Just read the Sept. 11 issue of People. There were letters on a story from Texas I believe at a school called Lockney.
They apparently tested children who were enrolled there for drugs, and only one parent protested, a Larry Tannahill.
A Jack Foote wrties saying “Sometimes we have to lose some rights to make a better place to live.”
I disagree!
Why do we have to lose rights?
Are all students on drugs?
Even so, I doubt testing would make them stop drug taking!
I live in Virginia which isn’t exactly considered a very progressive state, but a child here cannot be drug tested without consent once they have turned 13. The exception would be if they are caught commiting a crime, like driving under the influence etc.
Needs2know
I absolutely oppose any drug testing absent probable cause (with the exception of certain professions involving public safety such as law enforcement, air traffic controller, etc.)
Even though the courts have traditionally held that students enjoy a reduced right to privacy, I find the idea of causeless drug testing especially abhorrent. I disagree with causeless searches of student lockers, and vehicles in school lots. Invasion of bodily privacy goes way too far.
OTOH, it is preparing them for the real world, where random drug testing is rapidly becoming the norm. I’m an accountant, and I am subject to frequent random drug testing. A feakin’ accountant! What do they think, I’m going to cut off my arm with a ledger printout, or have a freak ten-key accident, killing innocent bystanders?
I think all random drug testing need to be outlawed. I mean, they can’t search our homes, cars, or backpacks with out a warrent or probable cause, but they can search our bodily fluids at will and no one objects? How crazy is that?
The government is not the only one to whom you can surrender your rights and freedoms. You only have the rights and freedoms that you yourself protect and defend. Your children will learn the importance (or lack of importance) of protecting their rights and freedoms from your actions, especially your risks and sacrifices.
In America, the Supreme Court has said that schools can drug test athletes in the high school level. The rationale for this is that athletes, while impaired and on a playing field, are a far greater danger to themselves and their teammates when drunk or out of their minds. This, to me, sounds reasonable on the basis of safety. (Performance enhancing supplements are another topic entirely- they are currently legal.)
IIRC, the ruling only applies to athletes- members of the drama club, for instance, would not be tested. Some would argue that it sets up an athlete/non athlete double standard, but sports players are at a much higher risk for injury than other students. Also, most schools will limit their drug testing to certain sports because of the cost- football, baseball, and basketball are the primary ones that are tested, while less high profile relatively safer sports such as volleyball and swimming are not tested.
Some schools have started to test other groups such as bands, often gathering a lot of protest. Different drugs take different times to exit the body completely- pot takes about 2 weeks, I believe- and the flute player has a more valid arguement that the pot she smoked last weekend didn’t affect her abilty to play her instrument than the athlete who might be more sluggish on the field and more likely to be injured because he did the same thing. Then there are the schools who want to test everybody. They are on more shaky legal ground- basically, if a student refuses to take a test, then the school would have to deny them an education. You cannot deny someone an education if they are under 16 (varies by state), and refusing to take a test is hardly grounds for expulsion. In public schools, there are statewide standards for expulsion, although there are variations by school.
Keep in mind, though, that students already have their rights limited. They can have their belongings searched much more easily than adults, among other things.
Also, most drug testing programs offer the chance for rehabilitation, non arrest, and treatment.
I personally think that athletes in high school should be drug tested. If you’re high on a playing field and you seriously injure another player, you’re violating their rights.
andygirl
If I may play devil’s advocate here… (please believe me I am not advocating mandatory drug testing for students.)
But let’s just say you are a parent to a well balanced child. He gets good grades in school. Has friends. Participate on a school sports team. On the whole, a good kid. But still a kid and as most kids given to experimentation and adventure and making some bad judgement calls. This may include drinking at parties. A little weed smoking. Essencially harmless stuff until somebody actually gets hurt.
So, as a parent who trusts his/her child to do the right thing, you give your kid the freedom to exlore the world and make up his/her own mind about what’s right and wrong. You’ve had the drug talks. You’ve had the sex talks. You’ve been supportive and available. You’ve lead by example. In other words you’ve done as much right as is humanly possible to do for your own child.
Given the above scenario, the chances of your kid falling into bad situations is slim but still possible.
As a concerned and involved parent who has trusted his/her child to do the things you’ve been teaching him/her, would you not want to know if perhaps your child has gotten off the track somehow and is in need of some extra attention and guidance?
QuickSilver:
Parents can have their kids tested for drugs without the school’s involvement. Of course, taking your kid in for a drug screen demonstrates pretty clearly that you don’t trust him.
Also, in the Lockney case, the parents weren’t really given the choice to have their kids tested or not. Sure, everyone was given a consent form. (Only) one parent refused to sign the consent. Therefore, his son was assumed to be guilty of drug use. The kid was suspended and ordered to go to drug rehab and told he could not go back to school until his drug screen was negative. Not much of a choice, if you ask me.
I do not ever, ever, want a school to tell me I must allow them to test my kid for drugs.
So, the kids are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent. I think it’s abhorrent that only one parent refused to consent. I would like to think I’d refuse, too, but I might cave because I don’t know where I’d come up with the money for attorney’s fees and I don’t know if my family could handle the stress resulting from standing up for my kids’ rights.
One other point: drug testing is not 100% accurate. If all kids in a school are tested, how many of them will be falsely accused? What will that do to their lives? Does the potential good that random drug testing might do outweigh the damage to those falsely accused?
Quick, what exactly are you saying? That as a parent I should welcome the school invading my child’s privacy to help me do my job? (I understand you expressed this for the sake of argument.) A few problems, IMO.
-If my high school kid gets high once in a while, or occasionally, I am not sure that necessarily constitutes “a problem.” Not necessarily the same as if he’s shooting up and tossing down double martinis to make it to first period. But drug testing does not distinguish between the two (although the odds obviously differ depending on frequency and amount of use.) And I would assume the drug testing does not detect alcohol.
-If I want my kid tested, why shouldn’t I send his hair or piss off for testing myself, instead of relying upon the school to do it? What is the school’s job, and what is my job? School, teach my kids, and let them participate in extracurriculars in a reasonably safe atmosphere. (Look out! That stoner chick is going to lose control of her flute any second!) In my capacity as the parent, I will get my kids to school, on time, regularly, and in proper condition to participate. You do your job, I’ll do mine.
-As the parent, shouldn’t I be responsible for keeping track of my kids behavior while not in school? I am sure my kids could do drugs or drink occasionally in extreme moderation, and I would be none the wiser. I’m not sure that is necessarily a problem, so long as they excel at all other social/school obligations.
-If I find one of my kids has a problem, either through testing, finding something on them or in their room, or just observing that they are is acting unusually, I want to personally decide what the repercussions are.
One local story, in Elmhurst Illinois (not my home, but near - heard this from my 2 sisters who live there), the high school requires that kids involved in sports (and I believe other extracurriculars) pledge to abstain from drugs/alcohol. One athlete was arrested, not during school, for an alcohol-related offense. Not sure whether or not he was charged with anything, or just released to his parents. BUT, the police independently informed the school, who booted him off the team. I, personally, have problems with that on many levels. But for purposes of this discussion, I present it to suggest that the slope in this area has gotten quite slippery indeed.
Holly, Dinsdale -
Good points all. I withdraw my previous arguments.
Theres a good subject about this called
Steal This Urine Test by Abbie Hoffman.
Point 1:
No kid should be denied a public school education unless they harm others right to learn.
Drug testing for school should be illegal, but if you get caught smoking in the bathroom, then goodbye, your expelled. Someone brought up lockers, those belong to the school, they can search it any day of the week. Now, your backpack can’t be searched without a warrant (My school accually told students this before).
Point 2:
The football/basketball/baseball/swimming/tennis/whatever team is a privalege, not a right.
Any kid can be denied a spot on any sports team based on a private sports only drug test. These tests should not be exposed to the police. A private, voulenteer parent thing should be used to sort results, by some ID number unknown to the school. They could mail the results to the student’s parents themselves. They should also sort through the sports sign-ups and stop any students papers from going through if they are invalid.
Point 3:
If you don’t like the way the school does drug testing, then there are many independent leagues you should look into.
If you don’t like how the school does it’s whatever team, then look into another league. There are many out there. One I am currently in is barely getting by so they have no chance in hell of affording drug tests, I imagine this is similar with others.
Point 4:
If schools already keep kids failing classes off of the team, then why not drug users?
A school can’t kick a kid out for being “slow” or bad at school, but they can keep them from playing football. Why not do this with drugs? A follow through on this is neccessary. Either a midseason check up or 2 check ups 1/3 and 2/3 of the way into the season, any abuse there will result in permament stop to their elegibility in all sports for a one year period.
Point 5:
Refusal is not admitting any guilt.
This shouldn’t be an issue, but the schools should be up front with this to prevent anyone from comming and refusing to take the test. If this should arise, simply tell them that they either take the test or there is no team.
As for how I will get all these drug tests, a tax decuction will be provided for an agency who provides the schools with this. Providing drug tests to schools is techinically a charitable contribution.
I refuse to work for an employer who demands I submit to a drug test, and if I had children, I would refuse to let their school test them without their consent. If you’re concerned about students being high during class or on the football field, urine testing is not the way to go - a more appropriate test is to ask, “What were we just talking about?” 
Urine testing only tells you if someone has used certain substances (not alcohol, of course… they wouldn’t have any players left!) within the past N days. Why does a school need to know what Johnny Halfback was doing last Saturday night?
PowerpuffKue:
Why do you believe the school should be able to deny team membership to students on the basis of drug use? Do you feel the same way about smoking? What if the student is over 18?
Would you kick an athlete off the team if he is convicted of shoplifting? What if he receives a speeding ticket? What if he lives in a very conservative area where it’s illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex, and he’s (groan) caught with his pants down?
What if he isn’t caught, but the school receives an anonymous tip… should the school search his locker for condoms, or conduct a virginity test (assuming such a thing existed)? Should all athletes - and cheerleaders! - be tested for virginity before they’re allowed on the team? What if sex isn’t illegal, but the school wants to enforce a moral code?
Why would you allow tests for athletes but not for all students?
Because the X team is a privalege. Public school is a right unless it interferes with other students right to learn, and still then the kid can get a second chance at other schools.
I don’t know if 2nd hand smoke can show up on a drug test. If yes then there really is no way around it, if no, then it counts as long as it’s illegal, and I would have no problem if the school decided to denied them based on smoking under and over 18.
From the school (if they have some student store or something) yes.
No.
If it was in the school, which would be breaking rules, but I made no mention to sex.
I made no mention to sex. So no.
As I said earlier, the school doesn’t need any reason for a locker check. The lockers belong to them.
I made no mention to sex. So no.
Again, everyone has the right to an education, and can’t be rejected unless they interfere with others right to learn.
So tell me this then, why should athletes be taken off the team for low grades then?
PowerpuffKue:
The real question I was asking is: why do you believe drug use (legal or not) is a valid basis to kick someone off the team, but not other activities, unrelated to school, that the school may choose to disapprove of (shoplifting, speeding, sex, etc.)?
I wrote:
Then you wrote:
I know you didn’t mention sex, but I am bringing it up. If you wouldn’t allow the school to “send a message” saying they don’t condone athletes having sex or speeding, why would you allow it to “send a message” about drugs or smoking?
I wrote:
Then you wrote:
Again, how is this different from drug testing?
You wrote:
Like you said, playing sports is a privilege. Athletes’ performance in school is a reasonable basis for allowing someone on the team… what they do on their own time, or have done within the past month, is not.
Ok, to start this, if there is any message I am sending out with this, it would be bodily health, not morals, or anything like that. Bodily health is one definate thing, but morals can be interpited in many different ways. IMHO, schools should be responsible for health classes and enforcing some good health ideas.
Speeding isn’t unhealthy, look at all the states with no speed limit on highways.
Shoplifting isn’t going to kill you. At least it won’t under current laws in the U.S.
Sex isn’t neccessarly unhealthy (unless you have it with Jeri Blank, where her crabs have syphillus and the syphillus has gonorhea 
). Although it is looked down on, odds are you won’t get any STI’s with protected sex (Which is what is taught in sex ed). But playing a sport with AIDS won’t shorten your life span.
I wrote:
Then you wrote:
Again, how is this different from drug testing?
[/quote]
I made no mention to sex because it’s not included in my points for drug testing. Again, this is my plan for removing people from extra activities based on drug tests. I currently don’t have an oppinion as it pertains to sex testing (if there is such thing).
Drugs alter your body(Hopefully we can agree on that), and espicially if they effect the lungs, it is unhealthy for you to play a whatever game. Just like someone with athsma not doing the 1200m run, it’s not healthy.
That’s also why our school has you take a (watered-down) physical, should we cut that too? I mean, why should we not allow someone on a team because of other health conserns, and not drug ones.
I see where your comming from, but remember, you don’t have to joing the X team. So the X team can do whatever tests they want to you. The school could say that joining the football team means you will take place in community service on behalf of the team, and if you don’t like that, then don’t join the team. At least at my school it’s happens.
PowerpuffKue:
Would you support the school kicking out athletes who participate in other dangerous activities outside of school, such as skydiving, boxing, or eating too much red meat? How dangerous does it need to be for the school to be able to kick someone off the team?
There are none, in fact. Montana was the last state with no speed limit on the freeway during the day, but it adopted a speed limit (of 75 mph, I believe) a year or two ago under pressure from the federal government.
Speeding by 5 or 10 mph isn’t likely to harm you, but how about going 40 mph over the limit on a windy road? That’s dangerous… does that mean the school should care?
Some drugs alter your body in ways that would be relevant to sports… many don’t. Chewing tobacco is dangerous but doesn’t hurt your lungs. Using marijuana with a vaporizer or by eating it doesn’t affect your lungs, and even smoking marijuana may have only a fraction of the effect that tobacco has. Alcohol doesn’t affect your performance at all, and minimal alcohol use can even be beneficial to your heart.
So…
… don’t the physical tests cover everything? If you’re physically up to task for the sport, why does it matter what you do on your own time? A 5 minute mile is a 5 minute mile, whether you smoke cigarettes, drink on the weekends, or ate a pot brownie two weeks ago.
What if you have a note from your doctor saying “In my expert medical opinion, Johnny Halfback’s occasional alcohol/marijuana use does not affect his ability to play football”?
I’m too lazy to go through the whole changing quotes thing so I’m just going to answer it all here.
Boxing: If I kicked out athletes from boxing then I’d be for cutting the whole football team. Football is just as dangerous as boxing.
Skydiving: There really isn’t a health problem, it’s pretty black and white with very few grey areas. Either you live or you die. There is no health problems that aren’t in the sports already done.
With your ultra cautious examples your making great points to cut all sports teams, and PE classes. No track because you can sprain your ankle, no baseball because you run into the catcher, no volleyball because you can crack your head on the hard floor, no tennis because you can be abducted by aliens and they can take you to Mars.
Eating too much red meat: I don’t think heart failure is common in teenage athletes.
Going 40 mph over the speed limit on a windy road: Your example is way to extreme, if you do that, your car would go into a roll over, most likely killing yourself and anyone in the car. (If you don’t die, then come with me to 7-11, were playing the lotto. ) You can’t kick a dead person off of the X team.
The school physical: There is no 5 minute mile (to my knowledge) in their physical.
**
Wow. Now if only you were too lazy to actually post, then we’d be getting somewhere.
**
My god you are right. The same can be said for huffing glue. So glue huffers can stay on the team, but pot users can’t. Mmmmm. Makes sense.
**
Again you are absolutely right. i also don’t know many teenagers who experience helath problems from drugs, those tend to come later on in life. Again, everyone can stay on the team. Woohoo. glad you came around.
I’m not even going to attempt to address the rest of your drivel.