Drug Testing in School

[Neo-Logic]

I say do it.

It's not just about catching those using and dealing it, but also to discourage, prevent, and to intervene for those who uses illegal substances. Civil liberties are one thing, but what good is civil liberty if it's hindering the right group of people from having the power to make our youth into better, less drug dependent, people? It sounds weird that I should even have to use the words drug dependent and youth in one sentence, but that's just the reality of the situation at hand. Teenagers actively use drugs and without further action from the school to discourage with intent to pursue, there will be no change. Without change, there will be no progress.

Think about it. If you were a parent, would you want your child to be in a safer enviroment where everyone is drug free or take your chances with the learn by mistake mind set? Yes, the parents are suppose to be teaching the kids that drugs are a no-no. However, the same parents has to work to keep a roof over the head and the debt collectors from repo-ing their posessions. Do the parents not deserve a little help from the government and school to not only make sure their kids are not using drugs, but also a peace of mind in knowing that they are in a drug-free enviroment to the best of the school's ability.

What rights would the teenagers lose, really? The liberty to not have to pee in order to make sure they do their part in the social contract of bringing no harm to others which they subsequently will do if they are using drugs and therefore will influence other close friends with unneccessary peer-pressure to do the same? The price of having to pee in a cup is small compared to the price of finding out that your child has a drug problem or god forbid, becomes involved in gang activities or overdose on drugs.

Freedom isn't free, but peeing in a cup to help the school be a safer enviroment, on the otherhand, is.

 

[delta0021]

I would be curious to see what type of punishment or deterrents the school systems could come up with. In my opinion kicking the kid out of school would not be the answer to this problem. If you simply suspend a student who is using drugs he would more than likely to continue using them especially since they don’t have to worry about school anymore. Another possible solution would be to take away non-academic extracurricular activities but in my experience most kids using drugs would really care if they lost those. If they are out after school getting their fix they probably don’t care too much about track practice One last solution would be to involve the police in the testing and also the punishment, but then would the students using drugs even come to school or might this be a deterrent to even go. I’m sure some students would clean up knowing what the new consequences were, but is that worth losing the kids that will simply not go anymore? Maybe there is better ideas that I’m missing.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Do the crime, do the time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

do their part in the social contract of bringing no harm to others

If I smoke a joint, or snort a line (I think thats the term used for coke and meth), how am I harming others? I would be to mellow to do any physical harm while stoned, and too busy off doing my own thing while high on coke.

compared to the price of finding out that your child has a drug problem or god forbid, becomes involved in gang activities or overdose on drugs.

First of all, drug use does not lead to gang activity. Reasons for joining a gang and using drugs are two completly diferent subjects. As far as an overdose on lethal drugs, a kid can just as easily, and legally, overdose on everyday drugs, such as caffiene. If I had a kid, I really wouldn't get that upset about finding out he is using drugs. I would just remind him to keep aware of his surroundings, and don't get high in a potentially bad place.

 

[drekmed]

the 4th amendmant protects against this kind of thing.

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.

if they are forced to submit to search without a proper court order, due to probable cause, it is a violation of their constitutional rights, civil rights has nothing to do with it.
to give you an example, it would be like a government official stopping random people on the street and stating that they have to submit to drug screening.
DUI checkpoints come extremely close to violating this, however there is an implied consent stipulation you agree to upon receiving your drivers license, put simply, by accepting a drivers license you agree to submit to breath, blood, or urine analysis if a police officer requests it while you are operating a motor vehicle.

if you are adament on screening kids for drugs in school, one way you can do it is through a probable cause search. this is done if a reasonable officer has what he/she believes appears to be evidence that you are under the influence of a controlled substance. this can be done a few ways. one is to pull the people aside and ask them questions that they dont legally have to answer. the second and more reliable is through the use of a drug detection dog at the entrances of the school. the dog must be a passive alerting dog, that means sits on detection. once the dog sits, if there is more than 1 student there, you put them into separate rooms and take a second dog into each room and have them take another sniff. if this dog also alerts, you have your probable cause to search, and a warrant is technically not needed at that time. im not sure if this works exactly the same in the non-military world, but im pretty sure its something close to it. if the dog isn't available, there are some really cool chemical sniffers out now.

oh, this kind of thing cannot be performed by anyone other than a law enforcement officer within their jurisdiction.
the principal, guidance counselors, school administrators, and teachers are not able to perform searches.

this barely even scratches the surface on the legal issues for this, and it would cost the government a lot of money to actually implement it on a large scale basis. for these reasons i do not see it ever happening.

Drekmed

 

[Flappycat]

I say do it.

It's not just about catching those using and dealing it, but also to discourage, prevent, and to intervene for those who uses illegal substances. Civil liberties are one thing, but what good is civil liberty if it's hindering the right group of people from having the power to make our youth into better, less drug dependent, people? It sounds weird that I should even have to use the words drug dependent and youth in one sentence, but that's just the reality of the situation at hand. Teenagers actively use drugs and without further action from the school to discourage with intent to pursue, there will be no change. Without change, there will be no progress.

Think about it. If you were a parent, would you want your child to be in a safer enviroment where everyone is drug free or take your chances with the learn by mistake mind set? Yes, the parents are suppose to be teaching the kids that drugs are a no-no. However, the same parents has to work to keep a roof over the head and the debt collectors from repo-ing their posessions. Do the parents not deserve a little help from the government and school to not only make sure their kids are not using drugs, but also a peace of mind in knowing that they are in a drug-free enviroment to the best of the school's ability.

What rights would the teenagers lose, really? The liberty to not have to pee in order to make sure they do their part in the social contract of bringing no harm to others which they subsequently will do if they are using drugs and therefore will influence other close friends with unneccessary peer-pressure to do the same? The price of having to pee in a cup is small compared to the price of finding out that your child has a drug problem or god forbid, becomes involved in gang activities or overdose on drugs.

Freedom isn't free, but peeing in a cup to help the school be a safer enviroment, on the otherhand, is.

Ineffective and makes the schools feel more like prisons. Target education strictly at teaching them how to think for themselves, I say. Then again, I also think that students should be allowed, on the condition that they have work, to put off the completion of their education for as long as they like and to return to finish it at their leisure without any penalty whatsoever, but these are the ravings of a madman who holds the foul heresy that having a few extra adults in the room wouldn't be such a bad idea and obstinately refuses to accept the Holy Truth that people are likely to become intensely interested in learning if you hold them against their will long enough. Give a sixteen-year-old three years working as an underpaid laborer and an open door, and he'll be graduating with honors two years afterward. Those who are determined to be dummies having work that they're happy with would only remove a serious brain drain from the schools and make whoever's left much less likely to see education as something that is forced upon them. That's how I'd go about getting drugs and gangs out of the schools, but I've gone so far astray from the proper way of thinking that I don't see why anyone would want to listen to me.

 

[Neo-Logic]

If I smoke a joint, or snort a line (I think thats the term used for coke and meth), how am I harming others? I would be to mellow to do any physical harm while stoned, and too busy off doing my own thing while high on coke.

Ok, that's nice. Can you speak for the rest of the population of the drug users and guarantee the fact that they will all do drugs in a safe enviroment where they cannot affect anybody outside in a negative way? I think not. It's like a drunk guy saying I can drive just fine. It doesn't work out the way the drug users had in mind before they use it.

First of all, drug use does not lead to gang activity. Reasons for joining a gang and using drugs are two completly diferent subjects. As far as an overdose on lethal drugs, a kid can just as easily, and legally, overdose on everyday drugs, such as caffiene. If I had a kid, I really wouldn't get that upset about finding out he is using drugs. I would just remind him to keep aware of his surroundings, and don't get high in a potentially bad place.

First of all, who deals drugs for teenagers to have access to drugs? Who do these street vendors and handlers get their drugs from? Drugs are contraband and thus the people who distribute and deal can somehow be traced back to a criminal line of some kind. Gangs are probably a good portion of this line of criminals.

 

[WillieHutch]

Drugs are contraband and thus the people who distribute and deal can somehow be traced back to a criminal line of some kind. Gangs are probably a good portion of this line of criminals.

tracing back and getting a conviction is very difficult, ask any police officer or prosecuting attorney. I havent seen the statistics on gang drug distribution, but i would venture to say that the majority of middle and high schoolers who want to try pot (which is the most commonly used drug among those in our public schools) wouldn't be walking up to gang members. they would more likely be getting it from their friends. testing in schools will never happen, because of the following issues:
1. cost (we cant pay teachers, but we can pay to drug test the entire student body???)
2. privacy/legal issues
3. logistics

 

[Ormiston]

I think there is a lot already being done to protect children from drugs. People fail to realize the progress we've made on this front the last hundred years and there seems to be some misconception that illegal drugs can be eliminated. They can't, at least not without turning the free world into a communist dictatorship. All you can do is protect yourself and your children with knowledge and respect the fact that the state is doing the best that it can with the problem.

 

[gnomon]

Ok, that's nice. Can you speak for the rest of the population of the drug users and guarantee the fact that they will all do drugs in a safe enviroment where they cannot affect anybody outside in a negative way? I think not. It's like a drunk guy saying I can drive just fine. It doesn't work out the way the drug users had in mind before they use it.


First of all, who deals drugs for teenagers to have access to drugs? Who do these street vendors and handlers get their drugs from? Drugs are contraband and thus the people who distribute and deal can somehow be traced back to a criminal line of some kind. Gangs are probably a good portion of this line of criminals.

First of all, it is the black market system which has created the new and wonderfully dangerous drugs the government is trying to eradicate as well as the ease of attainment by adolescents in this country. Plus, logically speaking any argument about the legality and danger of "drugs" must include alcohol. To which point I bring in the argument that any system that actively seeks to search out and punish people for using one type of drug yet actively promotes the sale and use of another is purely hypocritical. I wonder how the students who are caught drinking at their prom would be treated. The same as those with dirty urine. I would predict that the system set in place would be absolutely no different than the class-rewards system already set up in our judicial system.

I find your desire for mandatory drug testing, absent of any real sense of what exactly you would do for those found guilty of using drugs, to be draconian and founded in no sense of the concept of freedom we are tyring to hold onto in the States. If you have a problem with your kids doing drugs than it is up to you as a parent to deal with it. There are many ways to get help as well. Enlisting schools to test all the kids to satisfy your own insecurity is not one of them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

First of all, who deals drugs for teenagers to have access to drugs? Who do these street vendors and handlers get their drugs from? Drugs are contraband and thus the people who distribute and deal can somehow be traced back to a criminal line of some kind. Gangs are probably a good portion of this line of criminals.

Lets see, some people grow thier own, some people get it directly imported from where-ever, some people get it from corrupt cops, some people do get it from gangs, some people get it from friends who appear to be normal everyday people, and theres many other sources. I got a gram of coke from a co-worker once for a "friends price," and then I sold it for a higher price.

Ok, that's nice. Can you speak for the rest of the population of the drug users and guarantee the fact that they will all do drugs in a safe enviroment where they cannot affect anybody outside in a negative way? I think not. It's like a drunk guy saying I can drive just fine. It doesn't work out the way the drug users had in mind before they use it.

When I was telling my hypothetical kid not to use drugs in a bad place, I was talking about places were he could get caught by authority figures, by some one who would turn him in, or out on the streets were people could take advantage of him. You're pretty safe after you smoke a joint, I used to drive all the time while stoned. Slowing down a bit and paying attention to everything on the road actually makes you safer. Using coke won't change your driving habbits much more than drinking energy drinks. Cough syrup is one of the worst things you can take before driving.

 

[Flappycat]

Try drinking six of the things. Those things can turn you crazy. I like them, but I prefer coffee.

What exactly do we accomplish by flushing a moderate drug user's life completely down the toilet? Does misery make him more moral? Do we improve society by cutting short a person's education? Does creating a large source of income for criminals make the streets safer?

 

[WillieHutch]

absent of any real sense of what exactly you would do for those found guilty of using drugs, to be draconian and founded in no sense of the concept of freedom we are tyring to hold onto in the States.

golf clap. hearty clap. cheer. scream. :jam:

 

[michel]

I find your desire for mandatory drug testing, absent of any real sense of what exactly you would do for those found guilty of using drugs, to be draconian and founded in no sense of the concept of freedom we are tyring to hold onto in the States. If you have a problem with your kids doing drugs than it is up to you as a parent to deal with it. There are many ways to get help as well. Enlisting schools to test all the kids to satisfy your own insecurity is not one of them.

I am sorry, but I wish they had tested kids for drugs at my Sons' school (only the older one was persuaded to have a joint-"C'mon, everyone does it...) ; six years later he is still smoking them. Everytime I see him he says "Honest Dad, I am trying to give it up".

I have had to bail him out for credit card debts four or five times; debts I am sure would not have been as high had he not been introduced to the weed.

And I do realize that not all parents have the luck or the ability to help out. Had it not been for me, I dread to think where he would now be.

 

[WillieHutch]

I am sorry, but I wish they had tested kids for drugs at my Sons' school (only the older one was persuaded to have a joint-"C'mon, everyone does it...) ; six years later he is still smoking them. Everytime I see him he says "Honest Dad, I am trying to give it up" I have had to bail him out for credit card debts four or five times; debts I am sure would not have been as high had he not been introduced to the weed. Had it not been for me, I dread to think where he would now be.

the notion that drug testing in schools would prevent kids from smoking it is illogical. There are a variety of (simple) ways around drug tests, especially the basic ones schools would be forced to use due to cost considerations.

 

[michel]

the notion that drug testing in schools would prevent kids from smoking it is illogical. There are a variety of (simple) ways around drug tests, especially the basic ones schools would be forced to use due to cost considerations.

So what would be your solution, for a parent like me ? Fund his habit ?

 

[gnomon]

I am sorry, but I wish they had tested kids for drugs at my Sons' school (only the older one was persuaded to have a joint-"C'mon, everyone does it...) ; six years later he is still smoking them. Everytime I see him he says "Honest Dad, I am trying to give it up".

I have had to bail him out for credit card debts four or five times; debts I am sure would not have been as high had he not been introduced to the weed.

And I do realize that not all parents have the luck or the ability to help out. Had it not been for me, I dread to think where he would now be.

Don't let him watch any football. Next thing you know he might start drinking. I'm sorry. I've been involved with drugs and rehab and the only person to blame in this situation is your son and posits no reason to start testing every child, punishing those who score false positives [and] without actually giving any evidence to the effectiveness of such programs.

In order for me to even seriously consider a mandatory drug testing policy you would need to satisfy the following questions:

1)What grade shall we start the policy?
2)What will we do to those kids who fail a drug test?
3)How will the parents be involved for those kids?
4)Will legal matters become involved? (Ex. hauling a child or teen to juvenile court to answer to a judge where they received the drugs)
5)Who pays for it? If you were going to test my nephew the damn well better use an accurate system and not those idiotic little sticks which resemble a pregnancy test.

And the most important of all...since when is it any of anyone's elses damn business. The only way I could ever truly support such things if the people in this country stopped their hypocritical and ignorant drug war by going after alcoholic parents with the same zeal as they do crack addicts, heroin addicts, etc. Alcohol is a drug as damaging or more so to our society. Let's not step further into the mess our government has created in this damned drug war by extending into the schools and treating are children as suspects.

 

[Neo-Logic]

the 4th amendmant protects against this kind of thing.
if they are forced to submit to search without a proper court order, due to probable cause, it is a violation of their constitutional rights, civil rights has nothing to do with it.
to give you an example, it would be like a government official stopping random people on the street and stating that they have to submit to drug screening.
DUI checkpoints come extremely close to violating this, however there is an implied consent stipulation you agree to upon receiving your drivers license, put simply, by accepting a drivers license you agree to submit to breath, blood, or urine analysis if a police officer requests it while you are operating a motor vehicle.

if you are adament on screening kids for drugs in school, one way you can do it is through a probable cause search. this is done if a reasonable officer has what he/she believes appears to be evidence that you are under the influence of a controlled substance. this can be done a few ways. one is to pull the people aside and ask them questions that they dont legally have to answer. the second and more reliable is through the use of a drug detection dog at the entrances of the school. the dog must be a passive alerting dog, that means sits on detection. once the dog sits, if there is more than 1 student there, you put them into separate rooms and take a second dog into each room and have them take another sniff. if this dog also alerts, you have your probable cause to search, and a warrant is technically not needed at that time. im not sure if this works exactly the same in the non-military world, but im pretty sure its something close to it. if the dog isn't available, there are some really cool chemical sniffers out now.

oh, this kind of thing cannot be performed by anyone other than a law enforcement officer within their jurisdiction.
the principal, guidance counselors, school administrators, and teachers are not able to perform searches.

this barely even scratches the surface on the legal issues for this, and it would cost the government a lot of money to actually implement it on a large scale basis. for these reasons i do not see it ever happening.

Drekmed

The Constituion stipulates that "The rights of the people ... against unreasonable searches and seizures." Maybe it's just me, but the idea of a safe and drug-free learning enviroment for our youth seems pretty reasonable to me. The parents, students, tax payers, and citizens deserve better.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Schools also can justify things much easier than police, and often don't need the same rules police do. To search your car, a school doesn't even need plausible cause, they can just do a random search. If they want to do drug test, the only reason they need is because they want to.

 

[drekmed]

Schools also can justify things much easier than police, and often don't need the same rules police do. To search your car, a school doesn't even need plausible cause, they can just do a random search. If they want to do drug test, the only reason they need is because they want to.

they shouldn't be able to. this kind of thing can be easily abused. today it may be drugs, tomorrow it could be some kids private religious material or a book the school finds offensive. if they are going to do it, they have to do it in a way that will not open them up to getting sued by parents for violating the students constitutional rights. they must have probable cause, or consent before initiating a search. to do otherwise is illegal.

they can only inspect the cars in the parking lot. that means looking through the windows, the undercarriage, and tire wells. they cannot open any doors or compartments, and the students do not have to give consent so they can. they can have their parking privilege removed for it, but still, the schools can't do anything extensive without either probable cause or consent, and technically law enforcement has to be present to conduct the search if it includes opening anything on the car.

they can however search school property, which is lockers and classrooms, and if you want to get anal, testing issued school textbooks for residue.

being able to justify something doesn't make it legal. its easy to justify something, for instance, robbing someone of a few thousand dollars, justification, the guy has a low paying job, and needed the money in order to buy a new engine for his p.o.s. car. still illegal, but justified. i love semantics games

Drekmed