Random drug testing should not be used in public schools.

OOOOKAY.... My opponent asked me to cite my statistics. Here they are: Drug testing costs ($20-60, $120): http://www.nfhs.org... 2003 University of Michigan study: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org... http://www.slate.com... All other statistics in my first round already had citations attached to them as far as i could tell. "I will argue both sides." -You seem to be having a hard enough time putting together an argument for one side. Stick to Con for the resolution & clarification i stated in my first round, mmmkay? My opponent posted a "rant from another debate". It didn't have a lot to do with my resolution. In this same spirit, i will do the same: "Your first rebuttal included five points against my case. 1) You have doubts about whether long hair proves you are Jesus. > That's okay, everybody has doubted Jesus's (your) existence at one point or another. I'm sure if you have faith you will come to have a testimony/self esteem boost. Your doubts, i assure you, will pass. They are dead wrong. Move past them and believe. THE POWER OF YOU COMPELS YOU!" http://www.debate.org... As for his rant, that really sucks that the police did that, i certainly disagree with the actions that took place there. "The Patriot Act is not an Arizona law." -Good observation...It's federal law. Or WAS federal law, it's been reformed. "http://www.amazon.com...... Looks like a great book. Why not let us know about it?" -UR-ine Trouble is a book by Dr. Kent Holtorf which includes the statistic that urinalysis tests conducted by labs are accurate about 46.5% of the time. It is available on Amazon.com. "http://www.monitoringthefuture.org...... This is a government propaganda site and is completely invalid for that reason." -This is a University of Michigan site. Those statistics are not vital to my case anyway, most people are quite aware that drug use is fairly rampant throughout society. Drug testing is one proposed way to curb use, and i am against it. "Do the words "peer reviewed journal" mean anything to you?" -yes. ""Press releases." Ignore them." -"Make Sense" Try it. "High school students find MJ and other illegal drugs much more available and easier to obtain than alcohol." -As long as you're having me cite things, why don't you cite this one? "Random drug testing violates constitutional rights and principles. But that applies more to drug testing in general than to (voluntary) sports activities. You are arguing the wrong side." -Yes, it would be a bigger violation for drug testing the whole public school. This does not mean it does not apply, and i am not arguing the wrong side. "This catching teachers is hilarious but I think we are still talking about students. Maybe not. Traffic cameras are catching cops too. Politicians should be drug tested and intelligence tested also. JFK was high on cocaine during the Cuban Missile crisis." -The catching teachers thing is in the comment section, not the argument section. You seem to have mixed the two up. as for the rest of that quote, cool. it doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. Please note, that even if the statistics in my first round were null and void, the rest of the case still stands. My opponent has not addressed these points. He only posted rants from another debate and made random claims. The one thing that sounded like an argument in my opponent's round was this: "Drug testing is good since it supports the economy by providing a lot of useless jobs with money that would be better spent elsewhere anyway but mainly keeps those protesters in jail where they belong. " He refutes his own argument. The money is better spent elsewhere as drug testing is ineffective, as i showed in my first round. I look forward to some arguments.