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.
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.
Rousseau, is this fellow your namesake? 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)
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.
Rousseau - what all these others, especially Melin and ruadh, have said. But there’s one thing I want to jump on in particular:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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?
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?
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
In order to forget something, it must be true to begin with.
In other words, all “rights” are, in fact, privilidges?
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.
You think it’s funny that PTVroman thinks that people are entitled to privacy? Why?
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”?
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?
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?
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.
So test those that exhibit suspicious behavior, rather than subjecting everyone to the tests.
Number one: it’s not a “tiny bit” of liberty.
Number two: our country is in no danger of being “swept under” by drugs.
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.
Yes, but in cases of compelling national interest, would those generalizations hold?
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.
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?
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.
Even if people had thought this out (and I don’t think that they have), that doesn’t make it any less arbitrary.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
I don’t think the law says they can’t. What is so difficult about this concept?
The use of the word “arbitrary” isn’t what I took umbridge with, but rather the use of the word “whim.”
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.
What? Where did I say that?
“It doesn’t affect ME, so why should I give a shit?”
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
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?
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.
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
Can you show me any SC case which says school officials have a right to fool around in my kids’ pants?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
That’s a matter of opinion. I regard it as degrading, especially when you want to pull that routine with my children.
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.
Government plans to snoop around in people’s urine and feces don’t seem the least bit odd to you?
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 teach them that, too. But, in the meantime, exercise the personal line of defense against such assaults.
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, 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.
