Do you support drug tests for students?

[rambone]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

 

[level.eleven]

Students : "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all*."

Teacher : Good job class. Now we will need all to form a single file line and report to the state mandated extraction station. You will each be required to drop your pants while an agent of the state watches you urinate into a cup. Your urine will be subject to a battery of tests in which the state will conclude if you have smoked marijuana within the past 30 days. Good luck class.

*Must be 18 years old. Not available in some states. Void where prohibited.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

As I recall, my home county (Rush County) was the first in the nation to institute random drug testing of students who participated in extra-curricular activities which included all sports, clubs, and driving to school. I believe the random testing included drugs as well as alcohol and nicotine. One of the students sued the school and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court as I remember with the result being the school could do this.

The punishment was never expulsion from school, only from the extracurricular activity and counseling. At the time I didn't have a problem so much with it, but was more peeved that it was only done on the students not the coaches, sponsors, teachers, and administrators who ran the extracurricular activities. I felt that the rationale used to support student testing should work for "teacher" testing.

Today, I don't think it's proper from a perspective of personal rights, but I do know that it kept many an athlete from using drugs and even drinking for fear of being kicked off the team. I don't believe I'd support the continued testing today for any student. I'd also add that many of the students who used drugs (other than nicotine and alcohol) however didn't participate in extracurricular activities for the most part anyway so it did nothing to affect them.

Generally speaking, those same persons didn't disrupt my learning experience because I was taking AP classes or advanced level classes of which most of them could care less about. For me it boiled down to the fact that I wanted to learn and be successful. I did that with the disruptions when they occurred and moved on. My parents cared, my teachers cared, and I cared. Most everything was just a speed bump quickly passed over and forgotten.

This random drug testing of students is another form of social engineering. Social engineering doesn't work because it puts the burden of success on the social system and decouples it from the individual. When the individual has no tie to the repercussions of their act and "blames" the system for their current state, we end up with a need to increase the social engineering, increase the power of the system, and further separate the individual from their own sense of personal responsibility. I would not trade drugless schools for mindless automatons who rely wholly on the government to provide an environment which will provide them all their needs. Random drug testing of schools => more social engineering => supports modern liberal ideology and rationale => totalitarian regime => no freedom or liberty. This is not a good trade in the end.

 

[ocsdor]

Instead of drug testing kids in order to rid the school of bad students, how about just rid the school of bad students in the first place.

I'd hate to see the life of a straight-A student be ruined because he (or she) decided to try pot for once and/or went to a music concert with pot smoke filling the stadium and, therefore, the student's lungs and getting nailed on the drug test.

 

[gunfun101]

Instead of drug testing kids in order to rid the school of bad students, how about just rid the school of bad students in the first place.

I'd hate to see the life of a straight-A student be ruined because he (or she) decided to try pot for once and/or went to a music concert with pot smoke filling the stadium and, therefore, the student's lungs and getting nailed on the drug test.

I couldn't agree more. Even if the student isn't suspended, the stigma of being a drug user could ruin an excellent student for making one bad mistake.

 

[Prometheus]

Parenting problem for sure.

Way too many people look to government (in this case public schools) to raise their kids. Adding another layer of "the school deals with it, so I don't have to watch little johnny" isn't going to help anything.

No I do NOT support drug testing of k-12.

I would support drug testing for those on welfare however. If they have money for illegal drugs, they don't need taxpayer money to buy food IMO. Same could go for college PELL grants as well IMO.

Regular student loans, no.

There is a better option. Legalize personal use pot and sell it like alcholol and cigaretes. That alone would cut down on under age useage. Or at least cut down on middle school useage anyway.

 

[melensdad]

Parenting problem for sure.

Agreed 100%.

Now for a follow up. If my little Johnny is abusing drugs and is disruptive to your little Susie preventing her from concentrating on the school work, and there is no policy in place to bounce little Johnny out of the classroom then at what point are YOUR rights as a parent infringed upon by MY lack of parenting skills?

Bear in mind that most schools will not eject a kid from the classroom for being disruptive unless it is so disruptive that it distracts the whole class. Even then, the kid will be right back the next day and the next and the next . . .

 

[bigus_D]

...
I would support drug testing for those on welfare however. If they have money for illegal drugs, they don't need taxpayer money to buy food IMO. Same could go for college PELL grants as well IMO.
...

A HUGE +1

I'd even say that they should be tested for nicoteen! You shouldn't get to buy smokes if you are buying food on my dime.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

At some point mommy and daddy need to tell little Susie life isn't fair, grow some thick skin, and ignore it. We had lots of trouble makers in school which disrupted me and the entire class. Sometimes they got bounced, sometimes they didn't. My parents told me to focus, study hard, and do well (basically work with what I had). Sure they complained to school and the teacher which sometimes helped, but I learned real soon that I start by controlling myself and what is within my zone of control. Get that taken care of first, then go after everything else.

Most people and parents don't want to go through trouble getting self discipline down first. They'd rather the whole world shape up first and then deal with themselves last. We need to stop looking to socially engineer the problem out of the system by degrading others rights. The trade isn't worth it. Maybe little Johnny would have turned out better if his crappy parents had learned to deal with the harsh realities of life and failure rather than being nannyed by the state to the point of helplessness.

Agreed 100%.

Now for a follow up. If my little Johnny is abusing drugs and is disruptive to your little Susie preventing her from concentrating on the school work, and there is no policy in place to bounce little Johnny out of the classroom then at what point are YOUR rights as a parent infringed upon by MY lack of parenting skills?

Bear in mind that most schools will not eject a kid from the classroom for being disruptive unless it is so disruptive that it distracts the whole class. Even then, the kid will be right back the next day and the next and the next . . .

 

[melensdad]

But there is a huge and GROWING problem of parents who do not care. If they don't do their job then little Susie, who may have good grades today, but may not have good parents, could easily stray.

Bear in mind all of you who suggest that this is an invasion of privacy, it is NOT any such thing according to our court system. The same court that you all support for gun rights in Heller is the court that said drug testing kids does not violate their rights. So we need to move beyond that argument because it will not hold water.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Just because a court of law says something is right or ok does not make it so. Maybe Susie's parents should home school her as opposed to arming the state with the power to intrude into their lives.

Let's assume Johnny is on drugs and those same drugs are causing problems within the school system. Report him to the police and the parents to child protective services. There are already far reaching and invasive systems designed to deal with the root problem bad parents and illegal drug use.

The next argument would be that the school system should install cameras in parents home to monitor their child rearing capabilities. Where does it and should it end? If Susy and her parents are working the same page, Susy will most likely stay on the straight and narrow. We shouldn't remove all the "non-narrow" paths so as to force Susy to stay on the path. There can be no reward to life with risk.

But there is a huge and GROWING problem of parents who do not care. If they don't do their job then little Susie, who may have good grades today, but may not have good parents, could easily stray.

Bear in mind all of you who suggest that this is an invasion of privacy, it is NOT any such thing according to our court system. The same court that you all support for gun rights in Heller is the court that said drug testing kids does not violate their rights. So we need to move beyond that argument because it will not hold water.

 

[CulpeperMM]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

Rambone, you hit the nail on the head.
People still haven't learned....
Follow the Constitution.


that is all.

 

[melensdad]

Just because a court of law says something is right or ok does not make it so. Maybe Susie's parents should home school her as opposed to arming the state with the power to intrude into their lives.

Ahh but this presupposes that Susie's parents are capable of that or even that they care. What if Susie is just a decent kid from a crappy home, she could thrive, or she could be influenced by Johnny's drug use and become a drug abuser too.

Let's assume Johnny is on drugs and those same drugs are causing problems within the school system. Report him to the police and the parents to child protective services. There are already far reaching and invasive systems designed to deal with the root problem bad parents and illegal drug use.

Ahh, but without testing you have no way of knowing if Johnny is a drug user.

The next argument would be that the school system should install cameras in parents home to monitor their child rearing capabilities. Where does it and should it end?

Hmm, no that is not the next argument.

If Susy and her parents are working the same page, Susy will most likely stay on the straight and narrow. We shouldn't remove all the "non-narrow" paths so as to force Susy to stay on the path. There can be no reward to life with risk.

Again, you are making the wild presumption that her parents are better parents. Based on what my wife sees (she is a teacher) less than 20% of the parents show up for school open houses, meetings, etc. Now that is not to say that 80% are bad parents, but it certainly gives us some sort of idea how many parents are actually caring, involved parents.

Your whole argument seems to presume that Johnny is the exception and that his parents are abnormal. That does not appear to be the case. In fact your argument presumes that Susie's parents are capable of home schooling, are caring, and are involved and that would put them in the top 0.5% of parents because there are only a very very small PERCENTAGE of children in this nation who are home schooled by their parents.

 

[Glock21]

There is a job drug testing thread and it got me thinking. I figured I'd start a new thread so as not to throw that thread off topic.

Do you support or oppose drug testing of MIDDLE SCHOOL and HIGH SCHOOL students and why?

DISCLOSURE: my wife is a teacher at a public high school. My daughter is a student at a private high school.

The public school does not drug test. My wife has students in class who have been convicted of selling drugs. It has a graduation rate of roughly 75%. About 1/2 of those go to college. This is a rural small town high school that is 98% white.

The private school drug tests every student AT LEAST one time each year and has a very strict policy, basically its 2 strikes and you are out. Test positive and you will be retested in exactly 100 days. Test positive a second time and you are gone. Period. Tuition at this school runs almost $10,000 per year. It is not refunded. It has a graduation rate of roughly 98%. It has a college acceptance rate of 98+%. Just about that many go to college. This is an urban mixed race high school that is approximately 45% white.

No.

I am, however, for drug testing everyone who holds elected office, especially right before they cast votes. I think car-starting-type breathalyzers should be hooked up to every "yea/nea" button any legislator needs to push.

 

[Prometheus]

Now for a follow up. If my little Johnny is abusing drugs and is disruptive to your little Susie preventing her from concentrating on the school work, and there is no policy in place to bounce little Johnny out of the classroom then at what point are YOUR rights as a parent infringed upon by MY lack of parenting skills?

Then he should be disciplined for his actions. Drugs or not, the school should be taking care of the childs in school actions. You could substitute little johhnys mother doesn't tell him she loves him enough or whatever other excuse we could come up. The in school objectionable behavior should be dealt with.

Bear in mind that most schools will not eject a kid from the classroom for being disruptive unless it is so disruptive that it distracts the whole class. Even then, the kid will be right back the next day and the next and the next . . .

A drug testing law wouldn't matter since "the kid will be right back the next day and the next and the next".

Moot point

 

[smiley69_300]

I def think it would be way to costly for us. I kinda agree and kinda disagree. I dont pot really ever hurt anyone. But its when they decide to go on to bigger better things is when it gets bad.

 

[melensdad]

A drug testing law wouldn't matter since "the kid will be right back the next day and the next and the next".

Moot point

I guess I missed your moot point? If the kid is busted for drugs and removed from the school and shipped to another facility that offers school & drug counseling then why would he be back the next day?

 

[techres]

Rambone, you hit the nail on the head.
People still haven't learned....
Follow the Constitution.


that is all.

Exactly.

 

[SavageEagle]

Now hold on. Are we talking pot or drugs? If it's just pot we're talking about all this is moot. Now if we're talking serious drugs fine.

Don't test the kids unless they show signs of use. If they test positive, contact the parents for a conference. Tell them if they don't want their kid ejected from school they need to put him in either counseling or rehab.

But you can't just go and do "random tests". How about the government randomly tests everyone. Make it mandatory. Arrest everyone who tests positive. Is this not the same thing? Just because I can't afford to send my kids to private school, all of a sudden they become government property subject to unConstitutional rules and laws?

Nope, sorry.

Look, you can throw kids out of school, punish them any way you like, it's not going to do a bit of good. It's on the parents to help. If they refuse to help, are they really being parents? That's not really the point though. The point is, the kid needs HELP, not punishment. By using drugs of any kind he or she has not committed a crime against anyone. Now, if they stole the money, stole the drugs, went into a violent rage and beat someone while on drugs, treat them like any other unruly student.

But don't punish kids for making a stupid mistake. That's like throwing a junkie in jail.

 

[public servant]

Are we talking pot or drugs?

They aren't the same thing?