Topic: drug testing
started by: lykosis
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 27 2002,18:10
sorry for the cut n paste..aka PARROT. but i'd really like to hear some thoughts on this...High Court Upholds School Drug Tests
Thu Jun 27,10:31 AM ET
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) ruled on Thursday that public middle and high schools can require drug tests for students in extracurricular activities such as choir or band without violating their privacy rights.
The high court by a 5-4 vote upheld a program in Oklahoma that required students who want to take part in after-school activities to submit to random urinalysis.
The tests, required without any suspicion of drug use, covered students in grades 7 to 12 who sign up for such activities as cheerleading, choir, band, the academic team and the Future Farmers of America club.
On the last day of their term, the justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that struck down the policy in the Tecumseh School District in Pottawatomie County for violating constitutional privacy protections against unreasonable searches.
"Because this policy reasonably serves the school district's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional," Justice Clarence Thomas ( news - web sites) said for the majority.
A student who refuses to take the test or who tests positive more than twice cannot take part in competition for the rest of the school year. Students are tested at the start of the school year and then randomly throughout the year, with names drawn every month.
RULING COULD BOOST SCHOOL DRUG TESTS
The ruling could boost school drug testing. Over the past three years, about 5 percent of schools nationwide have required drug tests for student athletes while about 2 percent have tested students in other extracurricular activities.
The Supreme Court adopted the position urged by the Bush administration in upholding the drug tests. At arguments, a Bush administration lawyer said a school could even test all of its students without violating their privacy rights.
The Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1995, when it ruled that public high schools and middle schools may force student athletes to submit to drug tests. The Oklahoma case covered extracurricular activities other than athletics.
In Tecumseh, a rural town about 40 miles (64 km) from Oklahoma City, two students challenged the policy after its adoption in 1998, claiming the school failed to show it had a problem with illegal drugs.
The school board defended the program and its authority to adopt tests to deter and combat drug use.
Of the more than 500 students tested while the program was in effect during part of two school years, only three students, all athletes, tested positive. Two of the athletes also participated in other extracurricular activities.
Justices John Paul Stevens ( news - web sites), Sandra Day O'Connor ( news - web sites), David Souter ( news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( news - web sites) dissented.
Ginsburg said the program was unreasonable, capricious and even "perverse" because it targets for testing a student population least likely to be at risk for illicit drugs and their damaging effects.
Posted by forumwhore on Jun. 27 2002,18:15
I will be highly amused when half a school's band tests positive and is shut down.... hehehehI think a lot of kids smoke pot and this whole thing could blow up in the adults' faces... heh again.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 27 2002,18:47
i have never failed a drug test.i was always able to fill the bottle without getting any on my hands...
Posted by joelthegreat on Jun. 27 2002,20:20
I am so for drug testing!!I mean with what's going on in the world today I want to make sure that my drugs are clean before I use them!!
Posted by demonk on Jun. 27 2002,22:10
Question: What happens if they find a student positive for something like nicotine? It's illegal to smoke if you are under 18, so would they punish the student? This is the biggest problem I've always had with drug test. They aren't enfoced uniformally. Some students get in trouble for using pot, while others (ie, star athletes) get away with real hard stuff like coke or worse. What's going to happen now? "Oh, don't join band if you smoke, they'll get you. Join the track team, they don't really care if you smoke".
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 28 2002,00:44
What if you have poppy seed bagels for breakfast? Those can create a false positive for all kinds of opiates.Just pray they don't institute hair testing. If you EVER did dugs since the last time you had your hair cut it can show up. If hair testing is implemented, I'm guessing the bald look will be "in" very soon for the youth of America.
"Did you shave your head to avoid the drug test, young man?"
"No sir! It makes me look like Vin Diesel! Check it out!"
Posted by forumwhore on Jun. 28 2002,01:22
It's just plain fascist!!
Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 28 2002,02:26
personally, I'm all for it. IMHO, student atheletes especially should be required.How exactly does it violate their rights? It's ILLEGAL. Those of you getting all holier than thou and offended about this are the same ones who were so vehemently outraged about the catholic priests molesting children. What if they did it in the privacy of thier homes or churches? Isn't investigating these crimes an invasion of their privacy?
Be consistent people. Drugs are illegal, I think all school-aged kids should be subject to random urinalysis, not just atheletes and those in extra-curricular activites.
Posted by Nikita on Jun. 28 2002,03:01
| Quote (Bozeman @ 27 June 2002,19:44) |
| What if you have poppy seed bagels for breakfast? Those can create a false positive for all kinds of opiates. "Did you shave your head to avoid the drug test, young man?" "No sir! It makes me look like Vin Diesel! Check it out!" |
Aw damnit, I love the poppy seed laden everything bagel ... with spicy red pepper cream cheese!
Hm, don't know if I'll look good with the G.I. Jane 'do.
Nah.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,03:07
is the drug test federally enforced, or is it just the employer's practice? if so, they have every right to require a drug test.
Posted by forumwhore on Jun. 28 2002,03:30
Beldurin, if I had any magic shrooms I would mail them to you for free and then you would know.You would understand the ineffable rapture I cannot describe.
And you'd test positive.
Even though you would not in the least be impaired driving to work a few hours later. Not a bit.
Your eyesight would also be measurably sharper for several hours.
The occasional psychedelic really cleans out the pipes; restores joy and interest in life.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 28 2002,16:13
they are using public funds, no?tax money to test 500 kids so you can catch 3 that are smoking pot. i dunno, seems like that money could be put to better use in our WONDERFUL *cough* public education system.
Posted by Beastie Dr on Jun. 28 2002,19:00
| Quote (Beldurin @ 27 June 2002,20:26) |
| What if they did it in the privacy of thier homes or churches? Isn't investigating these crimes an invasion of their privacy? |
You fuck. The point is whether it affects anyone else to sit in your room and smoke a joint. It does not. Smoke my pole.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 28 2002,20:03
| Quote (Beastie Dr @ 28 June 2002,11:00) | ||
You fuck. The point is whether it affects anyone else to sit in your room and smoke a joint. It does not. Smoke my pole. |
Beastie, I think your missing the point. Beldurin was pointing out the fact that the schools are checking students for illegal substances and that the process should be compared to other investigative processes. I'm all for locker checks, metal detectors, and drug tests in schools that have been shown to have problems with students breaking the law (and yes ...unfortunately no matter how much you enjoy the recreational drug use it is still not legal ...you are breaking the law and should be aware of the possible consciences of your actions and be adult enough to take responsibility for them). This way you can isolate the problem kids early on, before they can no longer be influenced by their parents and teachers and get thrown out onto society for the rest of us to deal with. I think that the less troubled youths will just get a slap on the wrist and continue on with their lives.
Posted by Beastie Dr on Jun. 28 2002,20:23
I snipped a little more off the quotes than I meant to, but he compared child abuse in the home of a priest to doing drugs at home. Thus, my point was valid.
Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 28 2002,21:01
No Beastie, you're wrong. Are you really that dense as to think that I would mean that literally? Wiley had it exactly right.Above was my first reply to this (I was at work, so I couldn't say much), below is my real response.
You're an idiot. Are you really that dense as to think that I would mean that literally? Wiley had it exactly right. I was discussing the LEGAL difference between the two, not the MORAL difference. Try to look at it rationally...just because you're a pothead doesn't make it legal.