Every year, roughly 20,000 people die at the hands of illegal drug use.
Despite cautionary tales and statistics listing battles won by drugs and lost by the reckless, people still use drugs, as if the proof of 20,000 lives lost each year was simply a number and not a tip-off.
Approximately six parents went on record at the Aug. 8 school board meeting and contended that Glenbrook North has a drug problem. These concerned parents have raised their voices in hope of a stricter policy to eliminate any trace of illegal drug use among students in District 225.
There is already a direct consequence in place for students who choose to use illegal drugs. According to the current drug policy, students are subject to expulsion from extracurriculars as well as suspension of up to 10 days if they are found to be engaging in illegal drug use in school. In sophomore year health classes, an entire unit is dedicated to educating students on the dangers of drug abuse. The consequences to our academic careers and to our well-being have been made clear.

And yet, somehow, GBN still has an alleged drug problem.
To make the drug policy stricter, students would have to relinquish certain rights to privacy, in addition to a measure of trust with school administrators. While the Supreme Court ruled random drug testing in schools constitutional in the 2002 court case Board of Education v. Earls, a more plausible point about a student’s right to privacy was made by Justice Ginsburg in the dissenting opinion. In short, she stated that the job of the school is to protect its students and to do so without crossing any personal boundaries.
We should not have to allow drug-sniffing dogs to rifle through our personal belongings, nor should we have to urinate in a cup at random. These are simply not things students should have to anticipate when they come to school everyday. Our personal boundaries shall remain as they are: personal.
In compelling all students to consent to random drug tests, all students are made guilty. The administration would be showing a lack of trust in its students, no matter how many overstep the policy. Won’t the students who used illegal drugs under the old policy just find a way around the new policy as they always have, while the rest of the school has to endure the breaching of personal privacy through mandatory drug tests?
The relationship between administration and students should be one of trust. While the effort to rid the school of the harmful effects of illegal drugs is respectable, the school must also take into consideration the privacy rights of its students.
Ultimately, the administration will have to assess whether or not the sacrifice of privacy is worth the price of a student’s trust.