Random Drug Testing of Students

[JohnRich 4]

In the news, from the United Kingdom:

Someone found some photos of students, age 16 and under, at a hang-out spot, showing the students smoking pot and drinking.

Because of this, the students were suspended. Additionally, the principle of their private school has decided to institute a program of random drug-testing of students.

Full Story

That'll teach the little buggers - make 'em all prove their innocence!

[kallend 2,216]

Quote

In the news, from the United Kingdom:

Someone found some photos of students, age 16 and under, at a hang-out spot, showing the students smoking pot and drinking.

Because of this, the students were suspended. Additionally, the principle of their private school has decided to institute a program of random drug-testing of students.

Full Story

That'll teach the little buggers - make 'em all prove their innocence!

My son (now a E5 in the US Army) was State Champion gymnast in Illinois in 1997. They had random drug testing of all athletes in his public high school, despite having no evidence whatsoever (such as photos) that there was a drug problem among student athletes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Well, John, I dunno how it is in England.

But, if this were America, libertarian me wouldn't have a problem with it. Why? Because it's a private school, and private schools should be able to enforce whatever rules it wants, in whatever fashion it wants.

Honestly, John, you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you? Imagine if you had a friend that played poker in your house every week, but pictures demonstrated that friend shagging a dog. I suspect you'd exclude that person from your private residence and your private poker game without an affirmative showing of innocence on his part.

What's the problem with private institutions enforcing rules of conduct?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AggieDave 6]

In HS I participated in a voluntary random drug testing program. You got perks, a card that let you get discounts at just about every place in town.

Worked for me, since I didn't do drugs, I don't do drugs and probably will never do drugs. I guess I'm a worthless skydiver, I've never even smoked pot.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Lindsey 0]

Don't think you'll raise too many eyebrows with this one. I think a private school can implement just about any policy it wants. Don't like it, go to a different school...

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Gawain 0]

Quote

That'll teach the little buggers - make 'em all prove their innocence!

Persons under 18 do not have the same constitutional protections (here in the USA). I don't know what the rules are in the UK.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

Quote

In the news, from the United Kingdom:

Someone found some photos of students, age 16 and under, at a hang-out spot, showing the students smoking pot and drinking.

Because of this, the students were suspended. Additionally, the principle of their private school has decided to institute a program of random drug-testing of students.

Full Story

That'll teach the little buggers - make 'em all prove their innocence!

My son (now a E5 in the US Army) was State Champion gymnast in Illinois in 1997. They had random drug testing of all athletes in his public high school, despite having no evidence whatsoever (such as photos) that there was a drug problem among student athletes.

At my high school in Indiana, the school board instituted a similar drug testing program that lasted for 3 years(thanks to a grant and some state funding). It covered not only athletes, but any after school or club related activity, even if it was basket weaving. They started this "random" drug testing program wth little or no evidence as well that there was a drug problem among students in after school activities. I along with a good portion of the student body protested by wearing shirts that said "Urine High School" and asking why they were targeting students that were the least likely to use alcohol or drugs.

All I can say is that thanks to several policies at my high school, I joined the ACLU and had to fight for freedom of speech in our school newspaper...


~R+R...P.S. This was a public high school...

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In HS I participated in a voluntary random drug testing program.

That sounds completely worthless to me. Anyone who is doing drugs, is not going to volunteer. So I don't know what the administrators thought they were accomplishing...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Don't think you'll raise too many eyebrows with this one. I think a private school can implement just about any policy it wants. Don't like it, go to a different school...

I don't see it as an issue of "private" vs. "public" schools.

I think that people shouldn't be forced to prove their innocence, regardless of what kind of school it is.

Where no probable cause exists, they should be left the hell alone.

[billvon 3,171]

>I think that people shouldn't be forced to prove their innocence,
>regardless of what kind of school it is.

They don't have to. Don't want a drug test? No problem at all; you are escorted off the private property and told not to return, and will be left alone.

What's the alternative? A law that says you have to allow anyone to attend any sort of course anywhere without following any rules?

>Where no probable cause exists, they should be left the hell alone.

They can leave and they will be left the hell alone. The right to be left alone does not extend to doing whatever you want on someone else's property; that violates the property owner's right of doing whatever he wants.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>I think that people shouldn't be forced to prove their innocence,
>regardless of what kind of school it is.

They don't have to. Don't want a drug test? No problem at all; you are escorted off the private property and told not to return, and will be left alone.

What's the alternative? A law that says you have to allow anyone to attend any sort of course anywhere without following any rules?

>Where no probable cause exists, they should be left the hell alone.

They can leave and they will be left the hell alone. The right to be left alone does not extend to doing whatever you want on someone else's property; that violates the property owner's right of doing whatever he wants.

I'm not arguing about "what is". I'm arguing about "what should be".

Are you in favor of innocent people being denied access to something simply because they refuse to comply with a drug test, even though they are innocent and no probable cause exists to suspect them?

Suppose the moderators of this forum decided to forbid log in by anyone whose name started with the letter "B", because they hate people whose names start with "B". As a private forum, they could do that. But would that make it right and justified?

[lawrocket 3]

John: Answer my question, please.

Quote

Imagine if you had a friend that played poker in your house every week, but pictures demonstrated that friend shagging a dog. I suspect you'd exclude that person from your private residence and your private poker game without an affirmative showing of innocence on his part.

Or, instead of a dog, imagine that you saw pictures at work of the guy smoking pot with your naked and clearly drunk daughter. Would you let him into your house, explaining, "I saw those pictures, but I figure I'll wait until I have some information that suggests that you actually did what those Polaroids clearly show you doing."

It doesn't make sense, John.

And with random drug tests,

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Well, John, I dunno how it is in England.

But, if this were America, libertarian me wouldn't have a problem with it. Why? Because it's a private school, and private schools should be able to enforce whatever rules it wants, in whatever fashion it wants.

Honestly, John, you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you? Imagine if you had a friend that played poker in your house every week, but pictures demonstrated that friend shagging a dog. I suspect you'd exclude that person from your private residence and your private poker game without an affirmative showing of innocence on his part.

What's the problem with private institutions enforcing rules of conduct?

This is different from your example. If your example were more in line with the issue, you'd say that it was fair of John to require anyone coming over to play poker to whip out his dick to show there was no dog hair on it, even those not ever suspected of "shagging dogs."

The problem with this attitude of forgiving infringements on privacy simply because it's going on in private institutions is that the private nature of the institution does not change the fact that the action taken is patently unfair.

So who gives a shit if it's a private school? What if the private school passed a rule that each student who wishes to attend must rub feces in his or her hair every morning as the students walk through the doors? Would you excuse this patently unfair requirement merely on the basis of, "Well, they don't HAVE to choose to go to school there"?

Random drug screening of anyone is just plain wrong, and goes against the principle that people are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty -- and that searches should not be conducted except where there is probable cause to believe a crime or infraction has been committed. This is not a principle that should be in effect in only the strictest possible venue -- it is one that should be effective as broadly as we can manage, because it is the only fair one.

What happens if, because this one school does it, other schools realize that they can do it, too, and won't lose enrollment because hey, if all the schools are eventually doing it, where else will anybody go? It's like gas prices. Right now, if you get pissed off at the idea of spending $1.89 for regular unleaded, do you have a fucking choice about where to get it cheaper?! Not hardly!

So if we allow private schools to do this, just because since they're private no one is compelled to attend there (the "Don't like it? Leave" principle) soon there will be fewer and fewer schools that kids can attend without being compelled to give up what SHOULD be an inalienable right.

What if all the supermarkets and other places you could buy food required you to dress fully in drag before they would let you buy food? Would you still be "free" to shop for the food that sustains your life? The stores could still say, "Hey, we're not denying you anything. You can still forage in the forest for nuts and berries, after all. And all we're asking you to do is put on a wig, makeup, stockings, high heels..." You don't HAVE to (but the cost of deciding not to is pretty high, huh?).
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,171]

>Are you in favor of innocent people being denied access to
> something simply because they refuse to comply with a drug test,
> even though they are innocent and no probable cause exists to
> suspect them?

If it is something essential they can obtain no other way, like the right to vote or work at all - I'm against it.

If it is some service or product offered by a private individual, with plenty of other options - then the seller/provider can require whatever they want. Want to open a country club and require drug testing of all members? I think that's silly, but if you want to do it, go for it.

>Suppose the moderators of this forum decided to forbid log in by
> anyone whose name started with the letter "B", because they hate
> people whose names start with "B". As a private forum, they could
> do that. But would that make it right and justified? I

I would think that was silly. But if someone on another board wanted to do it, hey, no problem. I think it's silly but I think they should be able to do it if they want to.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

In HS I participated in a voluntary random drug testing program.

That sounds completely worthless to me. Anyone who is doing drugs, is not going to volunteer. So I don't know what the administrators thought they were accomplishing...

The greater problem with 'voluntary' testing in high school is that the parent may be the one doing the volunteering. I suppose it prepares them for later employment, though somehow I've made it 10 years without having to pee for pay.

[Nightingale 0]

Are you also against random drug testing of skydive instructors? Or just for minors?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

That sounds completely worthless to me. Anyone who is doing drugs, is not going to volunteer. So I don't know what the administrators thought they were accomplishing..

Actually, about a dozen folks that I knew and knew for a fact did drugs did participate in the program. They wouldn't show up to the test if they knew they weren't clean, but do that a couple times and they would get kicked out of the program.

The point was a peer pressure situation. Here's a large group of people, that don't do drugs, they get a card that gets them good discounts at places we like to go (it really was places that we did like to go). I don't want to have to explain to my family and friends why I'm not in the program (the entire city knew about the program), etc.

It actually did work fairly well. Since you don't know the fully story John, hold off on the condeming of it.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

> Suppose the moderators of this forum decided to forbid log in by
> anyone whose name started with the letter "B", because they
> hate people whose names start with "B". As a private forum,
> they could do that. But would that make it right and justified?

I would think that was silly. But if someone on another board wanted to do it, hey, no problem. I think it's silly but I think they should be able to do it if they want to.

It's amazing to me the infringments some people are okay with, simply because they're being done by a "private" organization.

So I suppose you think it is perfectly fair that the Boy Scouts discriminate against homosexuals?

I suppose it's okay that Catholic priests sexually abuse young boys, because it's a private church, and the family doesn't have to go there if they don't want to?

It's okay if private country clubs exclude blacks?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Are you also against random drug testing of skydive instructors? Or just for minors?

For people who have the lives of others entrusted in their care, such as airline pilots, bus drivers, and so on, I think it is acceptable. I just don't think that the average Joe Schmoe who doesn't have the ability to harm anyone, and has shown no dangerous tendancies, should have to prove himself innocent of drug abuse. It goes against the grain of the principles of our justice system. Since you are someone about to enter law school, I hope you agree with me...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

That sounds completely worthless to me. Anyone who is doing drugs, is not going to volunteer. So I don't know what the administrators thought they were accomplishing..

Actually, about a dozen folks that I knew and knew for a fact did drugs did participate in the program. They wouldn't show up to the test if they knew they weren't clean... Since you don't know the fully story John, hold off on the condeming of it.

So you're telling me that actual drug users would jury-rig the results to get a card indicating they are "clean", when in fact they were not. And you don't think that confirms my opinion that the program must have been worthless and really didn't accomplish anything?

[AggieDave 6]

I'm telling you that some of the users figured out how to get around it some of the time. Just like "real" drug tests.

BUT

The program created severe positive peer pressure NOT to do drugs, so in the end it is basically a huge success.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[lawrocket 3]

John:

Part of me wonders if you have a daughter. IF so, is she 16 years of age? If so, do you have a curfew? Do you want her to check in with you? Do you want to know where she is going? Or who she is going to be with?

Or, would you trust her to go her merry way and do as she pleases. And those dudes showing up? You don't know of them ever doing anything wrong. So, let them go at it. A weekend trip to Tijuana? Fine!

I'd doubt that. We sign away personal liberties every day.

Example? John, you contract all the time. You put your personal liberties as issue with private citizens. Mortgages, car payment, credit cards, etc, are all infringements of personal liberties. Legally, it is called "consideration." In a practical sense, it's signing away your liberty and being at the behest of another.

Do I think it's okay for private clubs to exclude blacks, whites, women, gays, heteros, religious, etc? Yes I do. I also believe that it is my liberty to picket the living hell out of the place, and point out to everyone what a bunch of assholes are in the club.

Do I think it's okay for priests to molest children? No, I do not. no more than I would find it appropriate for priests to engage in murder or any other act violative of statutes or regulations.

I think it's okay to exclude people from my house. I guess I've got the "Farmer McNasty" syndrome in that I think my house, my property, my place of business, my life, is open only to those I choose to let in.

I also believe in granting access to anyone. But nobody should make me act as attorney for any swinging Richard that walks through my doors.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[newsstand 0]

Sorry John you realy loose on this one, at least most parts.

First there was reason to suspect, and probably suspend, the photographed students. Certainly a drug test after the photos would have been in order.

Secondly a private instituition has, in my opinion, the right to set up any rules they want. If the rule is "no bue eyed teachers" that is fine because it is a private instituion. You show your objection by not participating in the group.

If you are old enough to remember Anita Bryant and her problems with gay teachers you should consider this. I was appalled at what was going on until I found out it was a private school she was talking about. I still disagree with her but it is the right of the parents of a private school to set rules that wouldn't fly in a public school.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

And everything he said too since he did it so much better than I did.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[billvon 3,171]

>I suppose it's okay that Catholic priests sexually abuse young boys,
> because it's a private church, and the family doesn't have to go
> there if they don't want to?

Comparing pedophilia to voluntary drug testing is absurd.