If they can figure out a way to manipulate the system, they will. Urine samples can be switched if the monitoring is not close enough, and there are also many "masking" products available that advertise their ability to mask the testing results of certain drugs, such as marijuana. If the individual is not extremely experienced in reading the results of the test and monitoring the testing samples, many discrepancies can occur. This can lead to false-positive test results, implicating innocent students, but it can also lead to false-negative results, which dispel the entire effectiveness of the testing process. If the process is open to interpretation and deviation, then the process does not work, and is useless in detecting drug use in determined and inventive students. Finally, there is the fiscal aspect of drug testing. Not only do many experts agree that drug testing creates a negative climate of distrust in the schools, the testing also costs money. At a time when many districts are strapped for funds, this may be the most negative aspect of drug testing. Schools are spending valuable funds to drug test the student population, when the funds could be much more useful in other areas, such as drug education and awareness, safety and health education, books, supplies, and even better classroom furniture and necessities. Drug testing is expensive, and since many companies recommend re-testing if there is any question about the tests, it can mount up quickly. For example, even groups who advocate school drug testing note the instability of many results. The School Athletic Drug Testing and Education Program Web site notes, "Due to the risk of false positives, the quick immunoassay-type tests should be used only as a preliminary screening tool. Any sample that tests "positive" using this type of test should always be confirmed using a more sensitive test" (Editors, 2002). These "sensitive" tests are also a lot more expensive, as the Site also notes. So many schools worry about funding, it seems this is one area that could be put to far better use in most districts.

Even many schools and districts disagree with Supreme Court rulings that say tests are

For example, in Virginia, many districts will not test students. "It's not an issue with us,' said Thomas DeBolt, superintendent for Manassas Park public schools. 'It really would have an adverse reaction for us. You would alter the climate of schools. You are changing the situation from one of trust to distrust'" (Wagner, 2004, p. B01). In addition, many schools fear legal reprisals from their testing, especially if parents object. Many districts feel the legality issues outweigh the safety issues, and simply will not test. So far, in many communities, support has stayed with the schools in their choice (Wagner, 2004, p. B01). It is clear testing is controversial, and the courts and schools may never hear the final word on the matter.
In conclusion, it is clear there are still many problems with drug testing in schools. The negative aspects of school drug testing include the legality and constitutionality, the actual accuracy of the testing, and the methods used to test. Drug testing is controversial, and since the results of testing are so minimal, it seems that testing is simply a waste of time, energy, and district funds. The money could be used more effectively for many other educational items, and that may be the most negative aspect of drug testing, it creates distrust in American youth, and uses vital funds that could be put to far better use somewhere else in the educational system.