From “A Murder” by Greg Fallis.
Demeanour during a “stop and detain” can be taken as a sign of guilt.
:::::kerplunk::::: ::::::head on keyboard again:::::r7jfdngiseuryt8
< shaking head, again, can this be somewhat true? >
Damn someone musta hit me with a baseball bat cuz this is unfreaking real
RTF,
Although I am totally for freedom on drugs you are closer than I thought with regards to this issue than you have let on before…okay so it’s not totally where I am, but damn…you are starting to shock me!
Stop it now < grin >
Hey RTF, care to discuss politcal issues over dinner? LOL, kidding, but I am truly shocked!
Unfortunately, that’s not true. The Supreme Court did uphold random drug testing for high school athletes (Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 1995) on the grounds that:
[ul][li]Drugs are a scourge[/li][li]Students have fewer rights; after all, we can force them to have vaccinations[/li][li]Athletes have less expectation of privacy than other students; after all, they have to undress in front of each other (no, I’m not making this up)[/ul][/li]
The last item notwithstanding, there was nothing in the decision that suggested a random drug testing policy would be ruled unconstitutional as applied to all students. (Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion stating that she found the policy permissible because participation in athletic programs is voluntary, but nobody joined her in it.)
I am inclined to think they wouldn’t support the Texas policy without a showing of evidence that there is, in fact, a problem of drug use among sixth graders in this town. Then again, I had thought they would strike down the Vernonia policy …
Drug testing children in grade six?
What a fantastic idea! I don’t see how anyone could find any flaws with this.
Get those bastards while they’re young.
Studi
When I grow up, I want to be the Minister of Silly Walks.
AvenueBdude said:
Looks like you don’t have to worry then dude- the vast majority of people posting to this thread seem to have plenty of common sense.
Well, I’d probably give my consent to a drug exam if the authorities had my testees [sic] in a sensative position. 
I take it that’s supposed to be “without a warrent”?
I think the idea of mandatory drug testing for students is just HORRIBLE!
In addition, I don’t want anyone who can’t tell the difference between “there” and “their” deciding ANYTHING about the policies in public schools, since it’s obvious they’ve never attended school and have no basis for their opinions.
–
“it’s all real”
“I KNEW IT!!!”
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
The Ryan: Uhh…yeah. Doh.
I think AvenueB Dude’s problem is he doesn’t want to have personal responsibility. That’s the main reason people in this country are so willing to give up their rights. It’s so much easier to let the government legislate morality and quietly obey laws. Then you don’t have to do things like, oh, let’s say, talk to your kids about drugs, moral and ethical issues, or teach them right from wrong… You just tell them to follow the laws , then park them in front of the television while you go play golf with that all-important corporate exec…
I quit smoking pot a couple of years ago, shortly after I moved to Vegas because it’s almost impossible to get any kind of decent paying job in this town without having to undergo a drug test. Up until that time, I had been a (mostly)law-abiding, hard-working and generally productive member of society. Now, I just drink… But I suppose that’s OK with A.B. Dude, even though alcohol is probably a lot more damaging to my health than weed. After all, alcohol is LEGAL.
I believe in personal responsibility. I don’t believe that a responsible parent would allow their child to be subjected to having their privacy invaded and their bodily fluids examined without some kind of probable cause to believe that that child was using illegal drugs.
God forbid that I should ever agree with the Late, Great Richard Nixon on anything, but he felt that marijuana should be legalized on the grounds that the fact that such an innocuous substance was illegal bred a disrespect for the law in general.
I think that such an unreasonable policy as mandatory drug testing for schoolchildren without probable cause that they are using illegal drugs will breed a disrespect for the authority of the school administration and teachers.
By the way, when I was sent for my first pre-employment drug test, even though I knew I was clean, I was so nervous that I was, um, unable to produce the sample, even after drinking nearly a half gallon of water. Fortunately, my prospective employer was gracious enough to let me try again the next day…
The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.
I realize that kids grow up alot faster now than they did when I was a kid ( I am 30), but this brings to mind a situation my mother faced.
In Sixth grade (age 12) they were innoculation us for german measels. They didnt want to give me a shot because I had already had my first period.
" We are concerned about the possibility of pregnancy" they told Mom.
" I wouldnt worry about it, she isnt allowed out of the yard!" she replied.
Its all relative to the children involved. I think screening out high risk kids for councelling would make more sence, be less costly and invasive.
Its not hard to ‘weed’ out the higher risk ones.
We cannot begin to give up our individual rights for the ‘greater good’. As painful as it is sometimes, we have to preserve the rights we have. If we begin to relinquish these rights, we risk losing them and other rights we now take for granted.
The remark made by AvenueB about child porn was a good example. He mentioned how it is illegal to posess a drawing etc.
In B.C. a man was arrested for possessing child pornography. He appealed and won his case. It is not illegal to posess it. It *is illegal to distribute it. It is of course illegal to assault children to produce it, but it is legal to posess it.
As thouroughly distateful as I find this, as a woman, as a mother, as a human being, I am forced to agree with the decision ( to an extent). I will explain: if they ( as in the powers that be) determine a subject matter to be illegal, even one as horrible as this, what is next? Censorship of my books? Will erotic literature, fetish mags, homosexual fiction, dirty movies be next to be illegal?
I do beleive that any photo of a child being assaulted should be considered as evidence of a crime But aparently this was not what he had.
As for mandatory drug testing, as an adult, I can refuse to work somewhere where they demand it, a child cant refuse to go to school. I think its great that this boys parents are standing up to the school.
As a Canadian, our system is different, but very similar to yours, and I for one dont want to see my southern neighboors turn into facists.
Hmm…we’ve all forgotten something very important here.
In order to avail yourself of a free public edumacation, you give up certain rights. You give 'em up as soon as you walk in the front door of a school (or get on a bus). Foremost among these is Fourth Amendment rights. Principles (or “deans” or whatever you call them) do have more authority over students in school than police do on the street. They can search you on reasonable suspicion alone. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to public school students in the same way it applies to everybody else. Therefore, using a strict interpretation of said Amendment is not really relevant here. You’re expectation of privacy while receiving a free public education plummets earthward.
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.” I think that too often we apply a strict interpretation of the BoR, and that it supercedes common sense. The First and Fourth Amendments, especially, are used as legal trump cards for guilty people to hide behind. Let’s be honest here: public schools requiring drug tests is not going to precipitate some kind of sci-fi “1984” situation. If you look at it with some common sense, instead of through the Bill of Rights (which can sometimes be a pair of spectacles, and at other times a blindfold), you’ll realize that drug tests are the most logical way to identify drug users, and that 6th grade is just about the right time to do it.
PTVroman said something that I find funny:
Are you out of your mind? The company that employs you shouldn’t care if you’re doing drugs? Companies don’t institute mandatory drug tests because they are trying to dictate your morals to you. It’s a business concern.
And you are assumed innocent, unless the test proves you guilty.
…to federal authorities or in a court of law. Private companies, and for that matter, public schools, are completely different stories.
Wolf then echoed this. Fine. 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.
mangeorge spake:
The idea of being able to identify drug users at a young age bothers you?
And then (this is great) he says:
Libertarian.
Agreed. What about the other ones?
…and creating unsolvable ignorance problems. Are you suggesting that we dismiss our right to education in order to get rid of anything that might contradict your precious Fourth Amendment?
Y’see, Lib, what you don’t understand is that we are trying to live in a functional society here, where everybody does their best to help the other members (although most times without significantly impedeing their own self-actualization). You seem to support a situation where everybody is left to their own devices. That’s fine, under certain conditions (a small population, to name one). But not in 21st century America, I’m afraid.
Dr. J:
Then who should? Nobody? Again, we’re assuming that all parents will do what’s best for their children. (I can see the responses already: “So you know what’s best for their children?”)
Wolf:
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).
Holly:
I don’t usually do this, but cite please.
AvenueB spake:
To which GLWasteful replied:
What’s so absurd about what he said? 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).
The right to travel has been found to be under the umbrella of the generalizations made in Amendments IX and XIV.
techchick, you have said sooo much that I disagree with.
You don’t see what’s wrong in teaching your children that their parents’ p
I’m sorry, but so much of what you are saying here is so wrong, Rousseau, and he for whom you are named is no doubt spinning in his grave.
First off, education is mandatory. You don’t have a choice about whether or not to go to school until age 16, the law requires that you do so.
Secondly, students do not check their civil rights at the door. The Bill of Rights applies in schools. Students are allowed to pray, for example; they cannot be prohibited from doing so. Similarly, students are not legally subjected to unreasonable unwarranted searches of their own personal space.
What appalls me almost the most about what you have said is this:
Hate to say it, dude (well, not really), but a belief that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land is something more than a mere “political belief.” And exactly how do you think laws are made, anyway, and by whom? Clue: you elect them, they are called “politicians.”
I have never used an illegal drug (and I went to Berkeley! ;)), but I would not allow my children to be subjected to this drug test without some reasonable basis for believing that he was using drugs. Attending sixth grade is not a reasonable basis for believing that someone is using illegal drugs. And it IS an intrusion. It’s bad enough for kids this age to have to pee in a cup at the doctor’s office and bring it out for the nurse to process; it would be incredibly embarassing for them to have to do so in the context of a school environment.
-Melin
Siamese attack puppet – California
Still neglecting and overprotecting my children
The Supreme Court has never held that students give up all their her constitutional rights the minute they walk in the door. In fact, just the opposite (see Tinker and T.L.O.). The question is which rights they give up. Obviously, we do not all share your opinion that the right to be free from random drug testing is one of them.
Let me pick out and highlight one part of that paragraph:
Please explain how “reasonable suspicion” applies to random drug tests.
No, I would argue that it is itself some kind of sci-fi “1984” situation.
and
Ladies and gentlemen, here’s the future of our country.
God help us.
Or unless you refuse to take the test. Then you are treated as guilty, though you have not actually been proven so. What part of this don’t you understand?
I’m glad to see you make this distinction. The random testing policy you’re advocating doesn’t.
Which, of course, will never happen with pee tests :rolleyes:
Unless said law is called “the Fourth Amendment,” apparently.
You seem very unclear as to why the Court considers the Fourth Amendment to have diminished (NOT “no”) applicability to students. Tell me, have you actually ever read any of their decisions on the subject?
And what if you’re on medications that won’t, in fact, affect your performance, but will still show up on a drug test and possibly prejudice your employer against you? (I think that was the point TechChick was making … correct me if I’m wrong)
Great. So why stop at the public schools?
“Shut up! I’m having a rhetorical conversation!”
Rousseau:
I’m afraid you don’t realize which end of the horse you’re lookin’ at.
In order to avail yourself of a free public “edumacation”, you take certain rights.
And then (this is great) he says:
quote:
Gross exaggerations are making it a little less pleasant to live here, though.
Well, Rousseau, maybe a few examples are in order?
“Let’s face it, the only people that bring up the Fourth Amendment are GUILTY people.”
“Drugs are destroying this country.”
“Criminals have more rights today than I do.”
“Now about drugs: its the same situation, only a lot more of the sickos are out of the closet so to speak, and proclaim that they love drugs.”
“But Melin, I will say this: you ARE “neglecting and overprotecting” your kids.”
There are plenty more, on this thread and on others.
Ok now, Rousseau, spake it with me;
“Gross exaggeration” 
Peace,
mangeorge
rousseau wrote:
>Hmm…we’ve all forgotten something very important here. In order to avail yourself of a free public edumacation, you give up certain rights. You give 'em up as soon as you walk in the front door of a school (or get on a bus). Foremost among these is Fourth Amendment rights.
Where in the US Constitution does it say that?
>Principles (or “deans” or whatever you call them) do have more authority over students in school than police do on the street. They can search you on reasonable suspicion alone.
You missed something major. Random testing of all students is not based upon “reasonable suspicion”.
>The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to public school students in the same way it applies to everybody else.
Where in the US Constitution does it say that?
>Therefore, using a strict interpretation of said Amendment is not really relevant here. You’re expectation of privacy while receiving a free public education plummets earthward.
You will have to show something besides your own opinion to back that up. In the meantime, I will thank you and everyone else to stay out of my kids’ pants.
>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.” I think that too often we apply a strict interpretation of the BoR, and that it supercedes common sense.
So your definition of “common sense” should supercede the actual wording of the Constitution? I don’t think so.
>The First and Fourth Amendments, especially, are used as legal trump cards for guilty people to hide behind.
So if they are such a nuisance then why not just eliminate the BOR entirely? After all, it only protects the guilty, right? That’s where we are going with this drug war, anyway.
> Let’s be honest here: public schools requiring drug tests is not going to precipitate some kind of sci-fi “1984” situation.
So we just haul all the kids in to the bathroom, and watch them closely while they pee in a cup. Nothing strikes you as particularly offensive about some stranger fooling around in little kids’ pants, I take it.
>If you look at it with some common sense, instead of through the Bill of Rights (which can sometimes be a pair of spectacles, and at other times a blindfold), you’ll realize that drug tests are the most logical way to identify drug users, and that 6th grade is just about the right time to do it.
I will take the Bill of Rights over your “common sense” any day, thanks. And stay away from my kids, lest you find out that parents have other remedies for people molesting their kids.
>PTVroman said something that I find funny:
>My job should not care what I do in my spare time.
>Are you out of your mind? The company that employs you shouldn’t care if you’re doing drugs?
They don’t have any problems with people drinking booze or smoking cigarettes on their off time, do they? As long as you show up for work sober, what business is it of theirs that you had a glass of wine with dinner over the weekend?
>Companies don’t institute mandatory drug tests because they are trying to dictate your morals to you. It’s a business concern.
No, it isn’t. The only actual research ever done on the subject shows that drug testing doesn’t even pay for its own costs and that companies which drug test actually have lower productivity and morale than those that don’t.
>quote:
>Remember a little phraise, “assumed innocent until proven guilty”,
>And you are assumed innocent, unless the test proves you guilty.
You missed something. Random testing is not based upon “reasonable suspicion”.
>quote:
>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.
Public schools are simply an arm of the government. The government should not be snooping around in anyone’s pants without reasonable suspicion.
>Wolf then echoed this. Fine. What do you propose that we do about it? Leave it up to the parents to keep their kids off drugs?
Parents are responsible for their kids in every other aspect. Or are you just suggesting that the government should start raising kids?
>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.
So we need the Government to come in to all of our homes and raise our kids right for us?
>The idea of being able to identify drug users at a young age bothers you?
The idea that you are going to snoop around in the pants of all the kids because a few of them might have taken drugs bothers me.
>quote:
>Government ought never to interfere in the affairs of sober responsible parents.
>Agreed. What about the other ones?
So we test them all to try to find out which ones those are? If there are just two such irresponsible parents in the whole community then everyone gets tested? That’s inefficient and sloppy, not to mention a violation of constitutional rights.
>…and creating unsolvable ignorance problems. Are you suggesting that we dismiss our right to education in order to get rid of anything that might contradict your precious Fourth Amendment?
In case you are interested, the biggest difference between those who support these policies and those who don’t is ignorance. If you ask someone who supports the drug war any factual question about the subject, you will get a blank stare. In short, they generally know nothing at all about the subject. Wanna try a few quick questions to see what you actually know?
>Y’see, Lib, what you don’t understand is that we are trying to live in a functional society here, where everybody does their best to help the other members (although most times without significantly impedeing their own self-actualization). You seem to support a situation where everybody is left to their own devices. That’s fine, under certain conditions (a small population, to name one). But not in 21st century America, I’m afraid.
So you think the government ought to step in and run everyone’s life because some of the people don’t do such a good job at running their own life? Maybe we should just have a government agency totally devoted to managing peoples’ lives.
>Then who should? Nobody?
Yes.
>Again, we’re assuming that all parents will do what’s best for their children. (I can see the responses already: “So you know what’s best for their children?”)
That’s a logical response. I can’t see any benefit to having someone like you interfering in my kids lives, no matter what their problems might be. In case you missed it, most parents resent other people interfering with their children – especially when it comes to poking around in their underwear.
>Yeah, until you falsely accuse somebody.
It isn’t hard to tell when someone is unfit for work. There are all sorts of basic performance tests that could be given. And none of them require any intrusions into anyone’s pants.
>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, because of your judgment that there is just too much chance for mistakes, then we should throw out basic Fourth Amendment protections. If you care to read American history, you will find that the founding fathers didn’t write any exceptions to the BOR for a very good reason. Specifically, they wanted to protect against people who would call for suspending rights because of whatever claimed emergency.
>quote:
>A person who tests falsely positive on a drug test is much more likely to test falsely positive on subsequent drug tests. Some peoples’ body chemistries predispose them to test positive.
>I don’t usually do this, but cite please.
Recent tests have shown that black people are more likely to test positi
Rousseau said:
You don’t see what’s wrong in teaching your children that their constitutional rights are more important that a school board policy in Dipwad, Texas?
Thank God for that!
BTW, wasn’t that a large part of what Nazism was about? Getting rid of all those people “not like us”?
Rousseau:
What he said, for those of you playing along at home, “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.” Now, maybe things are different in your world, Rousseau, but I still believe that to willingly surrender liberty for something like “The War on Drugs” is silly. Perhaps you can explain why you feel it is an acceptable thing to do?
And inre your willingness to take a piss test every month for the rest of your life: Good for you, Jasper! And best of luck finding those who are willing to go along with your plan. That’s in practice, not principle.
Waste
Flick Lives!