Random Drug Testing

[Jersey_Steve]

This issue is coming up a lot in New Jersey, with several high schools wanting to conduct random tests for steroids/alcohol/drugs. And as always, there are various parents screaming, "Civil Rights Violation."

http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1172641467286130.xml&coll=1

As most of you probably know, I'm not a liberal of any kind. So I'm finding it hard to understand why people are so against having their kids pee in a cup. Personally, if you have nothing to hide, why be afraid?

If they were like "we're going to expel everyone who has a blood type of O" then there would be a problem. But checking students to make sure they haven't done anything illegal doesn't really bother me. Mostly because I haven't done anything illegal. Of course, if I was a raging steroid junkie with a crack-cocaine addiction, I may feel differently.

Could something explain to this poor, ignorant, non-liberal, what the big deal is?

[WorkInProgress]

Dunno. I am randomly tested for work and I don't have issues with it. (I also just use a q-tip like swab on the inside of my cheek, rather than peeing into a cup.)

I'd be really annoyed if my kid's public school wanted to test my kid, though, unless it were for something like illegal steroid use in the sports program. Just a general, everyday student, though, nah. I don't understand why that would be necessary.

There have been numerous threads on this subject, though. You might want to check those out too.

[29 forever]

I believe that random drug testing in any capacity is a serious violation of privacy. The only instances I support drug tests in the workplace, or school are instances where someone is showing up stoned/intoxicated, or if they are found to be in the possession of illegal substances.

[meatwad]

If the schools have a history of students with drug problems and testing helps deter that, than I'm all for it.

[old_school_soul]

I don't support drug testing at work, ever. If someone is coming to work wasted, you fire them. That's what happens when people fuck up, you get rid of them, whether they are wasted or not.

[PeakDream]

But checking students to make sure they haven't done anything illegal doesn't really bother me.
Could something explain to this poor, ignorant, non-liberal, what the big deal is?
Innocent until proven guilty. The state has to prove the guilt, not the defendant. The state can't compel a person to give up fingerprints or DNA without compelling reason regarding the crime. So unless the school has a specific reason (someone saw the kid taking drug, found drug in the locker), there is no reason for the kid to surrender urine. Random urine test means the kid has to prove his own innocent, which I think is absolutely ridiculous and go against the principal of fair justice. I think we already gave up so many of our rights in the name safety or security. What's next? School board expels a student for reading a book that's not on the approval list such as "mein kampf" or "the little red book"? Better yet, since sex with a minor is a crime, school board will now run a random test on girls to see if they are virgins, if not, charge the kids. Come on, when will the parents themselves take responsibility for their kids rather than urinalysis.

[Syracuse]

I'm against it only because I don't think marijuana should be illegal, anymore than alcohol shouldn't be illegal anyway, and if someone gets kicked out of school or a job for that it's stupid, I don't smoke it either btw.

[meatwad]

I'm against it only because I don't think marijuana should be illegal, anymore than alcohol shouldn't be illegal anyway, and if someone gets kicked out of school or a job for that it's stupid, I don't smoke it either btw.

Yeah, but alcohol is illegal for minors. And marijuana is illegal. So your reasons don't apply.

[Syracuse]

Yeah, but alcohol is illegal for minors. And marijuana is illegal. So your reasons don't apply.
That was my point, I don't think it should be illegal.

[meatwad]

That was my point, I don't think it should be illegal.

You don't think alcohol should be illegal to minors?

[WorkInProgress]

You don't think alcohol should be illegal to minors?

I smell a new thread!

[Syracuse]

You don't think alcohol should be illegal to minors?
Do you think they should do breathalizers on kids before they go to school in the morning?

[meatwad]

Do you think they should do breathalizers on kids before they go to school in the morning?

Of course not! That would be ridiculous! You make them pee in a cup. :D

[old_school_soul]

Of course not! That would be ridiculous! You make them pee in a cup. :D

Personally, I'm all for pre-emptive imprisonment. We should lock all kids in jail from the ages of 10-18, just in case they do something wrong later in life.

[wordsmith]

Actually, we did a lot of coverage on this this past school year, when the high school in my coverage district began implementing random testing for every student involved in extracurriculars including AND in addition to sports - if you come up positive for anything - including tobacco, you're no longer allowed to participate.

Interesting stuff. My sports writer had a field day writing op ed on it (but he's a big pothead).

[and1grad]

Actually, you DO have to prove your innocence and to me, this is no real exception. The school is providing a service so they get to dictate their own requirements. If the parents dont like it, send them to another school. Not that I'm particularly FOR random testing but I dont think the school would be pursuing it if they didnt think they had a problem. There'd be no reason to take on the additional expense. I'm also thinking the school didnt just dream this up last week and implement it. I would think there's usually channels they have to go thru.

[redav]

Another issue with drug testing is the liability the employer or school takes on. If an employee is under the influence of a chemical, they are far more likely to injure themselves or someone else. The employer is then liable for that. A similar argument can be made in schools.

Considering the prevalence of steroids in sports, I can understand testing athletes, in no small part to stop them from doing something terrible before it gets out of hand. But if you test athletes, you need to be fair to others--hence testing the chess team (sounds squirly, but hey, whatever).

[WorkInProgress]

But if you test athletes, you need to be fair to others--hence testing the chess team (sounds squirly, but hey, whatever).

I don't actually see why it would be unfair to test athletes but not "mathletes" or French Club, or whatever.

[wordsmith]

I don't actually see why it would be unfair to test athletes but not "mathletes" or French Club, or whatever.

Part of the rationale at my alma mater, the school I referred to earlier, is that it's a further incentive to stay clean if you put all activities kids are involved with on the line (the kids that don't do sports or other extracurriculars, there isn't the same leverage, so they fall through the cracks, which is a flaw, IMO...and another argument against that is that by booting kids OUT OF positive activities, you're helping to enable the stock excuse most kids (at least where I am) use to rationalize drug use - "There's nothing else to do.")

Another part of the rationale is that, as a member of most extracurriculars, you're held up as a student leader, and are often an ambassador for the school at events and meets and things, and if representing the school, they want you clean.

[WorkInProgress]

I should have specified that I was talking only about illegal steroid use, not other drugs. It was carrying on from another post of mine upthread, and an earlier part of redav's post that I did not quote.

If it's across the board drug testing, and athetes are being tested, then, yeah, I'd see an argument for it for those students involved in other extra curriculars.

[wordsmith]

Yeah, this is ALL substances.

[Krishna]

Do you think they should do breathalizers on kids before they go to school in the morning?

We breathalized kids randomly on their way into school sponsored events, like homecoming and prom.

I have absolutely no problem with kids being breathalized or having random drug tests. Honestly, drug use is running rampant through our schools ("our" being a generalized term to describe a major percentage of American schools) and it is contributing to suspensions, expulsions, truancy, and high school drop out rates. If we turn a blind eye to drug use by not instituting random drug tests, I think we do kids a huge disservice.

For those people who think this infringes on rights, I'd be curious to know whether they're against having drug dogs search school properties too.

[redav]

I don't actually see why it would be unfair to test athletes but not "mathletes" or French Club, or whatever.
So, what if there were a drug that increased focus that helped academic decathlon contestants perform better (like Ritalin)? If you test for 'roids, then you should also test for the others.

I can see your point for non-competitive activities, though. However, it has become ingrained that if you do it for one, you've got to do it for all.

[WorkInProgress]

So, what if there were a drug that increased focus that helped academic decathlon contestants perform better (like Ritalin)? If you test for 'roids, then you should also test for the others.

Ritalin is a legally prescribed drug. If it is used legally, I don't really see what this proposed test would accomplish. Unless of course, kids on prescribed Ritalin are not allowed to compete. (If such a test were administered and some kid who's not supposed to be on it is determined to be, then, you're right, it would be cheating, and said kid ought to be punished for it, just like any athlete who is determined to be using steroids would/should be.)

However, it has become ingrained that if you do it for one, you've got to do it for all.

I just think it's a waste of time, effort and resources to test kids not in sports for illegal steroid use. Sure, it's possible, I guess, that some kid'll pop the test, but why?

[wordsmith]

Ritalin actually doesn't increase focus for people who aren't suffering from the disability it's used to treat, it generally has the opposite effect (which is why it's abused/used recreationally).

[WorkInProgress]

Ritalin actually doesn't increase focus for people who aren't suffering from the disability it's used to treat, it generally has the opposite effect (which is why it's abused/used recreationally).

Well, there you go. It's a non-issue.

[wordsmith]

Yeah, Ritalin use by a kid without a chemically-related disability would really NOT improve one's quiz bowl performance.

[old_school_soul]

We brearhalized kids randomly on their way into school sponsored events, like homecoming and prom.

I have absolutely no problem with kids being breathalized or having random drug tests. Honestly, drug use is running rampant through our schools ("our" being a generalized term to describe a major percentage of American schools) and it is contributing to suspensions, expulsions, truancy, and high school drop out rates. If we turn a blind eye to drug use by not instituting random drug tests, I think we do kids a huge disservice.

For those people who think this infringes on rights, I'd be curious to know whether they're against having drug dogs search school properties too.

Yes, we need to indoctrinate these youngsters that they are living in a prison-state now so they can get used to in the future when it gets worse. Drug use is running rampant? Oh, I forgot, it wasn't running rampant in the 60s and 70s and 80s. Nice scare tactics though.

[wordsmith]

Schools are already forced into the parental role in countless ways because parents are by and large dropping the ball and not doing their jobs. Deterring the use of illegal substances is just one more instance of that.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole "infringing on our rights" thing when breaking the law isn't really an inalienable right.

[WorkInProgress]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole "infringing on our rights" thing when breaking the law isn't really an inalienable right.

Ok, so that made me laugh.

[old_school_soul]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole "infringing on our rights" thing when breaking the law isn't really an inalienable right.

That's right. Which is why I'm all for everyone in this country taking a lie detector test every day of your life. Basically if you are caught lying about breaking the law, you will be put in prison for life and succumbed to Bubba's butt pounding or Esther's no-lube fisting.

[wordsmith]

Do you have a point, other than the fact that you don't think drugs should be illegal?

[old_school_soul]

Do you have a point, other than the fact that you don't think drugs should be illegal?

You said you have a hard time wrapping your head around "infringing on our rights". I guess that means you haven't ever broken a law and not been punished, and I guess that means you'd be all for a lie detector test to test people if they've broken any number of laws? Maybe they should check peoples' anuses for entry signs in case sodomy is illegal in their state. It's the intrusiveness of the test that is the problem. Legality != Morality.

[wordsmith]

You said you have a hard time wrapping your head around "infringing on our rights". I guess that means you haven't ever broken a law and not been punished, and I guess that means you'd be all for a lie detector test to test people if they've broken any number of laws? Maybe they should check peoples' anuses for entry signs in case sodomy is illegal in their state. It's the intrusiveness of the test that is the problem. Legality != Morality.

No, actually, "I have a hard time wrapping my head around how enforcing the law is infringing on somebody's rights," means that if I do break the law, I anticipate that I could be caught doing so and have to pay a penalty. It's called accountability for your actions, which is really something that IS useful for students to learn.

[Syracuse]

Yes it is a slippery slope.

The focus should be placed more on making dangerous drugs unavailable to these kids in the first place. Leave the kids alone they have enough to worry about as it is.

[old_school_soul]

No, actually, "I have a hard time wrapping my head around how enforcing the law is infringing on somebody's rights," means that if I do break the law, I anticipate that I could be caught doing so and have to pay a penalty. It's called accountability for your actions, which is really something that IS useful for students to learn.

Enforcing the law by giving drug tests is not enforcement, just like checking someone's butt for anal sex is not enforcement of anti-sodomy laws.

[wordsmith]

Enforcing the law by giving drug tests is not enforcement, just like checking someone's butt for anal sex is not enforcement of anti-sodomy laws.

Again...how is testing for presence of illegal drugs in somebody's system and proceeding accordingly if they're present not enforcing the law?

[PeakDream]

We brearhalized kids randomly on their way into school sponsored events, like homecoming and prom.
I don't agree with it either, again, where are the parents?

I have absolutely no problem with kids being breathalized or having random drug tests. Honestly, drug use is running rampant through our schools ("our" being a generalized term to describe a major percentage of American schools) and it is contributing to suspensions, expulsions, truancy, and high school drop out rates. If we turn a blind eye to drug use by not instituting random drug tests, I think we do kids a huge disservice.
What about testing for sexual activity? Should we do that as well? Make all the girls go into the nurse room for examination. Teen pregnancy is just as big a problem.

For those people who think this infringes on rights, I'd be curious to know whether they're against having drug dogs search school properties too.
I don't have a problem with this. Drug dogs searching school grounds or lockers, those are public property.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole "infringing on our rights" thing when breaking the law isn't really an inalienable right.
To what extend are you willing to give up your rights? CCTV on every corners help us prevent and solve crimes, are we cool with that? How about credit card history systematically scan by government to make sure you are not doing anything illegal?

The issue here is more than so called crime prevention, it's a civil liberty. Sadly, this act will passed by the court, just like some of the recent cases. Perhaps one day, Orwellian world might become a reality after all.

[WorkInProgress]

I would suspect that the breathalyzers before prom and HC have more to do with removing liability for any alcohol related accidents/incidents from the school. (Right, because it's not like the HS called the cops on these kids, right Krishna?)

[PeakDream]

Again...how is testing for presence of illegal drugs in somebody's system and proceeding accordingly if they're present not enforcing the law?
The scope is out of context, just like checking muslims in airport to enforce terrorism laws. That's not enforcing the law.

[old_school_soul]

Again...how is testing for presence of illegal drugs in somebody's system and proceeding accordingly if they're present not enforcing the law?

Again, how is testing for presence of anal intrusion and proceeding accordingly if they're present not enforcing the law? Again, how is stopping person carrying iPods for looking for illegally obtained MP3 files and proceeding accordingly if they're present not enforcing the law? We can go on forever here.

[wordsmith]

I've yet to hear how it is that being accountable for your own actions is a bad thing. Come to school with drugs in your system if you feel it's your "right." Pay the price if you get nailed. That's just how it goes. You know the score, you take your chances. Why is this a problem, again?

[WorkInProgress]

Again, how is testing for presence of anal intrusion and proceeding accordingly if they're present not enforcing the law? Again, how is stopping person carrying iPods for looking for illegally obtained MP3 files and proceeding accordingly if they're present not enforcing the law? We can go on forever here.

I don't think I'm getting your point here. I get that you thnk "they" shouldn't be able to do this, but other than that, nope. The dots are not connecting.

EDIT: Also, how, from just looking at my iPod/skimming through the music files on it, would anyone be able to tell how I obtained them.

[wordsmith]

I don't think I'm getting your point here. I get that you thnk "they" shouldn't be able to do this, but other than that, nope. The dots are not connecting.

Agreed.

[old_school_soul]

I've yet to hear how it is that being accountable for your own actions is a bad thing. Come to school with drugs in your system if you feel it's your "right." Pay the price if you get nailed. That's just how it goes. You know the score, you take your chances. Why is this a problem, again?

That's right, everytime I get a blow job I know I'm accountable. Thanks for the life lesson! I'm sure more kids in high school get blow jobs than bong hits. Maybe if we could test them some how by measuring the sperm count day to day we could find out when they ejaculate and BUST them for it! After all, it is illegal, and they need to be accountable.

[WorkInProgress]

That's right, everytime I get a blow job I know I'm accountable. Thanks for the life lesson! I'm sure more kids in high school get blow jobs than bong hits. Maybe if we could test them some how by measuring the sperm count day to day we could find out when they ejaculate and BUST them for it! After all, it is illegal, and they need to be accountable.

So it's the law itself and not the investigation/testing/whatever that you have issues with?

[old_school_soul]

Yes it is a slippery slope.


Thanks, this is my point. People love having the government babysit.. More and more this country has handed over their freedom to the government. It never feels like much because it happens a little bit at a time.

[old_school_soul]

So it's the law itself and not the investigation/testing/whatever that you have issues with?

Combination of both, but more so the testing.

[wordsmith]

I'm really not seeing your argument.

[Syracuse]

It's an invasion of privacy plain and simple. It's an americans body, no one should have access to it. BTW I feel it's unconstitutional for kids and adults. Concentrate on the drug dealers and growers. Just like how it's not illegal for a minor to buy ciggerettes or alcohol, but it is illegal to sell them to a minor.

[old_school_soul]

I don't think I'm getting your point here. I get that you thnk "they" shouldn't be able to do this, but other than that, nope. The dots are not connecting.

EDIT: Also, how, from just looking at my iPod/skimming through the music files on it, would anyone be able to tell how I obtained them.


I'd just ask for receipts for all the CD's you've purchsed and/or physical copies. In fact, I'd make it a law that you carry all proof of purchase with your iPod wherever you went. Let me walk across the street and talk to some Senators.

[old_school_soul]

I'm really not seeing your argument.

This is clear. Unfortunately I can't be any more clear.

[wordsmith]

It's an invasion of privacy plain and simple. It's an americans body, no one should have access to it. BTW I feel it's unconstitutional for kids and adults. Concentrate on the drug dealers and growers. Just like how it's not illegal for a minor to buy ciggerettes or alcohol, but it is illegal to sell them to a minor.

So if you're trafficking a dozen balloons of heroin in your body, that's your right, because it's your body and nobody has access to it? Sorry, you're still a drug mule. Got something illegal in your body, you're breaking the law. You might not LIKE that the law exists (I don't particularly like the seatbelt law, either, but if I don't follow it, I open myself up to being fined, and I'm accountable for the decision to not follow it), but the law exists.

And it actually is illegal for a minor to buy tobacco and alcohol where I live, as well as being illegal to be in the possession of either as a minor, regardless of whether you purchased it, in addition to being illegal to sell either to a minor.

Drug growers/manufacturers and dealers break laws, drug users break laws. Maybe you get caught, maybe you don't, but how can you cry foul if you do? Your choice, man. Personal responsibility.

[wordsmith]

This is clear. Unfortunately I can't be any more clear.

All that's clear is that you resent drug laws. To which I say, "Oh, well."

[KCboy]

Enforcing the law by giving drug tests is not enforcement, just like checking someone's butt for anal sex is not enforcement of anti-sodomy laws.

bank robber gets away with millions, but when he goes to buy something, the blue ink that got sprayed on the money gets him busted.

did they catch him in the act? no

is it still illegal? yes

should he be punished???


What about DNA testing for rapists?

[old_school_soul]

All that's clear is that you resent drug laws. To which I say, "Oh, well."

And all that is clear to me is that you are all for enhancing every law in the book by whatever means necessary. Hooray.

[wordsmith]

Not really. I'm for being accountable for your choices.

[old_school_soul]

bank robber gets away with millions, but when he goes to buy something, the blue ink that got sprayed on the money gets him busted.

did they catch him in the act? no

is it still illegal? yes

should he be punished???


What about DNA testing for rapists?

You don't get put in jail for having blue ink on your hand, but nice try! You are directly taking someone else's money. And as for rapists, you are directly harming another person. What does that have to do with drug testing? I never said it was ok to go to school/college/work/drive high or drunk, what I'm saying if Joe Schmoe took some magic mushrooms 2 months ago at his house and laughed for 5 hours with his buddies, what the fuck does it matter?

[wordsmith]

Did Joe Schmoe consider possible ramifications?

[old_school_soul]

Did Joe Schmoe consider possible ramifications?

Sure, he thought about if the neighbors heard people laughing for 5 hours they might call the police.

[Syracuse]

So if you're trafficking a dozen balloons of heroin in your body, that's your right, because it's your body and nobody has access to it? Sorry, you're still a drug mule. Got something illegal in your body, you're breaking the law. You might not LIKE that the law exists (I don't particularly like the seatbelt law, either, but if I don't follow it, I open myself up to being fined, and I'm accountable for the decision to not follow it), but the law exists.

And it actually is illegal for a minor to buy tobacco and alcohol where I live, as well as being illegal to be in the possession of either as a minor, regardless of whether you purchased it, in addition to being illegal to sell either to a minor.

Drug growers/manufacturers and dealers break laws, drug users break laws. Maybe you get caught, maybe you don't, but how can you cry foul if you do? Your choice, man. Personal responsibility.
Eh, I just disagree with your points, I think you're wrong.

[PeakDream]

So if you're trafficking a dozen balloons of heroin in your body, that's your right, because it's your body and nobody has access to it? Sorry, you're still a drug mule. Got something illegal in your body, you're breaking the law. You might not LIKE that the law exists (I don't particularly like the seatbelt law, either, but if I don't follow it, I open myself up to being fined, and I'm accountable for the decision to not follow it), but the law exists.

And it actually is illegal for a minor to buy tobacco and alcohol where I live, as well as being illegal to be in the possession of either as a minor, regardless of whether you purchased it, in addition to being illegal to sell either to a minor.

Drug growers/manufacturers and dealers break laws, drug users break laws. Maybe you get caught, maybe you don't, but how can you cry foul if you do? Your choice, man. Personal responsibility.

The law itself is fine. If you are a drug mule, they can check you, sure. But the government can't make everyone that go through an airport to get cavity search. DEA can say, that man is from Columbia's known drug trafficking area, and he has tie to this cartel. What DEA can't say is, everyone from Columbia or South America, get behind that door and start bending over.

There is a reasonable search and an unreasonable search, forcing everyone to take drug test is not a reasonable search in my humble opinion. Also, if they really want to enforce the law, they would make every kid who got caught with drug in their urine to report to the police. Or companies calling the police about an employee failing a drug test. Clearly, they won't do that. Expelling someone or firing someone hardly constitutes enforcing the law.

[WorkInProgress]

Eh, I just disagree with your points, I think you're wrong.

Anybody else think that this sounds an awful lot like the sketch, "I'd like buy an argument?"

[wordsmith]

Anybody else think that this sounds an awful lot like the sketch, "I'd like buy an argument?"

Bwah.

Or The Last Days of CK (which only a handful of us will get).

"You're wrong," trumps everything. :p

[wordsmith]

Expelling someone or firing someone hardly constitutes enforcing the law.

Here you're prosecuted in the legal system, you're not just expelled/fired.

[Krishna]

Yes, we need to indoctrinate these youngsters that they are living in a prison-state now so they can get used to in the future when it gets worse. Drug use is running rampant? Oh, I forgot, it wasn't running rampant in the 60s and 70s and 80s. Nice scare tactics though.

I honestly can't believe you're accusing me of scare tactics. I'm not saying that drug use wasnt running rampant in the 60s-80s. However times change. Times change and the focus of the public gets shifted to different areas. If you honestly want to say that it's ok for things that were a problem in the 60's to be a problem now, I think we have larger issues to discuss. That reeks of burying your head in the sand & ignoring the issues.

"Results of the 2006 Monitoring the Future (http://monitoringthefuture.org/) survey indicate that 15.7% of eighth graders, 31.8% of tenth graders, and 42.3% of twelfth graders reported lifetime use of marijuana. In 2005, these percentages were 16.5%, 34.1%, and 44.8%, respectively."

Apparently, the instance of illegal drug usage seems to be on the rise among students. When parents are willing to consistantly deal with drug use in their own homes, perhaps this will stop being something we, as schools, have to deal with.

I don't agree with it either, again, where are the parents?

Absent. There is an epidemic of parents who either 1) turn a blind eye, 2) are absent, or 3) are naive. **disclaimer: I'm not attacking the parents on this board, and don't wish to see this turn into a bash-parents fest** This ties in with every debate I've had over the role of schools recently: if more parents did their jobs, schools wouldn't be forced to try and become surrogate parents. That's in essence what we are these days. We teach, but we're also responsible for the all around well-being of the students, because if we, god forbid, have to fail a student, or our truancy rate spikes, or anything else, the blame falls on us, not the parents, not the students themselves.

[and1grad]

I can see how it could be a slippery slope but minors' rights are limited anyway. I think it could be handled in a way that isnt egregiously taking more civil liberties away from them though. I think if the test for a specific student were recommended by a teacher, it would be similar to a cop pulling a person over for a DUI. The problem lies with just doing it to everyone with no rhyme or reason to it.

[Krishna]

I think if the test for a specific student were recommended by a teacher, it would be similar to a cop pulling a person over for a DUI. The problem lies with just doing it to everyone with no rhyme or reason to it.

I think that gets risky, because then we would be accused of targeting students & carrying out grudges. From a teacher's point of view, it's probably better to just keep it random.

[old_school_soul]

I
"Results of the 2006 Monitoring the Future (http://monitoringthefuture.org/) survey indicate that 15.7% of eighth graders, 31.8% of tenth graders, and 42.3% of twelfth graders reported lifetime use of marijuana. In 2005, these percentages were 16.5%, 34.1%, and 44.8%, respectively."

Apparently, the instance of illegal drug usage seems to be on the rise among students. When parents are willing to consistantly deal with drug use in their own homes, perhaps this will stop being something we, as schools, have to deal with.



Perhaps you need to read your reports a little better before you use them to argue points. I hope you're not a match teacher. Clearly in 2006 all the percentages you mention are lower than 2005, which would mean that the marijuana usage is less.

The same report shows that drug use has been on a decline since the late 90's/early 2000's.

http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/06data/pr06t1.pdf

[wordsmith]

Yep, I think that you'd set the stage for incidents of unfair targeting, discrimination, etc. if you didn't keep it at random. If everybody knows they could be tested at any time, everyone knows it's up to them to base their conduct accordingly or accept the potential consequences.

[and1grad]

I think that gets risky, because then we would be accused of targeting students & carrying out grudges. From a teacher's point of view, it's probably better to just keep it random.
I think thats the better risk. You can make up a lot of theories about why a student was picked but a teacher has the actual vantage point.

[Krishna]

Perhaps you need to read your reports a little better before you use them to argue points. I hope you're not a match teacher. Clearly in 2006 all the percentages you mention are lower than 2005, which would mean that the marijuana usage is less.

The same report shows that drug use has been on a decline since the late 90's/early 2000's.

http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/06data/pr06t1.pdf


I don't know what you want me say. If you think that 40% of high schoolers on drugs isnt an issue, you're free to believe that. Personally, I think that's a huge problem.

[wordsmith]

The school's ass is still better covered if it's done at random. I can't imagine a school district's legal counsel would ever advise a school to do any drug testing that can be construed as targeting certain populations.

One problem I have with the current system in place at my alma mater, of only randomly testing those in extracurriculars. I know from covering their strike that they have shitty legal counsel, though, so it doesn't surprise me.

[old_school_soul]

I don't know what you want me say. If you think that 40% of high schoolers on drugs isnt an issue, you're free to believe that. Personally, I think that's a huge problem.

I want you to say "My name is Krishna and I can't read statistics."

It doesn't say 40% of high schoolers are on drugs, that's lifetime use, meaning 40% of kids have tried it and/or are using it. That's VERY different.

[PeakDream]

Ok, please stop. This is beating the dead horse. All the concrete arguments are answered and now it's getting into bashing. Back to real argument.

Here you're prosecuted in the legal system, you're not just expelled/fired.
This is not happening as often as it should. If children will be prosecuted if illegal drug sample is found in their urine, which fucked them up for life, then parents will not support this. As far as here, I'm not aware of any companies that send their workers for prosecution other than a handful of extreme cases. In fact, as far as I know, even if you work for a defense contractor, and caught with drug in urine sample, you get fired, not prosecuted.

Absent. There is an epidemic of parents who either 1) turn a blind eye, 2) are absent, or 3) are naive. **disclaimer: I'm not attacking the parents on this board, and don't wish to see this turn into a bash-parents fest** This ties in with every debate I've had over the role of schools recently: if more parents did their jobs, schools wouldn't be forced to try and become surrogate parents. That's in essence what we are these days. We teach, but we're also responsible for the all around well-being of the students, because if we, god forbid, have to fail a student, or our truancy rate spikes, or anything else, the blame falls on us, not the parents, not the students themselves.
Again, this isn't addressing the issue at hand. You are saying schools are forced to be surrogated parents. Is it that difficult to see that eventually, government are the parents that can easily suppress all rights? After all, mom and dad know what's best for you!

[Krishna]

I want you to say "My name is Krishna and I can't read statistics."

And I want you to say "My name is old_school_soul and I can't put together a coherant argument other than to say 'I'm right and you're wrong'." But we don't all get our way now, do we?

[old_school_soul]

And I want you to say "My name is old_school_soul and I can't put together a coherant argument other than to say 'I'm right and you're wrong'." But we don't all get our way now, do we?

The difference is a) I didn't ask "What do you want me to say?", and b) I didn't dig for a report and misquote it, twice. Try harder next time.

[redav]

Ritalin actually doesn't increase focus for people who aren't suffering from the disability it's used to treat, it generally has the opposite effect (which is why it's abused/used recreationally).
Except that universities had an epidemic of students abusing it to better their studying. UT had a highly publicized problem with it. It's effectiveness, of course, is in doubt, but the users testified it worked.

http://www.higheredcenter.org/pubs/factsheets/ritalin.html