Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

OT- Random Drug Testing in Schools


@DCGoldPants

Recommended Posts

But, yeah - drug testing in schools is nuts.

Although here is the kicker - so far...

"The court stopped short of allowing random tests for any student, whether or not involved in extracurricular activities, but several justices have indicated they are interested in answering that question at some point."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this different from random locker searches? Or making kids walk through metal detectors? What about suspending kids for bringing pagers or aspirin to school?

Should this new development be a suprise to anyone? For the last 15 years the government has been adding restrictions on high schoolers. I'm not really shocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean we need to make sure that kids my tax dollars help provide an education for are drug free to be able to focus on obtaining enough knowledge to become a productive citizen and not a slacker?

The horror.

I mean what will kids think if they cant get free condoms, use their locker for stashing those saturday night specials, knives pipe bombs or no longer able to go to math class under the influence?

What about their constitutional right to flunk out of school and get on welfare or join the soup line,lap dancing and streetcorner windshield squeegee industries

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it comes to the point of, when is doing something illegal ok?

At what level do we protect the law?

Where does this ruling put the level of privacy? What is considered private and what isn't?

Now, I deal with high school and college kids on a daily basis, but after chatting with a few of them I get the impression it doesn't bother them that much. In fact, one kid said to me:

"What do I have to hide? If it is illegal, then there is the chance that someway, somehow the law will find a way to search for it. But to tell you the truth, what am I losing by simply taking a drug test? They aren't taking any money from me, at least directly and they aren't stopping me from going out with my friends or girlfriend. Hell, the only way I can think of them effecting me, is if I fail the test. But then again, its like getting a DWI or something, I broke the law and got caught."

One other thing that they said to me was:

"Schools are public facilities. Not my house. They get to search what I bring on to the grounds. They don't get to search what I have at my house. My parents get to do that. Also, I don't see what the big deal is about the testing, if your going to represent your school in a public situation, then they have the right to make sure your following the law and rules set out by that school. Kinda like the players on the Jazz. They break the rules, they get kicked off the team."

From the mouth of babes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially this case simply reaffirms the 1995 case regarding athletes. In the generic sense, I see absolutely nothing wrong with testing students who wish to participate in activities outside of the normal school day activities. I think it's correct to say that the choice is the student's here, and their desire to participate in extracurricular activities is balanced against the fact that they realize the school has a right to guard against some things.

However, it was always my understanding that music was part of school and participation on some level was not voluntary but mandatory. I wouldn't necessarily complain about mandatory drug testing for all students, but I can see the rub against it. My question is, having not read this case, whether the results of a positive drug test can be used in a criminal prosecution or if the results are simply utilized for school disciplinary and extracurricular activity suspensions.

If the results could be used to prosecute, then the left has a very strong case against these types of tests. If the results are simply to determine eligibility to participate, then they really don't. In either case, I have no problem with it as it still boils down to the student's choice. But I can see the issue here for some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the purpose to be served by testing students for drugs? If we find they've been using, then what? Do we kick them out?

First, as a tax payer and as a citizen, I want our kids to get an education so they can be useful, productive adults. I don't want schools looking for excuses to kick kids out of school. The kids who pose the most problems (e.g. the drug use, special education, behavioral problems) are the ones who need the education most. They're the first to get kicked out. And what do the kids do when they're out on the street? Duh... When we kick kids out of school, we tax payers might as well start building another prison, 'cause that's where those kids are headed.

Second, when you impose these tests, you're going to find that it's not just minority and poor kids who are using the drugs. Some little princesses and affluent boys will be testing positive. Will they receive the same treatment as anyone else? Yeah...right..

I work in Juvenile Court now and if you're affluent (or if you're an athlete), you receive special treatment. We already know there's a drug problem in our schools. We offer virtually no treatment for teens with drug problems (I can't speak for every locale, but that's the way it is here in West Tennessee) and punishment doesn't seem to offer much of a solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question is who decides what defines random? Are we talking random dates of tests for all athletes or just random testing of some athletes?

Is it the school that defines random, one who might want to protect its star football player? Don't laugh - high school football is a religion in states like Texas.

Is it the district? The local, state, or federal government?

If the are going to okay drug testing - then it needs to be something othr than random. Make it mandatory and then test all students. Otherwise, there is too much left to speculation, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but Dubya has proven that you can be President of the US despite a DUI at 40. :)

And CLinton said he tried it but didn't inhale (lol) :laugh:

I guess this shows that the American people are always willing to forgive the sins.

Of course, our founding fathers were alleged potheads too...not that I am saying that pot is good :)

Or is that a great founding fathers lie too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...