Author Topic: US allows drug tests on students. (Read 1890 times)

Thrawn · « **Reply #45 on:** June 28, 2002, 09:40:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
The parents will probably get notified

The kids will probably be subjected to

They may be suspended or expelled

all kids will probably think twice

and I'll bet that the testing will be a administered

you may have been one of those

You probabally had a sense that

Gunthr, that is one heck of alot of assumptions.

Gunthr · « **Reply #46 on:** June 28, 2002, 09:45:49 PM »

Do you think I'm right about them, Thrawn?

Sandman · « **Reply #47 on:** June 28, 2002, 09:48:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr

Sandman, I'm under the distinct impression that it is the parents who want this implemented.

I'm all for it. There is a need for it. If you don't agree, AND you have a child in public school, I would support your right to vote against it in your locality. But you will have to do better than you have so far to convince me that its a bad idea.

Make no mistake. This particular parent definitely does not want this implemented.

Oh... and it's not something that will be subject to a vote. My children will not participate in random urinalysis no matter what the shrecking majority decides.

Elfenwolf · « **Reply #48 on:** June 28, 2002, 09:52:01 PM »

Gunthr, how can you so blithfuly dismiss this as an "administrative problem?" LOL for Christ's Sakes, we are talking about our civil rights here. We are talking about RANDOM drug testing by a Government Entity. How can anyone possibly be OK with the idea of ANY branch of Government administering random drug or ANYTHING tests on its citizens??? How do you feel about Spyware??? LOL Man, you Conservatives crack me up. You're in favor of less government as long as it suits your needs yet you want to take my parenting responsibilities away as far as being responsible for my child's involvement or non-involvement with drugs. Personally I'm all for a Government form we can fill out authorizing the government to randomly drug test our kids, but until that recourse is available I will refuse to allow my child to be randomly checked for ANYTHING by the Government. I call this my right to privacy as an American citizen. Unless you have evidence of wrongdoing in my home then stay the fugg out.

Gunthr · « **Reply #49 on:** June 28, 2002, 09:52:32 PM »

Maybe there is a "voucher" in your future?

Sandman · « **Reply #50 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:01:05 PM »

The school voucher proposition in California did not pass.

J_A_B · « **Reply #51 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:04:05 PM »

"You probabally had a sense that school admin was out to get you, because you did do drugs in school, and you may have suffered consequences because of it. Am I right? "

I've never so much as considered taking a drug in my life (not counting medical prescriptions!). Heck, I don't even smoke or drink, not even on my 21st birthday a couple years ago. I have eyes and can see what that s**t does to people. Heck, I LOATHE people who excessively drink in particular.

"We are talking about random drug testing that doesn't have anything to do with the police. "

I'm not sure about where you live, but in my district it was (and still is) standard school policy to contact the police if a student was caught with drugs. Do not put it past school admins to blatantly lie to the public.

J_A_B

Gunthr · « **Reply #52 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:11:34 PM »

Elfenwolfy,

I go along with the majority rule. We all get one vote. Use it, pal.

I'm glad the Supremes ruled that localities that want to impliment it, may do so. I don't understand the gnashing of teeth over this.

Get active in your school board if you are dead set against it. Maybe it isn't even indicated in that county. But maybe there might be a problem. You decide.

Many citizens have agreed to be subjected to random drug testing, or drug testing based on reasonable suspicion, by the way.

I would certainly be against random drug testing for citizens in general, across the board. But I think there are some areas where the sensitivity is such that those who wish to be a part of that activity, should be required to submit to random drug testing. Problem school districts are one of them - and teachers should be included.

Course, if you can't live with that, get a voucher for your kids like Sandman may do, and send them where they won't be hassled.

Gunthr · « **Reply #53 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:14:28 PM »

JAB

Well, it will be interesting to see how this thing plays out.

I hope when and if you are a dad, there won't be so many ways for a kid to get hurt, or in trouble.

john9001 · « **Reply #54 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:20:55 PM »

oh my ..i can't beleave i agree with elfinwolf....it's a strange world we live in

Sandman · « **Reply #55 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:27:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
Elfenwolfy,

I go along with the majority rule. We all get one vote. Use it, pal.

Ever heard of a lemming?

Fatty · « **Reply #56 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:29:32 PM »

There is obviously a problem in a lot of schools, and for a lot of parents it's not enough simply to know that their kid is clean. They'd prefer their kid were schooled in a relatively safe environment.

Heck, just look at JAB's school. Even with a class of only 78 it had enough drugs to support an undercover sting with frequent arrests. No wonder the parents pressured for stricter enforcement.

nucks · « **Reply #57 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:31:57 PM »

All these liberal twits talking about the loss of personal liberties...consider for a moment the personal liberties that were available in 1780, then ponder them in the 1820's, the 1930's or even the 1950's. A historical analysis of personal liberty in our country would show a constant INCREASE in the number of "Constitutionally gauranteed rights" that our founding fathers never intended.

Somehow our courts have determined that when a police officer fails to follow the letter of the law, criminals are allowed to break the law without recourse. How terrible that our courts are stupid enough to believe that 2 wrongs make everything all right. Reprimanding the officer, or even prosecuting the officer for his violation of anothers rights might be appropriate, but how does ignoring both "crimes" help?

How stupid the the factual certainty of guilt is less important than the procedural perfection of obtaining it. Clearly the greatest loss of personal liberty to Americans is the right to feel secure in our home, to trust that our children will be safe.

Furthermore...specifically, this ruling applies only to students who CHOOSE to participate in extra-curricular activities. These activities are not a "right" but a privelage, and now one of the costs of that privelage is to be subject to drug testing. If you don't want the test, don't participate. The choice is yours. I read the Constitution and I don't recall anything about the right to participate in extra-curricular activities.

Does the state have the right to test your vision? Hell yes, if you intend to operate a motor vehicle the state has a vested interest in the adequacy of your vision. If your not willing to prove it, you don't get to drive. When my child participates in extra-curricular activities with your child, I and the state have a vested interest in the sobriety of you child. If your not willing to prove that sobriety don't participate!!

Sandman · « **Reply #58 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:37:14 PM »

Today, they test the children participating in "extra-curricular" ativity.

Tomorrow, they'll test them all.

The motor vehicle test is a bad analogy. No one ever killed anyone walking down a school corridor stoned.

nucks · « **Reply #59 on:** June 28, 2002, 10:41:53 PM »

the analogy applies.... The state has the authority to place conditions on those who choose to accept privelages.