I'm surprised this hasn't garnered more press, I found it by a fluke's chance when Conserv_Pat sent me some of his liberal, commie-loving propaganda. The state of Hawaii is now the first state to randomly drug test teachers, librarians, and administrators. I hvae a huge problem with this issue, here they are:

*Random drug testing does away with probable cause. Unwarranted, needless blanket testing effectively kills probable cause, and the need for it.

*If a teacher arrives at work drunk or high, it wouldn't be that hard to notice, let alone deal with. Natural weirdness of elementary or middle school teachers can easily be accounted for.

*Right of privacy-Will districts also know if a teacher had an alcoholic drink at supper the night before? Will they be told about "false positives" if a teacher eats a poppy-seeded muffin? How about if the teacher is on prescription medications?




Questions for debate:

1.)Should teachers be randomly drug tested? If so, why would this or why would it not violate the principle of "probable cause."?

2.)Is this law really necessary? Or should administrator monitoring suffice?

3.)If you are tested due to what others might think you are taking, is it the equivalent of an "improper search and seizure" of your bodily fluids?

1.)Should teachers be randomly drug tested? If so, why would this or why would it not violate the principle of "probable cause."?

2.)Is this law really necessary? Or should administrator monitoring suffice?

3.)If you are tested due to what others might think you are taking, is it the equivalent of an "improper search and seizure" of your bodily fluids?

In 1984, Texas passed an extensive educational reform program that was devised by a committee headed by H. Ross Perot and brought into law under then Governor Mark White.

Reform consisted of several components:

1. Standardized testing,
2. A soon discarded career ladder, and
3. A demeaning 6th grade literacy test called the TCAT.

Early on there was a call for drug testing teachers. The union devised a plan whereby teahers would innundate the Governor of Texas' office with anonymous bottles of urine. State officials quickly dropped the idea.

In my opinion this is an egregious violation of search and seizure laws. Perhaps the good teachers of Hawaii - like their Texas cousins nearly a quarter century ago - should flood the vile elected officials of Hawaii with vials of urine. Pun intended.

1.)Should teachers be randomly drug tested? If so, why would this or why would it not violate the principle of "probable cause."?

To me there are two levels of question here. One is can a government, for terms of employment, require applicants and employees to submit to regular drug testing. I feel this is quite an invasion of privacy and an invasion of the protection from unreasonable searches and seizure.

Second is the question about employers being able to require employees to submit to drug tests. While I incentives for employers to have such a policy I think it is a great infringement on our rights even though it is from a private employer that we submit to "voluntarily" so we can have employment. I support legislation making such actions illegal or unconstitutional with some restrictions for certain employment being left up for debate.

2.)Is this law really necessary? Or should administrator monitoring suffice?

It would reduce the number of employees that use illegal substances or at least make them invest time and energy in getting around the tests if they choose to continue.


3.)If you are tested due to what others might think you are taking, is it the equivalent of an "improper search and seizure" of your bodily fluids?

Now here is a question, if I am an administrator and I suspect you of being under the influence at work, how does this get proven short of getting you tested? I think we would be better off with DUI type policies in this issue. This creates a probable cause issue before testing happens.

3.)If you are tested due to what others might think you are taking, is it the equivalent of an "improper search and seizure" of your bodily fluids?[/b]



Eeyore my fellow educator. I am reading this question a bit differently than you are and have no idea which one of us is right. One of my first mentors in education referred to those teachers who spent a large amount of time in the teachers lounge gossiping as "lounge lizards." If nebraska29 meant these type people with his phrase "due to what others might think you are taking," then that's a bigger problem.

It would be abominable if someone had to undergo drug testing because some busybody gossip was whispering in the principal's ear that some @#&% they didn't like was smoking something.

Perhaps we can get nebraska29 to clarify the question.

1) Sure why not? Not if you agreed to it in your employment contract.
2) Depends on the school. Administrators have other duties than to figure out if a teacher is high.
3) No.

Let's see, we're talking about the people that educate our young. Do we have a responsibility to make sure that those teaching them and running the schools are drug free? I tend to think so. People in other professions are randomly drug tested. Companies often get better insurance rates if they have drug free workplace policies and they get better rates if they randomly drug test.

Why shouldn't teachers be subjected to what other working people are? What makes them so high and mighty? Ah yes, they have a very strong union that isn't interested in drug free employees.

1.)Should teachers be randomly drug tested? If so, why would this or why would it not violate the principle of "probable cause."?

If the consumers of the teachers' services demand it, then yes. Parents have an absolute right to demand that their children are not only safe, but that they are instructed by substance free individuals. There is no "probable cause" here. Drug Free Workplaces are condoned by OSHA, just about every state government, and the US Department of Labor. Yet when it comes to public school employees the mantra is "do as I say, not as I do"?

US federal laws require any company that receives federal grant money to certify that it complies with the Drug Free Workplace policy. The DEA recommends a drug testing program for companies. Why shouldn't the government follow its own recommendations?


2.)Is this law really necessary? Or should administrator monitoring suffice?

Is manager monitoring of employees enough in other companies which receive federal money. Not it is not.

3.)If you are tested due to what others might think you are taking, is it the equivalent of an "improper search and seizure" of your bodily fluids?

If it is random, there is no assumption of guilt. If it is "for cause", in other words you are acting funny, then there is sufficient cause. In either case, there is nothing improper.

1.)Should teachers be randomly drug tested? If so, why would this or why would it not violate the principle of "probable cause."?

No, I don't think they should.

It should be in their contracts that - where there is probably cause (e.g. they stink of booze, wander around in a cloud of dope fumes, keep sniffing and talking nineteen to the dozen, etc.) - they should be obliged to produce a sample on pain of immediate dismissal (if being drunk or high while teaching kids isn't gross misconduct I don't know what is).

But the idea of random testing doesn't sit well with me.

It's not like they're athletes suspected of cheating - as far as I know there is no performance-enhancing drug for teaching. I have no problem with random drug tests in professional sports for this reason.

2.)Is this law really necessary? Or should administrator monitoring suffice?

I don't know how American schools work, but if they're anything like British ones the heads of department and head teachers of schools should be using some more modern (i.e. 20th century as opposed to 19th) management techniques. The one I can't print here whose acronym is GOYA springs immediately to mind. Management By Walking Around would be another. Of course the problem is that teachers don't really learn to manage other teachers anywhere except by being promoted into it, and then have to make it up as they go along. Some have natural aptitude, others don't.

As in all forms of management, the temptation (when you don't really know how to do it) is to throw yourself into admin tasks (not helped by governments at all levels constantly introducing standards etc., but then politicians and civil servants are no better at management than most teachers) and leave everyone to their own devices, or to micro-manage everything to the point where people get demotivated and depressed.

This boils down to saying that yes, administrator monitoring should suffice, but clearly it currently isn't sufficient or this idea wouldn't have been put forward as a solution. It would take longer (which elected politicos always hate) but the best solution would be to introduce better management practices into schools administration. And, along with that, to inculcate the idea that teachers as a profession - professions generally, including lawyers and doctors - do indeed need to be managed (which would take even longer).

3.)If you are tested due to what others might think you are taking, is it the equivalent of an "improper search and seizure" of your bodily fluids?

If what they're thinking is based on enough evidence to constitute probable cause, then no, that's perfectly legitimate. If it isn't, then not.

Questions for debate:

1.)Should teachers be randomly drug tested? If so, why would this or why would it not violate the principle of "probable cause."?
In my experience working for various levels of government, there was always a zero tolerance policy for drugs. There was also a random screening policy. I don't know why we would expect anything less from those that are charged with the education and supervision of our children. Next to parents, these people are the ones that have a large amount of influence on our children, or at least should. I would strongly support random drug testing of public school teachers.

2.)Is this law really necessary? Or should administrator monitoring suffice?
Most definitely. As long as drugs are illegal, we need to ensure our teachers are complying with the laws. Even getting high at home or on weekends is violating the law, we need to make sure this group of people are the ones that should be charged with educating our children are upstanding citizens. We aren't talking about speeding or a rolling stop at a stop sign. We are discussing something that is a little more serious, in my opinion.

Administrator monitoring is only one component. I don't think leaving this solely up to administrators is reasonable. These people have a lot of roles in the school, and making them the only one responsible for determining if a teacher is using drugs is irresponsible. They aren't experts, nor can we expect them to be. We can provide training for them to watch for warning signs, however having them be the sole bearer of responsibility to determine probable cause I think is beyond the scope of an administrator's job. OSHA recommends five components to a drug free work environment.

With the above five components, expectations are established, education is available, solutions are provided.

3.)If you are tested due to what others might think you are taking, is it the equivalent of an "improper search and seizure" of your bodily fluids?
I don't think so, but if the proper components were in place, rumors would not constitute reason to test someone.

I find this authoritarian post rather contradictory coming from someone who is a self-avowed Ron Paul libertarian. Perhaps you should reevaluate your philosophy to make sure you really are a 'libertarian."

I can accept Amlord's similar position in that he's seldom shown much inclination toward libertarian philosophy.

I need to ask the originator(nebraska) of the thread a question before I can continue.

Do you think a drug test prior to initial employment are acceptable?

If yes, then why shouldn't this person still be able to pass such requirements after hiring?

I need to ask you a question Sleeper. Do you think there is some reason other than being unable to pass a drug test that would make someone not want to take one? Maybe it's the inconvenience or just wanting to be let alone.


How loosely are you defining the word "professional"?

Teachers are in a unique situation - quasi-professional. They are certified professionals, but do not govern themselves the same way true professionals - doctors, dentists and lawyers - do. Do true professional groups undergo drug testing? Should a quasi-professional group have to?

At any rate, I'm gratefully retired and glad I don't have to put up with this crap.

After reading through the various posts, it appears that some are on the right to privacy side of the fence, some are on the "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem" side, and others are of the position that these professionals are given a certain amount of responsibility, and with that responsibility comes more accountability. If a state determines the need to ensure the teachers that are licensed by that state are drug free, and little objection comes from anyone outside of the powerful teacher's union, I don't see why it is an issue. I honestly can't see why expecting our teachers to follow the current laws and not being under the influence of drugs not prescribed by a doctor is a matter for such debate. This to me is common sense. I can't see inconvenience as an issue, since it really doesn't take that much time to do something that you have to do anyway. I also don't see how someone in a teacher's position should not be expected to set an example of a drug free lifestyle to set for the children under their supervision. I honestly can't see how implementing a zero tolerance policy for drug use, if set up under OSHA guidelines is a bad thing. Actually, I am surprised that there isn't already such policies in place for our government controlled, tax funded, public schools. I will definitely have to do research for my own state, and if such a policy isn't in place, I will be making calls and sending emails. Not that it will do much good, but at least I will try.

I don't find the argument that since other groups are randomly tested, teachers should be too, to be compelling. I am strongly against all random drug testing. It is an invasion of privacy and merely a way to make some people feel better. UAs don't screen for alcohol, and a worker who is an alcoholic is a far greater danger on the job than someone smoking joints on the weekends. Finding traces of marijuana, cocaine, or whatever in someone's urine says absolutely nothing about their performance on the job.

If someone appears debilitated at work, I do not have a problem with immediate testing, and if they are shown to be in an altered state of consciousness while at work, they should be disciplined appropriately. If they perform well on the job and are not showing up to work smelling like they just downed some shots or smoked a joint, it is not the business of the employer what they do in the evenings or over the weekend.

The legality or illegality of the drugs themselves is a moot point. Presumably employers are looking for debilitation on the job, not being police. As such, if they wanted it to be effective, they would screen for alcohol in the system. To say nothing about prescription medications that are not screened for that may be being abused.

What makes teachers unique isn't some "quasi-professional" status, it is their close contact with children and their status as a role model.

I am taking profession (not professional) in the broadest sense: a job. Millions of Americans are subjected to drug tests each year, including machinists, policemen and fire fighters, railroad workers and many others. The courts have ruled that drug screening constitute searches but those searches are not illegal because the Fourth Amendment rights of certain individuals are trumped by the government's right to keep a drug free workplace.

Speaking in terms of a privately owned business, I think I can agree with you, as long as the business owner were to have the same philosophy. If an employee appears to be under the influence during work hours, immediate testing by a professional would be warranted to include having the police come in with a breathalyzer. I am not one to have the state tell business owners how to run their businesses. However, when we are discussing public schools, we are talking about different circumstances, in my opinion. Tax funded schools are operated by the state, and in essence run by the people. If the state has laws prohibiting the use of illegal drugs, the people of the state should be ensured that the employees receiving tax-payer incomes are abiding by the laws and are setting established examples to the students IE:following the law, not doing drugs. Since the health benefits are either paid wholly or partially with tax dollars, policies should be in place to prevent addictions or other health concerns created by drug use. Remember, we aren't just talking about some pot, we are talking about all illegal drugs to include meth, coke, heroine etc.

As an employer, regarding your last point, it would be a seriously damaging image of my business if one of my employees were busted over the weekend with a bunch of drugs, or due to alcohol. My clients would see the news and know where he worked. If I feel that as a condition to work for me, you must agree to random drug testing in order to protect the image of my company, you have a choice. You can either work for me, or not. I do know that Iowa is a right to work state and this is one of the reasons that I support that law. I have yet to see a system that is perfect, but taking the steps necessary to prevent such instances, I think is important.

And I have a real problem with those court decisions. Your earlier characterization of the teachers' union still sticks in my craw. To me they are doing exactly what a union should be doing. It's not that they aren't interested in drug-free teachers - what a cheap dig that was, by the way. Like any union, they should be fighting to protect the rights of their members. Drug testing may have passed muster with the courts, but there are still many of us out there who think it is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy.

How can rights defined in an amendment to the Constitution of the United States be "trumped" by "the government's right to keep a drug free workplace?" So the government, as an entity, has rights? And their "right" to a drug free workplace trumps rights guaranteed in our Constitution? That doesn't scare you, or at least bother you?

Parents are the primary role models. It's interesting that parents, who often cannot control their own children, are for this populist nonsense.

Just for example:

When I left to go to work at 3:45 p.m. yesterday, there were no "kiddie" toys in my yard. When I got home at 10:00 there was a small wagon parked under a tree in my front yard. I called the police and had them pull the wagon to the curb. Today I found out that it belonged a kid half a block away. I went by the house and told the mother to keep her kids out of my yard, out of the tree and to teach them responsibility for taking care of property. Her only excuse was that if I were ever at home I would hear her screaming at her kids to get out of other people's yards. What do we have? Parents with out of control kids who may well be out of control themselves.

I don't know if the parents retrieved the wagon or whether a junk dealer came by and got it and I really don't care. What I wanted was for the police to take it to the property room so they would have to go get it.

Maybe we could randomly drug test parents to see if we want to allow children to stay in the home. Actually, I don't like that idea either, but let's push the envelope a bit.

I don't want to speak for Amlord, but my interpretation of his post isn't that the government has rights, as much as the government has the responsibility to ensure the other employees have the right to a drug free work environment. If I am wrong, then I disagree with Amlord and agree that the government does not have rights, but I think it is a matter of poor phrasing. Either way, the government should ensure the rights of the many aren't outweighed by the rights of the few, especially since I am unaware of any court determining random drug testing as a violation of anyone's rights.


BoF, I would support this completely. As long as drugs are illegal and children are under the care of the parents, random drug testing by DHS shouldn't be a problem.

To the first:
What "rights of the few" are we talking about? I'm not advocating a "drug-filled workplace," I just think that if someone's performance is affected, aren't there already ways to deal with this? Does it matter if drugs are the cause?

This dovetails with my response to your note to BoF. You seem to be arguing two different things. The first is that drugs are illegal, and therefore the employer has a responsibility to act as sort of a surrogate police force. The second seems to be that we want to ensure some sort of clarity in the minds of responsible adults.

If the issue is illegality, it is a matter for the police to deal with, not the employer.

If the issue is responsibility and clarity, then random UAs are a scam, because they allow alcohol and many prescription drug abuses to slip by. If this is really the concern, testing should cover all debilitating substances, and instead of being random it should be everyone, at least once a month, if not more. If we find traces of alcohol or percocet or vicodin, however, how can we determine that these substances are being abused, or are affecting performance in the workplace? Indeed, how can finding any substance, legal or illegal, in someone's urine, determine whether or not their performance is suffering. Wouldn't it be enough to base employment decisions on performance itself?

The rights of the few I refer to is the right of privacy of a few that you tout as your argument. Drug use can cause accidents in the workplace. Protecting a right to privacy, which I have not seen as an outcome of any court battle, is trumped by the protecting the rights of the rest of the people to a safe working environment. Performance or not, an employer has the right to have a drug free environment if he chooses. If that means random drug testing, then so be it.

A person has the right to freedom of speech, but that same person doesn't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. A person has the right to privacy, but that same person doesn't have the right to come to work after getting high and either causing a dangerous work environment or hampering the productivity of the place of employment.


No, pretty much the legality and the one of the reasons drugs are illegal. That reason being drugs impair an individual's ability to function. Saying that because something is discussed on the basis of legality is a matter for the police and not the employer is in my opinion narrow minded. If someone is suspected of stealing, doesn't the employer have a right to conduct an investigation? Putting up cameras in the workplace not only is done for the purpose of catching criminals from outside of the place of employment, but also to catch those that work there as well. Employers have the right to prevent their employees from using drugs. If using drugs is so important to someone, they can find a job that allows it.

However, we are supposed to be discussing schools, public schools specifically. Given the governmental control of the schools, drug testing should not even be a difficult issue to handle.

I really don't see how this applies to the topic at hand? We are discussing the requirements that teachers stay drug free if they are to be the stewards to children during a large portion of the day. If they had to take a drug test to get the job in the first place then they should be able to pass those same tests throughout their employment.

Thank you for applying your anecdotal experience to all parents across the U.S. Glad to see you don't use stereotypes.

And I'm sorry but that story made me take a ride on the lolacoaster... *Sees BoF yelling "You damn kids stay off my lawn!!"

That point doesn't address the constitutional principle of "probable cause." Yes, a person can choose to sign theircontract, but the constitution is still torn and in tatters if that is allowed to continue. Other than being a big carrot incentive to give in, the contract is entirely irrelevant.



Unrue-Superintendents are hired to figure out the finances and to crunch numbers. In some large districts, they even hire "business managers" and don't even have to crunch the numbers themselves. Principals are in charge of teacher supervision. Every teacher, new or tenured, must be observed a set amount of time, hence why there are yearly evaluations. As for student discipline, that's the territory of vice-principals.



And on what constitutional reasoning would you base that on?

Amlord:



We do have an obligation to teach them, which also includes the responsibility to teach them that you have to follow the constitution, and not just what's "good-for-you-there-ought-to-be-a-lawism" run amok. Funny, that's what liberals are typically knocked for.

In order to even obtain a teaching certificate, you already have to jump through background check hoops, and that isn't even counting the checks they do when a given district hires you. In some places, even some misdemeanors would disqualify you from ever obtaining a teaching license. "Quality assurance" in education is supposed to be carried out by the administration.



Economic concerns about "consumers" has nothing to do with the topic, the ultimate matter of concern is a constitutional one.



The government has been wrong before, in particular on issues like workplace safety and slavery, this wouldn't be the first time they were mistaken. Once again, if you have "probable cause" then run with it, but going on a speculative witch-hunt and treating everyone as a suspect, when they aren't, isn't something that is constitutional IMHO. Nowhere does it say in the bill of rights that because you are a public servant, that you give up your rights to privacy, due process, or respect.

I

The latter case would be sufficient. Mr. Doe walks in with bloodshot eyes, smelling of whiskey. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is the matter with him. As for the "no assumption of guilt" part, if that were the case, then the others would not be tested. There is an automatic assumption that someone, is guilty and therefore, everyone has to be tested. We don't know who that someone is, but if we cast nets wide enough, we'll eventually find the one or few who are, darn the rest. There is an assumption of guilt, if there wasn't, the testing wouldn't occur in the first place.

scubatim



This is a rather common comment. Once again, being a public servant does not require that one forfeit their right to privacy or of the need for "probable cause" in being accused of using drugs, which is what random testing does. There are already a plethora of regulations regarding even getting a teaching license. Districts do their own background checks and believe me you, other than traffic tickets, it's hard to squeek by if you've had a "challenging" time as an adolescent or young adult. I went to school with people who because they procured alcohol for minors or had MIPs, they couldn't get into teaching.



Drugs may be illegal, but there's something larger than that, it's known as the 4th amendment which reads:



I can't find the part that says public servants and the scourge of drugs are important asterisks within the material.

Where did I apply this stereotype to any parent other than the one I was talking to? Did you read the disclaimer on the thing about drug testing parents? The whole thing was designed to argue against drug testing of anyone. Since we are talking about stereotypes, I guess it's ok to assume countless teachers are drug heads.


I spent 34 years in the classroom Sleeper, so I've seen more bad parenting than you could ever imagine and as B. B. said, "I'll tell you people, I've paid my dues." What have you done"?


This is not for nebraska but those advocating widespread teacher drug testing.

Nebraska nentions two things here.

First is random testing. How do we do this? Do we put the names of all teachers in one of thoose lottery like wheels - most likely a computer - and draw out so many a year to test?

Or, second, do we do "blanket testing" of teachers when they enter the profession and periodically there after?

Which one of these options is scubatim, Amlord, and Sleeper for?

Now here is something to consider. Drug testing isn't free. I checked the Fort Worth phone book and found seventeen laboratories that do drug screening. I called one, at random of course, and inquired about pricing. Their basic package - five substances like cocaine and marijuana runs $30.00. A more extensive package runs $40.00.

Fort Worth ISD alone employs more than 4800 teachers and when other employees who have direct access to children are considered that jumps to more than 7000. One drug test for each of these employees would cost between $210,000 and $280,000.

http://fortworthisd.org/
Click about FWISD tab on left.

Here's another question to consider. If a state legislature passes a comprehensive drug testing law who pays? Will federal funds be available to offset the chages. Will the state pick up the bill or will it be passed down to the local districts as unfunded mandates - a common practice in Texas? What would be the cost for the whole state, considering that there are over 1000 school districts in Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Education_Agency#Duties

Is this the best use we can make of tax dollars? Are you willing to pay higher taxes to perform a witch hunt among educators? I'm anxious to hear how knee-jerk reaction stands up against hard economics.

Do the math for your own state and see if you think it's worth the cost.

I suppose if we wanted to get draconian, we could make educators pay for the damned test out of their own pockets.


You are absolutely right, but Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote that in an opinion in 1919, so it's hardly an original thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire...crowded_theater

Ah, but a UA doesn't just detect whether someone is on drugs while on the job - which should be all an employer's scope includes - it detects drugs that may stay in your system for weeks at a time. Can you really argue that the purview of my employer extends to how I spent my weekend? And you haven't presented any answer for how this catches real problems. The incidence of alcohol abuse far outweighs the incidence of illegal drug abuse. And what about prescription drugs? For that matter, what if I am prescribed opiates that show up in my UA, being indistinguishable from heroin? And if presenting the prescription solves that, how can my employer tell if I am abusing these opiates? Or that, perhaps, I am using the prescription as a shield to cover my shooting up heroin nightly?

I understand the argument of proscribed rights when it comes to public safety, but I don't think this extends to something as vague as a "drug-free workplace." After all, we have no real scientific criteria for what that even means. Someone who took a triple dose of Robitussin is probably going to be more of a danger in the workplace than someone who smoked a bowl before work. So why can't performance be the judge? Why do we need to meddle? Won't the market sort itself out?



Ah yes, but there is a difference. An employer can certainly set up a system whereby they monitor employees on the job to prevent theft. But they cannot set up cameras in someone's home and then fire them for doing something illegal in their home on a Saturday night. Come up with a drug test that ONLY determines one's present state of mind and I will have no objections. As they are, however, UAs reach beyond the workplace and punish people for what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Not to mention, as I've pointed out before, all the abusers that can get a free pass because the drugs they abuse are not screened for.

And yes, we're talking about schoolteachers here, but my objection is the same as my larger objection to UAs anywhere. Also we should remember that though teachers are government employees, they are not employees of the federal government. They work for local governments, so the legal water is a little bit murkier than if they were federal employees.

And if that is observed, then that individual can be cited by authorities after being notified by the administration. The matter is effectively handled doing that. You don't test people randomly because you think that someone is high. Until you see teacher staggering around with blood shot eyes, you can presume things are well, or if you have doubts, check on the scene yourself as an administrator. No one else deserves the eye of suspicion, nor should they be forced to urinate in front of another person simply because of a yet to be proven "crime."



The key word is "someone" in your example, which is correct, unlike the "everyone" proposition regarding random drug testing Yes, a business owner or principal has the right to conduct their own investigations and no one is arguing that it shouldn't occur. However, conducting strip searches at work or conducting drug tests or placing an undue burden on every employee is clearly over the top and wouldn't be condoned in the courtroom. There are limits, and Hawaii has over stepped theirs.




While it is true that public schools receive some federal funding, the vast majority are paid through local and state taxes, and are governed by locally elected boards. An edict from on high doesn't negate the constitution, or the bill of rights, no matter what backwater-swamp-governor or armani wearing president is in charge.

You're assuming that bodily fluids are persons, houses, papers or effects. I suspect that the writers of the 4th Amendment weren't thinking about that. And even in the sense that the Constitution is a living document that can be reinterpreted that's a stretch.

The thing of it is this... it is reasonable to expect that a Teacher should be law abiding and sober. And don't tell me a couple of joints never hurt anyone... I'm already on that page. Today, right now, sadly, it's still illegal to smoke pot. If you're going to be drug tested for your career - don't do it.

Also you assert that the contract they might sign to allow their employer the right to drug test them is invalid because it tramples their 4th Amendment rights since there is no probable cause. Well then why should I comply at the airport when they want me to take my shoes off and scan me for weapons? I mean I didn't agree to that! I don't look like a knife wielding maniac... oh wait a minute I DID agree to that when I bought my airline ticket. I'll be sure to tell the TSA your theories.

I can respect that argument, thanks for elaborating. It may come as a shock to you, but I disagree with your reasoning. "Personal effects" implies within your personal possession. How your bodily fluids are anyone else's but yours, is beyond me. Let alone, why anyone else would be entitled to them without "probable cause"(i.e.-blood for a BAC test, etc) We have to run with the idea of implied powers, as even the air force is unconstitutional in a strict sense. However, no one in their right mind would argue that we shouldn't have an air force or other modern ideas simply because the founders didn't think of them in 1787. And people thought Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were so smart. Ha! Once again, if a police officer has "reasonable doubt" upon smelling alcohol on your breath when you drive, or if someone phones in that you have a dead body in your trunk, then yes, your rights are limited. However, to suggest that "personal effects" and possession are not yours, and can be pried into at the slightest whim, is not what the founders intended, nor would have wanted. What indication exists that they would've favored such a thing?



It is reasonable to expect them to be sober, it's unreasonable to ask them to submit to something simply out of the speculative idea that someone, somewhere, might be high. It isn't that hard to figure out who it is if that is a problem, and that can and should be handled individually, not collectively by stripping away the personal privacy of those who are forced to urinate in front of a person.



Apples and oranges-this thread is about the constitution and drug testing. Everything else is moot and off-topic.

Well you brought the 4th Amendment and probable cause into this to bolster your argument. Therefore the 4th Amendment is definitely in play. I still maintain that bodily fluids aren't personal effects. I mean your finger prints are personal effects - how dare anyone compare them to ones they found on a handgun!

If your main complaint is that testing your bodily fluids by seizing them is unConstitutional then the comparison to the invasive seizure of my personal effects and papers at all US airports is valid. Claiming that any example that ruins a portion of your argument is moot and off-topic isn't much of debate tactic - I'm certain you can find a better way to refute my point.

You have the right to your personal effects, unless "reasonable doubt" comes into play, hence why I mentioned BAC testing and blood drawing for drugs when a crime is commited. To do so before the act or suspicioin(i.e.-swerving in traffic, smelling of alcohol on your breath, etc) is entirely different, and wrong.



This thread is about teachers and the constitutionality of drug testing. If you want to make a thread about personal effects and airports, then I would encourage you to do so, I think it would make an interesting one.

However, personal effects are considered to be items which are superficially on your body. So let me get this straight. The founders thought that your personal effects around or on you should be protected, but not items like your bodily fluids which are in you? What's in is public and what is on you is private? Say whaaaa?

Addressing BA's airport analogy:

I don't think the two are analogous. The problem with the UA as opposed to airport security, is that it is not detecting whether someone is currently in an altered state. It would be more analogous to suppose that the airport security was barring, say, gun owners from flying. Or better yet, conducting powder residue testing on fingers. You would be punished for having fired a gun at a range the day before. Drug testing cannot tell if someone is impaired while on the job. It can only tell if a substance has been introduced to the person at some point within the half life of the substance.

I just don't think it is the place of any employer to make employment criteria dependent on what people do while not at work (with a few glaring exceptions).

Oooh, good topic.

Yes, they should be drug tested.

Why? They are dealing with kids. In fact, their privacy should be yanked for a background check, as well as an additional investigation to make sure none of the surrounding school districts are passing the trash. Yeah, check THAT link out.

If you want to stand in front of 40 kids every day, yeah, you need to be an example of sobriety and drug free. Otherwise, go be a teacher at a college university.

Okay, let's look at the first part: "Is this law necessary...."

First off, it's a law. So somewhere, somebody agreed that it was necessary, if not for the safety of the students (which SHOULD be priority number one), but also for the liability of the school districts (which seems to actually BE priority number one).....

That said, yes, it's completely necessary. If you can't smoke cigarettes as an adult on school property, you shouldn't get to go home and spark up the owl while grading papers.

For the second part of that question, "Should administrator monitoring suffice"?

Yeah right. Which one of YOU are going to nark out your co-worker when they mentioned "hey, I got lit last weekend". Uh huh. Nobody. And welcome to the world of Teachers Unions.

It's not the administrator's job to sniff out the drug users. It's the responsibility of the teacher to present themselves sober and disciplined examples at all times. And if they can't - even for surprise drug testing - then find a different line of work. Good luck, tho. Anybody who is responsible for other people's well being look down on someone who even occasionally uses because it causes them to work harder for the same or less result.

But hey, I want the same from teachers as I want from bartenders who work around glass and ice. And cooks who work with food. And the barber who cuts my hair. And truck drivers with whom I share the road.

I wish there was the influx of hot teachers with young students when I was a schoolkid. Especially Ms. Tether in 9th grade. What I would have given for her to have an improper search and seizure of my body fluids. Raoowwwlll!

Okay, jokes aside, if you're a state employee (like teachers, police, etc), then you SHOULD answer to "the people" - the public. The fact that we're even debating this is likely because teachers unions have decided they should have more power than both the parents AND the school administration.

Can you imagine, "Hey Johnny, where'd you find this joint"?

Johnny: I went into the teacher's desk and looked through her purse.

The public school system is already hopelessly broken with most teachers sober. I can't even fathom what it would be like with half the staff recreationally loading up on the weekends would do.

According to some posts here, I guess I should accept that it happens regardless, and that it somehow doesn't make a difference.

That reminds me of a commercial I saw in the 80's.

This is your school system - This is your school system with your teachers fried. Any questions?

Allow me to breath some pragmatism into this debate:

Public schools recruit teachers straight out of college. Almost every school system in the united states offers teachers a 3-5 year window after graduating from college to obtain their masters on the state's dime. That means that a great deal of teachers are current or prospective grad students who finished undergrad in the past 1-5 years.

So we're talking about recent college graduates and grad students here. Just speaking honestly, with a taste for the obvious, there is bound to be some venn diagram overlap between recent college graduates and pot smokers.

In an ideal world, defined by an overabundance of qualified teachers, yes, we would screen out the drug users -- and alcoholics, and prescription drug abusers, too. But this is not that ideal world and plenty of qualified, good teachers have their vices. School systems have to make a decision about how much a teacher's recreational habits interfere with their job performance, and I think that is a decision that can be made on a case-by-case basis.

Principals already have many creative proposals to combat this sort of problem at their hands. For one, a bigger stain tarnishing the halo of teachers is the ubiquity of cigarette smoking among faculty and staff. For this reason, many public schools, especially elementary schools, are smoke free, meaning that nobody, teacher, parent, or random pedestrian, can smoke in that area, by city ordinance.

Secondly, there are cops at most schools -- so there is already a built-in way for the school to handle, say, a teacher toting pot to school. (Which, by the way, I see as a very random and marginal occurrence at best. If teachers are smoking, I'd imagine that the vast majority of them are smoking as far away from the work week as possible, friday and saturday nights and stuff.)

Thirdly, teacher staffs tend to be close-knit groups. If one's personal life is starting to interfere with one's job, then it will probably be readily apparent in the teacher's lounge long before it becomes a classroom issue.

So, I see no pragmatic reason to pursue teachers beyond their place of work... and that's the issue I have with this proposal. It pursues good teachers beyond their place of work, and digs into their personal life, regardless of whether or not their personal life has at all impacted their job performance.

At the airport they check everyone's personal effects for something illegal to carry on to a plane.

The teachers are being tested to see if they have an illegal substance in them not whether they're currently wasted.

The point of drug testing isn't to see if you're currently on drugs it's to see if you did drugs recently.

As for Nebraska bodily fluids aren't personal effects or the Founding Fathers would have probably mentioned them.

1.) Don't get me wrong, I really love my teachers, but I've had some who've been quite the little distraction due to bloodshot eyes, jerky gestures and general... reasons. And as a high school student, it's pretty difficult to just get up, walk out, and complain. There's a barrier between student and teacher in public education that seems sacred, but it's not. The government requires other employees to be tested all the time whenever the government so chooses. I have to say that if you're a government employee and this statue applies equally to other fields, don't whine and avoid it.

2.) Perhaps a compromise between testing all teachers and testing teachers flagged by administration. However, that assumes the administration is more competent than the teacher[s] in question and a corrupt crony system hasn't developed like in other government institutions.

3.) Probable cause of drug use as a government employee nullifies argument that the search would be improper.

Obviously the itellects here at aren't the first one's to think about challenging random drug test based on the 4th Amendment, is there any decision, case law, or disertation that would support anyone's position that random drug tests are a violation of any constitutional rights? Given little if any success on that front, it really is not a defense. The government and the courts have not upheld this argument, why would anyone actually think that it would hold water?


So now we discuss the economics of it. Ok, here is a Canadian study of the economics of substance abuse in the workplace. Here is an American study.

Since states and counties have their own health departments, the actual cost of drug testing would not equal the "retail" costs, but even if they did, I would rather spend $40 per teacher than billions in health care costs and lost productivity.


Like I have said, there is no perfect system, but that hardly addresses whether or not we should expect our public school teachers to be drug free.


And we don't have any scientific criteria supporting your Robitussin vs. Bowl statement. If you are interested in what the DOL means by a drug free workplace, and to answer a plethora of other questions, go here.


Drug use even off the job affects performance on the job. Employers have the right, and it is legal, and so it should be for public schools. We can debate whether you think it is right or not, but the legality is pretty much established.


Any examples of where the court has ruled drug testing in the workplace isn't condoned?


I would disagree, I think the analogy is very appropriate. A search is a search, probable cause is probable cause, and what probable cause does the government have to search random travelers? Everyone goes through a metal detector, everyone's carry-on goes through the X-Ray, but random people get pulled to the side to have their bags and their person searched. What gives the government the right to randomly search people? I think those searches are more intrusive and more inconvenient than peeing in a cup.