Children shouldn’t have the same legal rights as adults? Why not?
Um… well… first of all, what problem?
Scylla, you are a parent. I am a parent. If you wish to have your child tested for illegal drug use, well, far be it from me to step on your parental rights.
I object to drug testing under SPECIFIC circumstances, on SPECIFIC grounds. Those grounds are as follows: I regard them as invasive and degrading, and downright goddamn spurious, unless conducted under the proper circumstances.
If you want to have your child tested, well, peachy. That’s between you and your child.
If you want to have convicts and persons on probation tested (as is currently done lots of places), well, I can’t very well argue. These persons have been convicted of crimes, and have therefore forfeited some portion of their liberty, privacy, and dignity to the supervision of the State.
If you want MY child tested, you can go take a flying leap at the moon. Upon what grounds do you accuse my child of anything? Where is your evidence? Upon what grounds do you base your suspicions? Based on the link in the OP, our President doesn’t seem to think there should BE any accusations or suspicions; all children would simply be routinely tested, as a matter of course.
You would condemn MY daughter to this random degradation, simply because she MIGHT be doing drugs, and MIGHT somehow contaminate or cause harm to YOUR child, somehow? Even in the total absence of any evidence to support these theories?
This strikes me as pretty thin, folks.
As a teacher, I deal with teeners every day. They aren’t adults. They have incredible lapses of judgment, occasionally. They make incredibly stupid mistakes from time to time… but they aren’t fools, as a rule. They can see when The Law makes sense, and when The Law is an ass, and when The Law is being used as a tool against them, personally… and what I see happening here is most teeners dividing mostly into three categories:
-
Non-drug user, indifferent. “Hey, everyone has to do it. It sucks, but it’s no big deal. In fact, it’s getting me used to further invasions of my privacy and dignity that any future regime may choose to impose upon me, when guys like Scylla and Wang-Ka are old and feeble, and my generation is running the country.” Plainly, I don’t regard this as desirable.
-
Non-drug user, resentful. “I don’t do drugs, but they tested me anyway. Not because they suspected me, but just because I’m a kid and they can force me to do things for their convenience. My parents and the system are teaching me that my privacy and dignity are meaningless, and I am learning to hate them for that.” Somehow, this is not a lesson I would choose to teach.
-
Drug user, evasive. “Gotta be sneaky, gotta not get caught… oh, shit, busted. Oh, well, what are you going to do about it? Call my parents? Force me into drug treatment? Drug treatment and counseling are basically worthless unless I really want to quit. You think you’re going to force me into wanting to quit?” Altogether, I don’t see this as wildly successful. Perhaps some kids will give up drugs for fear of getting caught. Perhaps some will quit drugs after getting caught due to drug counseling. And perhaps others will simply smoke out and deal with whatever happens, never once suspecting they’ll get caught. I mean, in a world where people murder convenience store clerks in front of obvious video cameras to get the fifty bucks in the register, do we REALLY think this is going to solve The Big Drug Problem?
If even one child is saved from the ravages of drugs, cries the chorus, then it is worth it! Yeah, well, if this is our reasoning, why haven’t we nuked Colombia into glassy slag or invaded Mexico yet? I suspect that summary execution of drug dealers would do more to curb drug abuse than all the piss tests ever performed…
Y’know what? Someday, the teenage girl that Scylla has forced to pee in a cup may well be making the decision whether to keep Scylla at home with the grandkids… or simply to put him in a Home. For his own good, of course…
I object to anyone’s demand that MY child be tested, for the benefit of THEIR child.
Being inoculated for childhood diseases is one thing.
Being expected to expose oneself in front of strangers and pee in cups – without evidence of a crime, without even suspicion of wrongdoing – is quite another.
And, with all due respect, I frankly don’t feel like paying good tax money for a screwy-assed idea like this that I really don’t think is going to do any good.
Now, as to the question of testing athletes, job applicants, and airline pilots:
ATHLETES: Oookay. I care about athletes doing drugs… WHY?
JOB APPLICANTS: Well, it’s THEIR job. If I don’t want the job bad enough to pee in a cup, I’ll probably just take a hike. I don’t like that the procedure seems to be becoming widespread, though.
AIRLINE PILOTS: Well… if the airline pilot is smoking dope off the job, and stone cold sober when he’s flying my plane, then I don’t care.
If the airline pilot is stoned WHILE he’s flying the plane, then this is truly a major, incredible, staggering blunder as far as his judgment goes, I would think.
Y’know what? When you have an airline pilot with JUDGMENT THAT BAD… I really don’t think that DRUGS are the problem. THE IDIOT AIRLINE PILOT is the problem. And all the dope tests in the world aren’t going to make him any smarter, I think…
I experimented with drugs and drinking… to my detriment and that of my grades and my ability to get into the college of my choice. While I didn’t experiment with homosexuality, I wouldn’t categorize that as a vice.
That’s an excellent question. It takes it deeply into account. I didn’t experiment with heroin or cocaine because they were not commonly available and most of the kids in my school were frightened by the prospect of these types of drugs.
As for children’s natural inclination towards experimentation and rebellion, I have no problem with it. It is natural. One of the hardest tasks facing a parent is trying to balance a child’s safety with its need to experiment and learn by making mistakes. The trick is to provide an environment where mistakes can be made yet they are not severely damaging, or deadly.
IMO pot is a much harder drug than most people give credit to it for. It screws you up very quickly and with minimum effort and you stay that way for a long time. During that time you are an idiot and there are rarely consequences after the fact, like a hangover, or what have you.
By definition, the fact that we are talking about children means that they are not able to handle adult responsibilities on their own
Children need an evironment where they can learn, where they are challenged, where they can make mistakes and where those mistakes will not be catastrophic. There was a lot of drug use at my High school and it affected that school pretty severely. I think it creates a terrible environment and unsafe one.
I know children will experiment, but we need to make drugs very difficult and dangerous (in terms of the consequences) for children to experiment with. Right now it is neither.
Drugs tend to be easy, expected, and without serious consequence.
You want your socialist State to decide everything for them – cos, I tell you, it ain’t going to stop a damn thing; it’s just going to hamper the education of an awful lot of otherwise fine kids and give those unfortunate to be ‘caught’ an unfair disadvantage in their later life - just like its Big Daddy the ‘War on Drugs’ already does.
It’s taking that giant mistake down a generation.
[/QUOTE]
Because they are not adults capable of making their own decisions and taking responsibility for their own actions.
Take a look at my one month old. Should she have the right to vote, or bear arms?
Should my four year old have her own liberty and the inalienable right to choose what to eat and what to do for herself?
Presumably as a child matures it’s abilities to take on these rights and responsibilities increases until we pretty much draw the line arbitrarily and say they are adults.
First drug steroids, now this. All from a guy who refuses to give a straight yes-or-no answer to the question, “Mr. Bush, did you ever use cocaine?”
You don’t suppose he’s overcompensating or anything, do you?
kids on drugs in schools. Drugs available to kids in schools. Permissiveness towards drug use in schools.
ok.
I would disagree with testing that was unnecessarily invasive and degrading. If their is sufficient cause to it, I think the need outweighs the nicety. Probably our difference of opinion comes down to whether or not we feel it is necessary.
Well this is a couple of different things we’re talking about. First off, there is a diffence between testing and accusing. We are not accusing kids of having scoliosis when we test them for it. We are checking. So no accusation need be implied.
Let’s use another example.
Say there was a lice problem at a school. Doing head checks is both invasive and degrading. Yet, it is necessary if at a given school there is a lice problem. There is not other way to get rid of the problem other than to identify and to treat it.
If there was a drug problem at my daughter’s school, and they instituted drug testing to combat it and see who has the problem, I would applaud the effort. I would consider it irresponsible if they did not do something about it. If the school is not first a safe and healthy environment than it cannot accomplish its purpose.
I would suggest that we have a severe problem with illegal drug use in today’s schools. We certainly did when I went. We do know in the area that I live in, which is very rural.
Not at all. These are on the same grounds under which we might do a headcheck in a school with a lice problem, or where we perform a scoliosis test, or a test for dylsexia, or good vision. There is no degradation involved in these.
[/QUOTE]
Amen.
And as the Parent… the Grown-Up … in that child’s life, you get to be the guy who makes those decisions.
Even if your child chooses to hate you for it. And that can suck pretty mightily.
I wasn’t ABOUT to raise the issue of children’s rights. That’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and a messy one, with lots of degrees of separation.
… but MY rights – and responsibilities – on the other hand, are another beast entirely. I’m a fully growed adult human person… and I feel very much that if the government tries to force my child to submit to random drug testing, WITHOUT CAUSE OR DUE PROCESS, then I have a responsibility to my child to stand up and say, “Hell, no.”
If my kid is going to hate me, let her hate me because I did something that I thought was in her best interest… NOT because I failed to defend her, when she was a child and could not defend herself.
Now, if they catch her toking out in the girls’ restroom, hash pipe in hand and a loose ounce in her purse, I might not be so quick to dive between her and the state. I did LOTS of drugs, once upon a time, and I am very much aware of the ugly mistakes you can make, and their consequences… and dope is ILLEGAL, whether we like it or agree with it or NOT.
…but I’m damned if I will sit back and keep quiet while the schools and the State harass and humiliate children at random, without evidence and without cause.
So, we’ll be testing kids for drugs… well, drugs except ritalin. Boy, think what’s going to happen if that gives a false positive. And I’m sure we’ll see the same calm, considered policies that have kids getting the boot for bringing Advil to school.
“But I need my insulin!”
“That’s the drugs talking Timmy. Now go with the nice people from the Council for the Protection of Virtue, they’ll make sure you get the re-education you need.”
Scylla… are you seriously comparing these two events?
-
A head check for lice. This involves a nurse going over your head with a lice comb.
-
A urine test for drugs. This involves exposing one’s genitalia and urinating into a container in plain view of said nurse and/or a law enforcement officer, depending upon circumstance.
With all due respect, sir, if you regard these two circumstances as being remotely similar, from the point of view of the person being checked/tested, I am very much inclined to wonder about your concept of “embarrassing.”
Either that, or you went to a school somewhere on the eighth circle of Hell, as far as drug culture went. Do you honestly feel that drug abuse is so endemic in ALL our schools that we need to make all our teeners wiggle Mr. Winky and Miss Fluffy at the nice policeman/nurse, periodically? Even when there is a complete lack of evidence suggesting drug abuse of any sort?
And even if you answer “yes,” the fact remains, though, that even if YOU do not regard this as particularly bothersome, embarrassing, degrading, humiliating, or disturbing, I do.
So you’re proposing that your right to a drug-free planet to raise your child in supersedes my right to not have my child forced to expose her genitals to public officials?
rjung brings up an interesting point: what has changed that this is on the table now?
During the 1988 Presidential campaign, Pierre ‘Pete’ Dupont (the Republican former governor of Delaware) called for mandatory drug testing for school children. He was the only candidate of either party to espouse this, and I remember how extreme it sounded then.
I like to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt, but I’m having a hard time tying this to anything more substantive than re-election drum-beating.
Absolutely. Both can be very embarassing, particularly in the case where they actually do find lice.
Actually, I was thinking kind of the same thing. What makes something embarassing or degrading is when an individual is focussed on with unusual and unpleasant attention.
If everybody has to pee in a cup, that’s far less embarassing or degrading than just picking a few kids out based on suspicion.
Frankly, I don’t trust School administrators or teachers to make a judgement call about this. If they got to pick and choose children to test, it might be used as a punishment or to degrade or embarass certain children.
Yet clearly, it would be very useful in identifying problem kids and helping them early. That’s why they perform the scoliosis check on everybody instead of just picking out kids they think might have it. It’s not embarassing if everybody has to do it.
It’s like vaccinations. Vaccinations don’t do your kid a lot of good. In fact, they might represent a danger in certain cases. It is very good overrall for society though if we are all vaccinated to the extent possible. So it is mandatory as a condition for attending school.
Montclair High School in the 80s.
We make children do all kinds of things they’d rather not for their own good. Embarassment or feelings of degradation about this are not inherent, you know? Both these things are learned behaviors. My one month certainly doesn’t mind peeing in front of strangers. It’s only degrading and embarassing if you teach them it is.
I’m not a big fan of sex ed in grade school. If I decide I don’t like it, and it matters to me enough I can pull my kids from public school, and place them in private or homeschool them.
If drug use in schools is enough of a problem that we are considering testing, then we should do it. Those that don’t like it can lump it or exercise their alternatives. If the rest of the country thinks it’s a big enough problem that it’s warranted, that’s what you’ll have to do. If the rest of the country doesn’t but I feel it is, I face the same alternatives you do. I look at like this like any other controversial thing that happens in schools. Some people like it, some don’t. You won’t please everybody.
I certainly can’t see objecting to it, based on student’s rights or parents preference any more than I can see removing evolution for those same objections. I certainly don’t think it crosses any line in terms of parents’ or students’ rights.
Your child does not have that right. I have the right to expect that my public schools will be a safe environment for my child. I think my right in this supersedes your preference.
Are you fuckin’ kidding me? I know a bunch people who went to Monclair in the 80s. More still who were Richey Rich’s and went to MKA. I’ve seriously got to buy you a beer.
I actually went to MKA (the middle school) for a couple of years.
I started off in public school, got in trouble, got moved to MKA, got in trouble, moved to St Cassians and matriculated to Montclair High.
But you really don’t need an excuse to buy me a beer. 
Recommendations aren’t necessarily worth much these days; many employers will only verify employment dates. They will not give bad recommendations for fear of being sued if the former employee thinks the bad recommendation kept them from a new job.
Back when I worked for a legal publisher, I had to give a pre-employment sample. I later asked one of my bosses why they bothered. His answer: employees that developed a drug or alcohol problem so severe that it interfered with their job could NOT be fired unless they had gone through rehab programs three times without any improvement. (I suspect this policy was a rather liberal interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to put it mildly, but it was also designed to avoid litigation.) As you might imagine, rehab programs are not cheap, and in the meantime you’re forced to hold open a job for someone who may not be productive for an extended period of time, who cannot be replaced permanently, and whose absence places strain on the remaining employees who have to pick up the slack. It’s much cheaper for the company to make you pee in a cup at the beginning in hopes of weeding out the potential problem employees.
Careful reading of Master Wang-Ka’s post suggest that he is claiming a right as his own, not as his child’s. If you wish to deny that the right exists, it might be helpful to assert that Master Wang-Ka does not have the right, rather than stating that his child does not have it.
kaylasdad:
Hmm. You’re right. Wang-Ka does in fact have that right. He has the right not to enroll his child at public school if they intitute a policy he finds unacceptable.
as do you if you find that your perceived level of the drug usage is more than you find acceptable. (given that there is no reliable data about current drug use at any school)
I think I said that six or seven posts up.
but in the post I quoted, your comment was to assert why your position should win, vs. the ‘no test’ one.
Safety overrules personal preference.