Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LTnewsDawg

Dunce cap for school drug tests

Recommended Posts

LTnewsDawg

I was interested to see last month that the American Civil Liberties Union had filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Solanco School District student and her parents, challenging the district's drug-testing policy.The family said no, we don't want you randomly testing our 11-year-old middle schooler for dru...

 

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest daddyG
Anyway, my kid doesn't do drugs, so what's the big deal?

How many times has the nurse heard that from a parent as she sits there with a positive test?

 

As I stated before, the greatest result of testing is for the kids to say no to drugs. They don't want to lose their place on the team or in the band or on the cheer squad. If it is only $5k per year for one kid to say no to drugs, we can easily find a corporate sponsor for the cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarlDelos

How many times has the nurse heard that from a parent as she sits there with a positive test?

 

As I stated before, the greatest result of testing is for the kids to say no to drugs. They don't want to lose their place on the team or in the band or on the cheer squad. If it is only $5k per year for one kid to say no to drugs, we can easily find a corporate sponsor for the cash.

 

There are 93,500 kids in Lancaster County between the ages of 6 and 18. At $5,000 each, that'd be $467 million.

 

If you can easily find a corporate sponsor for that, the GOP oughta be running you for President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jasman1017

Gil makes a good point that the kids in activities might be the least likely to use drugs and therefore shouldn't have to submit to testing. However drug testing is a convenient excuse kids can use when the parent excuse runs out. It used to be that kids could use their parents as the excuse to not use drugs, but one more excuse for a kid to not experiment with drugs is worthwhile in my book. $5,000-$6,000 per district is a drop in the bucket of a school's budget. $6,000 divided by the number of tax dollars people are paying isn't even worth talking about. Drug testing does more good than harm and it is pretty darn cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citydweller

In 2010, USA Today reported on a major study showing that while "fewer kids in extracurricular activities reported using drugs when testing took place, compared with peers in schools where drug testing hadn't been implemented," testing didn't discourage the kids who weren't involved in extracurriculars.

 

"Perhaps most troubling: Testing had no effect on kids' plans to use drugs in the future," the paper reported. "About one in three students said they 'probably' or 'definitely' will use drugs in the next year."

 

So if random drug testing isn't even keeping the high-achievers off drugs past the end of football or band season — what's the point?

Amen brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jasman1017

In 2010, USA Today reported on a major study showing that while "fewer kids in extracurricular activities reported using drugs when testing took place, compared with peers in schools where drug testing hadn't been implemented," testing didn't discourage the kids who weren't involved in extracurriculars.

 

"Perhaps most troubling: Testing had no effect on kids' plans to use drugs in the future," the paper reported. "About one in three students said they 'probably' or 'definitely' will use drugs in the next year."

 

So if random drug testing isn't even keeping the high-achievers off drugs past the end of football or band season — what's the point?

Amen brother.

Gil should keep in mind the kids surveyed were responding about future actions. I recall taking surveys like this in school and adjusting my answers based on what I thought was cool at the time or EXPECT of kids at the time. I'd say drug use and experimentation has gotten so pervasive that kids who have not used drugs would actually answer "likely" or "probably" when they might NEVER actually use them in the future. He lumped "probably" in with "definitely" in his 1/3 of kids statement. There's a big difference between those two terms. That's not a very good fact from which to draw conclusions, unless you already agree with that conclusion -- then, of course the fact only supports what you already believed and seems valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest daddyG

Let's not forget the ultimate goal since we are quoting studies:

 

According to Drug-Aware.com, “A survey showed that 9% of 13 year olds and over a quarter (27%) of 15 year olds had used an illegal drug at some stage in their lives.â€

 

The National Center for Victims of Crimes has stated that “More than half of all the people arrested in the United States test positive for illegal drugs.â€

 

It would be a bargain price at $5,000 per year to keep kids off drugs and possibly out of the expensive criminal justice system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citydweller

It would be a bargain price at $5,000 per year to keep kids off drugs and possibly out of the expensive criminal justice system.

 

It's no bargain at all if the true cost is tossing one more piece of the Constitution and Bill of Rights out the window. This system operates under the premise of "guilty until proven innocent", and children who refuse to prove their innocence, of something they haven't even been formally accused of, are punished.

 

How would you feel if ordinary adults, with no criminal record, were to be put under watch randomly as a formal "precaution" under the law, just to make sure they weren't doing anything wrong? Perhaps random pee tests to be allowed to get on the turnpike?

 

Sorry man, but this is way wrong, and a big step in a very bad direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

It's no bargain at all if the true cost is tossing one more piece of the Constitution and Bill of Rights out the window. This system operates under the premise of "guilty until proven innocent", and children who refuse to prove their innocence, of something they haven't even been formally accused of, are punished.

 

How would you feel if ordinary adults, with no criminal record, were to be put under watch randomly as a formal "precaution" under the law, just to make sure they weren't doing anything wrong? Perhaps random pee tests to be allowed to get on the turnpike?

 

Sorry man, but this is way wrong, and a big step in a very bad direction.

 

Does it? Students are required to maintain a certain grade to be eligible to play games and they are tested to prove they have attained that grade. They are also required to be drug free and testing them to ensure they are indeed is no different than testing their level of math skills. Both are required to play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

I have to say that in my day the most frequent users of drugs and alcohol were the athletes. I have a hard time imagining that today is any different. When you went to a party the majority of those in attendance were on some team or another. Just sayin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest daddyG
How would you feel if ordinary adults, with no criminal record, were to be put under watch randomly as a formal "precaution" under the law

Had to have medical screen and drug test before getting hired for a job. Random drug tests every month. Required by federal regulations at one of my businesses. Welcome to the real world.

 

If you feel drugs are more important then extra curricular activities or your job, then by all means toke up and enjoy your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Does it? Students are required to maintain a certain grade to be eligible to play games and they are tested to prove they have attained that grade. They are also required to be drug free and testing them to ensure they are indeed is no different than testing their level of math skills. Both are required to play the game.

 

But you have to pass a test to drive a car. By the same logic, shouldn't you require that everyone be subject random drug tests to drive?

 

I'm a lot more threatened by impaired drivers than I am by an 11 year old showing up at the Math Bowl feeling a little spaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

I have to say that in my day the most frequent users of drugs and alcohol were the athletes. I have a hard time imagining that today is any different. When you went to a party the majority of those in attendance were on some team or another. Just sayin

 

When I was in school it was the college bound whiz kids who got high. The jocks drank alcohol. They still do. Truth be told, you can still get falling down drunk on Saturday night, and piss crystal clear Monday morning. But if you were in the same room as someone hitting a bong, you might be in trouble come Monday. So one of the things that random drug screens do is encourage the use of alcohol as an inebriant.

 

So imagine a kid who's smoked a joint a few times. He goes out for track, does well, but then one Friday night takes a few tokes. Well, shit. If he shows up for the meet Monday, he might have to piss in a bottle. And if he does, he's burnt in so many ways. So he doesn't.

 

One unintended consequence of a testing policy is that it keeps out of extracurricular activity some kids who could really benefit from the structure and involvement in some school activity. But pissing in a bottle keeps him from being involved in anything at school except partying. Nothing like turning people into outcasts early in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarlDelos

Had to have medical screen and drug test before getting hired for a job. Random drug tests every month. Required by federal regulations at one of my businesses. Welcome to the real world.

 

If you feel drugs are more important then extra curricular activities or your job, then by all means toke up and enjoy your life.

 

You're right. We ought to conduct body cavity searches of everyone making a purchase in a supermarket, convenience store, or fast food restaurant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

But you have to pass a test to drive a car. By the same logic, shouldn't you require that everyone be subject random drug tests to drive?

 

I'm a lot more threatened by impaired drivers than I am by an 11 year old showing up at the Math Bowl feeling a little spaced.

 

Newsflash. You are randomly checked for drugs or alcohol when driving. Maybe you have never been checked but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Checkpoints, traffic stops for crossing the line, etc................... That's part of the deal when you choose to drive in that you subject yourself to being monitored as they see fit. They being those that enforce the rules. With driving it is officers of the law and with school athletics it is the school administrators.

 

Again you pick and choose which rules you like and don't like and that drives your decision to support enforcement of said rules. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with that kind of thinking coming from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

When I was in school it was the college bound whiz kids who got high. The jocks drank alcohol. They still do. Truth be told, you can still get falling down drunk on Saturday night, and piss crystal clear Monday morning. But if you were in the same room as someone hitting a bong, you might be in trouble come Monday. So one of the things that random drug screens do is encourage the use of alcohol as an inebriant.

 

So imagine a kid who's smoked a joint a few times. He goes out for track, does well, but then one Friday night takes a few tokes. Well, shit. If he shows up for the meet Monday, he might have to piss in a bottle. And if he does, he's burnt in so many ways. So he doesn't.

 

One unintended consequence of a testing policy is that it keeps out of extracurricular activity some kids who could really benefit from the structure and involvement in some school activity. But pissing in a bottle keeps him from being involved in anything at school except partying. Nothing like turning people into outcasts early in life.

 

Those you speak of are already outcasts and that will likely never change. Blame their parents not those who are trying to help them get their shit straight before they end up in jail or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Newsflash. You are randomly checked for drugs or alcohol when driving. Maybe you have never been checked but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Checkpoints, traffic stops for crossing the line, etc................... That's part of the deal when you choose to drive in that you subject yourself to being monitored as they see fit. They being those that enforce the rules. With driving it is officers of the law and with school athletics it is the school administrators.

 

Ain't had the pleasure of that kind of random check. This program you speak of, where they randomly pull everybody over and make them piss in a bottle, why I ain't even heard of that. They do that around here?

 

 

Again you pick and choose which rules you like and don't like and that drives your decision to support enforcement of said rules. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with that kind of thinking coming from you.

 

Or maybe the rules wouldn't effect me personally at all, but I just stand up for what I believe is right, and what is best for the kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Those you speak of are already outcasts and that will likely never change. Blame their parents not those who are trying to help them get their shit straight before they end up in jail or worse.

 

So all those athletes you say were the party animals were a bunch of fuck-ups, and still are. Man, you must have gone to a rough school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

Ain't had the pleasure of that kind of random check. This program you speak of, where they randomly pull everybody over and make them piss in a bottle, why I ain't even heard of that. They do that around here?

 

 

 

 

Or maybe the rules wouldn't effect me personally at all, but I just stand up for what I believe is right, and what is best for the kids.

 

Of course they do. You just ignore it because you either have never worked hard enough in your life to look like death warmed over at the end of the day and were lucky enough to never be pulled over in such a state or have never gotten behind the wheel after having a couple or hitting the bowl before going for a cruise. I'm thinking both but who knows.

 

I see.........it's okay to tell the kids it's okay to partake in things that can kill you or others because it's your right to destroy your own life. BTW kids......have a ball playing soccer while you're at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

So all those athletes you say were the party animals were a bunch of fuck-ups, and still are. Man, you must have gone to a rough school.

 

We aren't talking about the same kids. You know that but you choose to twist it. Have fun with that............I'm not biting. Play your save the world game one poor druggie at a time. I could give a damn. When you read about some screw up killing him and his buddies because he was high on something you'll cry the blues for him and his family on here. Remember this argument you made when you are feeling sorry for them. People like you caused it.

 

No one gets hurt or inconvenienced by this testing but many can be hurt by not testing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Of course they do. You just ignore it because you either have never worked hard enough in your life to look like death warmed over at the end of the day and were lucky enough to never be pulled over in such a state or have never gotten behind the wheel after having a couple or hitting the bowl before going for a cruise. I'm thinking both but who knows.

 

Yes, I've never worked a day in my life (how'd you know), and honestly, I've never driven high or drinking. But what does how you appear have to do with random tests.

 

They aren't singling out kids with fuzzy eyeballs or kids who are giggling at their erasers, they are randomly testing everyone. If they were apllying that same standard to drivers, then they wouldn't be looking for suspicion. They would just pull you over, at random, and tell you to piss in a bottle or lose your license on the spot. And, of course, do it often enough that everyone would get tagged at least once a season.

 

I see.........it's okay to tell the kids it's okay to partake in things that can kill you or others because it's your right to destroy your own life. BTW kids......have a ball playing soccer while you're at it.

 

So, if we don't randomly test kids in any extracurricular activity for drugs (but not alcohol), then we are telling them that drugs are OK.

 

And you say that these are things "that can kill you or others". Well hell, then we should randomly test every student. Otherwise, we're telling them it's OK.

 

Hell, shouldn't that apply to adults too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

We aren't talking about the same kids. You know that but you choose to twist it. Have fun with that............I'm not biting. Play your save the world game one poor druggie at a time. I could give a damn. When you read about some screw up killing him and his buddies because he was high on something you'll cry the blues for him and his family on here. Remember this argument you made when you are feeling sorry for them. People like you caused it.

 

No one gets hurt or inconvenienced by this testing but many can be hurt by not testing them.

 

What do you mean we're not talking about the same kids? How the hell would you know that? Are you still in high school? Don't athletes drink anymore? Don't people go to parties?

 

But if it's that bad, how about everybody pisses in a bottle a couple times a year. That's the only way we can be safe, eh. And hells bells, we need a test for alcohol that will pick it up 72 hours after consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citydweller

No one gets hurt or inconvenienced by this testing but many can be hurt by not testing them.

 

Does that work the same with motorcycle helmets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

Does that work the same with motorcycle helmets?

 

People don't get hurt because they were not wearing a helmet. They get hurt because they made a mistake or someone else made a mistake. Wearing a helmet has nothing to do with it. Don't crash and you don't have to worry about it. I don't worry about it either way. I've crashed with a helmet on twice and at a pretty high rate of speed one of them and my head never hit a damn thing. With or without a helmet others aren't in danger either.

 

The same can't be said about teens on drugs can it? I can rattle off a number of kids I went to school with who were habitual drug users and are either dead, have committed felonies, or have hurt others with their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

Yes, I've never worked a day in my life (how'd you know), and honestly, I've never driven high or drinking. But what does how you appear have to do with random tests.

 

They aren't singling out kids with fuzzy eyeballs or kids who are giggling at their erasers, they are randomly testing everyone. If they were apllying that same standard to drivers, then they wouldn't be looking for suspicion. They would just pull you over, at random, and tell you to piss in a bottle or lose your license on the spot. And, of course, do it often enough that everyone would get tagged at least once a season.

 

 

 

So, if we don't randomly test kids in any extracurricular activity for drugs (but not alcohol), then we are telling them that drugs are OK.

 

And you say that these are things "that can kill you or others". Well hell, then we should randomly test every student. Otherwise, we're telling them it's OK.

 

Hell, shouldn't that apply to adults too?

 

How's that crack treating you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

How's that crack treating you?

 

Fine, except for the hemorrhoids.

 

Why do you ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest daddyG
but I just stand up for what I believe is right, and what is best for the kids.

Keeping kids away from drugs is not best for the kids? That is the point I am making, these test actually help kids stay away from drugs. That is a good thing.

 

So imagine a kid who's smoked a joint a few times. He goes out for track, does well, but then one Friday night takes a few tokes. Well, shit. If he shows up for the meet Monday, he might have to piss in a bottle. And if he does, he's burnt in so many ways. So he doesn't.

That is the point. The punishment is severe so he doesn't want to take a few tokes. That is the message. How would taking a few tokes help him? Why should he want to do that? Start teaching kids right from wrong early and you may be amazed how much better our society turns out down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Keeping kids away from drugs is not best for the kids? That is the point I am making, these test actually help kids stay away from drugs. That is a good thing.

 

You are working from the assumption that all these kids in Chess Club would all be doing drugs if not for the testing. Why would that be true?. Though no doubt the testing is keeping some kids away from extracurricular activities. And the testing does not even address the most widely used and arguably most dangerous drug, alcohol.

 

So what have you changed with testing? Kids that want to get high will drink alcohol. Kids that want to smoke a joint will not participate in activities that they would probably benefit them. And kids that did something impulsive, like taking a bong hit on Saturday night, will also be excluded. If anything, all you are accomplishing with random testing is excluding a portion of the student body, encouraging anti-social attitudes, and favoring alcohol use.

 

 

That is the point. The punishment is severe so he doesn't want to take a few tokes. That is the message. How would taking a few tokes help him? Why should he want to do that? Start teaching kids right from wrong early and you may be amazed how much better our society turns out down the road.

 

Yes, teach a kid right from wrong. Sure.

 

But my argument is that the punishment does more damage than the behavior it is meant to address. Not every kid who smokes a joint is going to be a career criminal, an anti-social deviant who will never contribute to society. Wouldn't it get strangely quiet if everyone who ever smoked a joint in high school was excluded from commenting on this board.

 

So why exclude every kid who smokes a joint from participating in high school society. All you are doing is fostering anti-social behavior by turning the kid into a pariah. And then there are the at-risk kids who would greatly benefit from some link to productive activities. I don't want to write them off.

 

And what is the danger? We are not talking about kids who come to band practice loaded. We are talking about a kid who might have smoked a joint on the weekend being excluded from school activities.

 

I worked an in-patient program adolescents with drug and alcohol problems for a number of years. And I also taught classes for court adjudicated under age drinking offenders. They were mostly good kids, impulsive as are all kids. There were kids from the suburbs, kids from the cities, farm kids and preppies and hippies and nerds. Very few of them were addicts or alcoholics at that point in their lives. Very few of them would go on to be alcoholics and addicts. And I doubt very many of them would be deterred from making an impulsive decision because they might lose their spot in the Glee Club.

 

And yet, with pissing in a bottle, many of them might find themselves then facing a lifetime of diminished chances (extra-curriculars look good on a college application) because of an impulsive and most of the time fairly harmless decision. It impresses me as draconian and pointless, and more likely to do much more damage than good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gp80mac

You are working from the assumption that all these kids in Chess Club would all be doing drugs if not for the testing. Why would that be true?. Though no doubt the testing is keeping some kids away from extracurricular activities. And the testing does not even address the most widely used and arguably most dangerous drug, alcohol.

 

 

And yet, with pissing in a bottle, many of them might find themselves then facing a lifetime of diminished chances (extra-curriculars look good on a college application) because of an impulsive and most of the time fairly harmless decision. It impresses me as draconian and pointless, and more likely to do much more damage than good.

 

Actions have consequences. The earlier they learn that - the better. What happens when they get a decent job and have to piss in a bottle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
culturalinfidel

Actions have consequences. The earlier they learn that - the better. What happens when they get a decent job and have to piss in a bottle?

 

They could always choose to get a job that doesn't require pissing in a bottle. Can kids choose to attend public schools that don't require them to piss in a bottle?

 

Later...CI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...