Wring:
Oh, but to give credit where credit is due, my argument that the fact we are considering this measure means that we should do it, is regrettably specious reasoning on my part.
Scylla, I’ve found many of your threads and posts to be amusing and sometimes instructive, provided the subject didn’t involve the current administration in any way. On that subject, you seem to be as blind as the proverbial bat. You are apparently willing to accept any idiocy proposed by GWB as right, proper, and necessary without regard to the long term results of that idiocy. I wonder sometimes if you possess a truly contrarian nature or if some of the things you profess to espouse aren’t really a very subtle manisfestation of your humorous bent.
It seems obvious to me, and not only to me, that having our school system used as a police force is wrong. Not only that, it is wrong on so many levels that all I can find to say is that it is just flat wrong and it’s inherent wrongness is immediately apparent to all but the blind. As always, YMMV and I am sure that it will.
Nah. Scylla’s just a bigoted lying fucking idiot.
yes, indeed, that is what I want. And if you’re suggesting/supporting a change in public policies, a huge expenditure of tax payer dollars and the wholesale invasion of privacy of scads of innocent citizens (even if they are minors), you’d damn well better be able to provide some empirical evidence to justify it, rather than your stated preference/opinion. Remember, you’ve asserted that other peoples ‘preference’ and their children’s ‘rights’ and feelinsg are trumped by your position. It seems such a shame that you’re unwilling to substantiate why this must be so.
I just wanted to point out that this, in itself, is a statement of personal preference. Not everyone holds that safety at all costs is a good thing.
Count me in the “this is a terrible idea” camp.
especially when he refuses to substantiates the ‘safety’ portion of it. I challenged him on that and he made references to specific cases where people he knew had been harmed 'cause of drugs. When asked for more generalized numbers, stats of people harmed in schools 'cause of drugs, he did the above stuff, maintaining that it was opinion, vs. empirical data.
certainly for example, there’s a ton of data available about the number of injuries due to sports in schools. But there’s no call (currently) to stop sports 'cause of the ‘safety’ considerations. Surely the ‘safety overrules personal preference’ arguement should mandate that position, shouldn’t it?
Nope, you’re gonna have to substantiate that the risk to the average student from another student consuming drugs (on or off school grounds) is a safety risk for the first student in order to lay claim to the ‘safety overrules personal preference’ argument which seems to be the cornerstone of your position that this is a good idea.
I need for you to help me out with something, if you please. The question that I have is a lot more general than the specific debate going on here, but the debate itself is very demonstrative of something that I have difficulty understanding.
It is my understanding that one of the cornerstones of Conservative thinking is the desire for a small, unobtrusive state (I know that there are others, and that this is oversimplifying the conservative position but please bear with me).
In practice, though, it seems to me that what really happens is that (many) Conservative seem to want a small, unobtrusive state when it comes to regulatory and financial matters but they seem to want a powerful and activist state when it comes to social matters (like drug use, same gender marriage, faith based initiatives and so forth).
I am willing to be persuaded that I am wrong about this, but that seems to be what I have observed over time. Now many Conservatives like to point out the terrible failure of all of the social programs (HUD, Welfare etc.) as proof that the Federal government is a bad tool for regulating these things. Why is it that (many) conservative seem unable or unwilling to apply this logic to social issues? What vital piece of logic am I missing that would lead me to believe that the State is just a terrible and clumsy tool for regulating the Market and somehow knows best what I should put into my body or who I should fuck?
Thanks, but you know this really doesn’t have a lot to do with Bush, per se.
It does. I think drugs in public schools is wrong. YMMV as well.
Sure but little Joey’s parents accept the risk by allowing him to play football. It is presumed that everything prudent will be done to provide a safe environment. pads and helmets will be worn, etc.
Little Joey isn’t compelled to play football by his attendance of public school. A child is forced into the risks and problems of a drug environment when he attends a school with a drug problem.
If Joey’s playing football put other people at risk who chose not to play football it would be a different story.
Y’know Wring this smells to me like you want to turn this into a statistical argument wherein you’ll presume to judge whether or not I have proven what you ask. I don’t accept that.
Your asking me to prove that drugs are dangerous to children is one of the more asinine things I’ve been asked recently. IIRC correctly drug-related deaths are the third leading cause of death among youth behind cancer and cardiac illness.
Thinking that illegal drugs are safe in schools is a position that requires proof, Wring.
Go start a great debate on the subject if you’re interested, but the pit’s not the place. Serious debates with me here have been running into too much interference, recently.
Well, I don’t speak for all conservatives, only myself. I favor a minimalist government, not an inadequate one. We are doing a poor job of keeping drugs out of kids’ hands in school. Inadequate. The solution needs to be adequate to solving the problem, no bigger. Than, if possible, it should go away.
This conservative thinks that if gays want to get marriage, the government should mind it’s own business about it.
But your criticism is apt. I mean Bush is supposedly a conservative and he’s doing this whole huge medicare seniors drug deal. Smaller government, WTF?
I’m a teacher, and under no circumstances do I think the school system should be responsible for universal drug testing of students.
First, there’s the violation of students’ civil rights. The second Bush’s lame brain idea was made policy, it would be challenged in court, and would rightfully lose.
Second, there’s the cost. $23 million is a drop in the ocean. There are tens of millions of public school students. Even if you only tested once a year, you’d be looking at a bill in the hundreds of millions.
Third, no one’s thought out the consequences. What if a student does test positive? What do you do with them? Suspend them from school? Mandate treatment? Report their parents to CPS? Not to mention that the first false positive will get the reporting school district slapped with a slander/libel/defamation of character lawsuit.
Fourth, the school’s have enough to do, thank you. If a student shows up under the influence, they get sent to the office. The administration gets to deal with him from there. If you’re worried about your daughter being surrounded by students stoned out of their gourds, Scylla, teach her to report them to the nearest teacher or administrator. They’ll be pulled out fast enough.
If you just can’t let go of the idea of drug testing, then at least base it on reasonable suspicion and lay out the consequences ahead of time. Stay away from the zero tolerance bullshit, and keep the school system out of the students’ pants (believe me, we don’t want to be there).
Which one’s?
Another conservative principle is the right of parents to raise their kids, and basically be their legal guardians, i.e. make decisions for them that adults would otherwise make for themselves.
Mandatory drug testing in public schools takes that right and responsibility away from parents. I can choose not to work at a job that asks for drug tests as a condition of employment. For the vast majority of parents, however, there are no legal alternatives to public school. Schooling is required by law: it is not a parental choice. This means that man. drug testing, definately moves us closer to the very sort of nanny state that many conservatives claim to oppose. It may AT THE SAME TIME serve a legitimate purpose for improving public schools. But the point is, because schooling is mandatory, and public schools are the only option for most parents, you cannot improve schools without also removing parental rights.
You can argue that it’s worth it. But I’d find it hard to see how you could both argue for it and then against the teaching of evolution to unwilling kids, or against explicit-as-the-government-wants-it sexual education. After all, the government has to make decisions about how to properly raise your kids too, now.
Illegal search.
Kids have to, by law be at school + this means they are fair game for drug tests with no probable cause whatsoever no matter what their legal guardians want = forcing people to get searched no matter what they do.
I don’t think they have this right at school. To my understanding courts have upheld metal detectors and searches for weapons at schools, and lockers.
You can be required to be at court and a search is still legal though you’re compelled to be there.
I mentioned at the outset that I favored this. In reading about this, we don’t really know what exactly the plan is.
The reason I favor this is because I see a lot of potential positives:
-
Make kids think twice about taking drugs if they know they will be tested, cutting down on drug use.
-
Identify kids with drug problems so they can be helped.
-
Monitor ongoing kids with drug problems.
-
Lessen drugs in schools.
-
Save lives.
-
Make school safer and more conducive to learning.
I see those as being strong positives.
So far the objections I’ve seen are: -
School people may not want to do it? My answer: so?
-
Violation of civil rights My answer: What civil right are we talking about that is being violated. I’m not saying it’s not there. I don’t see it.
-
“Degrading.” My answer: I don’t see how this is any more degrading than a metal detector, a locker search or a scoliosis test, or a checkup.
Our schools take on the responsibility for monitoring children in a variety of ways. Through their education and testing, vocational help, psychological counseling, they monitor for abuse, they perform all kinds of health checks. Why should they not be monitoring against this real hazard. Seems kind of irresponsible just to let it slide.
A postive scoliosis test has no penal repercussions: it isn’t against anyone’s penal interest. If it was, you can bet it might well come under some serious consideration as a mandatory test at a mandatory attendance situation.
You can’t be forced to have a drug test just as a condition of entering a courthouse. A judge can order one based only on some legitimate reason.
Because kids have no choice but to go to school, basically what you’re arguing is that the government has legitimate legal powers to do random drug tests of anyone, anywhere, anytime.
You, as a conservative, seriously can’t see any problem with saying:
- the government can at will compell you to be somewhere that
- you must submit to an incriminating search of your person.
?
No, but you can be searched of have a test like a metal detector performed on you. A search can be highly degraging. The objection was that a urine test is an illegal search.
No. What I’m arguing is that the government has the responsibility and the legal precedent to search children at public schools subject to necessity for the protection of all provided they do it in a nondiscriminatory and sensible way. That’s what I’m arguing.
A child is not required to attend a public school.
Sure I can. It happens all the time. When I got subpoenaed to testify several years ago in a domestic violence incident I was unfortunate enough to witness, I was both required to be at court at a certain place and time and subject to a search after the metal detector went off.
I had to put my keys and pocket contents into a basket, and get waved at with a wand.
I see this kind of thing as a necessity, if highly annoying. It’s the cost of society. If we expect a degree of safety in certain places, that comes with a cost.
There’s no way around it.
I am subject to fingerprinting and drug testing at work because of my job, I get a background check on me from time to time. I am subject to audit by the IRS. Child services can inspect my home if the safety of my children are at question. I will be searched at an airport. My luggage and property may be searched. A policeman has the right to search me in many circumstances.
All of these things are deemed necessary invasions of my privacy, as an adult. They are a cost of the society we live in and the privileges I enjoy.
Now I am an adult, and presumed, I guess, as being somewhat responsible.
A child does not enjoy that presumption. That’s why they have parents as guardians to act for them and on their behalf.
I really don’t understand how one can argue they posess a right and a privilege that I do not enjoy without the attendant responsibility. I have nothing against kids, I like kids. I don’t mean this as revenge or anything. Kids tend to be adults without the benefit of the good judgement that experience sometimes grants.
Clearly as a society we distinguish between adults and children in terms of the ability to handle responsibility. Why are some saying that we should grant them a higher standard of rights?
Now I am not intrinsically an afficionado of drug testing in schools. I think a good program done properly with the goal and methodology to help kids and clean up schools could do a lot of good.
I also understand the objections. Nobody likes being searched. Nobody likes being tested.
Welcome to life, kids. That’s the way it is. This is school. Might as well teach them. Maybe it will do some good.
Isn’t it his proposal?
Thanks for the reply, but there are still some points that are not clear to me. Primarily, I still wonder how (or if) you, as a conservative, feel that the State will be a efficient administrator of a program like this. It really still seems to me that many conservatives seem to think that the State somehow suddenly becomes good at things when it touches on “moral” issues, but that same State is clumsy and inefficient when it comes to regulatory or financial issues. I don’t understand this dichotomy.
Look, I am not arguing that drugs (both legal (for adults) and illegal) are not a problem in our schools. I think that the problem has been rather overblown by folks with political agendas, but I will concede that there are some kids that have issues here. You will notice also that I did not bring Bush in to my post at all, as I think that this initiative that he is pushing is more symptomatic of a segment of the Conservative culture and not something specific to him.
That being said, I still have several problems here. I have gone over some of my confusion about the Conservative notion of the role of the State, which I don’t think has been fully addressed. Another problem that I have is the often lauded (by Conservatives) notion of personal responsibility. This initiative seems to say that the State is going to step in and absolve the parents of the personal responsibility of educating their kids about the dangers of drugs, as well as the responsibility of raising their children to not be disruptive and a danger to others. In short, based on my understanding, I cannot see how this program would at all be in line with conservative values.
Finally, another concern that I have is that this will probably wind up being another un-funded or under-funded federal mandate that will further burden local school systems and detract from the actual process of educating kids even further. Personally, I would rather see schools spending money on computers and books than on urine sample containers and hatchet-faced nurses that watch people pee.