Get Schooled

By Jeff

February 8, 2007 08:07 AM | Link to this

I’m thinking more will quit drugs than will quit sports. As noted, often kids are just looking for an excuse not to, yet still look “cool”. If you give them the excuse “Naw, man. I can’t risk getting tested and losing my spot on the team”, its a win-win. Drug use drops, you keep kids on the team, and most importantly you save lives.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 08:07 AM | Link to this

I don’t have a problem with drug testing. However, rather than just disqualify a student from participation, it should have a rehab program incorporated to help the kids that want help.

By KA

February 8, 2007 08:29 AM | Link to this

jim, Absolutely Amazing that you are so passionate about the dangers of teaching Bible classes in public schools, but you have NO PROBLEM with random drug testing???!!!! I would prefer to see some probable cause before a student is tested, not this random crap!

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 08:39 AM | Link to this

I will likely be in the minority here, and some will likely be shocked that I say this, but….

Why is our society so torqued up over drugs? This is uniquely American in nature. No other Country has so many laws and is so insistant over this issue. Compare us to any European Country or anywhere else and you will see what I mean.

So what if little Johnny takes a puff of pot one Saturday? Haven’t most of us at least tried something?

IMHO, we should put our energy into helping those that are likely to be abusers of drugs, not the casual user - and there is a difference. Please do not buy into the hype that all casual users become abusers because that is just not true.

We spend so many tax dollars chasing after so-called “drug lords” or drug dealers or even drug users. In my world, we would legalize drugs and tax the heck out of them. Then use the tax dollars to have rehab facilities for the abusers.

After all, if little Johnny is prevented from taking a puff of pot, he will find something else to do - sniff glue, strangulation, etc.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 08:53 AM | Link to this

KA,

I draw a strong differentiation between voluntary participation in a sport or extracurricular activity and a parents duty to teach their children about god.

I don’t find it contradictory or amazing at all.

By KA

February 8, 2007 08:55 AM | Link to this

The drug problem is not just one of illegal drugs to enhance performance or euphoria. The people of our country and probably those of the developed nations are programmed to think that they NEED drugs, whether prescribed, over the counter, or illegal to make them well, to feel better about their anxieties and insecurlegal or illegal, a pill, a shot, a puff, a toke or a snort are all the same in our drug centered culture.

By KA

February 8, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

jim, aren’t the Bible classes voluntary, too?

By jim d

February 8, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

Just me,

Then work at getting it legalized. While you are at it go ahead and make it legal for 10 year olds to buy ciggaretts and Booze. I’m well invested in rehab stocks.

By mmm

February 8, 2007 09:02 AM | Link to this

JustMe

I don’t disagree with much of what you say—-except that our society just isn’t prepared to accept your suggestion. So the actual issue is one of enforcement of our stated values.

If you compare it to the “we don’t have the backbone to enforce our discipline expectations so we loose the right to critize teachers who can’t teach” argument, there is an equally good argument that society really isn’t serious about our drug laws if there is no anticipated penalty.

Either we believe our law—in which case this is a win-win in helping the weak-willed to obey. Or we can wink and ignore this, and then petty theft to pay for them, then dishonesty to hide them, then ignoring our other commitments because drugs become more important.

By Beth

February 8, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

I got through high school without doing drugs. I’m pretty sure I am very much in the minority for that, but it is possible. The company I work for conducts drug testing before they hire you, as do many others. If this keeps kids from getting started, if it deters just a few more from doing something stupid, illegal, and dangerous, I think it’s worth pursuing.

By Beth

February 8, 2007 09:08 AM | Link to this

Why do so many people seem to be so accepting of drugs these days? I got through high school and college and the years after without using drugs. I know I’m probably in a very small minority for that, but we need to deter children from using substances that are dangerous, harmful, and illegal. Because they are children. They need to be protected. And as far as drug screening goes, most companies have a no-drug policy that includes random testing. Seems like this measure should be seriously considered.

By Jeff

February 8, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

Beth:

I got through HS - even in an alternative school - without ever even knowing HOW to access them, much less using them! (Of course, I also had a very vocal stance that if offered drugs I would do two things - in this order - deck you and turn you in….)

By KA

February 8, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

jim, many legal and presribed medicines will ring the bad drug bell in a random testing program. What happens to an A student, class pres., who had been taking cough medicine for a couple of weeks for severe bronchitis, and is randomly tested, and so tests positive for a barbituate? How about false positives for heroin when you eat poppyseed muffins? Who would bear the burden of proof, and what will the ADMINISTRATIVE process look like in the schools? Not only would a student’s exclusion from the sport or club be an issue, but maybe exclusion from school, loss of college scholarships, and loss of reputation. The school admins are already whacked over everything as a potential WEAPON, and random drug testing will be the next personal invasion, but worse at it invades the BODY to find those ‘evil’ drugs.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this

KA,

Parental responsibility to see their children don’t break the law by doing drugs and Parental Duty to God are two toatlly different issues. There is no way to honestly compare the two. I have no problem with others helping assure my child obeys the law and does not do drugs,possibly placing other people at risk. But it harms no one for me to obey gods law and to teach my child about god. Nor does it harm anyone for me to expect my government to not teach religion.

Are you beginning to understand the difference?

By jim d

February 8, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

KA,

Nope, it is not an invasion if you voluntarilly subject to the test. I fear you view extracurricular activities as a right where I consider them a priviledge. Maybe thats the difference in our views.

By KA

February 8, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

jim, Parents have the duty to oversee their childrens’ wellbeing and training, which includes pyhsical, mental, social, and religious or spiritual development if that is their way. A voluntary class about a religion or a comparative religion class, taught in the context of history, art, and social customs is NOT the same as preaching about a partivular faith’s religious truths or God. That is the point that you do not understand.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 09:33 AM | Link to this

Ahh, Dear KA,

Perhaps, but I do understand human nature and the passion behind ones beliefs and how those passions can slip out in attempts to convince others yours is the correct belief. (just look at this blog)

Contrary to what many think. Teachers are human too!

By KA

February 8, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this

jim, I don’t view extracurricular activiites as a right, so don’t put your spin on my words. Read what I said!! What I object to is random testing overseen by school adminis. Why don’t we require the same standards be applied in schools that kids will experience in real life, where common sense, probable cause and due process are required? Schools are turning into prisons where the State owns the inmate aka student. Except that schools give a free pass to the undisciplined rabble. If they fight or disrupt classes, then they should be arrested and expelled, just like real life. If adults fight or disrupt in the workplace they are fired, and the police are called to arrest them.

By KA

February 8, 2007 09:49 AM | Link to this

jim, please don’t call me DEAR. I minored in Religion in college and had a Jewish Rabbi teach several of the classes, and guess what? He didn’t put a Jewish spin on his instruction to try to convert us! Do you think that HS social studies teachers are so biased that they could not teach a religious class without preaching? And so what if they show their biases? Yes they are human and that happens every day! That creates an opportunity for you the parent to discuss views with your child. My kids encountered many challenges to their beliefs in public school and we discussed them all, political, religious, social, you name it!

By decaturparent

February 8, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Gotta say, I’m with Justme on this one. This will further marginalize kids who really have a drug problem by convincing them that they can’t take part in extracurriculars/sports. These extracurriculars may be the very thing that is keeping them in school and keeping them from really going over the deep end.

If I want my kid randomly drug tested, I will do it myself. In fact, given good reason, I may very well resort to that if necessary. The government does very few things right, so I doubt that they would handle this right.

Schools with their absolute black and white policies would not be able to effectively deal with kids that they find have tested positive. The appropriate action and consequences for a kid addicted to heroin or meth is quite different than what’s appropriate for a kid who puffed on a joint at a party on Saturday night.

A gubment school would be incapable of treating these two situations differently so both kids would be damaged as a result.

Let the schools teach and let the parents parent. I have seen a lot in my youth so I believe that I could sniff out a substance problem in my kids. I also believe that I could impose a much more effective consequence than what some adminsitrator who doesn’t know my kid could come up with.

By KA

February 8, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

decaturparent, AMEN!

By jim d

February 8, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

KA,

A couple of things.

1)I was using “Dear” as a salutation, much as one would address a letter, Not a a term of endearment. However, I oppogize if you found that offensive.

2) it matters little what spin I believe a teacher may place on teaching bible classes, only that they are human, that they are employed by the state, and what constitutional case law has determined is legal and what is not. If you aren’t happy with the law—change it but don’t pass another in an attempt to circumvent it.

3) I didn’t spin “your words” I simply was making an observation of a possibillity. (read what I said!!)

4) I agree—no random testing. Make it mandatory.

5) on the other hand. In real life most jobs require a person to subject themselves to mandatory drug screening as a pre-employment condition and random testing as a term of continued employment. So if you truly want to prepare these students for “real life” Drug test them all!

By Chris

February 8, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

I am opposed to random drug testing of school children. The reliability of such tests is questionable. Drug addicts are very sophisticated in escaping detection. Many addicts have no qualms about exchanging their sample for the sample of an innocent person. I personally know people who have lost jobs because they inadvertently failed to list all the medicines they were taking. I do not want an innocent kid being harassed and disciplined because of a false reading.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

OH my! DP,

“I could impose a much more effective consequence”

Has it occured to you that some parents don’t give a damn? That a stoner could end up hurting your innocent child? That these kids don’t need consequence, what they need is intervention?

Since evryone objecting here today is 100% confident it would never be their kid to test positive, why in heavens name would you object to helping the slackers that could do harm to your sweet innocent babies?

By KA

February 8, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

jim, HS teenagers would not be in a similar situtation to adults in a job setting. The teens would have no consent option to the drug testing if it is random and mandatory. An adult can choose to accept a job and the requisite drug testing. And don’t give me the argument that students can choose to join the club or sport, as these activities are the very ones needed to provide our kids with a well rounded education. Random drug testing could kill participation in clubs and sports for this reason. And what would prevent the admins from eventually extending the random drug testing to the entire student population? Scary situation.

By KA

February 8, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

jim, It’s usually common knowledge among students as to who is using, and who is dealing, and they are the ones who should be targeted, not a random sample of all of the students. Ask your son.

By teacher

February 8, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

I was a collegiate athlete and we were subject to random drug testing all the time. We didn’t have a problem with it because we didn’t do drugs. I remember that we had to list any/all OTC or RX drugs before the test was administered so that if those medications came up we were cleared. A few people failed from time to time and they were the ones that starting using drugs in high school…and got away with it because there was no testing so continued. Students involved in sports or other extracurricular activities in high school are supposed to be role models and leaders for their school. They should not be using drugs but unfortunately a lot do because they know they can get away with it. From my past experiences with this, I truly believe that those who are against random testing have something to hide!

By BK

February 8, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

I get it! Poor little druggies just won’t stay in school unless they’re allowed their extracurriculars, so heaven FORBID we test them for drugs and kick them off the team/squad/club.

Does anybody give a crap that illegal drugs are ILLEGAL?

Like Beth, I got through school without doing drugs (or drinking for that matter). I guess that doesn’t count for much these days. (I’m 26 by the way)

Much better to have a history of rehab visits and horror stories to tell at college.

Bottom line: if they’re stupid enough to use drugs, we need to let them reap what they sow.

By middleschoolteacher

February 8, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

As a veteran middle school health teacher, I can say that most times the ones using drugs are the sweet, straight A, “innocent” students whose parents think they would never do drugs in the first place. Random testing would at least clue some parents in to their child’s “hidden” behavior.

By HB

February 8, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

I don’t like this at all. If it’s really about stopping drug abuse, it would make more sense to just have random testing for all students, but I assume they can’t by law. They’re determined to test someone, though, so those kids participating in French club are to be held to a higher standard — just seems odd to me. The only random testing I’d be ok with is testing athletes for performance enhancing drugs because that’s relevant to the activity itself, ensuring fair competition among all participants.

By Tohs

February 8, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

“jim, Absolutely Amazing that you are so passionate about the dangers of teaching Bible classes in public schools, but you have NO PROBLEM with random drug testing???!!!! I would prefer to see some probable cause before a student is tested, not this random crap!”

Why did they even allow you to post a comment? How are you comparing Bible Study to random drug testing? You can’t teach Bible class in a public school. Remember separation of Church and State? You can’t force students to study a religion. Random drug testing is perfectly rational. Probable Cause — the “gifts” that these kids get for succeeding in sports is enough to get them to start using drugs. Remember — “drugs” doesn’t mean just Marijuana. It also includes things like Steroids — something that may REALLY interset the football star or weight lifting champ.

By Tohs

February 8, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

“4) I agree—no random testing. Make it mandatory.”

Again…why did they allow this? Random testing is MANDATORY! The word RANDOM means that they are not going to target certain people…they will select them at RANDOM. It is MANDATORY that if you’re name is drawn you must take the test!

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

BK -

What you said was exactly my point. “Illegal” drugs shouldn’t be “illegal.” We have created stupid laws over recent years that make no sense. This is unique to American culture and only has been over the last 40 years or so.

Most all of our “illegal” drugs have been around forever in most all cultures and societies since time began.

Why should we add more and more punishment on a student that took one puff of pot at a party one Saturday? It simply doesn’t make sense to me.

And to those such as Beth that claim not to have tried drugs when you were in high school…. do you mean you never even tried any alcohol? How about beer? Did you never take a puff of tobacco?

Kids are kids. They want to try things and experience what they consider to be “life.” Even if we can take away all of these things, they will find something else to do - sniff glue, sniff gas, suffocation, etc. Stop trying to CONTROL their life and become a parent, a mentor, etc.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

KA,

I find your leeps of logic today, interesting and quite unlike you.

If drug testing were to save but one life (say perhaps steroids were found) You’d rather sacrifice that student than to subject them to a drug test?

You object to random testing But yet you’d subject a student to testing merely on the word of other students? You’d target students alleged by other students to be using but would ignore the 4.0, star student athlete, closet user?

Your logic eludes me.

By middleschoolteacher

February 8, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Justme….are you suggesting that I teach my students that doing drugs is okay? That it is just a way of life and that everyone has tried them and it is part of growing up? A lot of students value their health and their life and have never tried drugs! Has everyone forgotten that they are ILLEGAL because they KILL PEOPLE! Should I also tell them that they don’t have to wear their seatbelts or helmets even though that is the law too and are both proven to prevent injury or death.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Tohs,

I wasn’t making the comparrison. I was responding to a question from KA.

As for my passion? Well, I suspect you’ll find it unwavering about any educational issue.

By Mike

February 8, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Since when is it the schools responsibility to insure laws are enforced. The school should only be worried about what takes place on its campus. If a kid smokes a joint at school by all means discipline him. Otherwise it is none of the schools business. I am amazed at the people who support this kind of nanny state mentality. I mean why don’t we just turn our kids over to the government and have them returned back to us at 18. Then we can ensure they raised properly.

By BK

February 8, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Sorry, JustMe. Folks like Beth and I just weren’t “cool” enough to TRY pot and even alcohol “just one time” in high school.

I had the fear of God and my parents in me. If these students consider smoking dope and getting drunk to be “life” then I pity them.

As for CONTROLing their life, I think a little bit more control is needed. Not less.

By MrLiberty

February 8, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

To Just Me,

No, its not just you. You are absolutely right and everyone who belittles the concept of acceptance fails to realize that all drugs used to be legal in this country, they were available to virtually anyone with money to buy them, they were sold by pharmacists or the equivalent, and we had far fewer problems than today. Abuse was dealt with as the medical problem it is, not as a criminal/retribution problem as we currently treat it. They also fail to realize that drugs were made illegal without the process of constitutional amendment, despite the fact that there is no authority for the feds to regulate drugs. At least alcohol opponents bothered to follow the law. These same folks that say why not legalize everything for children, etc. have no intelligent argument to make so they suggest the absurd as the logical next step, as if a questioning of today’s horrific approach should automatically lead to heroin for babies. You are also right to point out that the repressive assault against pot and other soft drugs has directly led to inhalent abuse, autostrangulation, and other extremely dangerous behaviors that are actually killing kids. I worked in a toxicology lab in the 80’s when drug testing was really gaining strength. Within a few years, more and more samples were coing in for tests for tolulene, xylene, and other organic solvents. Kids had figured out that these chemicals don’t show up on ordinary drug tests.. Unlike pot, these chemicals actually do cause brain damage.

For parents to support the government conducting random drug tests only shows how little parents wish to be parents. They have failed in their responsibility, they have turned their kids over to the state to raise, educate, and teach morality to, and now are willing to allow further violations of their sense of self in order to address a problem that is likely the result of their failure as parents. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that drug use is necessarily a serious problem among teenagers either, but clearly the desire to seek an alternate reality stems from one’s dissatisfaction with the current reality. No one seems willing to discuss that aspect of drug use, especially where kids and parents are part of the equation.

Homeschool and stop counting on the state to raise your kids and solve all of your problems with them.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Ok, Ok, since discipline is always a hot button issue on this blog let’s just throw this thought out there.

Should we force any student that has a discipline issue to be drug tested? Is it possible that their issues are drug related?

Personally, I might have an issue with this since it it would no longer be voluntary. Although I’m quite confident that some of our bloggers today that are against voluntary drug testing would think this a valuable tool.(voluntary in that a student may opt not to participate in an activity that requires testing)

By jim d

February 8, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Mike,

Indeed that is part of the schools job in order to assure the safety of all students.

According to your post above. You’d be ok with a 15 year old coming to a ball game completely smashed, possibly endangering other students.

You don’t really mean that do you?

By KA

February 8, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

jim, You can continue in your sarcastic disbelief and discounting of my views, but I see that you did not answer any of my earlier questions regarding the problems surrounding drug testing, i.e., false positives, burdens of proof, administrative (mis)handling of such programs. So once again I advise you to read WHAT I said and stop imputing what you think I mean, or what you think I would rather see happen, and the rest of your logic anal-ysis.

Simply put, and in a nutshell (AGAIN): I am not in favor of public school administrations conducting random drug testing without probable cause that the students are using drugs.

The testing that is done in college athletes is primarily to detect the presence of performance enhancing drugs. Any high school athlete who hopes to compete at the college level knows that testing will be done. I have had a college athlete and the NCAA is pretty clear about drug testing.

My kids have all graduated from HS now, but if random drug testing had been started when they were in HS, then I would have been withdrawing them immediately. jim, how much control do you think the government should have over you and your children, unlimited?

By jim d

February 8, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Mr. Liberty,

Again, I don’t disagree. Fight to make it legal though rather than just saying how unelightened we are. We do have laws in this country and since some of those laws are in regards to drug usage we must obey them regardless as to if we agree or not.

You do pay taxes don’t you? WHY?

By KA

February 8, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Mike is right, the schools are not nannies. Parents do your jobs. And jim, since you said that your are passionate about ‘education issues,’ can you exlpain to me how random mandatory drug testing is an ‘education issue’? I am all for classes that teach about the dangers of drugs, but NOT for any mandatory drug screening by schools!

By HS Teacher Too

February 8, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Folks, forgive my ignorance, but do these kinds of tests also detect ritalin, adderol, and so forth — the prescription drugs that kids all-too-frequently use illegally?

It seems to me that to test for pot, cocaine, etc., and overlook the misuse of prescription drugs would “protect,” in a sense, a large group of drug users.

By MrLiberty

February 8, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

middleschoolteacher

You need to spend some time learning the history of how drugs became illegal. It is not because they kill people. Marijuana has never killed a single person. Alcohol kills more people every year than all currently illegal drugs combined. Prescription drugs kill over 45,000 people every year. Doctor and hospital mistakes kill more than twice that number. Cars kill huge numbers as well - why are they not illegal?

Hemp was made illegal because it was an important source of fiber, paper, fuel oil, fabric, and a host of other items. People like Hearst, DuPont, Rockefeller, and others conspired with our government to make hemp illegal so that they could make money off their competitive products (wood-fiber paper, cotton, crude oil, etc.). Washington and Jefferson both grew hemp. In Virginia it was once illegal NOT to grow hemp. During WW2 the department of agriculture produced a film “Hemp for Victory” teaching and encouraging farmers to grow hemp to make up for our lost sources in the Phililipines. Opium was tied to the immigrant Chinese and after a short hate-filled campaign that eventually got the name “yellow journalism” it was outlawed as part of the overall prohibitionist campaign sweeping the nation shortly after the turn of the 20th century. Again, all done without constitutional authority. More than a few hundred books document these actions better than I can.

Did your education end when you became a teacher? Don’t you thnk that it would behoove you to occasionally investigate a subject before you profess to know with certainty WHY something was made illegal?

This was about corporate protectionism, enhancing the power of the federal government, justifying the existence of the new DEA, and reducing the freedom of the american citizen. It was NOT because THEY KILL !

By jim d

February 8, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

KA,

Did you read the article?

NcNUOcN\UbTTUWUXUVUZTZU]UWU\U\UZUU_UcTYWVVZV&urcm=y">http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/fayette/stories/2007/02/07/0207drugtesting.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild10b=JZcJFLTJ92f6lT0BfH2zXcmmPxhdtDDF8DYXLsdTsxvJ0TXNxyJL!1797485002&UrAuth=NcNUOcN\UbTTUWUXUVUZTZU]UWU\U\UZUU_UcTYWVVZV&urcm=y

Here’s a few qoutes; The Fayette County school system is considering random drug testing for high school students involved in extracurricular activities.

the first time a student tests positive, he or she would be required to attend counseling with a parent; a second positive test would mean suspension from a team or activity for 30 days; and a third positive would mean suspension from all extracurricular activities for the school year. No law enforcement officers would be involved.

We know if kids are not on drugs and alcohol, their achievement levels increase.

the program costs about $50 per student tested, and 10 students are randomly selected by computer each month. A school nurse administers a mouth swab. Results are sent to a lab in Alabama.

In Douglas, students at the county’s four high schools who want to participate in extracurricular activities must agree to be part of the random drug testing program,

The program, which uses a urine test, is conducted by an independent lab in the presence of school administrators

Here’s a comment from one parent. “If you’re not doing anything wrong, then the random aspect of it shouldn’t bother you.”

By jim d

February 8, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

The most asinine statement of the day.

“the schools are not nannies”

Right you are Mike! Let’s just not enforce any laws at school. Arm every kid to the teeth and turn them loose. Let them sort it out!

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

middleschoolteacher -

You say, “Justme….are you suggesting that I teach my students that doing drugs is okay? That it is just a way of life and that everyone has tried them and it is part of growing up? A lot of students value their health and their life and have never tried drugs! Has everyone forgotten that they are ILLEGAL because they KILL PEOPLE! Should I also tell them that they don’t have to wear their seatbelts or helmets even though that is the law too and are both proven to prevent injury or death.”

I do want to respond. First, I never advocated teaching that drugs are okay, did I? Why would you leap to such a statement?

I would advocate teaching students the effects of said drugs, to include tobacco and alcohol. After all, that is really what schools SHOULD be doing - teaching!!!

Also, I would argue (and I steal this arguement from others) that drugs do NOT kill people. It is people’s abuse that kill people. I could take one puff of pot and that will not kill me. If I abuse a drug, that COULD kill me. There is a very large difference that most people fail to realize.

I could take one drink of alcohol and that won’t kill me. I could drink excessive alcohol and die of alcohol poisonning. See the difference?

Your arguement that “it is the law” does not hold water with me. These drug laws only came into being in recent history and are only/primarily in the US. We crazy Americans have all kinds of crazy laws. And, we chose to selectively enforce them.

Just because some nutty politican creates a stupid law does not mean that I have to agree with it.

By The Politbureau

February 8, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

It is only decades before police come to your house to administer a drug test. You cannot get a job without one. When they create a machine to read your thoughts, I suppose they will check you out on that too. The moment the Supreme court allowed employers to drug test people for non-risk associated jobs, our civil liberties started going down hill. The politicians who were going to get elected from the “tough stance” on drugs are at the end of their careers. I guess what we need is less freedom and more state regulation of people…

By jim d

February 8, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

KA,

My Bad, here’s the link.

NcNUOcN\UbTTUWUXUVUZTZU]UWU\U\UZUU_UcTYWVVZV&urcm=y">http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/fayette/stories/2007/02/07/0207drugtesting.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild10b=JZcJFLTJ92f6lT0BfH2zXcmmPxhdtDDF8DYXLsdTsxvJ0TXNxyJL!1797485002&UrAuth=NcNUOcN\UbTTUWUXUVUZTZU]UWU\U\UZUU_UcTYWVVZV&urcm=y

By MrLiberty

February 8, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

jim d,

Yes, I pay taxes. Yes, it is because they will show up with guns if I don’t. Thank you for the suggestion, but I am actively working always to restore the legal status of all drugs.

That being said, there is also a highly-regarded american practise of civil disobedience. Just because drugs are illegal doesn’t mean that it is the job of the schools to act as law enforcers. Frankly, just because a law is on the books doesn’t even mean that the police or the district attorney need enforce it. Funding for such activities could be cut by both the school board and even the local city council.

There is a violent crime problem in our schools. There is a problem of physical and sexual abuse as well. Diverting the money from drug testing to security would in my opinion be a far better way to spend the dollars. Parents should encourage the same. It doesn’t change the illegality of drugs, but it does express the will of the people in the direction of law enforcement they feel is better.

A city council could just as easily cut funding for “vice” activities and force the police to spend their money going after crimes with victims instead.

The unenlightened part comes from putting any faith in the government schools to effectively address any issue. They cut recess and pave over playgrounds and then solve the problem of hyperactive boys by drugging them with Ritalin and Prozac. Not the kind of track record I would put my vote behind.

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Mr. Liberty -

I have never agreed with you more than your postings on this blog. I only wish that you would stop beating your “home school” drum!!!

By decaturparent

February 8, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

See, HS too is right, where do you draw lines? What about Ritalin? It amazes me that adminsitrators push a dangerous amphetamine on very young children when it is to their convenience to do so.

Then they refuse to kick out a kid who is beating up other children to such an extent that he must be tasered or maced to make him/her stop.

Then they refuse to back up teachers who are physically threatened by some thug in class.

And then they can kick out a straight A student who is a teacher’s dream and the president of the Beta Club because on one occasion they find pot in their bloodstream.

If a kid comes to school stoned, expel him. If he brings drugs or alcohol to school, expel him. If he stikes a teacher or harms another student, for Heaven’s sake expel his behind.

What my kids do outside of the school walls and off of school time is a family matter. My kids understand quite well that if I catch them with drugs and alcohol the H__L they will live in is far worse than anything some idiot administrator can come up with.

This gets at one of the biggest problems with public schools. All polcies are geared to the lowest common denominator. They teach to the lowest common denominator thank partially to NCLB. They have discipline plans that make schools like prisons because they refuse to just kick out the feral kids. And now, because some parents won’t bother to raise their kids and deal with the drug issue, all kids have to be subjected to what I consider to be an illegal GOVERNMENT invasion of their privacy.

I can invade my kids’ privacy all I want. However it is not the gubment’s business to do so.

The reason public schools are failing is that they are trying to do too much. They were designed to teach kids that come to school ready to lean with parents who are interested in them learning. They were never designed to parent, and they fail at teaching when they try to take on parenting too.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

It is abundantly clear to me that many of you have never been forced to personally deal with an addictive behavior, nor are you aware of what one is capable of doing to feed that addiction.

What a shame!

By middleschoolteacher

February 8, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Maybe YOU need to investigate a subject before you state “marijuana has never killed single person”! Are you kidding? Obviously, you don’t know that a growing number of people are diagnosed and even die from mouth cancer that was directly caused by regular marijuana use?

By EE_GT

February 8, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

I think you’re all dumb. I’m gonna keep smoking pot until the day that I die. I’m a successful electrical engineering student at a large, local university and I had STRAIGHT A’s through highschool. After experiencing sobriety, alcohol, and marijuana, I don’t believe a damn word the government tells me when it comes to drugs (as far as marijuana is concerned). So many people accept what the government says as truth.

Those of you saying that because it’s illegal, it’s wrong: wasn’t alcohol illegal at one time? That was changed, why can’t the marijuana laws? I wonder how many anti-marijuana folk out there go out at night and get sh*t-faced once in a while. Try ripping a bong and see how much better (and harmless) marijuana is compared to all these legal drugs.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Yep Mr. L,

We need to place more money in penalizing criminals, rather than in prevention.

Sounds like a plan to me. Just a shame I don’t agree with it.

By MrLiberty

February 8, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Step 1 - Get the ignorant masses to parrot the statement “If you’re not doing anything wrong, then the random aspect of it shouldn’t bother you.”

Step 2 - Impose the totalitarian state on everyone.

How is it that anyone can hold out hope for our society? We talk a great talk on Veteran’s day and Memorial Day about all the things our dead soldiers fought for, etc. and then far too many subservient jerks spew forth this kind of logic the rest of the year.

Is that really what all these folks died for? I certainly doubt that Washington, Jefferson, and all of the folks who fought the British for our independance would have bothered if this was the kind attitude that would be embraced by so many in the future.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

EE,

Keep going my friend and we will see how far that $20,000+ per year education gets you in the real world.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Mr. L,

What all those good folks sacrificed all for. Is your right to work towards changing the laws you disagree with.

Have at it!and Good luck!

By decaturparent

February 8, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Jim D, yes I have been directly involved with addiction on the part of one of my relatives. I know the power it has over a person. If I have an addicted child, do you really think that some educrat can deal with my kid’s addiction better than I can?

If a kid who is truly addicted finds out that his school is beginning random testing for people who do extracurriculars, do you really think that kid is going to say, “Gee, time to get off of meth now!” Nooooo, he’s going to drop out of extracurriculars and get even deeper into drugs with the extra time on his hands. He will remain under your radar screen.

How many addicts do you think are on the soccer team or Beta Club anyway?

I know, teen pregnancy ruins as many lives as drugs. Having sex with someone under 16 is illegal in Georgia (or is it 17). Given that and given your drug arguments, we should immediately begin randomly swabbing girls under 16 to see if there is evidence of sexual activity and randomly take DNA samples of the boys so we can deal with whoever is having sex off campus too.

By KA

February 8, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

jim, really, most people have a friends or family members that have faced addiction problems. I would rate alcoholism as the number one most widespread and socially accepted addiction. Would you approve of drug testing that includes morning breathalizer tests to catch those students who come to school drunk? Or test them at every after school event? Do you test the band and orchestra members, too, since their classes also require extra-curricular activities? I also have a lot of questions about adminstering a random drug test program: urine or blood sample? chain of custody? state or local lab testing? oversight of lab procedures? school admin oversight costs? students pay for tests? low income kids get free or reduced costs? structure of the admin review and action following up on test results? same or different consequences for each or every drug? appeals process? permanent record remarks? police followup and investigation for every positive result? Looks like another institutional and adminstrative nightmare to me.

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

jimd -

Get off of your high horse!!! I have known people with “addictive behavior.” And, notice the second word there…. it is BEHAVIOR.

If someone has an addictive behavior, they will become addictive to most any thing. Why are we/you putting the blame on that “thing?” If John wasn’t addicted to alcohol, then he could be addicted to food. If it isn’t food, it could be Jane.

What needs to be treated is the BEHAVIOR. Don’t blame the drug, or the alcohol, or Jane!

As I have said, I have nothing against EDUCATING people on the effects of alcohol, drugs, or whatever. I do have a problem with laws under the false pretense that they are “to protect me from myself” all the while subtracting from my personal liberties.

And, since some of brought up seat belts…. I have nothing against EDUCATING people on the statistics showing that wearing seat belts will save your life. I do have a problem with the government forcing me to wear one to protect me! What is next? Some statistican will proven that wearing five inches of foam around your body reduces injury in accidents. Maybe our government should have a federal law that requires all clothing sold in the US have five inches of foam in them!!!!?????!!!!!

Where does it all end?

By jim d

February 8, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

“the soccer team or Beta Club?”

You might be surprised.

” he’s going to drop out of extracurriculars “

I never claimed we’d be able to help them all. But if it were just 1? would it be worth doing? I think yes!

By MrLiberty

February 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Why beat the homeschool drum?

What better way to know what your kids are up to, what better way to make sure they learn what you want them to learn, what better way to make sure that they are not victims of violence at school, what better way to make sure that they are not exposed to drugs before you are ready to talk about them, what better way to make sure that they are not exposed to sexual discussions before you are ready to talk about it? What better way to make sure they acquire your moral foundations and not someone else’s Do I need to continue?

Every time there is a controversial topic on this blog the source of the problem at the root of it all is the government school. Everyone chimes in with a different opinion of how things should be handled, but in reality the only way things will be handled is the way the government-hired and government-paid employees choose to handle it (or possibly the way the loudest group of complainers wants it handled). That might be fine for some, but for everyone else, there is a solution. Take you child out of the government schools, stop hoping and wishing that things will go better or that your child will finally get what he/she needs, and homeschool them. It is no longer outside of the accepted options available. Curriculums are available for very little money. Colleges and universities not only accept the transcripts of homeschooled kids, but many are actually recruiting homeschooled kids because of all they have to offer, etc.

Parents need to be reminded that this option, above any other, addresses the issues they are complaining about.

By SET

February 8, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Our local Catholic High School brings in drug and alcohol detection dogs periodically. Students have been expelled when the dogs revealed drugs or liquor in their backpacks or lockers. My info is that catching the little jerks with the contraband on campus was actually the last straw - they were already individually on the school’s radar for poor performance and attitude.

If you are running a school to educate - as opposed to the public school’s mission statement - you are not going to tolerate infiltration of your school by the druggies, drug dealers and the gangs. Students do not have the same privacy rights as adults to put it mildly. So this thread is really about the reasonableness of the methods in question. How invasive is reasonable under the circumstances? Budget and time wise and all of that.

Remember you can also bridle the drug use by such proxy methods as getting rid of the non-performing students (transferring them to alternative schools).

I personally prefer the dogs. The hide-and-go-seek extravaganza of the sniffing dogs is tremendous entertainment for students and faculty alike and I believe a drug detection policy should provide something for those not using drugs…great entertainment.

Lining up students for blood draws and urine samples is a problem for me except in dire circumstances - like a disease (bird flu?) outbreak.

Mr. Liberty - you may have a dream of a world with perfect liberty. It’s a dream only. One cannot run an urban school in a reasonably safe manner without drug intradiction. You see, around here, drug dealers shoot people when they don’t pay up or annoy the dealers in any way. Also Meth users become permanently brain damaged - psychotic - requiring long term anti-psychotic Rxs to stay outpatient. Our CA schools are concerned with just getting the kids through the school year alive, and not institutionalized.

Maybe GA is better off than we are and doesn’t have these problems. Or maybe Los Angeles School District will happen to you in a few years.

By Jeff

February 8, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Two words to those that say “one time drug use won’t kill”:

Lenny Bias.

Maybe I didn’t get the name right, but his story is this: HIGHLY recruited basketball player. Signs the contract. Goes out with his friends. Does cocaine ONE TIME. DEAD seconds later.

My family works in a bus ministry at the church I grew up in. Their bus mainly goes into trailer parks and other lower-income areas where I grew up. I cannot TELL you how many times we have seen the affect of adutl drug use on kids. And let me put it mildly: IT AIN’T PRETTY.

I have two second cousins whose mom is in jail because of her meth problem. Their dad is having to raise these girls (now in their early-mid teens) on his own, with the help of my aunt (their grandmother).

A friend I grew up with, I once heard her dad speak (when he was trying to change his life) about how he would be driving a tractor trailer shooting heroin. This friend and her two younger sisters grew up with their grandparents, and my friend never even met her mother until roughly her 18th birthday.

My own grandfather was an alcoholic. I never remember meeting the man. He died two months after I was born. But I’ve heard stories about him. I’ve seen the horror in their eyes when my grandmother tells me the stories of what he did to her family. And it is because of these stories over the past few years that I have grown to love and respect my own dad that much more. He could’ve turned out like his father. But he didn’t. He became the biggest influence in my own life, teaching me what a REAL man is like.

Don’t tell me that drugs are harmless. I’ve SEEN WITH MY OWN TWO EYES the destruction that they cause. And I am OH SO GRATEFUL to my own parents that they never let me experience it.

By KA

February 8, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

JustMe, and the next step would be the gov’t requiring all of us to wear protective helmets while riding in vehicles to prevent head injuries… ; )

By jim d

February 8, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Just me,

If the desire to help even one kid stay away from a self destructive habit is setting high astride a horse, I think I’ll stay here for the ride. Thank you anyway.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

SET,

And perhaps we’re already there. Just too blind to see it.

By KA

February 8, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

I like SET’s idea of using the drug/alcohol sniffing dogs.

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

jimd-

So then, according to your argument…

If adding 5 inches of foam to all clothing will protect even one person, then we most certainly should make a law that requires this. Is this really your logic????

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

You are completely missing the point here!!!!!!

No one claims that drugs cannot do horrible things.

What some are saying is that there are other things that SHOULD be considered but are NOT. For example:

Have you ever visited Amsterdam? They have legal pot. In fact, there are cafe’s that sell pot and people sit around socializing and smoke. That Country’s rate of abusers is far less than in the US. Wonder why? If you know why, please explain!!!!

By catlady

February 8, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

My concern relates to how much more schools need to be taking on. If a teacher or administrator has evidence that a child is high at school, that is one thing (to me). But random testing for drugs opens up too many random and parental functions IMHO. Wa already feed, babysit, provide mental health and social workers, etc. for kids. I don’t think it is appropriate to test kids just because we can, just because they MIGHT be doing something.

I would, however, like to do something about my students’ PARENTS and their drug and alcohol use! How many hundreds of times do we have an elementary student coming in reeking of marijuana smoke because mom and dad were toking already?

By catlady

February 8, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

And do I think that random testing has a deterrent effect? Nope, in fact it might have the opposite as risk-taking, never-happen-to-me kids try to “beat the test”. Let’s just concentrate on TEACHING the KIDS—we really have our hand full doing that!

By EE_GT

February 8, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Jim D-

You don’t know me. You are very quick to assume that marijuana will ruin anyone’s life who uses it. How many successful execs and other professionals do you think drink alcohol, even if just once in a while?

If my marijuana use has absolutely NO adverse affects on my schooling, my job, family, etc. then why in god’s name can I not smoke a doob once in a while? It makes me feel good, it relaxes me. But you know what it doesn’t do? It doesn’t make me sick to the point of throwing up. It doesn’t make me feel brave enough to get into a car while intoxicated and inadvertently kill someone. In fact, I pray I have marijuana during a hangover - it’s about the only thing that takes the nausea away.

Don’t bash it until you try it. Or hey, you could just keep believing everything you’re told about drugs…

By decarturparent

February 8, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Right on catlady - I agree with you completely.

By erica

February 8, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

EE, you forgot to include that… not a whole lot of guys beat their wives and kids while they are high. Can’t say the same about a guy who has had a little liquor.

I still don’t get why pot is illegal and alcohol is legal. In every way alcohol is more potent, bad for your health, and conducive to crime and antisocial behavior than marijuana.

I don’t do either one, so I’m not trying to promote my druggie behavior. I just don’t understand why it’s not the other way around.

Well, I know the history of why… but it doesn’t make sense in this day and age.

Ban alcohol by all means and just let everyone get high after work instead. We would live in a far better country if that was the case.

Of course the alcohol pusher-men (uh….I mean lobby) will never let than happen.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this

EE,

Nope, I was one of those that didn’t believe anything I was told. To put it quite bluntly—Been there—done that. And I’d just guess long before you were even born.

My reference wasn’t to your usage, as I really don’t care what you as an adult do privately. I would care if you were an employee that stood to jeopardize my ability to earn a living, as all of my customers have a drug free policy in place. My policy is simple; test positive and I’ll offer a chance to retest. The employee knows if they can pass or not and will generally refuse and tender their resignation. Only once in the 20+ years we’ve required testing has anyone agreed to the second test and passed it.

You’re quite right. I don’t know you. However the bottom line sir is that that high dollar degree you are earning won’t hold water when you apply for a job and must submit to testing. If you test positive you’ll be seeking other employment.

SET, Correct me if I’m wrong here, But employers are responsible for the safety and welfare of all of their employees while on the job, an employee under the influence of drugs or other stimulants jeopardizes that safety and an employer might be found negligent if they didn’t take precautions to assure that safety. That being said, I would think that a school sponsored extracurricular activity of any sort might be viewed much the same, laying a certain amount of liability at the feet of the schools if they failed to protect all students.

By high school teacher

February 8, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this

I support random drug testing of student athletes. In our litigious society, drug testing protects the school from liability if an athlete collapses during an athletic performance or competition. It’s kind of difficult to blame the coach for overworking a kid who has drugs in his system.

Secondly, reglardless of whether or not they should be legalized, drugs are currently illegal. Students who represent their school through sports and other activities have an obligation to represent their school in a positive manner. Drug testing is one way to eliminate bad representatives.

Thirdly, meth is a huge problem among teens. At least marijuana is a natural substance; meth is made from bleach and anti-freeze, to name only two of its ingredients. I would venture to say that 30% of any school’s population has used or is using meth, athletes included. Drug testing might help to target those who need rehab assistance.

Finally, steroids have found their way to high schools, giving some school teams an unfair advantage on the field (or court). Drug testing would also alleviate this problem.

Random drug testing is not about invasion of privacy; it’s about protection of both the students and their school.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this

Cat,

looks like we disagree today.

I would personally love to fire one up on occassion. I don’t because I’m aware that even as the owner of the company I can be called up for a random test and should I test positive, those reports must be filed with my customers. In other words, I’d be out of business. So screening can be a deterent. I’ve been drug free for 30 years. Not Scotch free mind you, but illegal drug free!

By EE_GT

February 8, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this

Erica-

I couldn’t agree with you more. I just wish more people would care to educate themselves a little more about the history of these illegal drugs, these “menaces” of society. I am completely against most synthetic drugs, including cocaine, heroine, methamphetamines. Marijuana is 100% natural and when people can grow it themselves, it’s also 100% organic. This plant is the most unique plant on this planet, sometimes even considered alien. This plant is BEAUTIFUL! When I have a good specimen, I enjoy looking at it, smelling it, touching it. And this is something that people think is a menace? Are you CRAZY?!

I’m not very religious at all, but something this spectacular that occurs NATURALLY must be some sort of gift from God(s), whichever suits your belief.

A few tips for those unfamiliar with marijuana: 1.Don’t believe what the gov’t tells you about marijuana 2.Research the history of marijuana in America (there’s a book titled “Spliffs: A Celebration of Cannabis Culture”) and see why alcohol is legal and marijuana is not 3.Maybe even give mary jane a whirl, who knows, you might enjoy it as much as I do

By KA

February 8, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

catlady, I agree with you!

By HB

February 8, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this

middleschoolteacher wrote: “Maybe YOU need to investigate a subject before you state “marijuana has never killed single person”! Are you kidding? Obviously, you don’t know that a growing number of people are diagnosed and even die from mouth cancer that was directly caused by regular marijuana use? “

Ok, yeah, it can kill, but I think the person’s point was it kills far fewer people than many legal substances. I mean, really, if we’re going to ban substances based on the harm caused by long-term consumption, the first two on the list should be cigarettes and hamburgers.

jimd, I’m a little surprised that you keep using the “if it saves one kid” argument. Of course, we want to keep kids safe, but it would be impossible to do every single thing that could protect them. Should schools track traffic violations and ban a student pulled for speeding over the weekend from extracurriculars? I don’t have the figures, but I’d bet aggressive driving kills as many young people as drugs do. Or should we go a step further and install speed monitors in randomly selected cars in case the police don’t catch them? Where does it end?

I really don’t like the idea of randomly testing any student who chooses to do more than just show up to class because I think it’s an invasion of privacy. If an asthmatic kid in the marching band is taking oral steroids under guidance of a doctor and with parental consent, that’s their business. They shouldn’t have to share that information and plead their case to school officials who had no reason to suspect abuse, but rather because a computer randomly selected their name.

Privacy issues aside, though, this process seems ridiculously inefficient. To save a kid as you put it, they have to first win a lottery, the computer selection, and then fail a test. Wouldn’t this be a better plan? If there is reason to suspect drug abuse (slipping grades, unusual behavior, tips from other students), go to the child’s parents with those concerns and request that they sign off on a drug test (they can do that for any kid under 18). If he test positive, work with the parents to get that student into a rehab program ASAP.

By high school teacher

February 8, 2007 02:32 PM | Link to this

I’m not very religious at all, but something this spectacular that occurs NATURALLY must be some sort of gift from God(s), whichever suits your belief.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was also created by God, yet he didn’t want Adam and Eve to touch it. Perhaps that was really marijuana and not an “apple” after all? :)

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

Random drug testing will most certainly NOT protect anyone from lawsuits.

If anything, they increase the likelihood of lawsuits! For example, my son got hurt because Jim was on drugs. Why isn’t your drug testing good enough to catch Jim!!!!

If there is no drug testing, then the school system is putting the ownership back to where it should belong - on the parents!!!

By jim d

February 8, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

HB,

Been in a school recently? kids can’t even take an aspirn without first making the school aware. Believe me, the schools already know which students are taking perscription drugs so there is no further compromise of privacy. I’m begining to think some of you may be objecting just a wee bit too much.

And yeah, I don’t have a problem with banning any student breaking the law on school property from extracurricular activities. Like I said, they aren’t a right.

If you wanna play—simply play by the rules. Can someone please explain how thats an evil concept thats “unfair” to your little darlins?

By jim d

February 8, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

Just me,

Unfortunately attorney’s disagree with you.

Here’s what one had to say on the issue of drug testing students.

“The School Board’s attorney has advised them that by a student who tested positive to continue to practice, the District could be held liable if that student injured another player or was injured himself…If that same student harms someone in the classroom, on school grounds, or in the parking lot, the potential for injuries, suits and judgments would still exist.” **”Where there is knowledge, there is liability”

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

jimd -

Your post completely supports my point. From a legal perspective, ignorance is bliss. Don’t test, don’t know, so the school cannot be at fault.

Begin testing and you open up the legal can of worms!

By 30 year Teacher

February 8, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

The FL county where I teach does do random tests of student athletes and I support them wholeheartedly. We have had at least one suicide of a promising young man who was using steroids. Perhaps his use would have been discovered, perhaps not, but he may have forgone them if he had known there was a risk of bing caught.

As far as pot being organic,what a joke and specious argument. So is tobacco; so what? There are any number of poisonous plants that are organic that can kill in a heartbeat.

Among my at-risk kids I have any number who were (are?) drug users. To a man they all tell me that it started with pot. Pot is known as a gateway drug and the kids wuld probably still be using it and other stuff except that many are in court-ordered random testing situations and they discovered that juvenile was not the cakewalk they wanted everyone to believe.

In addition, we had a foster son who was (is) an addict. (Once an addict you are always an addict whether you are using or not) I cannot begin to tell you the grief he caused our family and his, the hours I spent driving him to nightly NA (narcotics anonymous) meetings or the heartbreak of watching these beautiful kids who found themselves addicted to any number of substances and were now trying to clean up their lives.

For those who don’t know, teen bodies are much more susceptible to addiction than older folks and find it much more difficilt to get and stay clean. So EE when I read your posts, you remind me of nothing so much as the addict who says “I can stop if I want to but I don’t want to.” Pure rationalization. You will find the real adult world will see to it that your drug use is curtailed if you want a job and all your rationalizing in the world won’t make a bit of difference.

By all means, keep testing kids who are in extracurricular programs. Any deterrant is better than none at all. Oh and by the way, when someone receives a DUI don’t assume that is is alcohol and nothing else. People do drive high and according to a sheriff’s deputy friend of ours many of these are drug related.

By HB

February 8, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

jimd, I don’t think that schools usually know about prescriptions unless the kids have them at school (or when under the school’s supervision off campus). Many daily prescriptions can be taken outside of school hours. That’s nobody’s business but theirs. If a prescription drug, especially one known to be commonly abused like Ritalin, needs to be taken during the school day, then I have no problem with school officials requiring notification that a student has it on campus. If taken at home at bedtime — none of their business. A drug test would pick up medications taken outside of school. And I have no problem with kids being banned from activities for breaking the law on school property, or even at school events not held on school property. Random drug tests go further than that monitoring random students’ off-hours.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

Just a few facts.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of mandatory suspicionless drug-testing of student athletes in Vernonia v. Acton (1995). Applying its rulings in Skinner and Von Raab, the Court found that the students’ Fourth Amendment rights were outweighed by the government’s interest in drug-free schools when it approved a school’s policy of random suspicionless testing of student athletes. In the wake of its landmark ruling, hundreds of school districts nationwide adopted similar policies. With the expansion of student drug testing beyond athletics, some schools began requiring random drug-testing as a condition for participation in other extracurricular activities. A panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of such a school program in Todd v. Rush County Schools (1998), and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, letting the verdict stand.

By HB

February 8, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this

And by the way, I think you actually proved Just Me’s point that testing can increase law suits. The attorney you quoted seems to agree with Just Me: “Where there is knowledge, there is liability.” In other words, if a student tests positive, it is the school’s responsibility to ban the student from activities and possibly even from the classroom. It sounds like the school would be responsible for constantly supervising the student when on school grounds. If the school does not test, there is no knowledge that the kid is a possible danger to himself or others, and therefore, the school would not be liable.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this

HB,

I won’t argue that point. However it might be argued that even if school officials had no knowledge of drug use by a student that they should have discovered it through ordinary vigilance.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

It might also be argued that since the possesion of illegal drugs on school property is a violation of law that it doesn’t matter if they have already ingested it. They are still in possesion.

By JustMe

February 8, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

jimd -

you now bring in a whole other arguement that is off point…. that of possession on school grounds.

By KA

February 8, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this

AHA! jim, you finally said it, “even if school officials had no knowledge of drug use by a student that they should have discovered it through ordinary vigilance.” EXACTLY! Students and teachers generally KNOW who is a poor student, who is a violent person and yes, they generally know who is doing drugs. These facts are discovered through ordinary vigilance, and therefore, MY DEAR, why would you want to vist an administratively cumbersome, socially disruptive, invasive, uncertain, certainly costly, and personally intrusive random drug testing regime upon your student population? The best solution is usually the simplest one, and regarding students that is to talk to your students, educate them and encourage them to look after their friends and counsel their classmates about the physical harms and legal risks they take when they engage in illegal drug use, or abuse of prescription meds, or using paint thinner, huffing spray cans, glue sniffing, etc., etc., etc..

By jim d

February 8, 2007 04:32 PM | Link to this

KA,

“they generally know”

So are they liable if one slips throuh the cracks?

By HB

February 8, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

If other signs clearly pointed to a possible drug problem, then a school might be considered negligent for not pursuing the matter in some way (at least by contacting the parents). In most cases, though, I don’t think testing would fall under “ordinary vigilance” since there’s no expectation that a school would ever test every student, only the randomly selected ones.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 04:39 PM | Link to this

HB,

You mean test any kid that shows signs like being hyperactive, or falls asleep in class. Maybe just talks louder than their peers. Or shows signs of redness around the eyes? has the sniffles or the like?

Just don’t want to test the athletes?

Now thats HUMOR!!

By KA

February 8, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

If teachers and students know the drug users, and the school wants to assume the duty for drug testing THEN that is an identifiable and LOGICAL group of students to drug test. When anyone assumes a duty of care, then they also open themselves to a degree of liablity associated with that duty. If the schools want to take on the duty of drug testing, then they open themselves to liability especially when, as you say, someone falls through the cracks. HMMM…. let’s see, what makes more sense, random testing……Or testing kids that have either shown signs of drug use or have even said they are using drugs.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 05:08 PM | Link to this

KA,

The courts have ruled they can’t do that without substantiated evidence.

On the other hand they have ruled they can do it to students partcipating in extracurricular activities. Bottom line is that doing so falls within the leagl parameters and the school can do so if they wish. All the griping in world doesn’t change that.

By HB

February 8, 2007 05:18 PM | Link to this

jim d, now you know that’s not what I said. You wrote: “However it might be argued that even if school officials had no knowledge of drug use by a student that they should have discovered it through ordinary vigilance.” I don’t believe that failure to conduct random drug testing would result in a ruling that a school had failed to discover what they should under ordinary vigilance.

If a case went to court with a situation similar to the situations described by the attorney you quoted, and parents sued because the the school failed to learn of a drug problem through “ordinary vigilance”, then yes, I believe questions would come up about unusual behavior. Should unusual behavior or accusations by other students alert school officials to a bigger problem? Maybe, maybe not — depends on the individual case and how obvious the signs are. But I could see a reasonable argument being made in certain extereme cases that a school had failed to see a problem that they should have under “ordinary vigilance,” and as I said before, a school might be considered negligent.

And as I said before, I have no problem with testing athletes for performance enhancing drugs because that’s specific to the activity and may be necessary to ensure fair competition.

By jim d

February 8, 2007 05:32 PM | Link to this

Well now isn’t that a fine kettle of fish. Let’s test the athletes and the band but leave all those smart chess players alone.

Ever hear tell of Nootropics?

By KA

February 8, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this

jim, sigh…’substantiated evidence,’ and what do you think that might be? Testimony of friends of a drug user that he is using, evidence that he bought drugs, his mom’s prespription drugs seized by school admins from his person or his locker, testimony about his aberrant behavior?

By Janine

February 8, 2007 05:38 PM | Link to this

KA @9:39 You may already know this, but it’s possible that the Jewish rabbi didn’t put his”spin” on the instruction that you and your classmates received because the Judaism does not proselytize….evangelize…and they are not instructed to “spread the gospel [their beliefs].. Therefore they do not try to get converts to the religion. THey do not believe that one must accept their religion in order to go to heaven, or be “saved”. All people of good will, no matter what their beliefs are, will go to heaven….if there is one.. So there is no reason for a religion class taught by a rabbi to have any spin at all. I think that is not the case if the instructor was Christian because their religion does instruct them to convert, therefore the missionaries, etc.

By KA

February 8, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

Janine, Thanks, and I also had Hindu and Christian college profs who did not preach. My point is that you can teach about religion without preaching.

By HB

February 8, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this

Who said anything about testing the band? Is there a performance enhancing drug problem among bands that I’m unaware of? I’m only ok with testing the athletes because in recent years use of steroids has become commonplace giving users an edge over others. There is a demonstrated need for random testing, and I believe it can be effective in stopping cheating. If there were only a few isolated occurences, then random testing probably would not be warranted.

So yes, if there is a known common problem of high school chess players using performance enhancing drugs, then those who govern the competition should create rules banning those substances in order to maintain an even playing field and enforce them (perhaps through random testing) as many high school football coaches are trying to do.

But I still don’t see the need for random testing of FFA members and don’t believe it will stop one of those members from smoking a joint on Saturday night. Such a program is ineffective and unwarranted.

By Janine

February 8, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this

KA…My experience was quite different. Although well meaning, my college Christian profs. of World Relgions and Comparative Religions, etc . tried, I think, to be neutral, but their religion, feelings, and philosophies were obvious to all. When in discussions, rather than play the Devil’s Advocate, they clearly played offense as well as defense for the Christian team.

By Janine

February 8, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

Not that I think they should have done otherwise. In my opinion, if they were devout followers of their Christian faith, they had no choice.

By KA

February 8, 2007 06:16 PM | Link to this

Janine, Where di you go to college? I went to FSU.

HB, I brought up bands and orchestra because participation in those classes also means participation in their extra-curricular performances.

By catlady

February 8, 2007 06:34 PM | Link to this

In our county the band et al are subject to the random testing. I am not going to argue privacy, safety, liability, or anything else (I could) but simple fact: the schools have taken on far more than they can do as it is. Teachers still have the option of asking for assistance, talking to parents, etc., if they have a concern about the student’s behavior seeming to be drug/alcohol induced. However, I don’t think we SHOULD, nor do I think we CAN ADEQUATELY take on another parental function as a general rule. We have enough to do as it is!

By catlady

February 8, 2007 06:38 PM | Link to this

Unless we can drop some things. Morals education? PE? Providing breakfast and lunch? College fairs? English instruction? What do we give up so we can drug test, follow up on the results, counsel, etc? At some point (long past) it became a zero sum game. The turnip has bled out, folks!

By KA

February 8, 2007 06:41 PM | Link to this

catlady, I agree. Schools are educational institutions and teachers should teach, and not be required to babysit, act as social workers or drug police. We have other professionals in society to deal with those tasks. It’s time that schools focused on teaching, and leave the rest to the parents and the community resources.

By jim d

February 9, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this

HB,

You gotta be kiddin,

The band members would surely benefit from performance enhancing drugs that would “pep them up” for their intensive marching competitions and my god man, The FFA? You obviously were city raised, I was one and can assure you these kids have ready access to more drugs than you can imagine. A$$ kickin Tranquilizers and steroids to mention but a few.

So why you are ok with testing athletes you really should make yourself more familiar with how drugs can be used for a variety of enhancements from physical performance to cognitive abilities. Remember, with all the pressure to win that these kids are near genius at figuring out what to take to give them just a bit of an edge over the competition. In this day and time when school budgets are so tight do you really think the schools would spend the money to test these kids if there weren’t some safety issues?

Cat,

“nor do I think we CAN ADEQUATELY take on another parental function as a general rule”. ”We have enough to do as it is!”

As a parent let me just say that while it is one of the schools functions to provide kids an education, I personally don’t see it as the primary function. I view the primary duty of a school as, first and foremost, to assure the safety of every student while in their care. If drug testing participants in extracurricular activities enhances their ability to do that, I’m 100% behind it and I do not see that as shirking my parental responsibility. To the contrary, I view that as supporting the school in providing a safer environment for all students.

By HB

February 9, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

jim d, I find it interesting that you assume I was city-raised. I actually was raised (until age 15) in a South GA town of around 15,000 people (the largest town in a 50-mile radius, so not a suburb). While I attended the “city” schools, my mother taught in a county school, advised the FHA, and I went on several trips that she chaperoned to FFA-FHA camp. And by the way, FFA does have random testing to prevent cheating much like sports programs do. Animals exhibited at fairs can be tested at any time to check for banned substances.

That said, you’ve missed my point. I’m not saying that band kids, FFA participants, or any other students don’t have access to drugs. I know they do. So do I. So do you. So what? Do you think grabbing random people and testing them on the street would make a dent in our country’s drug problem? Or would it be more effective to try to pinpoint where the problem is? I just don’t believe in these kinds of blanket policies, especially when they infringe on people’s privacy who have not shown any reason to be suspected of illegal activity. It’s typical bureaucratic thinking. Instead of working the specific problem, come up with a broader program. Just make sure it’s broad enough to cost more money than necessary, be a huge hassle, and of course, water down its effectiveness.

Back when I was in high school (in a slightly bigger town than my first — still not a big city), it was weapons searches. Instead of seeking tips from other students on who had guns at school, the school conducted random searches of classrooms in one building and ended up suspending a dozen students, who had never been in any sort of trouble before, for having one-inch pocket knives in their possession. We thought we could have them because there were big signs all over campus stating that knives over 3 inches were not allowed. So 12 good students spent two weeks at home to ensure our safety. A month later, a student, who had not been a searched classroom, stabbed (almost fatally) another student in the cafeteria — with a screwdriver.

So again, I say don’t spend money and hassle kids without first having good reason to do so. Find ways to work the real problem. Not only will that prevent being a nuissance to kids who have done nothing wrong, it will raise the odds of helping the kids who actually need help!

By jim d

February 9, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

“I say don’t spend money and hassle kids without first having good reason to do so.”

To reitterate. the primary duty of a school is, first and foremost, to assure the safety of every student while in their care.

Can we at least agree on that?

By KA

February 9, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

HB, Amen! jim, nobody is disputing that there is a drug problem in schools. some of us just don’t beleive that random mandatory drug testing is a good or smart way to solve the problem. In fact it’s an expensive and intrusive program. Schools are in the education business, not law enforcement. I think schools would be more effective teaching about drugs in classes and movies showing the horrors of drug addiction and death, much like the public safety car crash movies I watched in HS in the 60’s. Educate students and you raise their awareness and gain their cooperation. Forced drug testing would certainly alienate many and humiliate them.

By SET

February 9, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

The people who think that we can leagalize narcotics and other drugs here because Amsterdam doesn’t look like an episode of “Buffy The Vampire Slayer” are the same type of people who thought we could create a Welfare State in the USA like the Scandinavians did.

People are different.

The on the last 50 years, less than a standard lifetime, USA has become a multicultural society that is in the process of driving out higher IQ people in favor of lower IQ people.

And ever expanding proletariat - with largely genetically low IQ - is not going to take to welfare or intoxicants in moderation like a bunch of Scandinavians (who are homogeneous with an avg IQ of over 100).

It only takes a slight drop in national avg IQ to have big differences in social problems.

As if that wasn’t enough, Native Indians such as the millions of very fertile lower avg IQ Mexican Nationals being relocated to the USA by the design of both USA political parties and the white controlled Mexican Government (who doesn’t want them) are highly (genetically) prone to Alcoholism and substence dependence. The results in our cities are plain to see.

A welfare state combined with ready availability of narcotics and intoxicants plus a lower IQ population gets you anarchy and economic collapse. Today we see the impact as a collapse of the “middle” class and downward mobility for their children who are of “average” IQ. At the same time we see unprecedented growth in the wealth of the top 5%. Because we have so many television sets it’s hard to evaluate where we are, but shall we say it’s now harder to get educated and become a government teacher and a homeowner with a housewife and children - compared to 1955.

You cannot have a welfare state and 3rd world culture at the same time. If you try you, will end up with a police state the likes of which we have never seen in history - which is visibly in the works - and you will have economic, social and political collapse into a violent civil war - that’s in the cards also. As the US tries to hide it’s economic decay it may just decide a huge expansionist war is required to keep the factories humming (or oil supplies coming) a’la Germany in 1939. This is forseeable and in the works also.

These changes didn’t just happen. Men made them happen. Men who were well aware of the demographic and economic results their “Great Society” legislation would have on the USA and didn’t care. These are the same voices who want to legalize narcotics. These are “liberals”. Liberals live in the moment with no regard to history or the future. They also believe they can command water to run uphill. They are literally pleasure-seekers. Fun at a party, though.

The reason we send drug sniffing beagles into the schools is the same reason we expell distruptive students, give failing grades, and discipline students who curse teachers. We are supposed to be training these schools kids to support themselves after age 18 by making them eligible for the military, able to hold a job and make a career, or qualify them for higher education. We are not in this fight for our entertainment.

We have these schools to secure a decent future for our students and that doesn’t allow the continued presense or use of MJ, Booze, or narcotics on the premises.

By KA

February 9, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

No, jim, the first duty of a school is to educate the students. This is best accomplished through enforcement of school system rules of conduct and observance of society’s laws so that a safe environment is maintained. If students are disruptive, uncooperative or breaking the law, then there are discipline measures and consequences already in place such as suspension, panels, expulsion, or arrest. Remove the student(s) suspected of drug use, notify their parents of the evidence of drug use, and require a clean drug test for re-entry to school. I see no reason for the schools to assume the duties of a drug testing program. Put the responsibility where it really belongs, on the students and their PARENTS!

By jim d

February 9, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

I’m afraid we will just have to agree to disagree then. But just for the record, there is evidence to support the fact that children learn better in an environment where they don’t feel threatened. In providing a safe environment our schools are better able to teach and students are better able to learn.

By KA

February 9, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

jim, Again you imply that I don’t hink student safety is important! that is not what I said! You asked what the schools’ “primary duty” was, and IMO the primary duty is to EDUCATE the students. And they do have many measures in place to maintain a safe environment. WHY do you think that they must also assume the duty of DRUG TESTING?

By jim d

February 9, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

KA,

WHY do you think that they must also assume the duty of DRUG TESTING?

Student safety seems to be what I’ve been saying for two days.

And the only implication I was making is that I believe safety takes precedence over education. It occurs to me that you could have some pretty educated dead kids otherwise.

By SET

February 9, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this

jim d : My siblings, cousins and classmates learned just fine in an environment where we felt threatened. The Catholic Nuns were very threatening. They would run down the isles of 30 students and kick you if you gave a wrong answer when called on in class. Our parents would go berserk if we came home with a bad report or bad grades from school… and that was through high school.

Maybe they were worried about us getting drafted into VietNam if we screwed up - I don’t remember. I do remember being under the gun to perform in school.

The dumbest student in our 1-8 school could read and write. And the process of learning involved having to read out loud in front of the entire class. That’s how we did reading.

I don’t buy your observation about kids not performing under stress. My experience is the opposite.

By SET

February 9, 2007 05:18 PM | Link to this

For the record, people, I would be very reluctant to support random drug testing of students individually - such as by urine tests. Whether or not the law gives a school the ability to do so I’d reserve the most invasive exams for those involved in accidents, incidents, etc.

I would do what our local Catholic HS has done with the drug dog sweeps. You have to watch these dogs at work - great fun and very effective.

Besides, if you impose academic requirements to continue at the school to some extent the problem doesn’t get to the level seen in the TV show “The Wire”.

Now having said this, urban public schools are not like Catholic High Schools. It may be required to impose TB skin tests, Strip Search Physical Exams on students (Football Physicals?), and maybe even have the disposable alcohol breathalyzer tests handy. Urban Schools have a greater presence of underclass students with their pathology. You are going to have HIV outbreaks at these schools. We already have VD outbreaks. And make no mistake, public health may use force to physically examine a named suspect of any age for communicable disease and has done so repeatedly around here (they arrest people - you should see the Disease Control Nurses they have, very tough women!).

So if the governing board decides that a certain policy is now required to deal with an outbreak of lead poisoning, drugs, TB or AIDS at a school - it’s their school. Good luck to all.

And let Mr. Liberty continue to push homeschooling. This is an open blog and I like seeing his ideas too.