Final answer:
The statement is an argument because it contains premises that support a conclusion about the right to privacy and mandatory drug testing. The right to privacy, although not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect individual liberties in various cases.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement "Right to privacy is a human right. Mandatory drug testing violates the right to privacy. It should not be allowed." is considered an argument. An argument comprises a set of premises that are presented to support a conclusion. In the given statement, the premises are that the right to privacy is a human right and that mandatory drug testing violates this right. The conclusion drawn from these premises is that mandatory drug testing should not be allowed, suggesting that it's an argument presented in the form of logic and reasoning.
The subject of the right to privacy and its interpretation has a complex history and is continuously debated. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution is often cited to protect privacy, though the phrase "right to privacy" is not explicitly contained within the Bill of Rights. Additionally, cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas are landmark decisions where the US Supreme Court found a basis for a right to privacy, supporting the individual's liberty in making personal, private life decisions.