Drugs are bad, m'kay.Follow

The article goes on to say that the Surpeme Court has already ruled that random testing for sports/activities are legal, but nothing has ever been done before with parking. Personally, I feel that the whole thing is overstepping their bounds. If the students were having these extras taken away for being stoned at school, then that would be fine, but I feel that they shouldnt be punished for what they choose to do in their own time.

Even though the drugs are illegal, as long as they are being used off of school property and after the student is released from the school, why is it the schools problem? The school would no longer be considered the parent in absentia, so why are they able to now police the childs time outside of the schools jurisdiction?


The other issue with this is that all this new policy does is further remove any responsibility from the parents to care for their children. First parents were able to sit their kids in front of the television/video game system and expect the electronics to raise the kids. Once the children started acting out, the parents were able to blame the TV/video game for making their child that way, since the parent had no hand in rearing.

Now the parents will not have to be responsible for talking to their child about the dangers of substance abuse, because the school will do all of the testing. And if one of these kids manages to get a DUI or arrested for buying drugs, then the parents will most likely sue the school for not catching the problem and taking care of it.

Its bound to happen soon enough.

So basically they are isolating the ones that drive for substance abuse, which in turn can help prevent DUI, etc etc. Great idea but like you said, once again parents are getting away with not having to raise their kids. Have the school systems "raised" children so much in the past that they are now catching the backlash of poor parenting? If the schools don't do it know who will!?

http://www.boomerbible.com/



buy it. you won't be disappointed I promise you.

He is not saying that all students in every school that do not participate in activities are druggies. He is saying (or at least how I interpret it) that the students that now opt out of activities that they used to take part in will be known to the administration of the school as drug users.

The sad part is that, at least at this school, many other people, like your friends, will be labeled as such simply because they choose not to take part in the activities that would require them to yield to the testings.

...Further putting people into a stereotypical category for ridicule and focus as a minority vs. a majority. GG Milford High!



Yea, that's just not how I interpreted it. It should've read "will not apply for those priviledges any longer [...]" to clarify, I saw it as non-actives being viewed as druggies. Although I understand the point being the other way. Definately sucks for those that fall under that stereotyped category, though.

Ambrya, no one is arguing that the school shouldn't have the right to act punitively against a student who is impaired on school grounds, this measuer impacts those who would use outside of school, as well. Get with the program.

And poor marks isn't enough?

Again, I don't think anyone is saying a school shouldn't be allowed to punish students who are high on school grounds, that's pretty obvious, but what if the student is smoking a spliff on the weekend? He shouldn't be allowed in the band/choir/athletics/chess-team/parking lot? Again, just a symtpom of a society that likes to enforce morality.

The DUI analogy is flawed, too, because again, nobody is saying a kid can come to school under the influence.

FTFY

I know I was. Also remember toking up with the other saxophones in our Jazz Band while in Albany for state competition.

Glad we agree.

You think it's a prerequisite of a profesional occupation to be randomly drug tested? I never have been, and wouldn't be short of an injury on the job. I just don't see the need to add extra consequences to an behaviour that is already pretty thoroughly addressed. How does limiting the activities somehow improve the situation for the using youth? I thought it was an accepted thing that kids who participate in extra-curricular activities are less likely to use, as they are generally busier and more connected with their lives. Sounds counter-productive.

Edited, Jul 21st 2006 at 1:55pm EDT by Barkingturtle

Since when has it ever been the job of a Teacher or School system to monitor drug usage outside of school? I'll tell you when...never. It's like a school counselor butting their nose into someones private life at home without consent or a request to do so. It's like a teacher personally having a responsibility to a childs well being outside of school hours. It's not logical, nor proper.

And I'll tell you right now, drug testing teenagers is not going to stop them from doing drugs. If someone doesn't understand the negative effects of something, then why the hell should they stop? We aren't talking about educating the kids about and against drugs, we're simply talking about reprimanding them for using them.

You can hit a dog in the *** with a newspaper 1,001 times for pissin' on the rug. But if you're only doing that, sooner or later that dogs gonna turn around and bite your fucking face off.

Edited, Jul 21st 2006 at 2:17pm EDT by Ryneguy