as a privacy right.
I particularly like Justice Madsen’s commonsense opinion: If you can’t see a drug problem, there’s no need to test randomly, and if you can see the drug problem, then you’ll know who to test!
SMOKEE WEEED EVERYDAYY!!
Damn. This looks important. Of course, it is a ninth amendment issue. Look at this wording:
“… finding that each has “a genuine and fundamental privacy interest in controlling his or her own bodily functions.””
This has to apply to more than when and where you pee. It is reasonable that the government might regulate when and where you pee. But, it would be outrageous to suggest that government could prohibit you from peeing.
I guess it is not a perfect analogy with marijuana, as you don’t have to partake of the herb. But, it is just as outrageous to suggest that the government can imprison you for growing, buying, selling, possessing, or using marijuana.
“… each has “a genuine and fundamental privacy interest in controlling his or her own bodily functions.””
Like manipulating your own consciousness!
If you get high and do things that are illegal, then you can be arrested for those behaviors. But, the consciousness of a free citizen is not the dominion of the government.
-ED