Despite privacy concerns, school administrators are feeling pressure to adopt urgent measures to keep drugs and alcohol from further endangering our youth's well-being and undermining staff performance. This urgency is reinforced by a national anti-drug campaign and Congressional passage of the Drug-Free Workplace Act (1988) and the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (1986, with 1989 amendments) tying institutional compliance to federal funding eligibility requirements. Drug testing raises issues pertaining to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although an earlier appellate court case upheld the need for a "factual basis" of suspicion before subjecting a teacher to urinalysis, two 1989 U.S. Supreme Court cases involving public employees ruled that public safety considerations outweighed privacy and individualized suspicion requirements. Attempts to pretest student athletes raise the issue of whether extracurricular activities are rights or privileges. Also, urinalysis and breathilizer tests can inaccurately reflect an individual's use or abuse of a controlled substance, particularly marijuana. According to one case analysis, school officials have no authority to regulate offcampus conduct having no bearing on properly maintaining the educational process. Mandatory urinalysis should be based only on individualized suspicion and satisfy both prongs of the T.L.O. v. New Jersey test for search and seizure constitutionality (i.e., reasonable suspicion and appropriate circumstances). Various drug education and prevention measures are recommended. (Nine references) (MLH)