|
Post by outlaw on Feb 23, 2007 23:56:28 GMT -4
Below is from WBAL. They tried this in Texas and ended up with throngs of kids sitting around drinking water, pretending they couldn't pee so they could miss class. I think any school personnel, parents or legislators who support this should be drug tested.
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- A bill calling for random drug and alcohol testing of school students in public and private schools is stirring a lot of debate and raising eyebrows among state legislators.
Drug and alcohol abuse during school hours has become a growing concern in districts across Maryland. State records indicate that more than 1,700 students were suspended from school last year for possession of drugs or alcohol on campus.
"I've seen kids smoking pot in the bathrooms before, and they do come into school drunk a lot," said an anonymous twelfth-grade student.
The bill would aim to eliminate that.
"It's random testing. As long as somebody has a threat of being tested, then maybe they will have an incentive not to get involved," said Sen. Nathaniel Exum of Prince George's County.
The random testing would be done by local school districts that would be required to train school staff to screen students in grades nine through 12.
Bill sponsors estimated that 3,000 tests a year would cost $232,000. State education officials said some federal money is available for testing.
An unscientific sampling of teenagers working as pages at the Statehouse said they liked the idea.
"I do believe it would make students become more responsible," said Hannah Akkerman, a twelfth-grader.
The bill would require that parents be notified well in advance. All records would be kept confidential. Bill supporters said they view random testing as being a big step toward intervention.
"It's best to get treatment if you can catch it on the front end rather than try to deal with it on the back end," Exum said.
A June 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling gave public schools the authority to test students for illegal drug use. Still, some legislators want to move carefully.
"I think that individuals have rights, and we have to make sure the rights of students are protected," said Sen. Verna Jones.
The bill acknowledged schools could incur legal fees associated with the testing.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 24, 2007 8:48:17 GMT -4
Can't think of a single random-anything that I agree with. If there's a problem, solve it, but not by randomly stopping/targetting/accusing/testing/searching anyone.
And no, I don't have a solution, but I don't like this one.
One thing I do agree with: legislators should set up a random drug testing program for themselves before they set one up for the students. It's far to easy to impose rules and restrictions on someone else when you know they won't apply to you.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Richter on Feb 24, 2007 9:49:03 GMT -4
The Constitution was written to protect us from the government, no other reason. We should train or children to stand up for their Constitutional rights, no matter what....... Unreasonable searches and seizures-Innocent until proven guilty-Burden of proof is on the accuser-Freedom of speech etc.etc.etc. Follow the money trail and you will see the problem with this phony war on drugs.
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 24, 2007 11:18:02 GMT -4
They'll tell us it's for everybody's safety and protection. If that's the case, we certainly don't want drunks and dopeheads driving over the bridge - why not randomly drug test people at the toll booths. I guess it's easier for the government to pick on kids.
|
|
|
Post by highlander73 on Feb 24, 2007 14:43:15 GMT -4
#1 - Once you send your kids to school with 100's of other kids it instantly becomes a community problem not a personal issue. One stoned kid, particularly influenced by today's TV/hip-hop/no consequences environment, could hurt dozens of YOUR children. How many instances of that do we need to see before you do something about it. Stop using the Constitution as the reason to excuse horrible behavior from our children, and their parents. #2 - I give this thread, like every other thread on this forum nowadays, about 10 more posts until it turns into a QA County Sheriff/police department bashing thread.
|
|
|
Post by highlander73 on Feb 24, 2007 14:46:32 GMT -4
They'll tell us it's for everybody's safety and protection. If that's the case, we certainly don't want drunks and dopeheads driving over the bridge - why not randomly drug test people at the toll booths. I guess it's easier for the government to pick on kids. No, it's better to make kids safe when they are not old enough, or have been told that, there are no consequences for their actions. If you children are clean then their should be nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 24, 2007 15:26:08 GMT -4
If you children are clean then their should be nothing to worry about. It's surprising how pissed off I get every time I hear this statement! How about: If you aren't breaking the law then there is no reason to worry about a cop following you. If you have nothing to hide then you won't mind the cop searching your car. If you haven't been drinking then you won't mind being stopped and submitting to a breathalyzer. If you haven't been doing drugs then you won't mind random drug testing in your workplace. If you aren't carrying something you shouldn't then you won't mind airport security searching your bags. If you have nothing to hide then you won't mind the police searching your house. If you have nothing to hide then you won't mind the Govt. listening to your phone calls. If you have nothing to hide then you won't mind the Govt. reading your emails. If you have nothing to hide then you won't mind the Govt. reading your mail. How about: If you don't have evidence that I've done something wrong, leave me the hell alone! And, since I'm not special, if there's no evidence that you've done anything wrong, they should leave you the hell alone too.
|
|
|
Post by heather on Feb 24, 2007 15:27:04 GMT -4
Hmmmm...I'm not sure where I stand with this one. However, it works fairly well as a preventative for those in the military as well as those whom hold security clearances.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 24, 2007 15:46:15 GMT -4
I believe it is used on those in the military as well as used on those with security clearances. I'm not sure it's effectiveness as a preventative has been proven.
But hey, let's say it is effective. I've heard there's major drug problem on the island, lwould anyone argue that the drug problem shouldn't be stopped at whatever cost? So let's have the police go door-to-door and search everyone's house. We'll start with yours. If you have nothing to hide then there's nothing to worry about.
Next, either the drugs are being manufactured here (in which case the searches will take care of the problem) or they're being transported here. We're in luck with this one, there are only two bridges onto the island. (We'll open the drawbridge to eliminate that one). So let's stop each and every car crossing the bridges and search them all for drugs. We'll stop them in both directions to make sure no one is smuggling evidence back off the island. If you aren't into drugs and have nothing to hide then there's nothing to worry about.
I'm pretty sure that would be effective at preventing drugs on the island. Will anyone argue that we shouldn't do all that we can to keep drugs off the island? Should we go this far?
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Feb 24, 2007 15:50:46 GMT -4
Highlander - there you go, only a matter of minutes before law enforcement and Federal Government were brought back into a school issue - I'm sure now that I said this, the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be brought up within the next five minutes
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 24, 2007 15:53:36 GMT -4
Ditto what Falgar said! Besides the fact that these tests are not always correct and the logistical nightmare of doing this to a lot of kids, there are always legal ramifications.
Testing for military and security clearances, bus drivers, etc. is not random. These are jobs that require clean records, and applicants know this. Anyone who supports random drug testing for students should not mind if their wife and kids are tested upon entering a supermarket and should be willing to submit to a drug test at a toll booth or anywhere else.
As for if my kid is clean I have nothing to worry about, that's nonsense. I worry about my kid missing class so she can drink water and try to pee in a cup while someone listens on the other side of the door. I worry about my tax dollars being wasted on this nonsense.
What did our founding fathers say - those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
|
|
|
Post by heather on Feb 24, 2007 15:53:51 GMT -4
Jeez...let's blow everything out of proportion! I'm not in the military but I do hold a clearance...come on over and search, you'll find nothing here. Even if I didn't have a clearance the same would hold true!
There is a drug problem here as there is everywhere these days. Perhaps nipping it in the bud in the schools will help stifle it later in life?
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 24, 2007 16:03:57 GMT -4
If this is only random testing of school kids and what I wrote is out of proportion, then what is in proportion?
One way to look at is that I'm not a school kid and don't have any kids in that school so hey, it doesn't affect me anyway so why worry about it? I believe that kind of apathy is being discussed in another thread.
If you want to open your house or body to a random search, OK. I don't choose to.
As for bringing in the Federal Govt and the constitution:
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 24, 2007 16:11:50 GMT -4
I don't see how random testing would nip anything in the bud. All it would do is create more bureaucracy - people to choose the test, design the pee cups, oversee the collections, a lab to perform the tests, doctors and social workers to deal with positive results, follow-ups, etc. But why wait until people are in school? We can begin testing everyone at birth, right there in the hospital, and continue until death. Many adults are on Prozac or Wellbutrin and put their kids on Ritalin, but I don't think they test for that.
|
|
|
Post by heather on Feb 24, 2007 16:12:17 GMT -4
One way to look at is that I'm not a school kid and don't have any kids in that school so hey, it doesn't affect me anyway so why worry about it? I believe that kind of apathy is being discussed in another thread. [/quote] As a matter of fact, my stepdaughter attends Stevensville M.S. and her sister will in a few years. Sorry...I'm done with this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 24, 2007 16:20:07 GMT -4
I'd like to know how many adults who support this hooey would be willing be tested themselves or have their friends and families tested at any time, for any reason.
|
|
|
Post by jake on Feb 24, 2007 16:46:01 GMT -4
you pple who think this would be a good idea, would you also agree that teen pregnancy/sex is a problem, and can be just as destructive; so we should allow the school nurse to randomly pull your daughters down to the office and do virginity test on them?
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 24, 2007 17:04:35 GMT -4
Jake - good analogy.
No takers for the drug test? Maybe all the supporters have lined up at the Health Department and are waiting to give their samples.
|
|
|
Post by highlander73 on Feb 24, 2007 19:34:37 GMT -4
All these responses and not a single alternative solution to the drug problem posted...shocking....from the same people as nearly every other issue.
Iraq war is a disaster...and no solution offered.
Sheriff's dept is a disaster...and no solution offered, other than to castrate deputies.
Drugs are a problem in our school...and no solution offered, though apparently enough creative thought went into the virginity analogy.
Random testing is a SOLUTION being proposed because the naysayers HAVE NO SOLUTION. Just like President Bush and the Iraq war - at least he's doing something. May not be optimal, but at least he's doing something.
And I'll repeat it again - when I send my kids to school with your kids it became OUR problem to solve. Stop acting like individual civil liberties trump the greater good - its a balance. A delicate balance, but a balance.
AND, stop pretending like children are adults and deserve the same liberties as such. They are CHILDREN and need guidance. If it weren't for the crappy parents and moral-less society they are exposed thru the TV/music/OTHER KIDS then we wouldn't need such sh&tty ways of trying to provide that guidance (like the random drug tests).
Let me ask - should they not put metal detectors in school either in the rougher areas of the country? You are being searched there as well. What about at the airport? I don't see anyone protesting that on this board. Not close to home enough?
Stop coddling your kids and teach them consequences. If nothing the "good" children just get their beliefs reinforced by the results of the "bad" children's actions, and learned something.
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Feb 24, 2007 23:13:30 GMT -4
And maybe the schools should perform some tests to determine whether the students should move to the next grade level Outlaw, wrong - Jakes is a terrible analogy. Someone elses daughter getting pregnant has no impact on my child - someone high or drunk in school could have an impact. I'm not necessarily for random testing, but unfortunately schools are now put in a position to look at extreme options due to kids getting out of hand - usually a result of poor parenting.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 24, 2007 23:48:56 GMT -4
highlander: register and I'll have a response to your post. I'll be the one standing up for metal detectors but against the fiasco at the airports.
shadow1: assuming you had a daughter - your daughter getting pregnant could affect me just as much as you not wearing your seatbelt, yet there's a law against that. I don't want a one-size-fits-all solution to any problem. Deal with the individuals involved, don't punish everyone. If there's a problem, solve it, but don't go fishing to find it. Those who break the law have forfeited many of their rights; those who have not broken the law should not have their rights taken away.
|
|
|
Post by shoreman on Feb 25, 2007 0:13:28 GMT -4
Don't think I'm for the random tests however, i am for the school having the right to give a kid a preliminary breath tester (PBT) to see if they have in fact been drinking. I don't think that test should be able to be used against the student criminally but I would think as a parent, they would want to know for 100% sure that their child was in fact using alcohol.
As for drugs, if the kid is acting wacked out and the little breath test shows a .00 which rules out alcohol, then I feel like the school has an obligation to call the parents and hopefully, a responsible parent would take the child to a doc for a blood test to see what's in the system.
As it stands right now, parents want the schools to basically raise their kids unless it comes down to the school having to discipline them, then all you know what breaks loose.
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Feb 25, 2007 0:39:15 GMT -4
Falgar, I'll go along with your response to me, however, I feel there are times extreme actions need to be taken or all h*ll breaks loose.
Not just for the safety or well being of the student who is high or drunk, but more importantly for those who aren't - but could be affected by those individuals.
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 25, 2007 0:59:58 GMT -4
Random drug testing is not a solution. It only creates further problems. Think about the difficulties of testing so many kids. They actually need people to monitor and make sure kids aren't getting samples from someone else. Who volunteers for this job? When the government continuously takes on responsibilities and rights of parents, it only serves to make lazy parents more irresponsible. There are any number of problems kids may have that cannot be solved in the public school forum. I don't want a nanny state.
I still don't see anyone who supports this agreeing to drug tests for themselves. It seems that forcing something asinine like this on kids lulls people into feeling like they're making a difference.
|
|
|
Post by highlander73 on Feb 25, 2007 1:18:23 GMT -4
highlander: register and I'll have a response to your post. What does that have to do with anything? I still don't see anyone who supports this agreeing to drug tests for themselves. That's because I already do get tested at my place of work.
|
|