[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
I don’t know how much marijuanna she had, but when I went there (class of '03) you needed to have a rather large amount.
[/QUOTE]
Classes were that boring, eh?
[QUOTE=Mr Bus Guy]
Again - only speaking from my own experiences as a board member and then as an administrator: Most high schools here have a police officer inside, working as a liaison officer…
Unless the student says “yep, that’s my stash of dope”, or even IF they do, the substance is vetted by the authorities before it’s called that by the school. And in every case, whatever charges should be filed, are filed.
The school is given authority by the state to act on internal disciplinary actions before a case winds it’s way through the courts. IANAL, but if one pops in to explain why that’s legal, welcome.
[/QUOTE]
OK, thanks. It just seemed to me, based on what I read in the thread, that due process wasn’t being followed. With an on-site police officer and testing and state authority and charges if necessary (and presumably a court trial as well), it sounds as if it is. Thanks for the clarification.
[QUOTE=Mr Bus Guy]
When any student is found with anything suspected of being an illegal drug, the on-site cop is called, or if the school doesn’t have one - the local gendarmes are summoned.
[/QUOTE]
Well, sometimes. If the administrators or confiscating teachers don’t summon police, they get to keep the evidence.
If you’re lucky and the janitor catchs you, you get off with confiscation.
[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]
…but she had to have known it was against the rules to carry weed around school.
[/QUOTE]
True. BUT, I don’t see how it deserves a 1 year suspension. It’s completely and utterly authoritarian. I agree that a punishment is deserved, but there are better ways to handle drug use that won’t make the user despise everything about the system. But since schools have “zero tolerance”, well they shoot first, and ask questio… er, let’s just say they shoot first and let you bleed in the system. It feeds the bottom line this way.
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Yeah, this is crap. That whole ‘didn’t ask to be born’ routine implies a sense of entitlement that’s insane. “I didn’t ask to be born so you’re responsible for me!” Well, yeah, for a while the parents and the schools are responsible for kids. But the flip side of that is that they can make rules that have punishments for being broken.
[/QUOTE]
Did nobody read my entire post? I wasn’t defending the actions nor the punishments, what I was trying to argue was that “Not having sympathy” just because something is against the rules is not right. I don’t think murder or armed robbery is right either but when people go to jail for the rest of their lives I have sympathy for them, it’s called being human. When somebody does something trivial like petty theft and winds up in jail for life because of California Three-strikes laws I have even more sympathy for them. When a girl is suspended from school for having pot I have a lot of sympathy for her even if she should’ve known better. :smack:
[QUOTE=PharmBoy]
It sure is. The world is becoming over-run with people who think marijuana possession by 15 year old girls is no big deal.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=rbroome]
In my state, Louisiana USA,…If a child HAS to have a medication during the day, the parent is supposed to come to the school and administer the drug. But under the table the secretary will help out-I am told their desk looks like a pharmacy counter. As you can imagine the risks being taken are huge. But under no circumstances can the child bring any pill to school. I strongly object to illegal drugs of all kinds just on principle, but these laws are just ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
They don’t have school nurses in Louisiana? That’s who was supposed to administer medication in every school I went to. Even inhalers and epipens where supposed to be kept in her office.
[QUOTE=Red Barchetta]
This disgusts me. Citizens who are mandated to attend school should not be subject to, what I believe should be, violations of their civil rights.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? How in the world do you consider this a violation of civil rights? The school has a right - hell, a duty - to provide a safe place for the students to come and learn. Getting the dopers off campus is a good way to start.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
They don’t have school nurses in Louisiana? That’s who was supposed to administer medication in every school I went to. Even inhalers and epipens where supposed to be kept in her office.
[/QUOTE]
We do. 5 or 6 for 52 schools. It is a decision made locally. We frequently talk about increasing the number, but never do.
And it is state law about bringing drugs, even prescription drugs, to school.
What gets me, and apparently this is true in general in law enforcement at least around here, is that the drugs don’t have to be real. The authorities don’t even have to test the substance. It is enough for the teacher/officer to think they look like drugs.
I want to carry a pocket knife as a teacher, but I’m worried about the lame laws. I can have the Scissors of Death, but a knife is Just Way Out of Bounds.
LAME.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Huh? How in the world do you consider this a violation of civil rights? The school has a right - hell, a duty - to provide a safe place for the students to come and learn. Getting the dopers off campus is a good way to start.
[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt they’re forcing their evil marijuana on those who don’t care to join them.
Fascinating though all of this discussion is, it mostly focuses on only the first issue, which is the legitimacy of expelling a teenager for a year because she possessed marijuana at school. Obviously, an interesting topic.
To me, though, it is equally interesting that the parents have to “give up custody” in order to find a way to school their daughter. Is that the system talking, or is the mother’s assertion suspect? If it is truly the system, that seems bizarre and unreasonable.
Back to the topic of school rules: my son’s school (A private American school)makes everyone (parents and kids) sign a contract from middle school onward saying that the school is allowed to conduct random drug testing (urine tests) and search lockers with no warning at any time, if the school administration believes they have “cause.” Their definition of “cause” basically includes “acting unusual or seeming distracted,” so essentially they are claiming the right to search persons and property whenever they please.
Thankfully, my son is still in elementary and I believe we will have moved on before he hits middle school. There is NO WAY I would sign such a document, and therefore he would not be able to attend. I would not send my son to a school with such a policy even for elementary school if I had a realistic alternative, but I don’t.
The problem with the whole “she knew the rules, so the punishment is ok” concept is that it allows you to turn off your brain and let the rules do the thinking for you. That statement in and of itself is valid regardless of the rule or punishment, and that doesn’t make sense.
There are plenty of places across the globe where there are terrible punishments for crimes, or even actions we don’t consider crimes. Does the fact that some whacko leader got it written down as a law suddenly make it ok?
[QUOTE=ParentalAdvisory]
True. BUT, I don’t see how it deserves a 1 year suspension. It’s completely and utterly authoritarian. I agree that a punishment is deserved, but there are better ways to handle drug use that won’t make the user despise everything about the system. But since schools have “zero tolerance”, well they shoot first, and ask questio… er, let’s just say they shoot first and let you bleed in the system. It feeds the bottom line this way.
[/QUOTE]
Normally this is the sort of thing I’d agree with, but my own experience leads me to feel differently in this case. I went to a private (Jesuit) school, and any student caught with any illegal drugs, or alcohol, would be kicked out. Maybe if there were extenuating circumastances or the student was particularly studious and innocent up to that point some arrangement would be made.
I liked this about the school. Everyone was held to a high standard – they really expected their students to know better than to do something so stupid. In return, the student body took the school seriously (or more seriously than elsewhere, at least), and had a better education and experience because of it.
There was a lot of attrition, actually. Out of a freshman class of over 250, about 180 graduated, and most of that decrease came from academic and/or disciplinary expulsions. They weren’t shy about culling the least among us for the benefit of everyone else.
OTOH, they would never make something like this a police matter (which is a far worse punishment), and they wouldn’t prevent an expelee from getting into another school. Nor were they nazis about cold medicine, prescriptions, and so forth as most schools apparently are.