♦ nivek ♦ Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Forced by economic circumstances to send elBeasto to PublIK skuLLe.. He is instructed to at any circumstance call me in the event of anything but normal instruction given by the teachers or admin. Detention, suspention, piss tests, or even a serious talking-to from the Principle, Beastie and/or his daily proctors will have me at his side before anything is done. In the case of a piss test? fuckers better have Probable Cause and a fucing good Warrant. Trust the mean_old_fatman, Beatie's legal represenative will be there.. Only winners in this shit are the lawyers billing services.. k, mad as a mean_old_man can be, L. ************ Here's Your Cup, Junior by Paul Armentano Students from Paradise, Calif., to Pequannock, N.J., are turning in more than just their homework this school year. At the behest of the White House, tens of thousands of middle and high school students are required to randomly submit their urine to school authorities – and it's America's taxpayers who are footing the bill. Though promoted as a "silver bullet" in the Bush administration's efforts to curb teen drug use, the reality of random student drug testing is far less flattering. Student drug testing without suspicion is ineffective, costly and opens a "Pandora's Box" of serious ethical questions. That's according to the only federally commissioned study ever to assess the efficacy of student drug testing on a national basis. The study, conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, found no difference in the level of illegal drug use between students in schools that test for illicit drugs and those in schools that do not. "Drug testing of students in schools does not deter use," said the University of Michigan news release summarizing the findings of the four-year study, which was later published in the Journal of School Health. "At each grade level studied – 8, 10 and 12 – the investigators found virtually identical rates of drug use in schools that have drug testing and the schools that do not." More recently, a comprehensive review by Britain's distinguished Joseph Rowntree Foundation also gave student drug testing a failing grade. Their report noted that objective evidence supporting the effectiveness of random student drug testing is "remarkably thin" and warned that the policy could do greater harm than good. That's because student drug testing "undermine trust between pupils and staff" and in some cases "encourage pupils to switch from [the] use of cannabis ... that can be traced a relatively long time after use, to drugs that are cleared from the body much more quickly, including heroin." In other words, if you're looking for a surefire way to persuade little Johnny to switch from pot to binge drinking or crank, look no further than student drug testing. Experts also warn that suspending students from participating in extracurricular activities for failing or refusing to take a drug test may cause teens undue and long-term harm. According to professor Howard Taras, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on School Health: "[Drug] screening may decrease involvement in extracurricular activities among students who regularly use or have once used drugs. Without such engagement in healthy activities, adolescents are more likely to drop out of school, become pregnant, join gangs, pursue substance abuse and engage in other risky behaviors." Disturbingly, the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to these concerns. This spring, the administration sponsored a series of regional symposiums to encourage public school districts nationwide to enact random, student drug testing. The White House also proposed increasing federal funding for student drug testing programs by more than 150 percent – the bulk of which is earmarked to pay for the implementation of local student drug testing programs at taxpayers' expense. To date, Congress has raised barely a whisper about the administration's record funding request. Most recently, politicians refused to debate an amendment to the House Labor and Education appropriations bill that sought to scale back the administration's proposed expansion of the program. Congress and the White House would be best advised to abandon the policy altogether. Random drug testing of students is a humiliating, invasive practice that runs contrary to the principles of due process. It compels teens to potentially submit evidence against themselves and forfeit their privacy rights as necessary requirements for attending school. Rather than presuming our school children innocent of illicit activity, drug testing without suspicion presumes them guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Is this truly the message the Bush administration wishes to send to America's young people? Students should not be taught that they must abandon their constitutional liberties at the school door or that they must submit to an invasion of their privacy because those in Washington are willing to write off an entire generation of students as potential criminals in their overzealous "war" on drugs. October 12, 2005LinkaDink Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC. This article was originally published in the Washingon Examiner. Copyright © 2005 Washingon Examiner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Java Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 There is no damn way that's constitutional. It's against search and seizure. More I read, more determined I become to homeschool, 'least for the beginning. I figure, when my child can read "Ender's Game" s/he can go to public school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I can certainly see if for different jobs, but then you sign a consent form prior to employment that you won't do drugs. For kids? No, don't see how that is right. I could see maybe a PARENT consenting to have thier kid randomly tested though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 But then the parent can buy a test to drug test their children from the grocery store. There is no need for the government to get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 But then the parent can buy a test to drug test their children from the grocery store. There is no need for the government to get involved. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They can? Cool, didn't know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Yep, Krogers here have them stocked, as well as does most drug stores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 "Better have a warrant in hand" is what was told the SkuLLe Admins. Period If illicit drug use is a suspected problem, then as the fucking parent I am totally responsible for what my fucking child does. Any boneheaded bullshit done? the Admins sure aren't paying the Kort costs, fees, assements and costs that are derived from my kids actions. The sooner we as a People stop this assault on our Parental rights and Abilities, the quicker this kind of sheepish invasion of our lives stops. Want Freedom? Then you better fracking give it to your kids. We don't live just for our lives, but what we give to our inheritors. My son, my only child, will earn from me an attitude and desire of Freedom.. Live Free.. or piss on demand. kevin, mean_fracking_old_man, L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 There is no damn way that's constitutional. It's against search and seizure. [sarcasm] Haven't you heard? America is not a country based on the constitution anymore. Our spiritual leader that was elected by God, is leading the country to a theocracy, because this country was founded on the Bible, and not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I hate the idea too. That it is mandated by the government I believe is unconstitutional. However, I must add that the rules of search and seizure are not the same between an educational agent and a law enforcement agent. Basically, it's that difference that lets a school security officer search students' lockers, probable cause or warrent need not apply. Heck, a principal can even order a student to reveal the contents of a purse of bag with just mere suspicion. (NJ v. TLO) But I would say that drug testing would be a whole new court case altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Khan qouth: However, I must add that the rules of search and seizure are not the same between an educational agent and a law enforcement agent. Brian... If you should ever be required to be searched, for any reason, I hope you have your shit in a bag, or the number of your attorney handy. Quoting case law from a minor Kort is not the Law, nor does it trump the 4th and 5th amendments. Do not under any circumstances allow anyone in Goobermint access to things you hold as private, period. Shut your mouth, keep your wallet tight, and admit to nothing. If you don't understand "Probable Cause", then bone up at it here: lis-LEAF, Learning About Freedom Electronically Don't bleat amigo, its unbecoming a Human.. k, mean_old_man and perfesshunal sonofabitch, L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts