Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/27/2002 7:24:07 AM EDT
Ruling in favor of unreasonable searches. http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.drug.testing.ap/index.html http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_drug_tests_5
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 7:42:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 7:55:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 7:57:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 8:15:57 AM EDT
What's the problem? They have a choice: you can take drugs and avoid after-school activities, or not take drugs and participate in the activity of your choice. Of course, they should include alcohol as a drug in this situation. (Psst! Did anyone mention choices have consequences?)
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 8:22:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 8:23:46 AM EDT
How long is it till we will have random drug testing for your driver's lic ?
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 8:25:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 9:14:39 AM EDT by ARLady]
Originally Posted By ChuckT: What's the problem? They have a choice: you can take drugs and avoid after-school activities, or not take drugs and participate in the activity of your choice. Of course, they should include alcohol as a drug in this situation. (Psst! Did anyone mention choices have consequences?)
View Quote
hey, careful there. you're talking about that evil concept called personal responsibility. [;)] there's been a long history of decisions handed down that children in school settings have limited 4th amendment rights concerning searches. the only thing that i really dislike about the decisions is the blatant disregard for probabl[red]e[/red] cause justification. searching lockers is one thing. it isn't the students property, and therefore they don't have a "reasonable right to privacy" concerning that locker, IMO. their person, on the otherhand, is an entirely different story. i think probabl[red]e[/red] cause is the minimum that should be required to conduct a search of a person. edited for the muscle memory that makes me type "probably" instead of "probable". see, i almost typed "probably" again. geesh.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 8:36:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By ChuckT: What's the problem? They have a choice: you can take drugs and avoid after-school activities, or not take drugs and participate in the activity of your choice. Of course, they should include alcohol as a drug in this situation. (Psst! Did anyone mention choices have consequences?)
View Quote
What are [i]you[/i] talking about? There are more choices than that.
View Quote
There are also more consequences than that.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 8:43:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ARLady:
Originally Posted By ChuckT: What's the problem? They have a choice: you can take drugs and avoid after-school activities, or not take drugs and participate in the activity of your choice. Of course, they should include alcohol as a drug in this situation. (Psst! Did anyone mention choices have consequences?)
View Quote
hey, careful there. you're talking about that evil concept called personal responsibility. [;)] there's been a long history of decisions handed down that children in school settings have limited 4th amendment rights concerning searches. the only thing that i really dislike about the decisions is the blatant disregard for probably cause justification. searching lockers is one thing. it isn't the students property, and therefore they don't have a "reasonable right to privacy" concerning that locker, IMO. their person, on the otherhand, is an entirely different story. i think probably cause is the minimum that should be required to conduct a search of a person.
View Quote
I "sort of" agree. However, children (18 and under for the purposes of this discussion) still need guidance. And drugs are no laughing matter. Especially when they not only kill kids at an alarming rate, they lead to lies, stealing, unhealthy activities, etc. to support this "choice."
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 9:20:30 AM EDT
My problem with this is that is sort of indoctrinated our next generation to accept these kind of searches as acceptable. True, as children they do not have all the rights of an adult (except what if they are still in HS at age 18?), but once they reach maturity, IMHO they will be less likely to question such things as adults if they have already been subjected to them all their previous lives. Rocko
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 9:24:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ChuckT: I "sort of" agree. However, children (18 and under for the purposes of this discussion) still need guidance. And drugs are no laughing matter. Especially when they not only kill kids at an alarming rate, they lead to lies, stealing, unhealthy activities, etc. to support this "choice."
View Quote
yeah, it's a fine line. children do need guidance. but if we allow exceptions under the "for the children" argument, do we not open the door to make exceptions for "for the public good" or "for the good of the state"? additionally, i don't feel like it is the school systems' responsibility to find out if children are using drugs. if there's probabl[red]e[/red] cause, fine. get a warrant. or suspend the kid. i wouldn't let the school have control in any other parenting matter. why would i relinquish control on this one? if there's concern, the school can call me and i'll deal with it. i think it's been a double-edged sword: school's are more willing to discipline and indoctrinate and parents are more willing to relinquish parental responsibilites. the cycle just makes it worse. the more parental responsibilities parents give up, the more the school systems grab up for power purposes. it's a nasty situation with dire consequences for parental rights and individual rights. all in all, not a good decision.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 9:28:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rocko: My problem with this is that is sort of indoctrinated our next generation to accept these kind of searches as acceptable. True, as children they do not have all the rights of an adult (except what if they are still in HS at age 18?), but once they reach maturity, IMHO they will be less likely to question such things as adults if they have already been subjected to them all their previous lives. Rocko
View Quote
That's an excellent point. On the other side of that coin, they may feel that they had to endure them when they were in school, but once they are truly adults, they can just say no to unreasonable searches? However, many employers require drug testing.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 9:28:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 9:30:26 AM EDT by imposter]
It is the parent's responsibility to protect the kids from drugs, not big brother. If the parents want drug tests for kids, they can get them. The court's 4th amendment jurisprudence is really screwed: they are using the wrong test. They try and balance the intrusiveness of the search with the potential harm. So if something is not too instrusive, like a drug test or a booze checkpoint, the government can do it without even some kind of suspicion that you are guilty. IMHO, the government should need some level of partiularized suspicion before [red]any[/red] search takes place (except at borders, airports, jails, etc.).
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 9:37:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 9:38:29 AM EDT by Gloftoe]
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 10:06:44 AM EDT
I can see both sides of this issue. My point is that kids are not adults. You have to protect them from themselves. This takes both the parents and the school. It is our responsibility to do anything we can to point our kids in the right direction, as parents and at school where they spend almost 40% of their day, during the school year. I can guarantee you that their peers have more influence than you do by the time they are in middle school. Adults are only subject to drug testing with probable cause, or at an employer's requirement. Adults have the right to drink, smoke, and gamble legally. None of which is necessarily good for you in excess. If adults use drugs, they run the risk of going to jail or prison, reducing their employment options, damaging family relationships because of the side-effects, or death. We should use all available means to help prevent our children from finding this road. I'm sorry, but I don't apply the same rules for children as I do for adults. As long as the school acts responsibly in teaching and supervising my kids, I'm going to support them. If not, we'll talk.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 11:31:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 11:55:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ChuckT: I can guarantee you that their peers have more influence than you do by the time they are in middle school.
View Quote
then somebody is failing as a parent. my mom always ranked higher than any peer i ever had. sure, i gave in a little to peer pressure. lied about where i was going a time or two. but when it came to choosing whom to trust and believe, my mom ALWAYS beat the competition hands down.
I'm sorry, but I don't apply the same rules for children as I do for adults. As long as the school acts responsibly in teaching and supervising my kids, I'm going to support them. If not, we'll talk.
View Quote
i don't apply the same rules either. but i do expect this country, and its citizens, to apply the same [b]rights[/b]! the school has one primary and one secondary job. primary: educate. secondary: prevent harm to students by providing a safe environment in which to learn. period. it is NOT their responsibility to test for illicit drugs. if they do find them or evidence of usage, their only actions should be to remove the child from the class room, call the parents (and the authorities if applicable), and refuse to allow the child re-entrance to the school (called suspension or expulsion) until said child no longer presents a danger to himself or classmates. that's it. end of story.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 1:27:15 PM EDT
I agree with ARLady 100%. It will be a cold day in hell when I permit my girl to undergo drug testing at school. That is my domain, not the school's.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 1:41:09 PM EDT
What's all the grumbling about? Our Government only wants what is best for everybody. You'll get a lot further in society if you just go along with this easy, common sense solution to [insert problem here]. This is the best way to raise an obediant and compliant "citizenry". Random testing is just the thing to get young adults used to having their rights violated. Besides, aren't most working parents already over-burdened? We should definately consider replacing the warm, interpersonal contact of a parent with the caring hum and beep of an immunoassay urine anylzer.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 2:12:00 PM EDT
We're not talking about state or federal government here. The [b]local[/b] school board and PTA should have major input. IF they feel there is a problem in the district that needs to be addressed, they should have the [b]option[/b] of drug tests for [b]extra[/b]curricular activities. If the majority of parents object, there won't be any testing. I'm pretty sure that the District Superintendent can't implement something such as this without the support of the school board and PTA.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 9:11:14 PM EDT
Problem is that the labs are so overwhelmed because of the demand that false positives are rampant. The School District has to report them to Social Services for possible child welfare violations. Then you get the visit. If the dont like what they see they can get a court order and take your kids...
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 9:49:29 PM EDT
What is wrong with these people? A kid who wants to participate in extracurricular activities is not the problem, even if they have smoked pot some time in the last two months. There is hope for them, as they at least show an interest in doing something productive. What they need is the ability to easily expel students who are disruptive or who are otherwise preventing others from learning, regardless of whether they are using drugs or they are just assholes.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 10:09:32 PM EDT
Ok let's take some blood so you can prove yourself and then be rewarded by playing a sport or join the year book club or join the debate team. Because, most kids who do drugs join after school clubs. They would rather join a club than go home and blow some rails or hide in the woods and smoke weed. How many real drug users are they gonna catch with this crap? Some people seem to have a fatalistic view on children and too high a view of local schools systems.
Top Top