Full Version: Drug testing in schools
I found this interesting today in the Tribune.
There is a Catholic High School in Chicago that is starting next yr I believe that is going to make it mandatory for all 1,000 students to be tested for drugs.
From what I read there is no urine test. They will clip the hair of these students, and it will cost "THEIR" parents 60.00.
I have a problem with this. The tuition for a Catholic high school is very expensive to begin with.
Supposedly if there find evidence of drug use the parents will be told and they are to deal with it. If after I think it was stated after like 100 days they are tested again and found positive there will be suspension or expulsion.
Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? What are your thoughts?
There is a Catholic High School in Chicago that is starting next yr I believe that is going to make it mandatory for all 1,000 students to be tested for drugs.
From what I read there is no urine test. They will clip the hair of these students, and it will cost "THEIR" parents 60.00.
I have a problem with this. The tuition for a Catholic high school is very expensive to begin with.
Supposedly if there find evidence of drug use the parents will be told and they are to deal with it. If after I think it was stated after like 100 days they are tested again and found positive there will be suspension or expulsion.
Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? What are your thoughts?
Well, I don't approve of it, but it's apparently a private school, so they can require whatever goofy things they want (that don't actually violate the law) of the parents that choose to send their kids there. They can protest against the sixty bucks, but what can they really do if the school demands it anyway?
This school better not get one penny of government funding.
I feel sorry for the students. I have had mandatory drug testing at every job I have ever had, except the one where I had to have a mandatory lie detector test (a truly humiliating experience.) They always make me feel like dirt. The schools and workplaces are saying "We don't trust you, and you're only allowed to be here at our whim. Shut up and obey."
Not the best lesson I can think of.
This school better not get one penny of government funding.
I feel sorry for the students. I have had mandatory drug testing at every job I have ever had, except the one where I had to have a mandatory lie detector test (a truly humiliating experience.) They always make me feel like dirt. The schools and workplaces are saying "We don't trust you, and you're only allowed to be here at our whim. Shut up and obey."
Not the best lesson I can think of.
Why is it okay to subject public school students to all sorts of indignities (like video cameras monitoring their movements) and not subject parochial school students to indignities, too (like testing for drugs), if it's for their own good?
The reason these parents put their kids into parochial schools is ostensibly because there are stricter rules and a better education to be had as a result. I guess they can either pay, or put the kid back into public school.
Lack of trust is everywhere, and we're all going to pay for it. More control (less privacy) is better if it achieves our goals, right? So some would think.
The reason these parents put their kids into parochial schools is ostensibly because there are stricter rules and a better education to be had as a result. I guess they can either pay, or put the kid back into public school.
Lack of trust is everywhere, and we're all going to pay for it. More control (less privacy) is better if it achieves our goals, right? So some would think.
Let's see...
If I walk into a McDonald's, a Home Depot, a Wal-Mart, etc.; I notice signs warning any job applicants that they will be tested for drugs. Some even warn that positive drug tests will be reported to the police.
Professional and amateur athletes are subjected to random drug tests.
Working for Dow Chemical, the annual medical screening involved hearing tests, vision tests, lung capacity, blood tests, X-rays, urine and feces samples, as well as a general physical exam by a physician at the end of the process.
If the purpose of an education is to prepare you to enter the workforce, drug testing is probably an excellent part of the curriculum. Graduates are going to be facing them routinely the rest of their lives.
If I walk into a McDonald's, a Home Depot, a Wal-Mart, etc.; I notice signs warning any job applicants that they will be tested for drugs. Some even warn that positive drug tests will be reported to the police.
Professional and amateur athletes are subjected to random drug tests.
Working for Dow Chemical, the annual medical screening involved hearing tests, vision tests, lung capacity, blood tests, X-rays, urine and feces samples, as well as a general physical exam by a physician at the end of the process.
If the purpose of an education is to prepare you to enter the workforce, drug testing is probably an excellent part of the curriculum. Graduates are going to be facing them routinely the rest of their lives.
Private schools can do as they like, if the paying dont like it they can object and move their kids elsewhere.
Yet , I have always believed that drug testing was unconstitutional in the public sector. I think it infringes upon privacy rights,( but I have no precedent for that) besides being humiliating, in a society that seems to be accepting of alchohol as societies drug of choice.
I would ask, as I always thought in school, what good does expelling a student do?
Yet , I have always believed that drug testing was unconstitutional in the public sector. I think it infringes upon privacy rights,( but I have no precedent for that) besides being humiliating, in a society that seems to be accepting of alchohol as societies drug of choice.
I would ask, as I always thought in school, what good does expelling a student do?
I see no problem with drug testing, in the private sector or the public. Why should anyone employ a drug addict if they see it as a problem? Why should my tax dollars be spent to pay for someone's drug habit? Spend that money to re-hab the individual, but not to sponsor their drug problem. Encompass alcohol if you wish. I love drinking in my free time, but if my employer said 'no' to it, then I have a decision to make and must live with the consequences! On the other hand, drugs are illegal and beer is not. If you don't like that, then change it! Until then, you really cannot compare crack, cocaine, THC, shrooms, XTC, or anything of the ilk to Jack Daniels and beer!
The testing is a wonderful idea. Kids who know they will be tested will not use drugs because they know the consequences. The ones who cannot stop can be taken out and hopefully get help.
Of course it would be nice if the parents knew where their kids are what they were doing but this seems to be hard to do these days. Testing is a great idea.
Of course it would be nice if the parents knew where their kids are what they were doing but this seems to be hard to do these days. Testing is a great idea.
QUOTE
The testing is a wonderful idea. Kids who know they will be tested will not use drugs because they know the consequences.
With a chuckle I ask, since when? Rules rarely apply when you are of this age.
I am suprised that the 'so many' on this board who are pro-marijuana legalization have not weighed in on this thread. We obviously cannot turn this into , is it your right to smoke a J at home at night or have a few shots discussion because it isnt the topic and it relates to children. Curmudgeon is right, it will prepare you for life, or get you a record in your youngest years. Expellation is a harsh alternative to education of the detriment of drug use, but since it seems we would like to spend less on education and more on ostratization, we may eliminate a good deal of our youth and future brain power by throwing them around from school to school, or just out for good. This is a short term solution with long term detriment.
I KNOW that many of us experimented with drugs of some sort or another in our youth and grew up to become viable, productive citizens. Sometimes we wish we hadnt done it, some of us believe it was eye opening, and some of us are still doing it, yet those dont have jobs that ask for testing. Most of us dont want our kids doing it. I get flack about this all the time from younger people who consider the position hypcritical.
The problem with drug testing is that it is control of personal time on a governmental level, which borders on communism, fascism or some such other indefineable system, making good robots who obey not only at work but ALWAYS. Legality has almost no bearing because it is fluctuating, at one time alchohol was also illegal, it stopped very few from whatever they were going to do. However, ADULTS can negotiate their way around these matters, children cannot when their records are permanently marred, simply for being young and reckless.
I believe there are better, less damaging ways to go about the problem of drug use and abuse by our youth. Militaristic type scenarios IMO will not make great change but will alienate a good portion of a growing society, or continue a trend we now see of prescription drugs for depression and other outlets to frustration of societal pressure to be perfect in every way.
I do wish there was more education on the detrimental effects of alchohol in schools at younger ages, since 2 out of 8 will become alchohlics in their lives, affecting 3-5 others at least by association. But alchohol is legal right?
The function of the school is to educate children, not police them. What good does drug testing students do? When I was in high school, my friends and I smoked some pot, dropped acid, ate mushrooms, et cetera. We were honors students who consistently made good grades. These friends are now research chemists, lawyers, doctors.
I would be interested in learning what the consequences of testing positive are.
I would be interested in learning what the consequences of testing positive are.
When I read the title "drug testing in schools" I thought it was awful.
But, this isn't a public school, its a catholic school.
The Catholic Church thinks it owns its members wombs and gets to decide how, with whom, and for what reasons they can have sex. Why not let them supervise their flock for unholy substances, given that they already control everything else they do with their bodies.
But, this isn't a public school, its a catholic school.
The Catholic Church thinks it owns its members wombs and gets to decide how, with whom, and for what reasons they can have sex. Why not let them supervise their flock for unholy substances, given that they already control everything else they do with their bodies.
I think its wrong, especially because an education may be the best way to help someone out of a drug problem. There should be different punishments for drug use (if there should even be any at all...) that dont result in loss of education, because not only does it harm the individual not to have an education, it harms society.
Aside from which, as others have already pointed out, there are many kids who use drugs who arent addicts. I was also an honors student who used drugs on occasion, and lo, Im not an addict after a few years of hardcore use. A small minority of users actually become addicts, and cigarettes kill more people than cocaine does. There is no need to punish someone if theres not a problem.
Aside from which, as others have already pointed out, there are many kids who use drugs who arent addicts. I was also an honors student who used drugs on occasion, and lo, Im not an addict after a few years of hardcore use. A small minority of users actually become addicts, and cigarettes kill more people than cocaine does. There is no need to punish someone if theres not a problem.
A few articles for consideration:
…The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in the Vernonia case, that public schools had the power to require students who participate in athletics and certain other activities to agree to be subject to random, suspicionless drug tests, a large number of schools in Indiana have adopted such policies. Although the courts ruled that such testing is legal and permissible, they did not make a determination that such testing is a good idea.
Most observers recognize that constitutional barriers probably prohibit public schools from subjecting the general student body to random drug testing.
Suspicionless Drug Testing in Schools
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The advocates of drug testing school students hope it will provide proof of drug use where use is suspected, deter students from using drugs, assist former users to remain drug free, and reassure parents that the school is doing everything it can to prevent drug use. They regard subsequent monitoring by random testing as one way of enabling schools to retain an ‘offender’ at school, giving the student a ‘second chance’ and thereby conforming to the recommendations of the Premier’s Drug Advisory Committee (PDAC).
drug testing is a controversial matter because it is intrusive, infringes on the individual’s right to privacy, and raises a host of legal, technical and ethical matters that are not resolved. It may be discriminatory, inasmuch as it places an obligation on young people that does not apply to adults (Herald-Sun, 29 March 2000). It has been criticised because it assumes a lack of trust between school staff and students, and it may reinforce a sense of suspicion and mistrust (Sunday Age, 2 April 2000). As urine analysis is the preferred method of testing, and the collection of samples must be closely monitored, the process may cause the subject severe shame and embarrassment.
Drug Testing in Schools
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT Drug Testing in Schools
I personally agree with the SC decision regarding athletes and after school program drug tests, but do not believe the general school body should be tested.
Private schools should be allowed to test their students. There is nothing stopping parents from having their children tested occasionally.
…The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in the Vernonia case, that public schools had the power to require students who participate in athletics and certain other activities to agree to be subject to random, suspicionless drug tests, a large number of schools in Indiana have adopted such policies. Although the courts ruled that such testing is legal and permissible, they did not make a determination that such testing is a good idea.
Most observers recognize that constitutional barriers probably prohibit public schools from subjecting the general student body to random drug testing.
Suspicionless Drug Testing in Schools
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The advocates of drug testing school students hope it will provide proof of drug use where use is suspected, deter students from using drugs, assist former users to remain drug free, and reassure parents that the school is doing everything it can to prevent drug use. They regard subsequent monitoring by random testing as one way of enabling schools to retain an ‘offender’ at school, giving the student a ‘second chance’ and thereby conforming to the recommendations of the Premier’s Drug Advisory Committee (PDAC).
drug testing is a controversial matter because it is intrusive, infringes on the individual’s right to privacy, and raises a host of legal, technical and ethical matters that are not resolved. It may be discriminatory, inasmuch as it places an obligation on young people that does not apply to adults (Herald-Sun, 29 March 2000). It has been criticised because it assumes a lack of trust between school staff and students, and it may reinforce a sense of suspicion and mistrust (Sunday Age, 2 April 2000). As urine analysis is the preferred method of testing, and the collection of samples must be closely monitored, the process may cause the subject severe shame and embarrassment.
Drug Testing in Schools
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT Drug Testing in Schools
I personally agree with the SC decision regarding athletes and after school program drug tests, but do not believe the general school body should be tested.
Private schools should be allowed to test their students. There is nothing stopping parents from having their children tested occasionally.
i think that testing for drugs is perfectly right because the drug problem mostly starts in hgh schools. the expense however is too much and expulsion should not be the action taken.
This is lovely! 
Not only are they trying to control every aspect of the student's behavior, dress, etc., but now the very chemistry of their bodies needs to be monitored and controlled. Disgusting!
And for the record, there are MANY jobs that do not require drug testing. In fact, Congress turned down a proposal that would make drug testing mandatory for them (don't have the source right now, I'll try to google it). Not to mention that random drug testing is completely unconstitutional (4th and 5th Amendment). I have trouble understanding why it hasn't been ruled as such.
Not only are they trying to control every aspect of the student's behavior, dress, etc., but now the very chemistry of their bodies needs to be monitored and controlled. Disgusting!And for the record, there are MANY jobs that do not require drug testing. In fact, Congress turned down a proposal that would make drug testing mandatory for them (don't have the source right now, I'll try to google it). Not to mention that random drug testing is completely unconstitutional (4th and 5th Amendment). I have trouble understanding why it hasn't been ruled as such.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Dec 7 2003, 02:35 AM)
I KNOW that many of us experimented with drugs of some sort or another in our youth and grew up to become viable, productive citizens. Sometimes we wish we hadnt done it, some of us believe it was eye opening, and some of us are still doing it, yet those dont have jobs that ask for testing. Most of us dont want our kids doing it. I get flack about this all the time from younger people who consider the position hypcritical.
The problem with drug testing is that it is control of personal time on a governmental level, which borders on communism, fascism or some such other indefineable system, making good robots who obey not only at work but ALWAYS. Legality has almost no bearing because it is fluctuating, at one time alchohol was also illegal, it stopped very few from whatever they were going to do. However, ADULTS can negotiate their way around these matters, children cannot when their records are permanently marred, simply for being young and reckless.
Well you may have done well despite drug experimentation but this is not universally true. And if you were an honor student I am going to bet you were not smoking pot every day or dropping acid every weekend.
The tests do not have to be any more than advisory for the parents – telling them things they really should know anyway. The kids that are flunking out because they are abusing drugs need to be identified and helped otherwise they do not get an education and all of us have to deal with the negative ramifications of that for the rest of their lives.
QUOTE(Maya @ Dec 9 2003, 08:40 AM)
i think that testing for drugs is perfectly right because the drug problem mostly starts in hgh schools. the expense however is too much and expulsion should not be the action taken.
If the problem mostly started in corporate board rooms, would you have drug testing there?
QUOTE(TragicClown @ Dec 12 2003, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE(Maya @ Dec 9 2003, 08:40 AM)
i think that testing for drugs is perfectly right because the drug problem mostly starts in hgh schools. the expense however is too much and expulsion should not be the action taken.
If the problem mostly started in corporate board rooms, would you have drug testing there?
Yes I would but the reality is the problem is in our schools and in some schools all other programs to reduce or eliminate it have not been successful. Testing like cameras should be used where the problems are the worst and it’s effectiveness gauged.
I wouldn't have a problem with it...The only reason I can think of why someone would not want to take a drug test is because he/she is taking drugs....
It will never end. Always people coming up with reasons why they should be allowed to snoop into other peoples lives. Always "For Their Own Good"
Hey ya know child abuse is a problem can I peek into your homes?
How about just 'cause. Who are YOU to decide what gets done to ME, or my child.
Hate to break it to you but a great many very successful people "experiment"
Big difference between use and abuse. Like Use your better judgment don't Abuse the rights of others.
Hey ya know child abuse is a problem can I peek into your homes?
QUOTE
The only reason I can think of why someone would not want to take a drug test is because he/she is taking drugs....
How about just 'cause. Who are YOU to decide what gets done to ME, or my child.
QUOTE
Well you may have done well despite drug experimentation but this is not universally true. And if you were an honor student I am going to bet you were not smoking pot every day or dropping acid every weekend.
Hate to break it to you but a great many very successful people "experiment"
Big difference between use and abuse. Like Use your better judgment don't Abuse the rights of others.
I have taken drug tests before and NEVER were my rights violated. No harm came to me. If a student is not taking drugs than nothing will happen to them at all. And if students are taking drugs (which is illegal!!) they will most likely be punished and put into rehab which will help them get over their addiction and help prevent future drug abuse.
Knowing that drugs are BAD, why would it not be for someones own good to get help? and please dont say "just 'cause" and if you say it violates rights give evidence on how it is doing so.
Knowing that drugs are BAD, why would it not be for someones own good to get help? and please dont say "just 'cause" and if you say it violates rights give evidence on how it is doing so.
I would never ever send either of my 2 young children to a Catholic school or any private school that would consider such a practice. It is my belief that I should be aware of my childrens behaviors and actions thus I am responsible to drug test them when I deem necessary. I would never be in favor of any outside institution replacing my role as a parent. Another concern is in an age of computers and data bases any mass collection of individual information is wrong and must be limited.
QUOTE(SsSsSsSsS @ Jan 15 2004, 06:23 PM)
I have taken drug tests before and NEVER were my rights violated. No harm came to me. If a student is not taking drugs than nothing will happen to them at all. And if students are taking drugs (which is illegal!!) they will most likely be punished and put into rehab which will help them get over their addiction and help prevent future drug abuse.
Knowing that drugs are BAD, why would it not be for someones own good to get help? and please dont say "just 'cause" and if you say it violates rights give evidence on how it is doing so.
Knowing that drugs are BAD, why would it not be for someones own good to get help? and please dont say "just 'cause" and if you say it violates rights give evidence on how it is doing so.
Last I heard, we still had something called the 4th Amendment, which states
QUOTE
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Drug testing someone is definately violating their right to be secure in their persons. Randomly drug testing people is unconstitutional, because no probable cause is involved, no warrants issued.
Or does your body not belong to you?
Also, that drugs are bad is your opinion. Drug abuse is bad. So is alcohol abuse. So is compulsive overeating. Either way, this should not be anyone's business. I firmly oppose these foolish attemps to save people from themselves.
And the idea that anyone who has ever done drugs needs rehab is ridiculous.
I oppose making students and/or parents pay for drug testing. Schools should pay for that themselves. But I support students being tested for drug use. Steroid drug use was a major problem when I went to high school.
Illegal drugs ARE bad.... How are drugs ever good? They impair your judgment, kill your mind and body, and affect your actions.
Here are statistics I found on Drug use in high school:
"On how many occasions, if any, have you used drugs or alcohol during the last 12 months or month?"
Reported drug and alcohol use by high school seniors, 2002
Used within the last:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drugs 12 months* 30 days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol 71.5 % 48.6 %
Marijuana 36.2 21.5
Stimulants 11.1 5.5
Tranquilizers 7.7 3.3
Other opiates 7.0 3.1
Sedatives 6.7 3.2
Hallucinogens 6.6 2.3
Cocaine 5.0 2.3
Inhalants 4.5 1.5
Steroids 2.5 1.4
Heroin 1.0 0.5
*Including the last month.
Source: University of Michigan, Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings 2002, 2003.
What is one way this can be prevented?
Well one way is that if drug tests are given. If a student is caught doing drugs he/she will most likely not do them again because of fear that they might randomly be selected to give another test in the future.
Oh and rehab is usually essential for someone trying to get over highly addictive drugs. I want to meet someone who has gotten over heroin or cocaine without any help. Chances are i will never meet someone who has, because it is extremely hard to do by yourself.
Here are statistics I found on Drug use in high school:
"On how many occasions, if any, have you used drugs or alcohol during the last 12 months or month?"
Reported drug and alcohol use by high school seniors, 2002
Used within the last:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drugs 12 months* 30 days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol 71.5 % 48.6 %
Marijuana 36.2 21.5
Stimulants 11.1 5.5
Tranquilizers 7.7 3.3
Other opiates 7.0 3.1
Sedatives 6.7 3.2
Hallucinogens 6.6 2.3
Cocaine 5.0 2.3
Inhalants 4.5 1.5
Steroids 2.5 1.4
Heroin 1.0 0.5
*Including the last month.
Source: University of Michigan, Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings 2002, 2003.
What is one way this can be prevented?
Well one way is that if drug tests are given. If a student is caught doing drugs he/she will most likely not do them again because of fear that they might randomly be selected to give another test in the future.
Oh and rehab is usually essential for someone trying to get over highly addictive drugs. I want to meet someone who has gotten over heroin or cocaine without any help. Chances are i will never meet someone who has, because it is extremely hard to do by yourself.
I think in problem schools students should be tested for drugs. It's not a complete and intrusive search on a person (that would require probable cause). It's peeing into a cup, no more obtrusive than a Terry stop (pat down search) that police can issue with only reasonable suspicion.
If there's suspicion that drugs are a big problem in schools, then I am all for drug testing. If the search was more intrusive, then I would understand the concern. But I simply don't see the expectation of privacy in this case.
If there's suspicion that drugs are a big problem in schools, then I am all for drug testing. If the search was more intrusive, then I would understand the concern. But I simply don't see the expectation of privacy in this case.
Goldblum, is it safe to assume that you would feel comfortable submitting your semen at school to be tested for STDs? After all, they're just trying to keep you safe...
I think it's pretty safe to assume that people all backgrounds, all GPAs, and all kinds of behavior at school have used illegal drugs. If you're going to single out the "problem" kids, this would obviously catch a few - as there are drug users of all backgrounds everywhere - but the vast majority would slip through.
Ss"..." states that illegal drugs are bad, but then asks how are drugs ever good. Um, I take motrin IB for my cramps, lexapro for my depression... I'd say drugs are very good
There are legal drugs that are also "bad": take alcohol and cigarettes. Alcohol impairs your judgement, kill your mind and body, and *gasp* affect your actions (news flash: all drugs affect your actions in one way or another... the very definition of a drug is something that alters your mind and/or body).
The statistics Ss provided on drug use proves... what, exactly? It's a commonly known fact that illegal drug use is... well, relatively common.
Then they ask "what is one way this can be prevented?"
I've an answer: legalize them. But that's probably not the answer they were looking for.
If a student were caught doing drugs because of random drug tested, the odds are that they will not stop using. The reasons I've observed for drug use in teens are basically the want to fit in, or a desire to escape from their problems. So let's say one of them gets caught. They would change their ways... because? They will still want to fit in, still want to escape from reality, so they will still use drugs. I think it's very unrealistic to expect a fear of getting caught to scare teens into not using drugs. They know it's illegal; they don't care. They know it harms them; they don't care. They know they could get caught; they don't care. As a matter of fact, it usually takes a personal drug-related tragedy to force a teen to change their attitude towards drugs, especially such as alcohol. Just a little daily dose of reality fer ya
.
Free speech is already one right taken from you as soon as you walk through the school doors. As Looms has clearly proven, random drug testing is a sure violation of the fourth ammendment... unless we want to take that constitutional protection away from them too... heck, let's take all of them away. It's not like they have to go to school... it's not like there's a law mandating it or anything...
The justifications I've heard for drug testing in extracurricular activities is that the student doesn't have to participate in them, so if they have a problem with the testing, they don't have to join the club. Well, school's kinda mandatory until 16 where I live, so... I bet you're going to say "well then, if they don't want to be drug tested, they can always home-school." I think that's very unreasonable. Parents have to work, especially in this economy, and especially in single or divorced parent homes.
If I was ever randomly selected for drug testing, there is no possible way I'd submit. It's my urine. Produced by my body, which is evidence they want to collect to use against me. I think not.
And again, there is a major difference between "use" and "abuse." Just because someone has used an illegal drug like oh, say, marijuana, does not mean they abuse it. It does not make them an addict, and most certainly does not automatically warrant rehab.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that people all backgrounds, all GPAs, and all kinds of behavior at school have used illegal drugs. If you're going to single out the "problem" kids, this would obviously catch a few - as there are drug users of all backgrounds everywhere - but the vast majority would slip through.
Ss"..." states that illegal drugs are bad, but then asks how are drugs ever good. Um, I take motrin IB for my cramps, lexapro for my depression... I'd say drugs are very good
There are legal drugs that are also "bad": take alcohol and cigarettes. Alcohol impairs your judgement, kill your mind and body, and *gasp* affect your actions (news flash: all drugs affect your actions in one way or another... the very definition of a drug is something that alters your mind and/or body).
The statistics Ss provided on drug use proves... what, exactly? It's a commonly known fact that illegal drug use is... well, relatively common.
Then they ask "what is one way this can be prevented?"
I've an answer: legalize them. But that's probably not the answer they were looking for.
If a student were caught doing drugs because of random drug tested, the odds are that they will not stop using. The reasons I've observed for drug use in teens are basically the want to fit in, or a desire to escape from their problems. So let's say one of them gets caught. They would change their ways... because? They will still want to fit in, still want to escape from reality, so they will still use drugs. I think it's very unrealistic to expect a fear of getting caught to scare teens into not using drugs. They know it's illegal; they don't care. They know it harms them; they don't care. They know they could get caught; they don't care. As a matter of fact, it usually takes a personal drug-related tragedy to force a teen to change their attitude towards drugs, especially such as alcohol. Just a little daily dose of reality fer ya
.Free speech is already one right taken from you as soon as you walk through the school doors. As Looms has clearly proven, random drug testing is a sure violation of the fourth ammendment... unless we want to take that constitutional protection away from them too... heck, let's take all of them away. It's not like they have to go to school... it's not like there's a law mandating it or anything...
The justifications I've heard for drug testing in extracurricular activities is that the student doesn't have to participate in them, so if they have a problem with the testing, they don't have to join the club. Well, school's kinda mandatory until 16 where I live, so... I bet you're going to say "well then, if they don't want to be drug tested, they can always home-school." I think that's very unreasonable. Parents have to work, especially in this economy, and especially in single or divorced parent homes.
If I was ever randomly selected for drug testing, there is no possible way I'd submit. It's my urine. Produced by my body, which is evidence they want to collect to use against me. I think not.
And again, there is a major difference between "use" and "abuse." Just because someone has used an illegal drug like oh, say, marijuana, does not mean they abuse it. It does not make them an addict, and most certainly does not automatically warrant rehab.
As a Catholic, I might consider sending my child to parochial school. Fortunately, my daughter is in a very good public school, so it isn't necessary to fork out the tuition to send her somewhere else.
Please pardon my sarcasm in my last post in this thread, where I said that if the public school students had to be monitored with cameras then it should be okay for the private school kids to be tested for drugs with the parents footing the bill.
It was sarcasm, as I am against both cameras in school and the mandatory drug testing.
The Health Departments should be able to test for substances for less cost if the parents feel that their child might be using illegal drugs. Then the parents could get some kind of a certificate stating the child was tested. But I believe it should be the decision of the parents, not the decision of the school.
I find this practice especially disturbing in a denomination where so many priests have been accused and many found guilty of molesting children. Perhaps there should be cameras in the priests' quarters or in their offices.
If the diocese has not been supervising/reining in the behavior of the priests, then I don't know where they get off making such stringent and expensive requirements of the students!
Please pardon my sarcasm in my last post in this thread, where I said that if the public school students had to be monitored with cameras then it should be okay for the private school kids to be tested for drugs with the parents footing the bill.
It was sarcasm, as I am against both cameras in school and the mandatory drug testing.
The Health Departments should be able to test for substances for less cost if the parents feel that their child might be using illegal drugs. Then the parents could get some kind of a certificate stating the child was tested. But I believe it should be the decision of the parents, not the decision of the school.
I find this practice especially disturbing in a denomination where so many priests have been accused and many found guilty of molesting children. Perhaps there should be cameras in the priests' quarters or in their offices.
If the diocese has not been supervising/reining in the behavior of the priests, then I don't know where they get off making such stringent and expensive requirements of the students!
suzysteamboat... when i said drugs are bad i meant illegal drugs....Duh.... next time i should speak very literal because of ppl like you...
And i think i should know if teenagers would be scared of getting taught...I'm 15 yrs old...
And i think i should know if teenagers would be scared of getting taught...I'm 15 yrs old...
SsSsSsSsS, please do not belittle other members. Address the argument, not the person making it. Personal attacks are against the Rules
QUOTE(SsSsSsSsS @ Jan 16 2004, 06:02 PM)
And i think i should know if teenagers would be scared of getting taught...I'm 15 yrs old...
This is a VERY dangerous approach to take. Can you honestly say you have a unique insight into the teenage mind because you are a teenager? Could a trust-fund student at a boarding school have a similar insight into an inner-city youth in the delapidated shell of a building?
QUOTE(Goldblum @ Jan 15 2004, 08:22 PM)
I think in problem schools students should be tested for drugs. It's not a complete and intrusive search on a person (that would require probable cause). It's peeing into a cup, no more obtrusive than a Terry stop (pat down search) that police can issue with only reasonable suspicion.
If there's suspicion that drugs are a big problem in schools, then I am all for drug testing. If the search was more intrusive, then I would understand the concern. But I simply don't see the expectation of privacy in this case.
If there's suspicion that drugs are a big problem in schools, then I am all for drug testing. If the search was more intrusive, then I would understand the concern. But I simply don't see the expectation of privacy in this case.
Right, someone staring at your genitals while you are forced to urinate into a cup, just so they can examine your urine and see what you've been doing isn't intrusive.
Will you honestly suggest that this is less intrusive than looking through somebody's car, or bag (things that DO require probable cause)? Being in the military, random urinalysis is something that I have to deal with all the time, and I must say that it truly is the most degrading experience ever.
It's unfortunate and frightening that it's no longer just our behavior that is being monitored and controlled, but the very chemistry of our bodies as well.
SsSsSsSsS,
QUOTE
suzysteamboat... when i said drugs are bad i meant illegal drugs....Duh.... next time i should speak very literal because of ppl like you..
You do need to clarify a few things here... When you say illegal drugs, what time period and location are you using as reference? Was alcohol good before and after the Prohibition, but not during? Is marijuana bad for you in the United States, but good for you in the Netherlands or Canada? How does the legal status of a substance make it "good" or "bad"? And how does ANY of this justify invading the sanctity of someone's body with NO PROBABLE CAUSE?
QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Jan 15 2004, 10:14 PM)
Goldblum, is it safe to assume that you would feel comfortable submitting your semen at school to be tested for STDs? After all, they're just trying to keep you safe...
No. As I mentioned in my original post, a urine sample is a small invasion of privacy. (Justifiable, in my opinion, because of what it tests.)
A semen sample is undeniably a greater invasion of privacy (by making someone masturbate).
I am not for all invasions of privacy. Actually, I am a very privacy-conscious individual. I think privacy invasions should be subject to strict scrutiny. This means they should be protecting a compelling state interest, and the restrictions need to be narrowly tailored.
I think protection against youth drug abuse is a compelling state interest. Therefore, the schools need to make sure they are implementing their tests in a narrow way. Only when they have suspicion to make a test should they do it.
QUOTE(Goldblum @ Jan 19 2004, 08:56 PM)
No. As I mentioned in my original post, a urine sample is a small invasion of privacy. (Justifiable, in my opinion, because of what it tests.)
Please reread my description of an actual urinalysis and tell me how that is a small invasion of privacy. What's a big one, then? Is anything less than a full-blown cavity search a small invasion of privacy? Not to mention just how humiliating and degrading it is.
QUOTE
I think protection against youth drug abuse is a compelling state interest.
Right. We care so much about our youth, that's why we go out of our way to catch them doing something to THEIR body, and once we do we expel them, or put them in rehab (where they, without a doubt, are subject to nothing but positive influences
) or we put them in jail. Now THAT will make their life better. Also, how does this NOT violate the 4th Amendment?
Hey, if the parents can afford it and choose private schooling for their children, then they have to abide by the ruling and fork over the money. They should be glad their kids don't have to go through the security regimentation required at public schools just so the kids can get into the school to attend classes.
Again, the majority (children and adults) are marching to the tune of regulations set forth by the abuses of the minority. Whether at a private school or a public school, a student on drugs, alcohol, etc. has a personal problem that can negatively impact not only other students, but the entire school.
The parents are the first to scream negligence at the school administrators when things go haywire...so preventative measures IMO are not out of line. It's becoming more and more of a CYA society... including our schools.
Again, the majority (children and adults) are marching to the tune of regulations set forth by the abuses of the minority. Whether at a private school or a public school, a student on drugs, alcohol, etc. has a personal problem that can negatively impact not only other students, but the entire school.
The parents are the first to scream negligence at the school administrators when things go haywire...so preventative measures IMO are not out of line. It's becoming more and more of a CYA society... including our schools.
QUOTE(Looms @ Jan 19 2004, 10:23 PM)
Right. We care so much about our youth, that's why we go out of our way to catch them doing something to THEIR body, and once we do we expel them, or put them in rehab (where they, without a doubt, are subject to nothing but positive influences ) or we put them in jail. Now THAT will make their life better.
) or we put them in jail. Now THAT will make their life better. The debate is not whether drugs should be criminalized. The debate is whether drug testing should be allowed in schools in certain situations. Therefore, I will not respond to this.
QUOTE(Goldblum @ Jan 23 2004, 09:35 PM)
QUOTE(Looms @ Jan 19 2004, 10:23 PM)
Right. We care so much about our youth, that's why we go out of our way to catch them doing something to THEIR body, and once we do we expel them, or put them in rehab (where they, without a doubt, are subject to nothing but positive influences ) or we put them in jail. Now THAT will make their life better.
) or we put them in jail. Now THAT will make their life better. The debate is not whether drugs should be criminalized. The debate is whether drug testing should be allowed in schools in certain situations. Therefore, I will not respond to this.
Ummmm.. Goldblum, you DO realize there were other questions there, right? Funny, how you avoid all those difficult questions, (IN THE SAME POST) and respond by saying you refuse to even answer the easy ones. NICE!!!
Taking speech lessons from "Gee-Dub", are we? 
Edited to add: For those that don't know, Gee-Dub is officially the President's hip-hop name. Why? Because I said so.
Lets try to keep this argument from getting into the realm of personal attacks. The question posed for debate was:
I found this interesting today in the Tribune.
There is a Catholic High School in Chicago that is starting next yr I believe that is going to make it mandatory for all 1,000 students to be tested for drugs.
From what I read there is no urine test. They will clip the hair of these students, and it will cost "THEIR" parents 60.00.
I have a problem with this. The tuition for a Catholic high school is very expensive to begin with.
Supposedly if there find evidence of drug use the parents will be told and they are to deal with it. If after I think it was stated after like 100 days they are tested again and found positive there will be suspension or expulsion.
Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? What are your thoughts?
I found this interesting today in the Tribune.
There is a Catholic High School in Chicago that is starting next yr I believe that is going to make it mandatory for all 1,000 students to be tested for drugs.
From what I read there is no urine test. They will clip the hair of these students, and it will cost "THEIR" parents 60.00.
I have a problem with this. The tuition for a Catholic high school is very expensive to begin with.
Supposedly if there find evidence of drug use the parents will be told and they are to deal with it. If after I think it was stated after like 100 days they are tested again and found positive there will be suspension or expulsion.
Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? What are your thoughts?
Hmm...not exactly sure what you're talking about, Looms. This is the same original post that you're seeing, I assume:
It's very easy to sidetrack this question into a debate on drug legalization, but that is not the question.
Although drug legalization and drug testing both concern privacy rights, they deal with different types of privacy rights. And I feel the compelling interest trumps the privacy rights in many schools that drug test.
QUOTE
I found this interesting today in the Tribune.
There is a Catholic High School in Chicago that is starting next yr I believe that is going to make it mandatory for all 1,000 students to be tested for drugs.
From what I read there is no urine test. They will clip the hair of these students, and it will cost "THEIR" parents 60.00.
I have a problem with this. The tuition for a Catholic high school is very expensive to begin with.
Supposedly if there find evidence of drug use the parents will be told and they are to deal with it. If after I think it was stated after like 100 days they are tested again and found positive there will be suspension or expulsion.
Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? What are your thoughts?
There is a Catholic High School in Chicago that is starting next yr I believe that is going to make it mandatory for all 1,000 students to be tested for drugs.
From what I read there is no urine test. They will clip the hair of these students, and it will cost "THEIR" parents 60.00.
I have a problem with this. The tuition for a Catholic high school is very expensive to begin with.
Supposedly if there find evidence of drug use the parents will be told and they are to deal with it. If after I think it was stated after like 100 days they are tested again and found positive there will be suspension or expulsion.
Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? What are your thoughts?
It's very easy to sidetrack this question into a debate on drug legalization, but that is not the question.
Although drug legalization and drug testing both concern privacy rights, they deal with different types of privacy rights. And I feel the compelling interest trumps the privacy rights in many schools that drug test.
QUOTE
I think protection against youth drug abuse is a compelling state interest. Therefore, the schools need to make sure they are implementing their tests in a narrow way. Only when they have suspicion to make a test should they do it.
Just wondering, what would you have them do if they tested positive? Expel them so they could spend all day doing drugs? Force them to attend rehab, a highly illegal practice? Sit there and scream "DRUGS ARE BAD, M'KAY?" like everyone's been doing for their whole lives? I don't see what this would do. There's no reason for these tests, because they don't solve anything. They just create more problems for both the student and the school.
I really don't think it's logal for a school to be drug-testing its student, even a private school. When you're a student at a private school, you're a customer. Saying that it's legal for the school to drug test you is like saying it's legal for Wal-Mart to randomly drug-test anyone who wants to shop there.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Jan 26 2004, 05:13 PM)
Just wondering, what would you have them do if they tested positive? Expel them so they could spend all day doing drugs? Force them to attend rehab, a highly illegal practice? Sit there and scream "DRUGS ARE BAD, M'KAY?" like everyone's been doing for their whole lives? I don't see what this would do. There's no reason for these tests, because they don't solve anything. They just create more problems for both the student and the school.
I really don't think it's logal for a school to be drug-testing its student, even a private school. When you're a student at a private school, you're a customer. Saying that it's legal for the school to drug test you is like saying it's legal for Wal-Mart to randomly drug-test anyone who wants to shop there.
One could imagine that the parents of kids using drugs would be interested in knowing having this information. They could then be enlisted in helping the kid get off the drugs.
QUOTE(Goldblum @ Jan 26 2004, 07:34 AM)
Hmm...not exactly sure what you're talking about, Looms. This is the same original post that you're seeing, I assume:
It's very easy to sidetrack this question into a debate on drug legalization, but that is not the question.
Although drug legalization and drug testing both concern privacy rights, they deal with different types of privacy rights. And I feel the compelling interest trumps the privacy rights in many schools that drug test.
QUOTE
I found this interesting today in the Tribune.
There is a Catholic High School in Chicago that is starting next yr I believe that is going to make it mandatory for all 1,000 students to be tested for drugs.
From what I read there is no urine test. They will clip the hair of these students, and it will cost "THEIR" parents 60.00.
I have a problem with this. The tuition for a Catholic high school is very expensive to begin with.
Supposedly if there find evidence of drug use the parents will be told and they are to deal with it. If after I think it was stated after like 100 days they are tested again and found positive there will be suspension or expulsion.
Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? What are your thoughts?
There is a Catholic High School in Chicago that is starting next yr I believe that is going to make it mandatory for all 1,000 students to be tested for drugs.
From what I read there is no urine test. They will clip the hair of these students, and it will cost "THEIR" parents 60.00.
I have a problem with this. The tuition for a Catholic high school is very expensive to begin with.
Supposedly if there find evidence of drug use the parents will be told and they are to deal with it. If after I think it was stated after like 100 days they are tested again and found positive there will be suspension or expulsion.
Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? What are your thoughts?
It's very easy to sidetrack this question into a debate on drug legalization, but that is not the question.
Although drug legalization and drug testing both concern privacy rights, they deal with different types of privacy rights. And I feel the compelling interest trumps the privacy rights in many schools that drug test.
My impression was that this thread deals with drug testing in schools, period, not just this school. The thread title is "drug testing in schools", not "drug testing in a school". This particular school can do this if they want, it's a private business. If parents want to tolerate this happening to their kids, for their own money, that's their perogative. Personally, any school that tried to do this to my kid would quickly find out that the two most dangerous substances out there are testosterone and adrenalin.
The vast majority of drug testing is done via urinalysis. The fact that this school doesn't do it that way doesn't change that. It also doesn't make drug testing randomly any more right. Read my previous posts describing a urinalysis, and tell me that is something that children should be subjected to. Either way, this is NOT something a school should do. Parents send their kids to school to learn, not so the school can violate the privacy of their body and monitor its chemistry. I would imagine that parents that want their kids tested can get it done without a school making it mandatory. But in this case the school is telling the parents how to be parents, which they are in no position to do.
Certainly private schools have the right to conduct drug testing, by paying for the school's service, parents are agreeing to the school's terms . I don't know how anyone can argue that.
As for
Well, if you signed a contract going in saying Wal-Mart could give you a drug test while you are there, then yes they could. Just like when you shop at a membership warehouse, they check your items on the way out to make sure you paid for everything. It's because you agreed to it in your membership agreement.
As for
QUOTE
I really don't think it's logal for a school to be drug-testing its student, even a private school. When you're a student at a private school, you're a customer. Saying that it's legal for the school to drug test you is like saying it's legal for Wal-Mart to randomly drug-test anyone who wants to shop there.
Well, if you signed a contract going in saying Wal-Mart could give you a drug test while you are there, then yes they could. Just like when you shop at a membership warehouse, they check your items on the way out to make sure you paid for everything. It's because you agreed to it in your membership agreement.
QUOTE(Looms @ Jan 27 2004, 07:39 PM)
Personally, any school that tried to do this to my kid would quickly find out that the two most dangerous substances out there are testosterone and adrenalin.
. I would imagine that parents that want their kids tested can get it done without a school making it mandatory. But in this case the school is telling the parents how to be parents, which they are in no position to do.
. I would imagine that parents that want their kids tested can get it done without a school making it mandatory. But in this case the school is telling the parents how to be parents, which they are in no position to do.
I think that before testing started parents would be notified. Obviously the test of hair samples is less obtrusive than the urinalysis. If the majority of parents and teachers agree there is a benefit in the testing it should go forward.
The reason schools might want to make it mandatory is that in many schools it is a significant problem that is obviously not being dealt with by parents. This is not “telling parents how to be parents” this is a recognition that there is a problem and that the parents are NOT dealing with it. How do you feel about expulsion for drug use?
IMO schools should have a 0 tolerance policy. There should be no need to baby-sit the students. Violate the rules and you are out. Come back next year with better behavior.
Brilliant idea, Ted. Yes, when I kid does drugs, obviously what we should do is kick him out of school, thereby both giving him loads of free time to do drugs and ruining his future meaning it'll be much more difficult for him to get out of his current situation in life. That will definitly solve the problem.
Obviously, a private school can make this a policy if they wish. I wouldn't send my own children to a school with such a policy, unless it was the only decent option. I am also one of those rare people who has never tried a drug of any kind myself (except aspirin).
Hair follicle testing (usually) has a three month history. Did the child amoke a joint one time? Five? Is he/she a chronic abuser, or a recreational once-a-week marijuana smoker?
If the child has a problem with drug abuse, it will reveal itself through behavior problems and falling grades. Otherwise, why subject the children to such a test for a supposed 'solution' to which there is no manifested problem? And, a Rattlesnake mentioned, what if the test is positive? Do you really throw that child out of school (especially when there is no behavioral problem), because they occasionally smoke marijuana or tried acid one weekend? How is that any different from my father (who is now 82), who used to sneak into the barn with his friends in HS in the 1930s and drink homemade moonshine?
Hair follicle testing (usually) has a three month history. Did the child amoke a joint one time? Five? Is he/she a chronic abuser, or a recreational once-a-week marijuana smoker?
If the child has a problem with drug abuse, it will reveal itself through behavior problems and falling grades. Otherwise, why subject the children to such a test for a supposed 'solution' to which there is no manifested problem? And, a Rattlesnake mentioned, what if the test is positive? Do you really throw that child out of school (especially when there is no behavioral problem), because they occasionally smoke marijuana or tried acid one weekend? How is that any different from my father (who is now 82), who used to sneak into the barn with his friends in HS in the 1930s and drink homemade moonshine?
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Feb 5 2004, 06:25 PM)
Brilliant idea, Ted. Yes, when I kid does drugs, obviously what we should do is kick him out of school, thereby both giving him loads of free time to do drugs and ruining his future meaning it'll be much more difficult for him to get out of his current situation in life. That will definitly solve the problem.
Well Rattlesnake I was responding to someone who was against testing which would have led to parent involvement and help for the child. If testing is out and some parents don’t care if their kids smoke pot – great. Lets identify them and BOOT them so that the rest of the kids can not have to be distracted by the influence and so that teachers can teach rather than baby-sit kids with drug problems.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 6 2004, 02:56 PM)
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Feb 5 2004, 06:25 PM)
Brilliant idea, Ted. Yes, when I kid does drugs, obviously what we should do is kick him out of school, thereby both giving him loads of free time to do drugs and ruining his future meaning it'll be much more difficult for him to get out of his current situation in life. That will definitly solve the problem.
Well Rattlesnake I was responding to someone who was against testing which would have led to parent involvement and help for the child. If testing is out and some parents don’t care if their kids smoke pot – great. Lets identify them and BOOT them so that the rest of the kids can not have to be distracted by the influence and so that teachers can teach rather than baby-sit kids with drug problems.
Ted, where you're going wrong is your leap from catching the student doing drugs to the assumption the parent disapproves, and therefore will take an interest in punishing the student. Kicking a student out for doing pot is irrational. Not to get into a debate about whether it's more harmful than any of the legal drugs already out there, but it's pot. It's not a serious drug. As such, a great number of high-schoolers have smoked it. If we were to kick out all these students, the classrooms would probably be all half-empty. Then you'd have a large number of teenagers with nothing better to do with their time than do more drugs and cause general mayhem and chaos in their neighborhoods. I'm using pot because that was the example you gave, and it's simply a bad example. If you had used heroin, or any other serious drug, kicking them out of school still does society as a whole no good. Mandatory rehab? Yes. Kicking them out of school? No. If you kicked all the students who use serious drugs out of school, again, you have the same problem of an influx of teenaged drug users running around the community all day, every day. This can't possibly be a good thing.
Edited to add: By stating that kicking teenagers who use illegal drugs out of school is a good thing because teachers shouldn't have to baby-sit kids with drug problems, you're also making an incorrect assumption. Why do students who use pot have to be baby-sat? Not all kids who use illegal drugs are disruptive in school, and not all kids who are disruptive in school use illegal drugs. I'd say 90% of the "prep" crowd at my school has used pot, yet they're relatively well-behaved.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 6 2004, 01:56 PM)
Well Rattlesnake I was responding to someone who was against testing which would have led to parent involvement and help for the child. If testing is out and some parents don?t care if their kids smoke pot ? great. Lets identify them and BOOT them so that the rest of the kids can not have to be distracted by the influence and so that teachers can teach rather than baby-sit kids with drug problems.
I'm still trying to understand the benefits of denying someone an education on the basis of them smoking pot. Yes, let's kick them out of school, imprison them, deny them everything but McJobs, then when they go and rob someone we can say that we found a direct relationship between using drugs and committing criminal acts .
Do you realize how many people out there who are high earning, well qualified professionals, yet they smoke pot, or used to smoke it? By your logic, it would be better had they never been given the opportunity to make something of themselves. "Drugs will ruin your life kids, so to help you, if we catch you doing drugs we'll....ruin your life." Excellent.
Why would you want to deny somebody education based on what they do at their leisure? How does that benefit society? And how can ANYONE justify going over the parents' head on something like this? What's next, cavity searches?
First of all I agree that “pot” is not a heinous drug and never was. The issue is the same for alcohol, heroin, or any other drug. While you say the “prep” crowd tried pot what you forget is that these kids were not the heavy users of that drug or any other. The kids that are do not do well and they affect the whole class not to mention offering a poor example to kids who may not be interested in drugs in general.
Generally if we want to maintain order in a school the rules need to be understood and enforced. If the rule is no using or selling of drugs (any drugs) then the rule needs to be enforced or it is worthless. We were all in school and broke some rules. I don’t know about you but I refrained from breaking those rules that offered the greatest opportunity to get caught AND had significant penalties attached.
I totally disagree that enforcing drug rules would empty a classroom in most of the country. Kids are not stupid and if they KNEW that getting caught would yield suspension or expulsion they would modify their behavior accordingly.
And it’s not about being disruptive. A kid sitting quietly stoned in a class can be as much of a disruption as a kid that is acting up.
I have 3 boys and I don’t want them using drugs in school (or out of school either) – period. I expect that the school will not allow drug sales or use to go on during school hours. We don’t have to toss kids for the first offence but the parents need to be notified and the child needs to understand that it will not be permitted. If you have a problem with that then I have no idea where you are coming from.
Generally if we want to maintain order in a school the rules need to be understood and enforced. If the rule is no using or selling of drugs (any drugs) then the rule needs to be enforced or it is worthless. We were all in school and broke some rules. I don’t know about you but I refrained from breaking those rules that offered the greatest opportunity to get caught AND had significant penalties attached.
I totally disagree that enforcing drug rules would empty a classroom in most of the country. Kids are not stupid and if they KNEW that getting caught would yield suspension or expulsion they would modify their behavior accordingly.
And it’s not about being disruptive. A kid sitting quietly stoned in a class can be as much of a disruption as a kid that is acting up.
I have 3 boys and I don’t want them using drugs in school (or out of school either) – period. I expect that the school will not allow drug sales or use to go on during school hours. We don’t have to toss kids for the first offence but the parents need to be notified and the child needs to understand that it will not be permitted. If you have a problem with that then I have no idea where you are coming from.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 6 2004, 06:47 PM)
And it?s not about being disruptive. A kid sitting quietly stoned in a class can be as much of a disruption as a kid that is acting up.
And the idea of a drunk guy driving an 18 wheeler is downright frightening!
But as long as that guy is sober on the job, he is no different from someone who never drank a beer in his life.
A stoned guy in class might very well be a disruption.
But somebody who smoked pot at some point in the last MONTH, but is sober in class, would NOT be a disruption. At least not for reasons having to do with the "drug problem".
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.