Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on June 28, 2002, 03:58:29 PM
-
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has approved random drug tests for many public high school students.
It ruled that schools' interest in ridding their campuses of drugs outweighs an individual's right to privacy.
The decision will allow the broadest drug testing the court has yet permitted of young people whom authorities have no particular reason to suspect of using drugs.
Thanks US, you guys make me fall in love with my country every day.
-
I wish this had been around when I was in school!
I would have gladly tested anything they provided :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Thanks US, you guys make me fall in love with my country every day.
Thanks to new EPA relaxed regulations we're working on some more acid rain for you guys. Enjoy
:rolleyes:
-Sikboy
-
Thrawn
yes its horrible isn't it :rolleyes:
how dare they test for illegal drugs while student is on school grounds after school for non manditory activity covered under the schools insurance umbrella.
dam those Nazis!
-
have any of you heard of "probable cause"???
don't matter what the SC says , random testing with out probable cause is illegal
-
Hmmm,...probable cause. Well,...I recall my son coming home from school one day telling me he got asked to try some drugs from no less than 22 kids during the school day (heroin, ectasy, cocaine and some I never heard of).
He was the new kid on the block, so he guessed they were trying to make him welcome.
I would call that probable cause. Maybe other schools are different. For instance, we know the heroin drop is located at a Texaco gas station about 2 blocks from the school. Nothing is done about it though. Dealers hang around there looking for kids to peddle thier drugs or to sell to.
We also know the coaches push this "drug free" steroid on the atheletes at school. They tell them, it is perfectly legal as it is not recognized by the FDA as a drug.
I don't really have a problem with it. I wish the government had not done it and it was just done voluntarily by the schools. But they prefer to hide the problem than to bring it out in public....at least in this school district.
-
The ruling wasn't that broad.
School districts can force the nation's 23 million middle and high school students to take drug tests before they join the band, choir, chess club or any other extracurricular activities where they compete with other schools, the U.S. Supreme Court said Thursday.
I wonder what the schools will say when (if?) kids with an acitvist mindset and knowledge of Constitutional rights tell them to go shreck themselves.
-
Sandman, the penalty for ANY American refusing a random drug test should be six months in jail. What are you trying to hide???
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The ruling wasn't that broad.
I wonder what the schools will say when (if?) kids with an acitvist mindset and knowledge of Constitutional rights tell them to go shreck themselves.
They'll point to this ruling and stick a needle in them. :( Skuzzy, you should go take video of the heroin dealers and give it to the cop and give a copy to the media. That might help solving that problem, but the dealers would probably just change locations after they get out of jail the next day....
Bit by bit our nation is dying seems to be speeding up to me. Liberty or death my ass......
-
Got nothing to hide... but then again, I'm already subject to random urinalysis.
So... I'm a hypocrite that doesn't have the courage to stand by my convictions.
That... or I've martyred my convictions for the sake of my family.
...to a point I guess. I did turn down a job that had random polygraph testing as a requirement for employment.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hmmm,...probable cause. Well,...I recall my son coming home from school one day telling me he got asked to try some drugs from no less than 22 kids during the school day (heroin, ectasy, cocaine and some I never heard of).
He was the new kid on the block, so he guessed they were trying to make him welcome.
I would call that probable cause. Maybe other schools are different. For instance, we know the heroin drop is located at a Texaco gas station about 2 blocks from the school. Nothing is done about it though. Dealers hang around there looking for kids to peddle thier drugs or to sell to.
We also know the coaches push this "drug free" steroid on the atheletes at school. They tell them, it is perfectly legal as it is not recognized by the FDA as a drug.
I don't really have a problem with it. I wish the government had not done it and it was just done voluntarily by the schools. But they prefer to hide the problem than to bring it out in public....at least in this school district.
Skuzzy, that's exactly what the Supreme Court said. The drug abuse in public schools is rampant enough to suspend the rights of students. My objection to this ruling is that if we start applying "extenuating circumstances" as a reasonable excuse to suspend our constitutional rights then what's the point of having a Constitution??
-
The constitution does not apply inside public schools. That's not an opinion, that's a sad fact.
"Probable cause" hasn't been seen in public schools for a long time; "reasonable cause" is all they require.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
The constitution does not apply inside public schools. That's not an opinion, that's a sad fact.
"reasonable cause" is all they require.
J_A_B
Not with THIS ruling, JAB. It's called "Random" drug testing.
-
So what if you refuse to pee into the cup?..Expelled?...Man I wish they had tried this one when I was in school....Most of my teachers woulda flunked!
-
"Reasonable cause" boiled down to they could do whatever they wanted anyway.
This ruling doesn't really change anything, sad as that fact is. How are random drug tests for athletes any different than having the local police bring in drug-sniffing dogs on random occasions? How is it different than randomly searching people's possessions and clothing?
I totally agree that public schols have WAY too much power. This recent ruling isn't changing anything. The worst thing of all is "random" never really means "random" to corrupt d#ckhead backstabbing lying untrustworthy stuck-up power-tripping stunninghunk school admins, it means "we can badger and intimidate those we don't like and claim its all random".
J_A_B
-
as long as there is demand, there will be supply.
-
I work in a school system and I think it's great!
My only complaint is that they have to be in some sort of sport or band to be able to be tested. They should make all the little buggers get tested a couple of times a year. MY kids included!
I see drugged out kids all the time and all they do is cause problems so why have them in school?
Up until now all we could do was bring the dogs through to search lockers but we couldn' ttake them near kids so the kids learned to take the drugs with them. They also know we have to be pretty damn sure they have drugs on them before we search them or we can get sued.
Drug testing will keep the hard core drugies out of school and make the curious or part time druggies more afraid to continue.
Besides in the grand scheme of things what does it hurt? My kid has to piss in a cup! Big deal! At least I would know for sure she isn't doing drugs!
-
"Up until now all we could do was bring the dogs through to search lockers but we couldn' ttake them near kids so the kids learned to take the drugs with them."
That must be a state law of yours because sniffing students is perfectly legal in Ohio.
"Besides in the grand scheme of things what does it hurt?"
Bringing up kids in a totalarian, police-state environment doesn't equip them well to function in a democracy.
J_A_B
-
LOL. You guys are pissing away your rights and freedoms piece by piece.
Then you sit there and say, "What's the big deal."
Piece by piece, "Big deal" by "Big deal".
-
The only thing I find bad about this, is the government having to issue the mandate.
We are supposed to be in some control of our public schools at much lower levels. The sad truth is too many parents want the schools to raise there kids for them and do not give a rat's ballz about doing a thing to help prevent drug abuse in the system.
Udie, the local cops already know about the hang out, but everytime they go near the place the dealers either flush or bail. The station is in a wide open area and cars cannot get there without being spotted.
And most parents do not care about it, as long as they can hang that "My child is a honor student at Grapevine High" sticker on thier bumper.
Hey Thrawn,..do you have a solution to the drug problem? Do you have anything constructive to say? I would like to hear it, but if all you can do is to run down our country, then shut yer yap. I am sick of it.
-
I like it.
-
I'm with you on this one Thrawn...
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hey Thrawn,..do you have a solution to the drug problem? Do you have anything constructive to say? I would like to hear it, but if all you can do is to run down our country, then shut yer yap. I am sick of it.
Do you have a solution to the erosion of your rights. Or are you just going to sit there and chant, "There is no problem, there is no problem"? Because, if you don't then, let me invite you to go read another thread.
And if you don't like what I'm saying then again, I invite you to not read it or respond to it.
-
I have no problem with anyone expressing an opinion. I do have a problem when anyone takes an oppertunity to make fun of the country I live in.
And if you bothered to read my posts, I have stated pretty clearly thier is a problem.
When you come in here and make light of my countries problems and offer zero input on what you would do or what could be done, or anything remotely constructive, then I have a problem and I will not sit by and take it.
Shove it sideways Thrawn. Take your farkin country and shove it. I am sure Canada has no problems, so you just stick there and keep off my countries back. I have jad it and I am not going to take it anymore.
You don't like it! Tough. You opened the can of worms, and I will be happy to feed them to you.
-
Bad day at work Skuzzy?......
-
No Sirloin. Just tired of people like Thrawn. The smug self-annointing people that get ther giggles from our countries problems make me sick.
I bit my tongue once after 9/11 when Thrawn made a snide remark to one of my posts, I will not do it again.
And you are right Thrawn, I do not have to read it, but while you like to make light of our problems, turning my cheek would be exactly what you are saying we are doing as a nation. So, I will not turn my cheek. I will stand my ground, becasue it is MY ground, not yours.
-
"Reasonable cause" boiled down to they could do whatever they wanted anyway.
This ruling doesn't really change anything, sad as that fact is. How are random drug tests for athletes any different than having the local police bring in drug-sniffing dogs on random occasions? How is it different than randomly searching people's possessions and clothing?
I totally agree that public schols have WAY too much power. This recent ruling isn't changing anything. The worst thing of all is "random" never really means "random" to corrupt d#ckhead backstabbing lying untrustworthy stuck-up power-tripping stunninghunk school admins, it means "we can badger and intimidate those we don't like and claim its all random".
J_A_B
How old are you JAB? 12? Maybe 13 years old? Where the hell do you live, Disneyland?
The schools in the US are populated by KIDS. Children in high schools in the United States have never had the same rights as people who have come of age, nor should they! They can't drink alchohol. They can't vote. They are subject to discipline from the teachers largely without legal due process. They have no expectation of privacy in thier lockers or on thier person. (When the cops want to search a student, they call a TEACHER, who doesn't need probable cause, only reasonable suspicion to search.
It is this way because the overwelming majority of parents WANT the schools to have this power, for the good of our kids. You and others who agree with your idiotic view on this just don't know what time it is. No offense.
-
Does turning a blind eye and letting them fry their brain out instead of learning with it?
high school kids - 14/15 thru 17/18 - the fewer who try anything in that age group, the better for that generation.
-
I don't see anything wrong with it. You want to participate in an extra-curricular activity? You agree to do it drug free. If you don't want to be drug free, then you aren't eligeable to participate. Sounds simple enough to me. There's still choice involved - you choose to join an activity and be tested, or you choose not to participate.
Thrawn, why do you care what we do with our freedoms?
SOB
-
If you think I find humour in the US tossing it's rights and freedoms, then I could only call it gallows homour.
If you think it doesn't affect me then you are also mistaken. Ever since NAFTA our countries have been growing closer, economically, culturally and polically (especially since 9/11 - Look at the border resolution that just passed). I also have a number of friends that are American and care deeply what happens to them and their country. I have talked to them at length about matters such as these. And surprising as it might seem, I have no doubt, that they would agree with me (even though I'm a foreighner).
Edit: and ya Canada has problems, feel free to make a thread about them if you wish. The feelings I have about the US government don't even come close to the disgust I have for my own.
-
I didn't know there was an age requirement for citizenship. I have always and will continue to feel that way. Becoming an old fart doesn't change that for me. Being a parent of 3 doesn't change that.
If your children become drug addicts, I suggest your the failure.
Have you allowed your schools, or there freinds to raise your children?
How many of you smoked/drank/tried drugs while under the age of 18? Hipocrite?
-
I drank, but didn't do drugs when I was in high school, and that has nothing to do with my opinion. The point is, there are choices to be made, just like in real life. If you choose to do illegal drugs as an adult, there are certain jobs that aren't open to you also. They aren't refusing to educate the children, they are giving them a choice between illegal drugs and after school activities. Very simple, and plenty fair IMO.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
LOL. You guys are pissing away your rights and freedoms piece by piece.
Then you sit there and say, "What's the big deal."
Piece by piece, "Big deal" by "Big deal".
I do not "think" you find humor in it, you just showed you did. Last time I checked, "LOL" meant Lots Of Laughs. So take your farkin laughter and can it. You have not added one bit of constructive information here.
All you have done was to sit back and point your self-righteous finger at my country and have a laugh at our expense. I hope you enjoyed it.
-
Welp, I took drug tests in high school though not through the school, for athletics outside of the school system. No problem here with it at all, I think Thrawn's still got some Ben Johnson gold medal rage. Damn drug tests!
-
I was laughing at the "stick your head" guys who ignore that it's happening.
Do you think they are what defines the US as a country?
Edit: Donovan Bailey cured my Ben Johnson rage.
-
The other thing is, it isn't like the schools are going to criminally prosecute kids with positive drug screens.
The parents will probably get notified, so they can keep closer tabs. The kids will probably be subjected to some "hugs not drugs" courses, or some such. They may be suspended or expelled for repeat positive screens.
Most importantly, all kids will probably think twice about using drugs in school after the policy is implemented. If it keeps only a few kids from trying/using LSD, Ecstacy, Cocaine and all the other illegal drugs, its worth it. The drug problem in high schools is really bad in South Florida.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
The other thing is, it isn't like the schools are going to criminally prosecute kids with positive drug screens.
The parents will probably get notified, so they can keep closer tabs. The kids will probably be subjected to some "hugs not drugs" courses, or some such. They may be suspended or expelled for repeat positive screens.
Well how wonderful that I have Government Help to help me improve my parenting skills!! Thank you very much for springing for the money to drug test our kids yet at the same time cutting back money for school breakfast and lunch programs. LOL It costs 40 bucks for a drug test that all you good conservatives are in favor of yet only two dollars to provide an inner city kid with a decent breakfast or lunch which you idiots are so opposed to.
LOL I thought you conservatives were opposed to Government Intervention when it came down to the values we teach our children. I guess that only applies to WHICH values you teach your children.
-
"No offense."---posted by Gunthr
Yeah....you call me a 12-year old, ask if I live in la-la land, call my viewpoint "idiotic" then say "oh no offense".....right. Ok none taken, I'll just assume you're a hotheaded moron....no offense
At least get your facts straight if you're going to start name-calling:
"it isn't like the schools are going to criminally prosecute kids with positive drug screens. "
Um, they already DO prosecute. My school (I graduated several years ago) went so far as to set up a frikking long-term STING operation, complete with undercover cops, to bust guys with dope. Several guys got jail time too, not just probation. And no, I don't live in some huge city with a massive drug problem; I'm from a small town (78 in my graduation class including me). You better BELIEVE these guys intend to prosecute!
Well, I suppose since it's athletic testing we're talking about here, you're probably right they won't prosecute. Athletes always get special privs. School admins only harass the "worthless" students who aren't into "school spirit".
J_A_B
-
Well if its random testing for activities then Im ok with that...Not ok with general testing....
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
How old are you JAB? 12? Maybe 13 years old? Where the hell do you live, Disneyland?
The schools in the US are populated by KIDS. Children in high schools in the United States have never had the same rights as people who have come of age, nor should they! They can't drink alchohol. They can't vote. They are subject to discipline from the teachers largely without legal due process. They have no expectation of privacy in thier lockers or on thier person. (When the cops want to search a student, they call a TEACHER, who doesn't need probable cause, only reasonable suspicion to search.
It is this way because the overwelming majority of parents WANT the schools to have this power, for the good of our kids. You and others who agree with your idiotic view on this just don't know what time it is. No offense.
You know... you can find at home drug tests (http://www.drugstore.com/products/prod.asp?pid=45300&catid=10265&trx=PLST-0-SRCH&trxp2=45300&trxp3=1&btrx=BUY-PD-PLST-0-SRCH) available over the counter. If you think your kids are using, be my guest and test them. I don't see why the school thinks they need to get involved. Personally, I view the home tests as a declaration of failure. I should hope that I'm attentive enough of my children to recognize the signs of drug abuse.
-
just so you know; most drugs can't be piss tested for unless one's used them recently the common exception is cute mary jane watson. And if you think this is a 'horrible drug' how come it's leagal in a country where we hold war crime trials
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You know... you can find at home drug tests (http://www.drugstore.com/products/prod.asp?pid=45300&catid=10265&trx=PLST-0-SRCH&trxp2=45300&trxp3=1&btrx=BUY-PD-PLST-0-SRCH) available over the counter. If you think your kids are using, be my guest and test them. I don't see why the school thinks they need to get involved. Personally, I view the home tests as a declaration of failure. I should hope that I'm attentive enough of my children to recognize the signs of drug abuse.
Why Sandman, how dare you suggest that we might be better parents than our Government is offering to be for us! After all, our Government only wants what is best for our children when they offer forty dollar drug tests free of charge! And don't worry, this program will be paid for at the expense of textbooks, field trips and lunch subsdisies! It won't cost us a nickel! Hey look, the sooner we get our kids registered within the System the better off we all will be knowing GWB's boys will sort out the ones suitable for military service from the ones only suitable for incarcenation.
-
And here I thought you guys wanted free health care.
-
"No offense."---posted by Gunthr
Yeah....you call me a 12-year old, ask if I live in la-la land, call my viewpoint "idiotic" then say "oh no offense".....right. Ok none taken, I'll just assume you're a hotheaded moron....no offense
At least get your facts straight if you're going to start name-calling:
"it isn't like the schools are going to criminally prosecute kids with positive drug screens. "
Um, they already DO prosecute. My school (I graduated several years ago) went so far as to set up a frikking long-term STING operation, complete with undercover cops, to bust guys with dope. Several guys got jail time too, not just probation. And no, I don't live in some huge city with a massive drug problem; I'm from a small town (78 in my graduation class including me). You better BELIEVE these guys intend to prosecute!
Well, I suppose since it's athletic testing we're talking about here, you're probably right they won't prosecute. Athletes always get special privs. School admins only harass the "worthless" students who aren't into "school spirit".
Of course the police prosecute when they do buybusts or stings, JAB.
We are talking about random drug testing that doesn't have anything to do with the police. It is an administrative thing, and I'll bet that the testing will be a administered pursuant to guidelines that are agreed upon with parental input.
Jab, I sense that you may have been one of those kids in high school that may have felt a little alienated from the mainstream. 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?
And yeah, I'm a moron at times :)
-
You know... you can find at home drug tests available over the counter. If you think your kids are using, be my guest and test them. I don't see why the school thinks they need to get involved. Personally, I view the home tests as a declaration of failure. I should hope that I'm attentive enough of my children to recognize the signs of drug abuse.
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.
-
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.
-
Do you think I'm right about them, Thrawn?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Maybe there is a "voucher" in your future? :p
-
The school voucher proposition in California did not pass. :rolleyes:
-
"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
-
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.
-
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.
-
oh my ..i can't beleave i agree with elfinwolf....it's a strange world we live in
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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.
-
the analogy applies.... The state has the authority to place conditions on those who choose to accept privelages.
-
I heard that on thursday it's striped uniforms and lie detectors, or is that friday?
-
No. The reason why the Supreme court has upheld these sorts of laws is because it's in the interest of public safety.
For example, the police can stop a car at a sobriety check point, but they can't use the same sort of stop as a drug search check point.
-
Good point, who doesn't believe "it's in the interest of public safety" to dissuade children from taking drugs??...anybody?
-
Originally posted by john9001
have any of you heard of "probable cause"???
don't matter what the SC says , random testing with out probable cause is illegal
Ahhh... no, it's not lol
-
"No wonder the parents pressured for stricter enforcement."
Actually there was a public outcry when the parents found out about it. The police and school staff deliberately let the drugs keep flowing into the school for the better part of a year although they knew where it was comming from, just so they could make more arrests. Their undercover guy actually goaded a couple guys into buying pot, who otherwise probably wouldn't have.
Do you think that's a good thing?
J_A_B
-
Relatively, or overall? I'd imagine there was some significant impact on consumption regardless.
Personally, I believe anyone who cannot spot a narc in a class of 78 is better off busted.
-
""The state has the authority "" ....ya voh , mine fuhrer, ve have vays to make to talk
-
funny, but here the "state" is "we the people", and I strongly believe that "we the people's" right to raise our children free from the peer pressure of illicit drug use is greater than the rights of students who do not want to subject themselves to random drug testin when they participate in voluntary extra-curricular activities.
-
They had zero effect on consumption. Instead of going after the SOURCE of the problem, all they did was punish punish punish the users. Net result: They look "tough on drugs" by getting a bunch of arrests but the drug problem never goes away.
Why do you think I'm so dead set against this sort of drug policy that schools are using? Because it's so damn ineffective!
What about other problems with our children? My school (the same one as above) typically has a freakishly high teen pregnancy rate compared to the rest of the area--when my cousin graduated in 2000, something like 30% of the girls were either pregnant or already mothers. It was also really high when I graduated a few years before that, but I don't recall exactly what it was. Believe me, this IS related to the drug problem.
How do you fix THIS? Random virginity testing?
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Do you have a solution to the erosion of your rights. Or are you just going to sit there and chant, "There is no problem, there is no problem"? Because, if you don't then, let me invite you to go read another thread.
And if you don't like what I'm saying then again, I invite you to not read it or respond to it.
Why do so many people seem to think the Constitution of the U.S. is there to protect thier right to break laws? I don't get it... it's an absurd way of interpreting the problem. Thrawn, our kids have every right to refuse drug testing and thereby give up thier "right" to attend a public education system. Hey, it's a choice. Don't want to participate, then stand by your convictions and suck it up when your opportunities go south. Random drug testing has be going on in our Govt, Military and Civic organizations for well over a decade. Private organizations and Corporations have been doing exactly the same thing for quite some time. When its LEGAL to do illicit drugs, fine.. no big deal but right now, drugs are ILLEGAL and rampant in our schools. What do you suggest be done.. nothing? Got a better idea? Please, spit it out.
I'm with Skuzzy on this. How would you like a U.S. citizen coming here and nit-picking every detail of mighty Canada?
-
With anger management.
Anyway, your story sounds like it would have been a lot better if there was drug testing so that they could not have allowed drugs for so long.
For the record, yes, I do endorse pregnancy tests. Particulary when the period does not show.
-
last I heard...pregnancy wasn't a crime.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Today, they test the children participating in "extra-curricular" ativity.
Tomorrow, they'll test them all.
Lets hope so.
-
read the book "1984" it is your future
big brother
-
Total control through a drug testing decision made by elected officials on the school district level? That part of my book must have fallen out.
Oh wait, I bet they censored it!
-
there are two threads running in the O'C, one about drugs in school , the other about getting "god " out of school
do we have a connect here??
-
Nope, the dual thread conspiracy wasn't in my copy of 1984 either.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't see why the school thinks they need to get involved. Personally, I view the home tests as a declaration of failure. I should hope that I'm attentive enough of my children to recognize the signs of drug abuse.
Because, in a very disconcertingly large number of school districts the parents chronically don't get involved.
I love the contradiction in this. The, don't tell me how to raise my kids, I'll ignore them as I please....then (and this isn't aimed at you Sandman, I assume from your posts you are very in-tune to your children)....Hey, the schools are unsafe, I want a safer environment for my kid to be babysitted in, so I can still ignore them. Then, hey why is the government doing drug testing on my kids that I ignore in the shcool that I demanded be a safer environment for them so I could have the school board do my job as a parent.
And of course the end-game.....no way on earth did my kid just test positive for drug use, I know approximately what he does some days, while others, I'm not sure where he is, but I know that he can't be involved in that, because I saw him just last Tuesday, and he looked ok.....hold on...that's my cell ringing, I'll deal with you later Mr. Schoolboard......
For the slippery-slope folks......it's all about the pendillum swing...sometimes it swings left and sometimes right, but within each one of those cycles it hits the middle twice. And it always swings.
Cobra
-
"Anyway, your story sounds like it would have been a lot better if there was drug testing so that they could not have allowed drugs for so long. "
I guess you missed the post where I was discussing the drug dogs.
Think about it....if the fear of punishment isn't enough to reduce drug usage in adults, when why would it do anything for kids who by definition have even less sense? Why should our kids grow up in a police-state environment, trained to submit to authority in all things (which pretty accurately describes schools today), when such measures utterly fail at achieving their stated purpose? It's a waste of resources, waste of time, and IMO immoral too.
The problem needs to be dealth with at the source.
either way it works out, good discussion <> Gotta be gettin some sleep :)
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Cobra
Because, in a very disconcertingly large number of school districts the parents chronically don't get involved.
I love the contradiction in this. The, don't tell me how to raise my kids, I'll ignore them as I please....then (and this isn't aimed at you Sandman, I assume from your posts you are very in-tune to your children)....Hey, the schools are unsafe, I want a safer environment for my kid to be babysitted in, so I can still ignore them. Then, hey why is the government doing drug testing on my kids that I ignore in the shcool that I demanded be a safer environment for them so I could have the school board do my job as a parent.
And of course the end-game.....no way on earth did my kid just test positive for drug use, I know approximately what he does some days, while others, I'm not sure where he is, but I know that he can't be involved in that, because I saw him just last Tuesday, and he looked ok.....hold on...that's my cell ringing, I'll deal with you later Mr. Schoolboard......
For the slippery-slope folks......it's all about the pendillum swing...sometimes it swings left and sometimes right, but within each one of those cycles it hits the middle twice. And it always swings.
Cobra
There's an alternative to the contradiction angle, Cobra. It is, "Don't attempt to raise my kids like yours." (Not yours personally, but you get the idea.)
-
nm
Good luck guys. I'm sorry if I hurt anyone.
-
Sandman,
I agree with your statement. That's why I, just like yourself, do take a very active role in my kid's school lives.
I'm lucky enough to live in a very good school district as well. And it has a very active parent base to support it.
My sense is that folks such as us, Sandman, are the minority when it comes to this. Hell, I don't know which way on this issue I stand. I just think (assume probably more accurate) that some of the people protesting this, are the very same that have no clue what their kids are doing, and expect the school board to raise them. And when their kid's chronic negative behavior impacts my child's learning environment...then yes, I'll have a problem with behavior without consequences.
Growing up I went to private schools, but I have my children in Public Schools because I firmly believe we have to support them, and not just by squeaking about my tax dollars, but active participation. Hehe...my kids may not like that :). So maybe my slant is different since the school I attended had some additional layer of rules.
Sandman
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
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.
amazing ....
why don't we just offer it in the cafeteria at lunch time? How bout making sure middle school kids can try it out too? Or is 12 too young but 15/16 old enough?:rolleyes:
you ppl freak me out.
What the hell is wrong with testing CHILDREN 18 and under in HIGH SCHOOL for ILLEGAL drugs?
Afraid a sober society would tell the left to go jump in a lake?
I can only assume those against this are in HS themselves or their brain still is ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you ppl freak me out.
What the hell is wrong with testing CHILDREN 18 and under in HIGH SCHOOL for ILLEGAL drugs?
Afraid a sober society would tell the left to go jump in a lake?
The problem is too many people seem to think the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to protect thier so called right to be criminals. Fear of drug testing can be directly attributed to the fear of getting caught. You can whine moan and complain about rights... but in the end thats ALL it is.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
nm
Good luck guys. I'm sorry if I hurt anyone.
Thrawn, I hereby declare you an Honorary American Citizen complete with all rights and entitlements thereof. You may squeak, scoff, ridicule and laugh at the fallacy of American politics at your leisure.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Thrawn, I hereby declare you an Honorary American Citizen complete with all rights and entitlements thereof. You may squeak, scoff, ridicule and laugh at the fallacy of American politics at your leisure.
Ya Thrawn. Appreciate the sentiment. Unless nm means nogood monkeys or something :D
No harm done. In the end I suppose someone's gotta push the BS button now and then... even if it is a dern Canadian!!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
amazing ....
why don't we just offer it in the cafeteria at lunch time? How bout making sure middle school kids can try it out too? Or is 12 too young but 15/16 old enough?:rolleyes:
you ppl freak me out.
What the hell is wrong with testing CHILDREN 18 and under in HIGH SCHOOL for ILLEGAL drugs?
Afraid a sober society would tell the left to go jump in a lake?
I can only assume those against this are in HS themselves or their brain still is ...
What's wrong with trust?
What's wrong with communication?
What's wrong with respect?
What's wrong with discipline?
What's wrong with education?
IMHO, if you think that drug testing will make the difference between effective parenting or not, you're a potential failure as parent looking for something/someone to blame.
P.S. Thrawn... your opinion is welcome here. ALWAYS.
-
Difference in effective parenting?
Come on. It's not about your kid, it's about the kids that are out of control, or is that due to your parenting (lack of) too?
It's the potential difference in the surroudings your kid is required by law to spend most of his awake life in.
-
Why shouldn't Thrawn post what he thinks? He should.
Of course, why shouldn't Thrawn be surprised by the responses he gets by people posting what they think? Especially if Thrawn's original post was confrontational and opinionated. That's what some of this O'Club is about.
So yes, Thrawn should feel he can post here and be welcome to do that, and he should also be ready for the responses that posting draws.
My opinion is no more right or wrong than his or anyone else's, so keep posting away Thrawn, Eagler, Rip, Sandman, etc.....isn't this why we keep hitting that little O'Club link?
Cobra
-
So... after what? Twenty years of the drug war, schools are now less safe than they were twenty years ago?
...and drug testing will fix this?
p.s. I know... Nixon really started it in 1972 but his and Carters programs weren't as focused as Reagans.
(http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/deaths1.gif)
-
Yeah, it is incredibly naive of me to assume that if drugs are not allowed in school there would be less drugs in school.
-
More stats:
(http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/DAILYUSE.gif)
-
Are you saying you want nicotine on the tested list Sandman? No problem there.
-
Been to the east coast, Fatty?
Look around Virginia and observe all of the tobacco fields.
Tobacco isn't going away. The growers have far too much influence at the capitol.
Just so everyone understands, I don't believe that children below the age of consent should be allowed to use any of these substances, alcohol.. nicotine... whatever. At the same time, I think drug testing undermines my authority as a parent because it sends one message loud and clear, "I don't trust you."
This is just more drug war silliness. The same drug war that costs this nation more than any other nation spends on national defense.
Bush should go ahead and turn it off. It'll be one way to pay for his tax cuts.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IMHO, if you think that drug testing will make the difference between effective parenting or not, you're a potential failure as parent looking for something/someone to blame.
I can tell you aren't a parent.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
amazing ....
why don't we just offer it in the cafeteria at lunch time? How bout making sure middle school kids can try it out too? Or is 12 too young but 15/16 old enough?:rolleyes:
you ppl freak me out.
What the hell is wrong with testing CHILDREN 18 and under in HIGH SCHOOL for ILLEGAL drugs?
Afraid a sober society would tell the left to go jump in a lake?
I can only assume those against this are in HS themselves or their brain still is ...
This is why this issue is the closest thing we have to McCarthyism. If your against it, you must be for drugs! Just like you must have been a commie if you were against the HUAC.
Another hypocritical conservative viewpoint IMHO. They want big government out of their lives, just not out of yours.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
I can tell you aren't a parent.
No you can't. I have two children. One is 14 the other is 12.
Edit: Before you ask... Yes, they live at home. Yes, with both of their parents. I've been married for 19 years.
-
Illegal drugs = Police business
Illegal Drugs != School business
Ok, since you parents are so much into getting your children busted, then do this alltogether:
Because police must have probable cause for stripsearch (im sure that one day this will also be thrown out), you parents must do it for them. You can search your kids every hole and secret pocket and give all your findings to the cop. If any narcotics are found, vóila, jailtime for that little bastard!
In some states you get a bonus if this thing is repeated 3 times, mandatory minimum! I bet it would get you and your kid smiling to get him 99 years of prison time without chance of parole!
Believe me, if cop finds any drugs, that kid is out of school, since he prolly gets jailtime. He wont be bothering his classmates anymore. This is what youre afraid of right?
Oh but i forgot, its not YOUR kid thats harrassing (this seems to be synonyme for drug use (which seems to be synonyme for abuse)) others, no that couldnt be!
Luckily for most of the kids, drugs have never been cheaper, more available and pure, than they are now..After 40 years of worldwide drug prohobition. Seriously, these drug tests are just a small finetune to that machine, which needs to fail again and again to open peoples eyes.
-
I'm amazed so many of you are so willing to toss away your civil rights in the intrests of the "common good." The Supreme Court as much as acknowledged their decision to allow random drug tests was unconstitutional yet the "common good" of fighting drug abuse in schools is paramount over the civil rights of school children. IMO "common good" is the absolute worst reason to suspend civil rights.
My child will be a High School senior next year. She is active in athletics and other school activities and if she's asked to take a drug test to play sports and she takes a drug test then I will feel like I've failed to install just how important our Constitution is to us. Oh, BTW, she does NOT do drugs, alcohol or nicotene and I don't need a drug test to know that.
-
Right. I heard the tobacco lobby was secretly funding the push to keep kids on their drugs instead of someone else's. I hope their secret enforcers don't read this.
-
I hope she doesn't plan on making it to the international level then Elfie...
DC 7 UNANNOUNCED TESTING BY FINA
DC 7.1 Unannounced doping control may be conducted by FINA at any time, including at the time or location of any competition in every Member country. Preferably it shall be carried out without any advance notice to the competitor or his Federation. Every competitor affiliated to any FINA Member Federation is obliged to undergo unannounced doping control decided by FINA.
DC 7.2 Every Member Federation shall include in their Rules a provision obliging that Member to allow unannounced doping control of any athlete under its jurisdiction. It is the duty of every Member Federation to assist FINA and, if appropriate other Member Federations in the carrying out of unannounced testing. Any Member Federation preventing, hindering or otherwise obstructing the carrying out of such testing shall be liable to sanctions according to Rule C 10.
DC 7.3 FINA shall keep a register of competitors who are being subject to unannounced doping control. Member Federations shall have the obligation to submit the names, current places of living, addresses, training times and facilities, telephone numbers of swimmers requested by FINA, to enable FINA to conduct unannounced testing.
DC 7.4 It shall be the obligation of each competitor ranked among the top 50 in each event, as well as that competitor's Federation, to keep FINA informed about where the competitor can be met for unannounced testing any time, by utilising the FINA Location Form. If the competitor cannot be found for unannounced testing due to incorrect or insufficient information provided to FINA, the Federation to which the competitor is affiliated shall be obliged to pay expenses for the unsuccessful attempt of testing.
DC 7.5 If FINA attempts to conduct unannounced testing but is twice unable to locate a competitor at the address or location provided to FINA for such purposes, FINA shall send notice regarding the situation to both the competitor and his or her Federation, requesting more detailed information as to the competitor's schedule. If the competitor cannot be located thereafter for a doping control test during a period up to twelve (12) months from the first date the competitor was unable to be located, the competitor shall be considered to have failed to submit to doping control in accordance with DC 2.1.
-
Hehe... Doping control isn't about recreational drug use. It's about detecting perfomance enhancing substances and/or methods.
DC 3.1 Except as set forth in DC 3.5, the following classes of substances shall be prohibited in competition:
A. Stimulants
B. Narcotics
C. Anabolic agents
D. Diuretics
E. Peptide hormones, mimetics and analogues
F. Cannabinoids
G. Beta-blockers (Diving and Synchronised Swimming only)
H. Local anaesthetics;
and the following classes of substances shall be prohibited at all times:
A. Anabolic agents
B. Diuretics
C. Peptide hormones, mimetics and analogues
The cannabinoids were added a few years ago. Remember when that (US or Canadian) snow boarder won the gold at the winter Olympics a few years ago? After detecting THC in his blood, they took the medal away but then had to give it back because marijuana wasn't on the list. It's not considered a performance enhancing drug. LOL.
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Illegal drugs = Police business
Illegal Drugs != School business
Ok, since you parents are so much into getting your children busted, then do this alltogether:
Because police must have probable cause for stripsearch (im sure that one day this will also be thrown out), you parents must do it for them. You can search your kids every hole and secret pocket and give all your findings to the cop. If any narcotics are found, vóila, jailtime for that little bastard!
In some states you get a bonus if this thing is repeated 3 times, mandatory minimum! I bet it would get you and your kid smiling to get him 99 years of prison time without chance of parole!
Believe me, if cop finds any drugs, that kid is out of school, since he prolly gets jailtime. He wont be bothering his classmates anymore. This is what youre afraid of right?
Oh but i forgot, its not YOUR kid thats harrassing (this seems to be synonyme for drug use (which seems to be synonyme for abuse)) others, no that couldnt be!
Luckily for most of the kids, drugs have never been cheaper, more available and pure, than they are now..After 40 years of worldwide drug prohobition. Seriously, these drug tests are just a small finetune to that machine, which needs to fail again and again to open peoples eyes.
Tuomio, that reminds me of a true story that happened back in 1974 or so. I was driving to my aunt and uncle's house for a visit when I saw my cousin Bill in the back seat of a Sheriff's car. I continued on to my Aunt and Uncle's house where my Aunt was crying her eyes out at the kitchen table. The conversation went something like this-
Me- Was that Billy I saw in the sheriff's car??
Auntie-(sobbing) Yes it was. He just got arrested for posession of marijuana.
Me- What?? How did THAT happen?
Auntie- His sister knew he had some and I tricked him into taking a ride with me to the Sheriff's substation. I told him I had to sign some papers and I went in and told the cops he had pot on him.
Me- You WHAT??? You turned him in for smoking pot??
Auntie- (sobbing) Oh, he's gone way beyond just smoking the stuff- When the Sheriff's Deputy and I came out to the car he was EATING it!!
Anyway Bill's claim to fame is that he was featured in a 60 Minutes piece on indoor pot cultivation in Ansterdam several years ago. Now he lives in the Philippines where he grows dope. I don't think he eats the stuff any more though.
-
I know, Elfie got me sidetracked. That is where the high school drug testing move started, however. Particularly here in TX where roids can be had over the counter across the border.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
I'm amazed so many of you are so willing to toss away your civil rights in the intrests of the "common good." The Supreme Court as much as acknowledged their decision to allow random drug tests was unconstitutional yet the "common good" of fighting drug abuse in schools is paramount over the civil rights of school children. IMO "common good" is the absolute worst reason to suspend civil rights.
My child will be a High School senior next year. She is active in athletics and other school activities and if she's asked to take a drug test to play sports and she takes a drug test then I will feel like I've failed to install just how important our Constitution is to us. Oh, BTW, she does NOT do drugs, alcohol or nicotene and I don't need a drug test to know that.
Please explain to me what the hell your civil rights have to do with being tested for illegal drug use in ANY instance in which you are taking advantage of a government sponsored or privately sponsered activity? Let me guess... it's a total invasion of your privacy to either 1. Take a breathilizer test or 2. Have your Driver's license revoked? Better yet.. I guess it's totally "Big Brother" that in almost every city, county or state government I've lived in (many) you can find yourself in the drunk tank for no more than walking down the sidewalk while over the legal limit? Public drunkeness is ILLEGAL and it's entirely up to the POLICE whether or not you spend a few hours behind bars. How many private corporations or government organizations have been successfully sued for requireing thier employee's to undergo random drug testing in the last 20 years? Why should SCHOOLS where the drug problem is OBVIOUSLY rampant allow students the "freedom" or "right" to partake in illicit drug use without fear of getting caught? How in hell can you possibly justify stating "random" testing for ILLEGAL drug use has anything whatsoever to do ith your precious "dreamed up" civil rights. What a completely pathetic drug induced whine.
The druggies on this board really SHINE! Sure hard to miss'em.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No you can't. I have two children. One is 14 the other is 12.
Edit: Before you ask... Yes, they live at home. Yes, with both of their parents. I've been married for 19 years.
So then good for you.. really. But why are you so against them being tested? Really, if they aren't using.. whats the big deal? If your absolutely positive, beyond any shadow of a doubt that your kids would NEVER use drugs, why not prove it? Your kids are (have) attend the same schools that some serious druggies do.. I can't possibly imagine the benefit those druggies and dealers bring to the education system, must be enormous eh? I don't see the logic. You can't justify it a civil rights issue.. thats been tried and tested for years, aint gonna happen. Heck, I've been "proving" to the USAF for 16yrs that I do not do drugs... it's not an exactly convenient 30 seconds of my day (which happens about once very 2 years on average).. but I can elect not to take the test and kiss my job and retirement away too. Hell after I retire in a couple years... there's nothing I'd like better than to roll a foot long doob and make up for 20yrs, however I'm not stupid enough to not realize the lost opportunities (for at least 3 months... much longer with the hair test) I'd be presented should I decide to do so. Show me a valid argument, I'll agree. I just don't see one other than fear of getting caught.
-
Shine on crazy druggies! hehe
And thius one particular right comes straight from the Constitution of the US, its called the Fourth Amendment and it says the government must have probable cause before it can search you. Now, after this ruling, if you are a kid in school who wants to play sports ort band, you can be searched via urinalysis. Last I checked being a kid in sports or band was not probable cause to believe they were possessing controlled or illegal substances.
This is just a pathetic attempt by an idealogical court to perpetuate a failed approach to recreational drug use. People are responsible for their actions, and if there is no potential harm associated with a substance (such as cannabis), then the government should not be able to forbid it.
Dangerous and deadly substances like cocaine, herion, tobacco and alcohol should not be punished by criminal codes, but should be addressed as addictions and civil fines.
It is the illegality of drugs that makes them so dangerous, and uncontrollable. If Johnny crackhead could get treatment or even a fix safely and legally, ,at real prices instead of the current black market prices, he would not feel compelled to rob or steal from others. The problem is that treating addictions as criminal behavior does not address the real underlying problem. The Nixon administration understood this in the 70s and has been the only administration to offer treatment instead of jail.
How in hell can you possibly justify stating "random" testing for ILLEGAL drug use has anything whatsoever to do ith your precious "dreamed up" civil rights. What a completely pathetic drug induced whine.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Please explain to me what the hell your civil rights have to do with being tested for illegal drug use in ANY instance in which you are taking advantage of a government sponsored or privately sponsered activity? Let me guess... it's a total invasion of your privacy to either 1. Take a breathilizer test or 2. Have your Driver's license revoked? Better yet.. I guess it's totally "Big Brother" that in almost every city, county or state government I've lived in (many) you can find yourself in the drunk tank for no more than walking down the sidewalk while over the legal limit? Public drunkeness is ILLEGAL and it's entirely up to the POLICE whether or not you spend a few hours behind bars. How many private corporations or government organizations have been successfully sued for requireing thier employee's to undergo random drug testing in the last 20 years? Why should SCHOOLS where the drug problem is OBVIOUSLY rampant allow students the "freedom" or "right" to partake in illicit drug use without fear of getting caught? How in hell can you possibly justify stating "random" testing for ILLEGAL drug use has anything whatsoever to do ith your precious "dreamed up" civil rights. What a completely pathetic drug induced whine.
The druggies on this board really SHINE! Sure hard to miss'em.
Tumor, you keep comparing apples and oranges. Sure, if you're stumbling down the road drunk that constitutes PROBABLE CAUSE for a police officer to investigate further. By your logic the police should have the right to administer random drug tests to every drivers license holder at any time. Hey, I'm not opposed to drug testing as a condition of employment or if a company has probable cause to suspect drug abuse is taking place. What I am opposed to, however, is RANDOM drug testing done by the Government on MY child without MY consent in a public place where she is REQUIRED to be.
As far as me being a "druggie??" Please, Tumor, if you want to have a rational discussion then refrain from name calling, OK? LOL crap, I don't even take asprin unless it's absolutely necessary- and if you don't believe me then pay for my drug test and have the results sent back to you.
-
Originally posted by strk
Shine on crazy druggies! hehe
And thius one particular right comes straight from the Constitution of the US, its called the Fourth Amendment and it says the government must have probable cause before it can search you.
So public schools are the Government now? LOL
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Tumor, you keep comparing apples and oranges. Sure, if you're stumbling down the road drunk that constitutes PROBABLE CAUSE for a police officer to investigate further.
Your very naive my freind. Check the your local laws, you'll be very surpised. Better yet, ask a cop. Tell me this. A police officer pulls you over for speeding and while requesting your DL and Reg, he observes a package in your car he feels looks like a drugs. Hey, what if he "thinks" your drunk? No probable cause there, he pulled you over for speeding, not swerving. It's just a small wrapped bag. Now... do you think you have the right to refuse search or test? Why SURE you do.. but you won't be driving that particular vehicle home, garuntee you that. Do you think you'd win your case? Well, maybe in Louisiana if you know the right people lol.
Apples to oranges? Public schools are government funded... they are not the government. Random drug testing is hardly an invasion of anyones rights, the random part is what ensures it. Hey guess what.. From the web:
"The City of Phoenix supports a drug-free workplace. After an employment offer is made, external applicants will be required to take and pass a drug test. Employment will be contingent upon successful completion of this drug test, and consideration of background, reference, and other job-related selection information."
Federal Civilian Employees:
"President's Statement of Policy: Federal employees required to refrain from the use of illegal drugs; use of illegal drugs by federal employees, on or off duty, is contrary to the efficiency of the service; persons who use illegal drugs are not suitable for federal employment; each agency will develop a plan to achieve objectives of the Executive Order "
Laramie county FL
"Pass a medical exam and drug test: All candidates, except for those applying for certain clerical positions, are required to take a medical exam and drug test at Sheriff's Office expense. Candidates who require a CDL license for employment must take required Department of Transportation tests."
I think the Govt illegality of drug testing is pretty much a moot point. Took me 3 minutes to dig up a Fed, City and County example. Where's your arguement?
Lotsa lawyers on this board... most of'em need to actually attend law school before they state "facts". Anyway, it all boils down to the fear of getting caught. Get real folks.. you do not have the "right" to break any laws, and the Constitution was not written with any iota of a thought to that extent.
-
I can't help but be reminded of the people that argue marijuana should be legalized cause you can make rope and really ugly shirts from hemp.
-
Originally posted by majic
I can't help but be reminded of the people that argue marijuana should be legalized cause you can make rope and really ugly shirts from hemp.
Mary Jane should be legalized... really. Imagine a 2-3 dollar tax per pack! Deficit? What deficit? Even Bill friggin Gates would get a Tax refund!! :D
-
Originally posted by strk
Shine on crazy druggies! hehe
This is just a pathetic attempt by an idealogical court to perpetuate a failed approach to recreational drug use. People are responsible for their actions, and if there is no potential harm associated with a substance (such as cannabis), then the government should not be able to forbid it.
..... of course! However, right now it illegal and will be for the foreseable future. Vote Libertarian.
-
So public schools are the Government now? LOL
Uhh Yeah, they are. WHo do you think runs them??
strk
-
I think the Govt illegality of drug testing is pretty much a moot point. Took me 3 minutes to dig up a Fed, City and County example. Where's your arguement?
noone makes you work for the fed. yuou consent to random drug screens when you agree to work for them. Kids HAVE to go to school, it is not optional. Granted, ,Band and Sports ARE optional. IMHO I dont think that participation in afterschool\activities is sufficient to require drug testing.
-
this whole thing makes me wanna drop a hit of acid and smoke joints until it kicks in.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Your very naive my freind. ...
EW is naive? Hehe... now that is funny. He's probably older than all of us.
-
Originally posted by strk
noone makes you work for the fed. yuou consent to random drug screens when you agree to work for them. Kids HAVE to go to school, it is not optional. Granted, ,Band and Sports ARE optional. IMHO I dont think that participation in afterschool\activities is sufficient to require drug testing.
No one makes you attend public school either. Attending school is sufficient to require drug testing... so long as the school has a no tolerance policy.
Anyway, I'm out of this conversation. Aint worth it.
-
i dont agree with drug testing except in situations where performance enhancing drugs could be used (and then test ONLY for them) or in situations where the individuals intoxication could lead to injury to others (planes, trains, and semis, etc).
there was a telemarketing firm in my area who lost a huge chunk of their productive telemarketers because they started testing for marijuana. i mean...how can you even be a telemarketer unless you can catch a buzz once in awhile. heheheheheh. high telemarketers are a danger to society!!!! :confused: :confused:
-
I keep hearing about us losing rights but I don't understand what rights those are!
Until a child turns 18 the only rights they have are the ones the parents give them!
I don't want my kids around drugs! Period! Not all parents feel that way so they don't care if their son or daughter takes these drugs to school.
If theses drugs are at school my child COULD be tempted to use them.
As a parent I want to do what I can to keep my kids safe so if that means drug testing at school then I'm all for it.
You don't want your crack head kid tested... fine! Keep him out of school!
As I see it the only rights that are being lost are those of the drug dealers.
-
The feelings I have about the US government don't even come close to the disgust I have for my own.
Thrawn, I thought I had you figured out by reading a number of your posts, and then this! Re-reading a lot of your stuff bearing the above statement in mind, I think I understand where you are coming from much better.
Hard hating your government, yet loving your country and countrymates isn't it. I used to think you were a person who didn't share a lot of my opinions, but after this thread, it appears this isn't the case.
and happy Canada Day tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Anyway, I'm out of this conversation. Aint worth it.
Yeah I agree Tumor, I'm out of this too. This isn't the hill I wish to stage my last battle on anyway, plus I think you have valid points on most issues and the whole drug testing thing is probably necessary anyway. bud, we'll argue over other crap later.
-
Legal schmegal! Did anyone consider the fact that this ruling is for testing kids doing extracurricular activities! How stupid is that? I'm sure the entire debate team is on E, and those French Club members....well.... vou le vou fouche aveque moi se soi.
Testing is wrong, but this is just stupid.
-
vou le vou fouche aveque moi se soi
uh ? :rolleyes:
Voulez vous coucher avec moi ce soir
This time I'm right and I'm sure ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Legal schmegal! Did anyone consider the fact that this ruling is for testing kids doing extracurricular activities! How stupid is that? I'm sure the entire debate team is on E, and those French Club members....well.... vou le vou fouche aveque moi se soi.
Testing is wrong, but this is just stupid.
how about roids in HS sports?
Too attempt to minimize this abuse is stupid too??
not to test is to condone, now that is stupid
it was bad in my HS days 75 -77, today it is ridiculous. Just during the 10 or so times I had to check my son out of school for doc/dentist appointments last year - the blatant drug abuse of many students getting tardy passes/ signing in/out was outrageous. (smells like dope, looks like dope - must be dope) I say test them all and bus the losers to their own school until they test clean.
My guess is the majority of the students who are against this ruling also do the drugs - nothing to do with their "rights" :rolleyes: that's just PC BS they are hiding behind.
How many on this board against the ruling are in the same category eh?
Sober - Try it, You'll Like It
-
Testing athletes for performance enhancing substances makes perfect sense. It keeps the playing field level.
Testing a tuba player for the same substances makes no sense at all.
-
Despite how much I dislike the current policies that are in effect, I don't see how this is any different than putting metal detectors in DC area schools to screen for guns.
It's the same difference, but instead they are catching kids that are getting doped up on the weekends too. For some kids, this just might help them get through HS and finish fairly well... other kids, well, they'll just leave HS when they turn 16.
Then of course, it just means that during the summer, they'll still be doing drugs. No one to test them, and they can get "clean" roughly 2 weeks before they go back to school.
It'll also probably mean that when they get to college they will be ill-prepared for drugs, or whatever, and it could leave the door open to them trying them and leading to the road of addiction. (In the case of most drugs, not all are addictive)
So, is this a good idea? IMO, it's an "okay" short term plan... but they needs to be gettin' some new ideas.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has approved random drug tests for many public high school students.
It ruled that schools' interest in ridding their campuses of drugs outweighs an individual's right to privacy.
The decision will allow the broadest drug testing the court has yet permitted of young people whom authorities have no particular reason to suspect of using drugs.
Thanks US, you guys make me fall in love with my country every day.
That's nothing. Most companies do drug tests before they'll let you go to work for them. Its about time the educational system caught up with the new standards. The school system is supposed to get kids ready for the workplace, and they can't do that if the kids can't pass the drug test.
-
From the title of this thread I thought we'd finally found a good use for teenagers, experimental drugs. :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is why this issue is the closest thing we have to McCarthyism. If your against it, you must be for drugs! Just like you must have been a commie if you were against the HUAC.
Another hypocritical conservative viewpoint IMHO. They want big government out of their lives, just not out of yours.
I'd like to thank the following for proving me right:
Eagler - My guess is the majority of the students who are against this ruling also do the drugs - nothing to do with their "rights" that's just PC BS they are hiding behind.
How many on this board against the ruling are in the same category eh?
Sober - Try it, You'll Like It
Tumor - The druggies on this board really SHINE! Sure hard to miss'em.
Gunthr - 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.
sigh
And just in case you were wondering. I do not do drugs, and the 2 beers I had while visiting a fellow AH'er a couple weeks ago makes it a total of 4 this year. (2 at a Superbowl party).