# Mandatory Drug Testing In Sixth Grade **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2000, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546 "2000-02-14T22:53:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2000, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/81 "2000-02-20T23:58:00Z")
I was kind of wondering, too, Rousseau: if you consider taking a monthly urine test to be acceptable if the goal is to win the war on drugs, wouldn’t it be even _more_ effective to conduct random, middle-of-the-night home searches? Just get everybody to sign a statement before you start the program that they agree to have their homes raided without warning at any time by the local police, searching for evidence of drughs. After all, as you’ve established, since some citizens are responsible and sober and some aren’t, if enough of the Upright Citizens’ Brigade agree to it, obviously those who do _not_ have something to hide. * * * Peeewww --! Behold the **Power**! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/82 "2000-02-21T00:06:00Z")
Interestingly, the most vehement supporters of the War on Americans I Mean Drugs, aside from politicians, are leaders of gangs and organized crime. It is, after all, their bread and butter. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/83 "2000-02-21T00:55:00Z")
Rousseau, is this fellow your namesake? [http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96jun/rousseau.html](http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96jun/rousseau.html) My, my, my. I had to do a search and read up on the man to get a feel for his philosophies. Mind you, I haven’t studied his works, but I think he may be a little annoyed with you. Or maybe it’s Henri, the painter. 😕 Peace, mangeorge (Just tryin’ to unnerstand) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/84 "2000-02-21T01:43:00Z")
Lib, despite the fact that we are for once on the same side of an argument, I gotta know: did you just make that up, or have you got a cite for that? It’s generally hard to do good surveys of gang members and heads of organized crime families. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/85 "2000-02-21T02:08:00Z")
Rousseau - what all these others, especially Melin and ruadh, have said. But there’s one thing I want to jump on in particular: > [@](#): > > And you are assumed innocent, unless the test proves you guilty. Excuse me, but the test proves absolutely nothing. Among a typical group of sixth-graders, most of the positives will be false. So we make a bunch of kids’ lives a hell, just in case there are one or two drug users in the class? Even if we toss out the Constitution (and I’m rather fond of that document, myself), that makes absolutely no ‘common sense.’ It’s almost a ‘kill them all, and let God sort them out’ approach. > [@](#): > > The idea of being able to identify drug users at a young age bothers you? See above. You will identify a group that tests positive. Included in that group may be some drug users. Maybe not. You’re going to treat 'em like drug users, I’m sure, whether or not they are. The important thing seems not to be right, but to put the fear of God in the bad guys - no matter how many innocents we have to take down in the process. > [@](#): > > Yeah, until you falsely accuse somebody [of drug use]. It would be easier if the issue could be left up to human observation and intuition, but there is just too much chance for mistakes (not to mention prejudice) And drug tests are mistake-free. Sorry, but once again, the science is just not that good. If the drug use rate among a tested group is lower than the error rate of the test, then most of the positives will be erroneous - and each one will be a ‘clean’ person who will be treated like a criminal, in order to satisfy the Jihad Against Drugs. And even where the falsely accused are outnumbered by the accurately accused, you’re still saying it’s worth rounding up the innocent with the guilty. As far as retests go (to separate out the false positives), two comments: first, I see no guarantees anyplace that the local school district, the employer, the _whoever_ has to give each person found positive a second test that has been found to be statistically independent of the first. And second, even if they do, that doesn’t eliminate the false-positive problem; it just makes it smaller. But if you have two statistically independent drug tests, each 95% accurate, you’re going to have a kid in that 400-student school who is going to test positive to both, despite having never used an illegal drug in his life. You’re going to treat him like a druggie, and you’re going to make him out to be a liar when he refuses to admit that he’s taken drugs. If that’s our way of dealing with the drug problem in this country, then may God have mercy on us, because we’re gonna need it. ---
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/86 "2000-02-21T09:07:00Z")
Earlier I maintained that a person who tests false positive on a drug screen is more likely to test false positive again. I’ve been searching for the $@\*& cite to no avail (I read this in a newspaper over a year ago). Nevertheless, the logic goes like this. There are three ways a drug screen can give a false positive: problems with the test itself (not all tests are the same and some are more accurate than others), human error (some labs are more accurate than others, but all labs are staffed by human beings). The third way a drug screen will show a false positive is if something the testee has consumed is falsely read as drugs by the test; a few people tend to test false positive no matter what they do. Many over the counter drugs, vitamins, and foods will cause a false positive on a drug screen, even weeks later. (Wouldn’t it be nice to have your entire life wrecked because you forgot to mention you’d taken a Motrin three weeks ago?) SO, if a person tests false positive due to a faulty test or due to human error, retesting may correct the problem. If the same test or lab is used for the retest, the chance of getting a second false positive is higher than if a different test or lab is used. If the person tested false positive due to something (legal) in his body that reacts with the test, he is more likely to test false positive again. If he’s one of the unfortunate few who just tend to test false positive because of some twist in body chemistry, he’s SOL. ---
**Author:** ![techchick68](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea5d25/32.png) [@techchick68](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/techchick68)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/87 "2000-02-21T09:30:00Z")
Rousseau: > [@](#): > > In order to avail yourself of a free public edumacation, you give up certain rights. What Constitution have you been reading? Certainly not the one I know…read the freaking 5th Amendment compadre. (spanish spelling sucks so gimme a break) What part of the 5th Amendment don’t you understand??? The schools act as a government representative, all the more need to enforce the Constitution…whether you like it or not, it’s the basis by which you can crap and pee without having someone implicate you in a crime…sheesh. Now I am just getting mad, but sheesh, maybe I should include you in my Pit rant!!! ---
**Author:** ![techchick68](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea5d25/32.png) [@techchick68](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/techchick68)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/88 "2000-02-21T09:41:00Z")
Okay, obviously the masses are against this ruling by this school…that we agree on, 'cept for a _minority…_ Here’s the deal. No parents in their right mind want their kids to be on drugs. The solution isn’t mandatory drug testing but a community working (without violating Constitutional rights) together to work against drugs and what can happen to the kids. The parents that don’t give a rat’s ass, we can’t help them, but maybe we can help their kids. There have been many a kid that has seen past the problems they have growing up and become good people despite their parents lack of giving a care to them or society in general. How we go about this, no one has really created a lot of suggestions. I think Libertarian would agree with me on this matter, it’s not that you pass laws because in reality it doesn’t do much good, but to work as a society to help those that feel the need for these substances. So, what do you think (outside of coercing another person) could help a kid stay away from drugs and become outstanding people? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/89 "2000-02-21T12:31:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Lib, despite the fact that we are for once on the same side of an argument, I gotta know: did you just make that up, or have you got a cite for that? It’s generally hard to do good surveys of gang members and heads of organized crime families. I have addressed this aside, RT, [here](http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001316.html). 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/90 "2000-02-21T13:16:00Z")
Umm, we can argue this forever and not convince each other of our differing points. Question for the pro-drug-test people: As regards the application of the Fourth Amendment in schools, if I were to get the opinion of a sitting judge who is also a practicing lawyer with some expertise in Constitutional law, would _that_ convince you of the validity of the antis’ argument? ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2000, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/91 "2000-02-25T19:49:00Z")
## Lockney, Texas, is now reuiring every student and every teacher, grades 6-12, to take a drug test. —Melin I just re-read the OP, and noticed something that seems to have gotten lost in the heat of the discussion. What’s with the “and every teacher” part? Doesn’t this add another dimension to the question? Surely no one would claim that students are going to get hooked on drugs by osmosis. Sounds political to this old liberal. Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/92 "2000-02-26T00:10:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Rousseau: > Hmm…we’ve all forgotten something _very_ important here. > > In order to avail yourself of a free public edumacation, you give up certain rights. In order to forget something, it must be true to begin with. > [@](#): > > AvenueB-dude did bring up an interesting point, and one that I (in theory) agree with, when he said: “…By understanding that people earn rights, and we should all have common sense.” In other words, all “rights” are, in fact, privilidges? > [@](#): > > The First and Fourth Amendments, especially, are used as legal trump cards for guilty people to hide behind. They are also used by the innocent, or those that are guilty of doing something that the majority doesn’t like, but has no right to outlaw. > [@](#): > > **PTVroman** said something that I find funny: > > > [@](#): > > > > My job should not care what I do in my spare time. You think it’s funny that PTVroman thinks that people are entitled to privacy? Why? > [@](#): > > Companies don’t institute mandatory drug tests because they are trying to dictate your morals to you. It’s a business concern. Got a cite for that? Some evidence that drug testing actually helps the bottom line rather than just giving the executives a vague feeling of “taking action”? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > combined with “do not have to provide testimony implicating ones own guilt”? > > …to federal authorities or in a court of law. Private companies, and for that matter, public schools, are completely different stories. Really? Private companies can ask you whatever they want? They can ask about your juvinile criminal record? They can ask about whether you are HIV positive? Are you sure about this? > [@](#): > > What do you propose that we do about it? Leave it up to the parents to keep their kids off drugs? This is all fine and dandy if you assume that all parents are responsible, not to mention not drug addicts themselves. But here in the real world, we can’t always trust everybody to do the right thing. Just because you don’t trust someone doesn’t mean you have the right to ignore their civil liberties. Suppose I walked up to someone on the street and said “I don’t trust you not to be illegally carrying a gun, so I’m going to search to make sure.” What do you think the reaction would be? > [@](#): > > The idea of being able to identify drug users at a young age bothers you? That’s completely dishonest. As I have clearly stated before, what bothers us is not that drug users are being detected, but **how** drug users are being detected. > [@](#): > > Yeah, until you falsely accuse somebody. It would be easier if the issue could be left up to human observation and intuition, but there is just too much chance for mistakes (not to mention prejudice). So test those that exhibit suspicious behavior, rather than subjecting everyone to the tests. > [@](#): > > **AvenueB** spake: > > > [@](#): > > > > They know that each person has to give up a little tiny bit of liberty so that our country will not be swept under by drugs. > > To which **GLWasteful** replied: > > > [@](#): > > > > Nothing to add here. . .just wanted this to stand alone. > > What’s so absurd about what he said? Number one: it’s not a “tiny bit” of liberty. Number two: our country is in no danger of being “swept under” by drugs. > [@](#): > > I, for one, would be willing to take a drug test every month for the rest of my life if it would help alleviate the drug problem in this countrty. I’m sure that there are plenty of people who would agree with me (in principle if not specifics). Fortunately, our country is designed to avoid mob rule, Just because the majority decides that taking rights away from everyone is good, that doesn’t mean that they can get away with it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Also, I don’t recall which part of the Constitution guarantees a right to free travel. Could you point it out to me, please? > > The right to travel has been found to be under the umbrella of the generalizations made in Amendments IX and XIV. Yes, but in cases of compelling national interest, would those generalizations hold? > [@](#): > > You don’t see what’s wrong in teaching your children that their parents’ political opinions are more important than the law? Not when the law is immoral, no. In Nazi Germany, I sure hope that there were parents teaching their children that their political opinions were more important than the law. > [@](#): > > You should teach them that you do have a right to your opinion, and you can do everything you can (short of violence) to change the laws, but you must abide by them, whether you like 'em or not. Well, then be your own logic, schools shouldn’t be doing this, because like it or not the law says they can’t. What is so difficult about this concept? > [@](#): > > Fine, and you shall not be forced to. Unless, of course, you want a free public edumacation. If you want the free education, then play by the rules. What does “wanting” free education have to do with it? Whether parents “want” their children to have free education really doesn’t have much to with whether they get it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s a fundemental principle that one does not give in to a whim based on some arbitrary rule that a person throws at you. > > Why do you assume that everyone who agrees with this policy hasn’t thought it out? Even if people had thought this out (and I don’t think that they have), that doesn’t make it any less arbitrary. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Like I said before I may be on some medication that can be detected and I have to divulge this information to my employer or in this case to the schoool, because this could become an issue if it shows up. What medications I am on is between me and my doc not me and my employer or school. > > Why would it be “an issue?” Because it may affect your employer? Because if it does, then they certainly have a right to know, wouldn’t you say? If they’re going to put you on the payroll, they have a right to know anything that may affect your performance. Why do you automatically assume that it will affect performance? And what about how this applies to schools? You conveniently forgot to address that issue. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Our founders didn’t earn rights, they fought for them. > > Not that this has anything to do with the topic, but what’s the difference? Because you, and AvenueB dude, are saying that schoolchildren are obligated to somehow “earn” the right to not be tested. This isn’t something that’s “earned”; it’s something that everyone has. [quote] ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/93 "2000-02-26T12:25:00Z")
Drug tests are an act of humiliation. Ever notice that (except when safety is an issue) it is low level jobs that require drug tests? That is NOT because they are looking for drug free workers (really, who cares?) but they are looking for spine free workers. They are looking for workers that are willing to give them their bodily fluids in a cup for a minimum wage job. Those workers are prized. They won’t talk back. They need the money more than they need their self respct. Drug testing is a test to find out just how low you will grovel. That is what drug testing is for. It’s good to know that we are also testing our children for these qualities. ---
**Author:** ![Rousseau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Rousseau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rousseau)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/94 "2000-02-26T19:56:00Z")
**The Ryan** , if you don’t think that students give up certain civil rights when they enter a public school, then you may want to read up on your Supreme Court history, especially relating to the First and Fourth Amendments. > [@](#): > > In other words, all “rights” are, in fact, privilidges? Can you lose your civil rights? Certainly you can. Do all people in the world have the same civil rights as we do? Nope. Are you “priveledged” to live in a nation that grants you these “rights.” You better believe it. > [@](#): > > You think it’s funny that PTVroman thinks that people are entitled to privacy? Why? No, I think it’s funny that he doesn’t see why companies would take an interest in whether or not their employees were on drugs. **even sven** seems to have the same problem. > [@](#): > > Really? Private companies can ask you whatever they want? They can ask about your juvinile criminal record? They can ask about whether you are HIV positive? Are you sure about this? Agreed, but you can’t make the same blanket statements about private companies that you can about the government, so don’t try to tell me you can. > [@](#): > > Just because you don’t trust someone doesn’t mean you have the right to ignore their civil liberties. Suppose I walked up to someone on the street and said “I don’t trust you not to be illegally carrying a gun, so I’m going to search to make sure.” What do you think the reaction would be? You’re also a private citizen. And you’re not providing me with a free education. On a side note, I’m really getting tired of people comparing drug use with things like “carrying a gun.” It’s not the same thing. And then, when the discussion is about the legalization of drugs, you say “well, doing drugs isn’t like carrying a gun, because there’s no danger to anyone else.” If we’re going to discuss this intelligently, let’s discuss the issue at hand instead of some allegory or metaphor. > [@](#): > > As I have clearly stated before, what bothers us is not that drug users are being detected, but how drug users are being detected. Fine. Suggest a better way to detect them. You know that random or mandatory drug tests in schools is the best way. You cover it up by saying things like “well, they can make errors.” > [@](#): > > Number one: it’s not a “tiny bit” of liberty. I think that the drug test is being blown waaaaay out of proportion here. Pissing in a cup for this reason is not “degrading.” There’s very little danger of pedophilia, at least no more danger than at your average public urinal. And I’d be willing to bet that if it ever came before them, the Supreme Court would hold that once it leaves your body, your excrement is no longer protected by your right to privacy. > [@](#): > > Not when the law is immoral, no. So if you think the law is immoral, you have the right to violate it? Is that the message you should send to your children? I’d think that a more effective message would be “do everything you can within the boundaries of the law to change it.” > [@](#): > > Well, then be your own logic, schools shouldn’t be doing this, because like it or not the law says they can’t. I don’t think the law says they can’t. What is so difficult about this concept? > [@](#): > > Even if people had thought this out (and I don’t think that they have), that doesn’t make it any less arbitrary. The use of the word “arbitrary” isn’t what I took umbridge with, but rather the use of the word “whim.” > [@](#): > > And what about how this applies to schools? You conveniently forgot to address that issue. We were talking about whether or not employers have the right to test for drugs. An employer’s interest in testing for drugs is completely different to a school’s. I don’t know why you assume that what I say in regards to one issue MUST connect to another. This is your fundamental problem…you refuse to address or acknowledge the specifics of an issue, you instead prefer to make blanket generalizations. > [@](#): > > Because you, and AvenueB dude, are saying that schoolchildren are obligated to somehow “earn” the right to not be tested. What? Where did I say that? > [@](#): > > There’s a big difference between one person’s life crumbling and the entire society falling apart. If the entire society were in danger, I could see why people would be willing to take drastic actions. “It doesn’t affect ME, so why should I give a shit?” > [@](#): > > Am I advocating that people ignore rules for no reason other than it suits them? No, I’m not. Yes, you are. If it “suits you” to ignore a mandatory drug testing rule administered by the school board, you have indicated that you would do so. * * * “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/95 "2000-02-26T20:08:00Z")
Huh? Nations give rights? How do nations “give” _anything_? What exactly is it that you’re anthropomorphizing here? Did you mean _politicians_ give rights? Are you saying that you believe your rights come from your chief magistrate? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/96 "2000-02-26T20:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > So if you think the law is immoral, you have the right to violate it? Is that the message you should send to your children? Absolutely yes. If we ever have a Hitler equivalent in this country, I want my kids hiding Jews. You betcha. You don’t go out of your way to violate an immoral law. You do work to change it. But if you have to make the choice, you choose to do the right thing, even if it is the illegal thing. -Melin * * * Who is NOT Straight Dope Staff Siamese attack puppet – California ---
**Author:** ![techchick68](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea5d25/32.png) [@techchick68](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/techchick68)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/97 "2000-02-26T22:02:00Z")
Ryan, I like the way you take quotes of mine and totally take them out of context…next time actually read the posts. ---
**Author:** ![Rousseau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Rousseau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rousseau)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2000, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/98 "2000-02-27T17:23:00Z")
Lib, I’m not really in the mood for any semantical arguments right now. If your rights are given to you by some authority higher than your nation, then how do you explain the fact that people who live in different nations have different rights? If you think that you would have the same rights if you were born in other countries, you’re fairly out of touch with reality. Why don’t you go to Cuba and find out what they think of your freedom of expression? Are you suggesting that people are just born with rights? Since almost all rights are defined in some way by society, to say that all humans are just born with these inherent intangibles called “rights” is a pretty hairbrained and ill-thought-out statement. You’re rights are defined and granted to you by the society that you live in. * * * “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2000, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/99 "2000-02-27T17:33:00Z")
> [@](#): > > If your rights are given to you by some authority higher than your nation, then how do you explain the fact that people who live in different nations have different rights? They don’t. They just have different tyrants. A thief does legitimately own that which he has stolen. ---
**Author:** ![CliffSchaffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@CliffSchaffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CliffSchaffer)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546/100 "2000-02-28T06:48:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The Ryan, if you don’t think that students give up certain civil rights when they enter a public school, then you may want to read up on your Supreme Court history, especially relating to the First and Fourth Amendments. Can you show me any SC case which says school officials have a right to fool around in my kids’ pants? > [@](#): > > Can you lose your civil rights? Certainly you can. Do all people in the world have the same civil rights as we do? Nope. Are you “priveledged” to live in a nation that grants you these “rights.” You better believe it. The fact that other people in other countries have different “rights” is irrelevant. You seem confused about “privilege”. The fact that we are “privileged” to live in the US does not mean that constitutional rights are “privileges”. Under US law, rights and privileges are quite distinct. > [@](#): > > No, I think it’s funny that he doesn’t see why companies would take an interest in whether or not their employees were on drugs. even sven seems to have the same problem. They have a legitimate interest in anything the employees do on the job. They do not have a legitimate interest in what employees do off the job. Drug tests don’t show what employees are doing on the job. They show what the employee did last weekend, which is none of the employer’s business. > [@](#): > > You’re also a private citizen. And you’re not providing me with a free education. We are providing you with free sewers and water, so I guess that means we should be able to search your house any time we want, too. Right? > [@](#): > > Fine. Suggest a better way to detect them. You know that random or mandatory drug tests in schools is the best way. I would like to see some evidence for that. You know, something besides your own imagination. To the best of my knowledge, no research has ever been done which would support your contention. > [@](#): > > You cover it up by saying things like “well, they can make errors.” There are errors and innocent people often find those errors quite troubling to their lives. I know, because I hear from such people on a daily basis. > [@](#): > > I think that the drug test is being blown waaaaay out of proportion here. Pissing in a cup for this reason is not “degrading.” That’s a matter of opinion. I regard it as degrading, especially when you want to pull that routine with my children. > [@](#): > > There’s very little danger of pedophilia, at least no more danger than at your average public urinal. I don’t care what your claims are, don’t fool around with my kids’ genitalia in any respect. If I want my kids to have a medical exam, I will take them to a proper doctor, and thank you and everyone else to stay out of our lives. > [@](#): > > And I’d be willing to bet that if it ever came before them, the Supreme Court would hold that once it leaves your body, your excrement is no longer protected by your right to privacy. Government plans to snoop around in people’s urine and feces don’t seem the least bit odd to you? > [@](#): > > So if you think the law is immoral, you have the right to violate it? Is that the message you should send to your children? I give them the message that they should be extremely suspicious and not to cooperate with anyone who comes up with any reason to snoop around in their pants. Don’t believe adults who say they have a duty to inspect your genitalia. > [@](#): > > I’d think that a more effective message would be “do everything you can within the boundaries of the law to change it.” I teach them that, too. But, in the meantime, exercise the personal line of defense against such assaults. > [@](#): > > I don’t know why you assume that what I say in regards to one issue MUST connect to another. This is your fundamental problem…you refuse to address or acknowledge the specifics of an issue, you instead prefer to make blanket generalizations. Here is a specific question. Can you name any significant study of drug policy which said this sort of thing was a good idea? > [@](#): > > Yes, you are. If it “suits you” to ignore a mandatory drug testing rule administered by the school board, you have indicated that you would do so. Yes, because it involves a direct intrusion upon an individual’s private parts. If I want that sort of thing done to my children, I will take them to a licensed physician, not some school official. * * * World’s Largest Online Library of Drug Policy - [http://www.druglibrary.org](http://www.druglibrary.org) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-drug-testing-in-sixth-grade/17546.md?page=6)