Sounds like you’re arguing for unfettered democracy, without regard for minority rights. Like if most people support it, that’s the winning position. (hint: your apparent position would lose on this one)
Sounds like a pretty powerful gun-control argument.
Maybe you both ought to go back to your respective corners and rethink how this issue works with/against your principles? 
It would be a pretty powerful gun control argument, except…
The right to bear arms is a specifically guarranteed right which exists because…
This right while posing a danger, exists explicitly as a safety compromise. The danger posed by an armed populace is thought to be be preferrable to that of the vulnerability of an unarmed populace helpless before a tyrannical government.
sorry, youll have to demonstrate that general student safety is at risk from casual drug use of other students.
manny you misunderstand - I was not claiming that point, merely pointing out to our friend Scylla that his point also applied to him, not merely those who disagreed w/him.
So is my (and by extension, my children’s) right to be “secure in (our) persons…”
Seriously, Scylla. I’m mostly staying out of this thread because of the anti-Bush lie contained in the OP, which lie detracts from the actual merits of the issue, but as a friend and fellow mostly-righty I want to ask you to rethink this one. What you’re advocating here is that the State may a) compel your kid to take education by their definition and b) if you don’t happen to be rich enough to meet that compusion in a private school to submit your kid, whether you want to or not, to invasive testing. Yeah, the State already does a lot of this. But the answer to that is to agitate for less, not acquiece to more.
I’ll still buy you the beer either way, of course.
Absolutely no problem.
People may die from drug overdoses or suffer or otherwise face detriment from illegal drug use, and related activity through impaired judgement as a result of said drug use.
Doing drugs is both a learned activity and one that can only exist where drugs are available.
Drug use and availability in schools increases the possibility that this will happen thus it is clearly a hazard.
::buzzer:: sorry -you mentioned, for example, the drug use you saw in your h/s - how many students were injured due to it? How many are injured/killed etc due to drug use from other students during the school day now?
It’s not really less or more that I worry about so much, though I do agree with you that the State is generally pushing way too much of a social agenda into our schools.
It seems to me that before a school can be anything it must first be a safe, secure and relatively wholesome environment suitable for children. I see no way around the need for the state to be as intrusive as it needs to be to provide such an environment. If it cannot, then there is no point in having a school.
It is simply not an educational environment.
In general, I do not feel that drug testing is generally a good idea for schools. Considering their current state, I think it’s probably a pretty good idea.
Me for example. It impacted my grades and hence my ability to get into the school of my choice. I had a personal acquaintance commit suicide as a direct result of drugs while he was in High School. I have another high school acquaintance a really brilliant guy who got into Coke in High School. Now he’s almost 40 and he still lives in his parent’s basement and delivers water for a living. He spends all his money on coke and has gone through rehab several times.
I know several other people who had problems with drugs resulting with usage that began as a teenager. That seems to be the usual pattern.
I don’t think that it’s necessary that I go search for statistics that drug use can be dangerous and result in death, or tell you exactly how many times it happens. If you don’t agree with the premise already.
I’m glad to hear the insanity hasn’t spread to the game industry. Thanks for the inside info.
You know, I think all this talk of rights and priviledges is quite beside the point. It just isn’t practical. Let’s really think about the ramifications of this policy:
How often? Once a year? On a scheduled day? That would just mean they could only smoke weed eleven months out of every year. And what if they miss that day?
Let’s say we do it selectively, putting it in the hand of the teachers and principles? That has two problems with it. For one thing, as we can already see from those who have spoken up in this thread alone, a lot of teachers wouldn’t support this policy, and would be unlikely to enforce it. Secondly, in the case of both principles and teachers, it could become quite unfair on an individual basis. Much like the problem we already have with profiling in law enforcement, it doesn’t have to be a concious prejudice (whether it be against race, clothing, or attitude) to be a factor in decisions.
Random drug tests would be a waste, especially since so few students do it regularly. And how would we justify spending such an exorbitant amount of money on drug testing (with questionable success) when we’re already having such a problem adequately paying our teachers and getting enough good books?
And finally, what of parental rights? What if a teen’s parents don’t want him to be obliged to pee in a cup? What if the teen’s parents don’t mind him smoking pot occasionally? It’s not as rare as you might think. My parents, for instance, were much more comfortable with the thought of me smoking pot than drinking or smoking cigarettes. At the age of 13 my dad told me: “I’d prefer that you didn’t smoke pot until you’re 18. I’d prefer that you didn’t drink until you’re 21. And I’d prefer that you didn’t smoke cigarettes EVER.” My mother agreed on the point of cigarettes, but her mantra on the subject of pot and alcohol was different: “Moderation, moderation, moderation. But I’d prefer it if you never drank.” It blows my mind that we live in a society where a parent can legally give their child alcohol, so long as it’s within the home, but a similar situation involving marijuana would be referred to child-services. My mother was hard-working, responsible, loving, and incredibly supportive, but an unfit parent under the laws spawned by the same people who are coming up with this crap. Despiccable, and utterly unworthy of our time, effort, and money.
Now to my personal objection: I started smoking pot when I was a teen. I’ve never been in jail, I’ve never been put into a dangerous situation due to pot (unless falling asleep with the TV on could be considered a “dangerous situation”), and I can honestly say it’s had no effect on my academic achievement. I was a horrible student before I started smoking pot, and I was a horrible student after I started smoking pot, except for a brief period that I spent on the honor-roll, which actually took place during a period of my life when I was smoking pot quite regularly. My classes that semester were english, modern lit, journalism, social studies, and creative writing. All of which were child’s play for a kid of my formation and temperment. Also, I actually kind of enjoyed those classes. It was only when my counseler insisted that I fill my schedule with science, health, biology, and math-related classes that my grades plummetted once again, and my attendence too. What’s more, I never got any weed through school, nor did I ever smoke any weed at school, and as far as I can remember I never saw anybody smoke weed at school. There were, after all, more enjoyable places for it than school. And, knowing what I do, I find the claim that weed creates an unsafe environment to be completely laughable. C’mon, have these guys ever even seen a pothead? I’ve seen bean bags that were more dangerous.
A pox on the whole idea, I say.
At my hospital, they do pre-employment testing on all the employees–except the doctors. (I’m not sure about the nurses, but I think they get tested as well.) Of course, most doctors are not directly employed by the hospital, but many of us are.
So the hospital goes out of its way to make sure guy waxing the floors or the lady making your sandwich in the cafeteria didn’t smoke a bowl last weekend, but the person making your medical decisions can puff away with impunity. (We can also make those decisions after we’ve been working for 28 straight hours, but that’s another rant entirely.)
Doesn’t really matter to me, personally, as I haven’t smoked up in many years. Still weird, though.
Part of my objection to this involves the issue of false positives. I have no idea what the sensitivity and specificity of the standard urine test are, but it’s not perfect, and when you start testing millions and millions of kids, you’re going to come up with a lot of positives in people who have never even seen an illegal drug.
This wouldn’t be such a big deal if our approach to those who tested positive were rational. But it isn’t. The kids who come up positive are going to be labeled as drug users and are going to have to spend the rest of their scholastic lives, if not their early years of employment, explaining it away. They’re going to have to go through hours and hours of counseling sessions they don’t belong in.
In fact, it’s hard for me to give a coherent opinion on this issue, because it’s hard to separate it from its context. Our culture is completely irrational when it comes to marijuana, and this is not only a direct result of that, it makes the implications of a move like this far more serious.
Dr. J
Well said, Doc.
I believe that DoctorJ is right, especially regarding the implications.
Random drug testing will catch a lot of marijuana smokers, but miss kids doing harder drugs with greater frequency. IIRC, marijuana stays in the system for a long time. Not to really rain on the parade, but won’t some of the HS kids that use marijuana switch to the harder drugs that don’t stay in your system for a long time? That took about two minutes, searching “drug testing”.
It should be pointed out that many schools conduct tests based on suspicion now. A random testing plan would benefit the burgeoning drug testing industry, but I don’t see much other upside.
I believe I mentioned something to that effect quite a while back. Even when done correctly, totally by the book, false positives happen… but that still isn’t my major issue here.
Scylla has mentioned that he feels that in order to make the public schools safer, drug testing is acceptable, and that his right to his child’s safety pretty much supersedes anything else anyone else has mentioned.
By this logic, shouldn’t the government be forcing YOU to pee in cups, Scylla? After all, you might be smoking dope at home, setting a bad example, providing an inappropriate role model. For that matter, random searches of your house might not be a bad idea. I mean, what if you nut out, load up all the guns, drive down to central Texas, and begin blazing away in the general vicinity of MY kid? As a citizen and taxpayer, I think I have a right to yadda, yadda, yadda… :rolleyes:
Then again, I’m likely barkin’ up the wrong tree. If I’m correct, Scylla may well remark, “Fine, I’ll pee in cups, as long as you do. We will all pee in cups. I have nothing to hide. Do you?”… thus missing the point that FORCING INNOCENT PEOPLE TO PEE IN CUPS, I think, is indicative of an unpleasantly totalitarian mindset on the part of those who think it’s a good idea. I don’t WANT the next generation getting accustomed to peeing in cups, because THEIR kids will think it’s NORMAL, so when the government takes the NEXT intrusive step… well… it’s not THAT big a deal… and we don’t have anything to HIDE, do we…?
Where does your idea of safety END, Scylla? Mandatory violence counseling, whether the child needs it or not? Armed guards in the school corridors? Lithium in the lunchroom food? Federal regulation of bedtimes?
…but as long as the issue of false positives has been brought up, what happens the first time some parent decides to fight it? Little Junior has come up positive, and been assigned to drug counseling. Mom and Dad bug out. “OUR baby innocent precious darling? POSITIVE in a DRUG TEST?”
…and the duel of lawyers has begun. Is the federal government going to have to deal with this? No. You have to get the government’s permission to sue it. This immunity does not extend completely over the public schools, though, in that public school officials may be sued with impunity…
…and there the shitstorm begins. Scylla has mentioned that he does not trust the public school officials to properly deal with this drug testing, and he is correct, more or less, in his reasoning. I would add to his reasoning by stating that in more than one school district, any kid known to have touchy parents would likely never be tested… or at least, would never test positive. I’ve worked in enough schools to know that some principals and superintendents can get pretty wussy in the face of outraged parents with lawyers.
Come ON, folks. The schools have ONE function: to teach. Making them babysitters and/or guardians of public morals is a bad idea, and putting them in the position of checking our children for drug abuse – except in the sense where any cop could establish guilt – is a mistake.
Scylla, you suggested that parents who are concerned with their children being embarrassed could simply yank their kids and home school them. By the same token, I might remark that if you are concerned with your child not being safe in a public school setting, YOU might yank your kid and send her to the private school of your choice. If Bush gets his way, you’ll even have tax-supported vouchers to do just that.
Admittedly, this will leech funding from the public schools and make them even worse off than they are now, but if they are truly as horrible as you seem to think they are, then perhaps they deserve to die and be replaced by a legion of shining new privatized educational institutions, better and safer and somehow more efficient, effective, and drug-free than what we have now.
And lastly… Manhattan, what “anti-Bush lie” are we talking about? Am I being accused of being a liar, or is there some untrue statement in the news story I linked to?
If you think I’d trust this to the same fucking morons who make “Zero tolerance” kick kids out for bringing butterknives and Midol to school, you’ve GOT to be joking.
I’m so, so glad I don’t have kids. This kinda shit would scare the bejesus out of me.
I still don’t understand this near obsession with some of the least worrying problem ares for teens, most of whom can handle this experimental drug period with little difficulty.
What they plainly can’t handle are the legal drugs; that’s why they’re so ridiculously obese from fast foods and lifestyle choices, so dependent on profit-driven prescribed drugs, so consumption (of all kinds) friendly, so easily accepting of corporate advertising, alcohol abuse and nicotine dependency – that stuff can stay for life with your average teenage, aspiring to worker ant status, consume-‘til-you-feel-good addicts.
But the Fed is worried about grass ?
Isn’t this Reefer Madness Revisited ?
There’s the possibility that this could be considered unconstitutional as an unreasonable search under the 4th amendment. I remember reading about something in Criminal Procedure about it and I went to check on westlaw. It seems there are two Supreme Court cases, one decided just a year and a half ago. The 2002 case was actually referenced in the article. It’s Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls.
In both of them, they upheld the random drug testing. The key difference between those two cases and what’s proposed here is that they upheld random drug testing for atheletes. The rationale was that if you choose to participate in extracurricular activities, you also have the choice to refuse its requirements and not participate.
“The Court, however, did not simply authorize all school drug testing, but rather conducted a fact-specific balancing of the intrusion on the children’s Fourth Amendment rights against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.”
Kids can’t choose to not go to school. Well…unless you’re Amish.
The 2002 case was decided 5-4 and those that disagreed with the 1995 case wrote an even stronger dissent in the 2002 one. One new vote and the entire issue could be reversed, taking Bush’s proposal with it.
I also take issue with the price tag. $23 million to fund? This is based off of a $2 million, eight district project? That would mean $23 million could fund 92 school districts, or about two in every state. Maybe the White House forgot to add a few zeros. But hey, a million here, a million there. Sooner or later it’ll start to add up to real money.
George W. Bush of all people. This is a man who has admitted he had an alcohol problem, and has been pretty lame in his denials of using cocaine. If there had been drug tests in his high school, would he have passed? (And that’s neglecting the fact that he owned a pro baseball team, and we all know pro athletes never use illegal drugs or performance-enhancing drugs.) His family seems to have some problems with addiction. His solution? Treat kids like criminals. Drug policies in this country are backwards and damaging enough as it is. Figures that a former addict would be leading the fight to make them worse.
Did you see what you did? You changed my premise. I never once did (or would) suggest that drug use would have zero impact on anyone what I did require of you was that you prove your assertion that drug use in schools was at such a level of a problem that it required the program described. You’ve merely said (on this page at least)
this assumes the premise, ie that drug use is ‘enough of a problem’ - only in your case, the bar is only at the “if it’s enough of a problem that Bush/whoever is considering testing”
I submit to you sir, that the mere fact that an action is being considered is not sufficient to justify doing it. (and I would have thought that was an obvious thing).
and I renew my request to you to submit the factual data that proves that premise (ie, that drug use is at a such a level in schools this must be done).
Master Wang:
Your right to yadda yadda yadda is sacrosanct as far as I’m concerned. That aside, your train of thought is without merit, faulty, and is bad kung fu.
You may be required to go through a medical detector in an airport, or a courtroom. That is different from a random search of your home, or person in other circumstances. In this case the search is a condition of your doing something in the public domain. Going to school is in the public domain, and your state and actions may affect others in that domain as well. Therefore they are a legitimate concern. A search in an airport does not imply an illegal search of a home. Similarly a drug test in school does not equal a drug test in the home.
You’ve presented a very very slippery slope here. And, as you know, a slippery slope is a fallacy.
I would imagine repeating the test in duplicate would be the first step to confirm the positive result. That’s how I would set it up.
Agreed. I said as much. We must each be subject to the rule of society in this. It may well be that most people disagree with me. I am content to go along with this. If society weighs these things through it’s elected officials and decides this is not proper, than we won’t do it. If it goes the other way, than it goes the other way. I just think you are wrong to think that the inalienable rights and freedoms of children or parents are potentially being violated by this measure.
Wring:
[quote]
Did you see what you did? You changed my premise. I never once did (or would) suggest that drug use would have zero impact on anyone what I did require of you was that you prove your assertion that drug use in schools was at such a level of a problem that it required the program described.
[quote]
I was responding to what you said. Namely: "::buzzer:: sorry -you mentioned, for example, the drug use you saw in your h/s - how many students were injured due to it? How many are injured/killed etc due to drug use from other students during the school day now? "
I think my response is a fair one to your request for evidence. I haven’t changed the premise. I answered the issue you raised.
What you want (I think) is for me to prove that drug use and the danger from it is at a level that this drug testing is necessary.
This is a matter of opinion and the weighing of evidence, not an empirically proveable assertion. I decline to try to prove it in this manner, on the grounds that the request is not reasonable.