::Gets out his list of places to not live and starts writing “Texas”, but realizes he already has “Texas” on there three times.::
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
This policy is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard since…oh, last week, unfortunately. We live in a society where parody can’t keep up with reality, as one of our posters recently said.
It’s an absurd policy for all of the reasons given above. It’s bad because it’s an invasion of privacy, which we’ve got a right to under the Ninth Amendment. It’s abhorrent because, as techchick pointed out, it’s a clear overriding of our Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches, including warrantless searches, and searches with warrants issued without probable cause. It’s abominable because it makes the assumption of guilt if a student’s parents stands on his/her rights under the Constitution. (Reminds me of Joe McCarthy’s attitude toward the Fifth Amendment.) And it’s misguided because, as BigDaddy said, drug tests are far from 100% accurate, and if administered to a group with low incidence of drug use, most of the people who test positive for drug use are going to be non-users.
Whoever instituted this policy had the brain of a four year old child, and I bet the kid was mighty glad to get rid of it.
In the War on Drugs, it sure seems like a lot more of our countrymen are being brought down by ‘friendly fire’ than by the enemy. And this is just one more for-instance. :mad:
Texas - its like a whole other country!
:::::head hits keyboard::::::67bnkjdsckj
RTF and I actually agree on something, good gawd I am beside myself with amazement. Either that or I am hallucinating…help me here!
========
Cooper you goof, that was too funny. I love it when I can hop on the board reading a serious subject and someone interjects with a simple phrase that cracks me up.
rastahomie
Of course, you’d have even fewer rights if they were at private school.
AvenueB-dude
Well, thanks for sharing you ignorance with us. The OP:
What part of “being treated as if he tested positive” don’t you understand?
No, how to keep people from invading one’s privacy.
What’s really strange is the idea of retesting those that test positive every month. What, are the drugs from last months supposed to flush out of the kid’s system in only a month?
Hey Ryan, guess what? The Constitution says there can’t be UNREASONABLE searches. What’s unreasonable about not wanting sixth graders to have drugs in there systems?
Let’s face it, the only people that bring up the Fourth Amendment are GUILTY people. No innocent person has to use it because guess what? They don’t CARE if they have to take a drug test, they have nothing to hide.
Drugs are destroying this country. If sixth grade kids are using them, it has to be stopped. Everyone who can’t see this is living in a dream world. And if your telling your kids not to be tested, then your part of the problem not the solution.
Dude – Let’s check this out. Okay, you don’t do injected drugs, right? And you don’t possess any illegal material, right? So you won’t object if cops stop you and subject you to a strip search (and let’s check body cavities while we’re at it) to ensure that. And, by the way, they’ll be popping into your bedroom tonight – wanna make sure that you’re not violating the laws governing sexual behavior, now, don’t we?
If you’re offended by those suggestions, that’s precisely my point. In fighting the War on Drugs, let’s not expand it to a War on Liberty at the same time.
I understand and respect your point that you don’t want kids doing drugs. Howzabout you understand and respect our point, that trying to ensure they aren’t doing them is not grounds for depriving them of their rights?
*AvenueB-dude: Hey Ryan, guess what? The Constitution says there can’t be UNREASONABLE searches. What’s unreasonable about not wanting sixth graders to have drugs in there systems? *
Unreasonable means that they don’t have a reason to believe someone has evidence and/or contriband. Just being a 6[sup]th[/sub] grader is not reason to believe they use drugs.
This school district’s drug screening is like the following [school parallels in brackets]: a woman is mugged at an ATM [drugs are used] by a black man [student]. The police [school officials] go to every black man’s [student’s] house [body] in the city [school district]and ask where they were at the time of the mugging [a blood test]. Those that say they were mugging ATM customers [positive drug test] are arrested [suspended]. Those that won’t give an alibi because it’s an unreasonable questioning [Brady Tannahill & parents] are also arrested like the admitted criminals. After they’re released, they have to periodically tell police they were during other crimes commited by black men [required monthly drug test for a year just for refusing]. Escalating consequences for each refusal.
If this ain’t trampling on the Bill of Rights, I don’t know what is.
The word is no. I am therefore going anyway.
*AvenueB-dude: Hey Ryan, guess what? The Constitution says there can’t be UNREASONABLE searches. What’s unreasonable about not wanting sixth graders to have drugs in there systems? *
Unreasonable means that they don’t have a reason to believe someone has evidence and/or contriband. Just being a 6[sup]th[/sup] grader is not reason to believe they use drugs.
This school district’s drug screening is like the following [school parallels in brackets]: a woman is mugged at an ATM [drugs are used] by a black man [student]. The police [school officials] go to every black man’s [student’s] house [body] in the city [school district]and ask where they were at the time of the mugging [a blood test]. Those that say they were mugging ATM customers [positive drug test] are arrested [suspended]. Those that won’t give an alibi because it’s an unreasonable questioning [Brady Tannahill & parents] are also arrested like the admitted criminals. After they’re released, they have to periodically tell police they were during other crimes commited by black men [required monthly drug test for a year just for refusing]. Escalating consequences for each refusal.
If this ain’t trampling on the Bill of Rights, I don’t know what is.
The word is no. I am therefore going anyway.
AvenueB-dude:
Not a thing. However, what’s reasonable about forcing sixth graders to piss in a cup?
Nonsense! Please garner at least some pertinent information before going off half cocked. It makes your arguments more likely to be taken seriously.
Yes, if sixth graders are using drugs, then that is bad. But to engage in the so-called solution that is mentioned in the OP is taking things a wee bit too far.
Waste
Flick Lives!
HA! Are you implying that everyone on the opposite side of the discussion from you is a drug user? That statement is false whichever answer you give.
PeeQueue
Um, the unreasonable part means that the authorities have to have a good reason for doing the search. Since they are 6th graders and are less likely to be doing drugs than 12th graders, this makes the search even more unreasonable.
I don’t do drugs, and I resent all to hell that I had to take a drug test before my current job. If I had a reasonable choice, I would not work anywhere (office employement, not air traffic, etc) that put such restrictions on me. My job should not care what I do in my spare time. Some people are against manditory drug testing because IT IS WRONG! Remember a little phraise, “assumed innocent until proven guilty”, combined with “do not have to provide testimony implicating ones own guilt”? I think those two cover drug testing by civil authorities without a warrent pretty well.
No, if you’re not stopping your kids from doing drugs, then you’re part of the problem not the solution. If you are allowing your kids to be sheep, you are creating larger problems.
“The large print givith, and the small print taketh away.”
Tom Waites, “Step Right Up”
If you are depending on the schools or the government to teach your children moral values, you are part of the problem.
If you won’t question what you think, why call it thinking?
School attendance (don’t nitpick) is mandatory. Mandatory drug testing in school effectively means testing for all citizens. This idea doesn’t bother you people? This policy is no different than having a swat team come knocking on your door and demanding a urine sample, or anything else they might think would implicate you in some crime. If you’re innocent, that should be no problem, right?
Drugs are not “Destroying this country”. Gross exaggerations are making it a little less pleasant to live here, though.
Peace,
mangeorge
Melin
Right here, my friend.
Government ought never to interfere in the affairs of sober responsible parents. Society would benefit greatly, in my opinion, if public schools were eliminated, thereby clearing up unsolvable public property obfuscations; if government would get on about the business of securing rights rather than abridging them, thereby leaving parents free to do what they know is best for their children; and if parents were held to be responsible for the actions of their children, thereby freeing other people from a burden they never took on.
For those who might argue, “Oh, you can’t hold parents responsible for everything their children do,” hey, you can talk to the hand.
You mean after you do the information gathering, it’s OK? And here I thought… :rolleyes:
OK, first, WAKE UP!
Criminals have more rights today than I do. This is all part of this trend. For those of you that think this testing thing is illegal and it violates the Constitution, guess what? It’s been approved. It’s in place and going now. So obviously its legal.
But is it right? We do a lot of things that violate people’s rights. Not every search has to have a warrant. But we all realize, everybody that has there head screwed on straight, that if we don’t the criminals will own the rest of the streets.
So your kid has to take a drug test. Honestly, now, what is so wrong with that? False positives? OK, that’s a small problem. But retests can eliminate it.
How much law enforcement do you think would get done if everytime the police try to talk to anyone, they go, “Do you have a warrant? No? Then screw you!” This wouldn’t help at all. Honest citizens should be GLAD to help the cops. Why is it so bad to stand up against drugs and take a stupid drug test?
Its NOT the same as the nonesense about the cops doing a body cavity search. Anyone who is doing an honest argument knows that. It is also not the same as the black man ATM thing, and you know it. If it were that unfair, why would all the parents except one agree to it? Ah ha!! I’ve got you!
OK, first, WAKE UP!
Criminals have more rights today than I do. This is all part of this trend. For those of you that think this testing thing is illegal and it violates the Constitution, guess what? It’s been approved. It’s in place and going now. So obviously its legal.
But is it right? We do a lot of things that violate people’s rights. Not every search has to have a warrant. But we all realize, everybody that has there head screwed on straight, that if we don’t the criminals will own the rest of the streets.
So your kid has to take a drug test. Honestly, now, what is so wrong with that? False positives? OK, that’s a small problem. But retests can eliminate it.
How much law enforcement do you think would get done if everytime the police try to talk to anyone, they go, “Do you have a warrant? No? Then screw you!” This wouldn’t help at all. Honest citizens should be GLAD to help the cops. Why is it so bad to stand up against drugs and take a stupid drug test?
Its NOT the same as the nonesense about the cops doing a body cavity search. Anyone who is doing an honest argument knows that. It is also not the same as the black man ATM thing, and you know it. If it were that unfair, why would all the parents except one agree to it? Ah ha!! I’ve got you!
Not quite. School boards and legislatures can pass any laws/rules they want, and it is up to the court to determine whether they are constitutional after they have been challenged. If the parents of this boy go to court, that’s what will happen.
No, I don’t know it. Could you explain, please, how these situations are different?
1.) We know that some black men rob ATM’s. Therefore, we check every single black man in town for a large wad of cash.
2.) We know some sixth graders use drugs. Therefore, we check every single sixth grader in school for cannabinoid residue in their urine.
I must just be missing the difference.
Because it is a tough situation for parents to be in–if I refuse to let him take the test, will I look like I’m supporting drug use? On the other hand, if I let him take it, how can I teach him about the Bill of Rights?
The school should not put the parents in that predicament.
Dr. J
Keep in mind that the police have the power to stop and detain somebody. However, the law specifies that it must be brief and based on fact. No warrant is required to do this, and it is not the same as an arrest. During the police officer’s questioning the person can than be arrested depending on their demeanour and the answers to the questions.
For example, if police respond to a music store break in, and later they see a man running with a guitar case (especially in proximity of the store), they have the right to stop and detain him to ask him some questions (Where are you running? Where did you get the guitar?), without a warrant. If he were to say “Do you have a warrant? No? Screw you!” they could promptly arrest him on suspicion of guilt (by means of his refusal to answer an honest question).