0
Glitch

Mandatory Drug Testing School Kids

Recommended Posts

Heres the situation: A rural school district wants to implement a program where all students (k-12) agree to and are subject to random drug testing for mj, opiates, alcohol, nicotine, etc. Those who don't sign up for it, lose the priveledge to attend ANY school function (dances, field trips, games, etc), drive to school, or participate in extra-curricular activities (band, chess club, sports, etc).
The super-idiot (I mean superintendent) claims that the lawyer types have determined that this is perfectly legal to do, but also admitted that mandatory drug testing of teachers was ruled in court to be unconstitutional so they can't test ANY district employee. In addition, he claims that funds to pay for the testing will not affect the schools budget, yet they've already announced lay-offs across the board for next year. There is nothing but his word that the results of any drug tests will not be part of the students "official record", and therefore will not affect their chances for college admissions, financial aid, military service, etc.

Admittedly, I was getting pretty upset at his presentation. I'm strongly opposed to this, and emphatically told him that he could count on a judicious challenge if the board were to implement this program. I consider this a violation of my kids civil rights, and I will not idly stand by why their rights are swept aside. Nor do I consider it the schools right, business, or responsibility to 'parent' my kids. His counters to my arguments surmises to 'assurances from him' that the results will be isolated and kept off the student record, assurances from him that the funds needed to support this program would not affect the districts abililty to keep teachers on staff, etc, etc, etc...

While we civilly debated back and forth, I could tell I was getting under his skin... >:( as 3x he resorted to a 'for the good of the children' argument. The first time, I let it slide. The second time he used it, I countered with 'Well, "for the good of the children", would you be opposed to having to breath into a tube before you could start your car? After all, thousands of kids are hurt and killed on our highways by drunk drivers. Or better yet, "for the good of the children", would you be opposed to the confiscation and outlawing of firearms, since so many innocent people are killed every year by them?. He answered that he would be opposed to both, since those WOULD be a violation of his constitutional rights. So I kindly asked him what the difference was, and why should we buy his 'for the sake of the children' argument for the drug tests when obviously it's not a valid argument? He made the mistake of, basically, accusing me of not caring about my kids, or the children of the community, and that he just can't understand why anyone would be opposed to the plan. By this time, I'd had enough and stopped him cold in his tracks. I countered with something to the affect of 'look, I'm tired of your emotional appeal as a valid argument. It's a fallacy of logic, and generally presented by those who are grasping for straws and can't think of a logical rebuttal.' :D

So anyway, what is your take on this? Are you 'for' or 'against' this plan, and why? For all you lawyer types out there, is this a violation of their civil rights? ...or am I just way the hell out in left field? So lets discuss in depth...
Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely not in their charter or list of responsibilities. Absolutely not to help the children. It is clearly to prosecute the children. Absolutely going to cost you money.

The lawsuits alone are going to cost the system a small fortune.

I can't imagine the courts will go along with it. The law requires children to attend school. To claim that the extra-curriculars are not a part of school is ridiculous. (This is the obvious reason they are linking it to those activities) They budget money for them on the opposite premise.

Outrageous.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terrible idea. We found my son with weed in his sophmore year. Told him the rules and also told him we would be testing him before school started. He tested clean.

Point is I believe there has to have been something to warrant a test. Not just testing for testing's sake.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there even a problem present to be solved?

My high school had undercover agents go in to try to buy drugs - they failed to find anything. I think there was a voluntary testing program for athletes, which I editorialized was hardly voluntary for the students involved.

I suspect that even mild restrictions (athletics) are pushing it on the legal side, and this wholescale exclusion listed doesn't have a chance, esp when it doesn't apply to the teachers.

But ignoring the possible litigation, just ask him how the hell he would implement this. Will the non participants have to wear an emblem on their chest (how about in the shape of a syringe!) to designate, so the teachers can tell if they broke the rules by driving or going to the dance or eating lunch in the cafeteria? It's an unworkable concept even before thinking about how much money it would take.

Press him on the details of implementation. If he can't even figure that out, it should be a non starter. Probably worth a call to the ACLU as well up front - a single letter from them might shut it down...though if this is a PR stunt, it may just embolden him to dig in deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely not.

First off, because it's an invasion of privacy and just plain wrong.

Second, because drug testing isn't all that accurate. A kid on a legitimate prescription or who has eaten a poppyseed bagel may test positive. If a kid is on a prescription that may cause a positive test, they'd have to disclose private pieces of their medical history to people other than the child, the child's doctor's and the child's parents. If I were a parent, I wouldn't want my kid to fail a drug test due to cough syrup or something stupid like that, and if it was just something like an over the counter drug or poppyseeds, that poor kid is gonna be guilty until proven innocent, if not by the law, then by the school district and possibly their peers.

This is a bad idea all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, the fuck, is wrong with these people.
I mean what, the FUCK.
I would NOT have been able to remain civil.
Where the fuck does this assclown get off thinking he has the right to impose this kind of draconian SHIT on kids?
There is no limit to these people. None. If they could make the kids piss in a cup every morning and have cameras watching them every second of every day they would.
This goes so far beyond appalling I don't have words to describe it. OMG, kid smoked a cigarette, get the handcuffs!
This guy needs a beatin'.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Fuck No.

What is the justification they are using?
What possible reason could they have for testing the entire student body?

And you might want to tell the guy that you had the argument with that driving isn't a constitutional right. It has been held as a privilige. So if he feels that blowing in a tube before driving would violate his rights, you can tell him that there is no right to drive a car.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No. Fuck No.

What is the justification they are using?
What possible reason could they have for testing the entire student body?



Maybe they want samples of their DNA.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called "the common good."

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing "the common good." Napoleon "served the common good" of France. Hitler [is] "serving the common good" of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by "altruists" who justify themselves by - the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

~Ayn Rand (circa 1944)



"No" vote - on all counts.
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like it or not, I fear this is the way of the future- not saying I agree with it. But this is not a new idea- it has been happening for a while.

I am a high school teacher in the Houston area. I have taught in 2 very prestigious school districts here and they have both been that way for a while. I do not know of a district in the area that doesn't (not saying there aren't - I just don't know.)

A students "Rights" while on campus is a very hazy concept. The schools argument is that it is "not mandatory" only if you want to drive on campus or be involved in extra curricular activities. They see one as "potentially cutting down the amount of drugs on campus in cars and to cut down on athletes using banned substances."

If you do not think high school students are using steroids, you are sadly mistaken. Right now the big increase is in the ladies sports believe it or not- it could pay for college.

It goes against what I think and my concept of freedom, but I also think that if people don't like it then they should educate their own children so they can make their own rules.

The world has rules like it or not...... I Do Not Like it
Nathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I went to a rather large and well known High School in Holland. When school officials decided it was ok for them to cut a lock off a locker and take a look inside, all of us walked out of class and refused to go back to class for two days.

Testing wouldn't even stand a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What, the fuck, is wrong with these people.
I mean what, the FUCK.
I would NOT have been able to remain civil.
Where the fuck does this assclown get off thinking he has the right to impose this kind of draconian SHIT on kids?
There is no limit to these people. None. If they could make the kids piss in a cup every morning and have cameras watching them every second of every day they would.
This goes so far beyond appalling I don't have words to describe it. OMG, kid smoked a cigarette, get the handcuffs!
This guy needs a beatin'.
-B



liberal minds usually make me say " what the fuck!" and this is another perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>liberal minds usually make me say " what the fuck!" and this is another
>perfect example.

Uh, dude, this is a basic GOP plank:

==============
Republican Party on Drugs
Party Platform


Jail time and school drug testing deters drug use
Drug abuse and addiction ruin lives. There can be no debate about it. Every adult has a responsibility to teach children about the dangers of drugs - in terms of both physical harm and potential death, as well as lost opportunities for success. After witnessing eight years of Presidential inaction on the war against drugs during the prior Administration, we applaud President Bush for his steady commitment to reducing drug use among teens.

To continue this progress, we must ensure that jail time is used as an effective deterrent to drug use and support the continued funding of grants to assist schools in drug testing.
============
7. Why is the ACLU against drug testing of employees?

The ACLU, of course, believes that employers have the right to discipline and fire workers who fail to perform on the job. However, the ACLU does oppose indiscriminate urine testing because the process is both unfair and unnecessary. Further, drug tests do not measure impaired job performance. A positive drug test simply indicates that a person may have taken drugs at some time in the past—not that they are failing to perform properly in their assigned work. And the accuracy of some drug tests is notoriously unreliable.

The ACLU especially objects to mass random drug testing of workers. There is no reason that a person should have to prove he or she is “innocent” of taking drugs when there is no evidence that he or she has done so. In general, what workers do off the job should be their own business so long as they are performing satisfactorily at work.
=============

Looks like you may be with the ACLU on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>liberal minds usually make me say " what the fuck!" and this is another
>perfect example.

Uh, dude, this is a basic GOP plank:

==============
Republican Party on Drugs
Party Platform


Jail time and school drug testing deters drug use
Drug abuse and addiction ruin lives. There can be no debate about it. Every adult has a responsibility to teach children about the dangers of drugs - in terms of both physical harm and potential death, as well as lost opportunities for success. After witnessing eight years of Presidential inaction on the war against drugs during the prior Administration, we applaud President Bush for his steady commitment to reducing drug use among teens.

To continue this progress, we must ensure that jail time is used as an effective deterrent to drug use and support the continued funding of grants to assist schools in drug testing.
============
7. Why is the ACLU against drug testing of employees?

The ACLU, of course, believes that employers have the right to discipline and fire workers who fail to perform on the job. However, the ACLU does oppose indiscriminate urine testing because the process is both unfair and unnecessary. Further, drug tests do not measure impaired job performance. A positive drug test simply indicates that a person may have taken drugs at some time in the past—not that they are failing to perform properly in their assigned work. And the accuracy of some drug tests is notoriously unreliable.

The ACLU especially objects to mass random drug testing of workers. There is no reason that a person should have to prove he or she is “innocent” of taking drugs when there is no evidence that he or she has done so. In general, what workers do off the job should be their own business so long as they are performing satisfactorily at work.
=============

Looks like you may be with the ACLU on this one.





Come on Bill...... sheesh.......someone was on a lack of comprehension roll.... I was waiting to see how ludicrous it got... and you go spoilin all the fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

OMG, kid smoked a cigarette, get the handcuffs!



We had a designated smoking area at my high school, which I thought was funny since none of us were old enough to be smoking. (Maybe some of the teachers used it too, but it mostly seemed to be students.) But that was back in the 80's. I'd be surprised if that school still allows students to smoke.

And the drug testing? No, it doesn't seem like a good idea. It seems like it would discourage students from participating in extra-curricular activities, when the extra-curricular activities might serve to help keep kids off of drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>liberal minds usually make me say " what the fuck!" and this is another
>perfect example.

Uh, dude, this is a basic GOP plank:

==============
Republican Party on Drugs
Party Platform


Jail time and school drug testing deters drug use
Drug abuse and addiction ruin lives. There can be no debate about it. Every adult has a responsibility to teach children about the dangers of drugs - in terms of both physical harm and potential death, as well as lost opportunities for success. After witnessing eight years of Presidential inaction on the war against drugs during the prior Administration, we applaud President Bush for his steady commitment to reducing drug use among teens.

To continue this progress, we must ensure that jail time is used as an effective deterrent to drug use and support the continued funding of grants to assist schools in drug testing.
============
7. Why is the ACLU against drug testing of employees?

The ACLU, of course, believes that employers have the right to discipline and fire workers who fail to perform on the job. However, the ACLU does oppose indiscriminate urine testing because the process is both unfair and unnecessary. Further, drug tests do not measure impaired job performance. A positive drug test simply indicates that a person may have taken drugs at some time in the past—not that they are failing to perform properly in their assigned work. And the accuracy of some drug tests is notoriously unreliable.

The ACLU especially objects to mass random drug testing of workers. There is no reason that a person should have to prove he or she is “innocent” of taking drugs when there is no evidence that he or she has done so. In general, what workers do off the job should be their own business so long as they are performing satisfactorily at work.
=============

Looks like you may be with the ACLU on this one.



Sorry Bill but were I am the school is very liberal ( very supportive of Obama and his agenda )and is very much for drug testing. The few on the right have stood against school drug testing. Just because someone one the right thinks drug testing for kids is ok doesn't mean those thoughts are not liberal thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sound like simply a scare tactic to get more funds or justify cutting more programs.

When I was in school, the way the school board always got more $$$ was to threaten year round school or redistrict students in a rich area to the underfilled old schools in the poorer sections.

This of course caused the parents to go apeshit and additional funds were always allocated.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sorry Bill but were I am the school is very liberal ( very supportive of Obama and his agenda )and is very much for drug testing. The few on the right have stood against school drug testing. Just because someone one the right thinks drug testing for kids is ok doesn't mean those thoughts are not liberal thoughts.




I am SOOOOOOOO VERY glad that I am not a doper and do not smoke anything other than salmon in a New Braunfels Smoker:ph34r::ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, a lot of you have got your knickers in a twist over this but maybe it's Market Forces and Capitalism in action ....


Could be that they are NOT trying to identify those kids on drugs already but those that are NOT .... i.e an Un-tapped market.

Gotta think outside of the box people

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not someone on the right. The OFFICIAL POSITION of the republican party is to support school drug testing. Look it up for yourself.

Good to see you opposing them, though. It's encouraging when people can adopt the beliefs of the other party instead of blindly following their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Sorry Bill but were I am the school is very liberal ( very supportive of Obama and his agenda )and is very much for drug testing. The few on the right have stood against school drug testing. Just because someone one the right thinks drug testing for kids is ok doesn't mean those thoughts are not liberal thoughts.




I am SOOOOOOOO VERY glad that I am not a doper and do not smoke anything other than salmon in a New Braunfels Smoker:ph34r::ph34r:


Did you get that in Texas?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Sorry Bill but were I am the school is very liberal ( very supportive of Obama and his agenda )and is very much for drug testing. The few on the right have stood against school drug testing. Just because someone one the right thinks drug testing for kids is ok doesn't mean those thoughts are not liberal thoughts.




I am SOOOOOOOO VERY glad that I am not a doper and do not smoke anything other than salmon in a New Braunfels Smoker:ph34r::ph34r:


Did you get that in Texas?


Nope... from Lowes...... but I sprayed it for cooties when I unpacked it from the box..... just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0