Positive Nicotine Test To Keep Student From Prom

The IndyChannel.com ^ | 25 April 2002

[SheLion]

An 18 year old male agreed to a drug/alcohol random test. He proved positive for nicotine, and has been banned from his school prom coming up on the 4th of May.

The ICLU is taking his case. Mahon stated that he never smoked on school grounds and is old enough to purchase cigarettes.

Go to the site and take the online poll.

[SheLion]

Take the online poll. Help this guy out! :)

[E Rocc]

The public schools have clearly become the pilot plant for the expansion of the Nanny State.

-Eric

[FNG]

This is out of control. A thing that always bothered me about drug testing is the hipocrisy. A guy can get drunk every night and still pass the alchohol screen when his blood level gets low enough the next day. Someone could go to Amsterdam on vaction and toke up and get busted weeks later. Neither had broken a "law" or showed up to work under the influence. What is next? Cholesterol test for the ice cream eaters?

[SheLion]

That's for sure! The schools are trying to brain wash and mind control the students, and turn them out with cookie cutters.

It's going too far.

[pubmom]

Done.

[SheLion]

Thanks, pubmom.

[ricer1]

What if he was wearing "The Patch"?

[gwynapnudd]

SECOND HAND SMOKE

CASE CLOSED

[SheLion]

Second Hand Smoke

Which means absolutely nothing since Mahon wasn't smoking on school grounds, even if it WAS harmful. To which it isn't.

[CJ Wolf]

heck I remember smoking AT the prom, we also did a bit of drinking too. But back then Joe Camel was cool and Marlboro had great camping gear.

[SheLion]

I miss Joe Camel. I am glad I saved most of his logos.

[RightOnline]

"CASE CLOSED"

You can't be serious..........and tell me you aren't, even if you are.

Otherwise, I'll be forced to come to the conclusion that you're a brainless idiot.

[Nate505]

If nicotine is on the banned list, him being of legal age to smoke it doesn't matter a bit. I hope all the facists, I mean concerned citizens/parents, who love drug testing will go along with this....

[bert]

He should not go to such a function at such a dispicable place.

[SheLion]

Thank you, RightOnline. It's "their" world, or no world.

If you know what I mean.

[Wolfie]

Probably never imagined all the stuff they'd start looking for once they got the lil' buggers used to whizzing on command.

[SheLion]

Probably never imagined all the stuff they'd start looking for once they got the lil' buggers used to whizzing on command.

hehe! Wolfie, you got THAT right!

[E Rocc]

What is next? Cholesterol test for the ice cream eaters?

Careful, sometimes liberals read* FR. Don't give them ideas.

-Eric

* those who can, that is.

[Nate505]

Probably never imagined all the stuff they'd start looking for once they got the lil' buggers used to whizzing on command.

Yup. I don't have much sympathy for this kid, other than the fact that the practice shouldn't be there in the first place. He agreed to the test. If it stated in a document he signed (and if he didn't sign some sort of document, he's a real idiot) that they searched for nicotine, and he didn't read it, well, he gets what happens to the rest of us poor saps who don't read the fine print.

[Puppage]

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

[E Rocc]

Second Hand Smoke

Which means absolutely nothing since Mahon wasn't smoking on school grounds, even if it WAS harmful. To which it isn't.

I think the point was that second hand smoke might cause a false positive reading. But that isn't the case here since Mahon basically admitted he smoked.

Off school grounds.

Legally.

As is his right as an adult.

-Eric

[Gabz]

the poll is running 85% in the kid's favor right now.

[NittanyLion]

Yup. I don't have much sympathy for this kid, other than the fact that the practice shouldn't be there in the first place. He agreed to the test. If it stated in a document he signed (and if he didn't sign some sort of document, he's a real idiot) that they searched for nicotine, and he didn't read it, well, he gets what happens to the rest of us poor saps who don't read the fine print.

Yes of course. Only an idiot would assume engaging in a legal activity - off school grounds - would be okay with the school's administrators. < /sarcasm >

[Max McGarrity]

If the kid wins this one, which he certainly should, in court, wonder if it might have any value to those fighting workplace discrimination?

[Nate505]

Off school grounds.

Legally.

As is his right as an adult.

In the drug testing world, that just doesn't mean anything. If you sign a contract to take a test with the knowledge that even legal drugs you have the right to take are on it, the excuse doesn't fly. People who take them for alcohol may just be drinking at home legally, and are of the age to do so. But since it's a substance that can be tested for, and since the contract you sign states that it is tested for, it doesn't matter if it's legal or it's your right. The jackboots have that base covered.

[billybudd]

This is one of the very few times I've voted "I don't know" in a poll. The reason is that the article doesn't give enough information to make a judgment. Obviously this situation is silly and the guy shouldn't be banned from the prom. But the issue is really whether he agreed to the terms of the drug test, and whether those terms stipulated that if any banned substances were found, he couldn't participate in extracurricular activities. This is what the article says:

But school officials said Mahon (pictured, left), who is the editor of the school newspaper, knew the rules prohibiting drugs, alcohol and nicotine before he agreed to the testing that's required for those in extracurricular activities.

This implies what I said above. So, the implication is that the school was completely justified in banning him from the prom, since he agreed to those terms. The problem is that the article doesn't explicitly tell us the terms of the agreement so we can't make a definitive judgment. Bad reporting.

[Nate505]

Yes of course. Only an idiot would assume engaging in a legal activity - off school grounds - would be okay with the school's administrators.

Only an idiot would take the test, IMO.

[Gabz]

One can only hope>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Attillathehon]

He agreed to the test.

And what would be the repercussions if he had not "volunteered" to take the test? Do you know? Is there any stigma or penalty attached to declining such a test?

[Still Thinking]

Only an idiot would take the test, IMO.

That's probably irrevelant, anyhow, as they are probably not allowed to go to the prom unless they "agree" to take the test. Why else would anyone agree to take any test unless the consequenses for refusal were the same as for failure of the test??

[SheLion]

the poll is running 85% in the kid's favor right now.

That's great! I hope the ICLU gets ahold of this to help the case. Which is ludicrous.

[Nate505]

And what would be the repercussions if he had not "volunteered" to take the test? Do you know? Is there any stigma or penalty attached to declining such a test?

It sounds like he wouldn't either be able to go to the prom, or be editor of the school newspaper or able to do extra-cricular activities. The article didn't make that totally clear. Having to take a test like that to do those things is pretty lame to me. But nobody put a gun to his head and made him take the test, and if he knew that nicotine was going to be tested, those are the breaks. I'd never take a test like that, prom or editor of the newspaper be damned. I doubt anyone would care though if he was caught with alcohol or pot in his system, because of the legal issues involved with it, but when it comes to drug testing, legal usage does not apply.

[Nate505]

That's probably irrevelant, anyhow, as they are probably not allowed to go to the prom unless they "agree" to take the test. Why else would anyone agree to take any test unless the consequenses for refusal were the same as for failure of the test??

It's not irrelevant. He is not required to go to the prom to graduate high school. He knew the rules were that way. The rules being idiotic and facist aside, he agreed to take a test where he knew he'd probably fail it. Better to stand on your principles than to try to pass a test you probably won't pass. And he is the editor of their newspaper, which is an extra-circular activity. Unless they just drug test for the prom and no other extra-circular activities, he probably had to take one to get that position as well. So he knew perfectly well what and wasn't allowed on the test, but he took it anyway. Doesn't sound smart to me, even though I hate the idea of testing altogether.

[Nate505]

That's great! I hope the ICLU gets ahold of this to help the case. Which is ludicrous.

When you put a stupid policy in place (like drug testing students for extra-cricular activities, which is stupid in itself because most of the druggies at my high school weren't the extra-cricular activity type anyway), excpet stupid results to come out of it.

Question: If this kid was 17, would everyone here be as upset about it as they are now? Is the problem that he's taking the test in the first place (which is my only problem with this), or the fact that he's using a legal product, or the fact that he's of legal age using a legal product? If the latter, are you ok with drug testing at work as long as they don't test for alcohol there?

[Still Thinking]

What I was trying to say was that his consent to the test was probably not relevant to the outcome, as the results to him for his legal conduct were rigged in such a way that he was out whether he took the test or not. I understood you to be taking the position that he was the creator of his own problem, which I do not believe he was. The real problem is that the district is artificially creating "favored" and "unfavored" groups of students based upon criteria that are none of their damned business.

However, I wouldn't have taken the test, either, for the same reasons as you.

[Gabz]

I understand where you are coming from. I agree with you about the drug testing - I think it's ridiculous.

With that said - even if he were 17 it wouldn't matter. In most states it is only illegal for those under 18 to purchase tobacco products, not to use them.

[Still Thinking]

If this kid was 17, would everyone here be as upset about it as they are now?

I would be less upset. I'd still be griped that the school felt that they were there to be an auxilliary police department/judicial system and enforce laws against activity outside their physical jurisdiction.

[NittanyLion]

Only an idiot would take the test, IMO.

I'm betting there would have been consequences had he refused. I wonder if they told him that nicotine was a "banned substance"?

[tacticalogic]

If you sign a contract to take a test with the knowledge that even legal drugs you have the right to take are on it, the excuse doesn't fly.

While the article isn't clear on the point, if there was any kind of 'contract' he signed, he'd have done so at the begining of the school year, and he would have been 17 at the time and the 'contract' unenforceable.

I think the issue here is the ability of the school administrators to place a restriction on a student participating in extra-curricular, school sponsored activities because of something the student did legaly, off of school property, and on his own time.

[dirtbiker]

What is next? Cholesterol test for the ice cream eaters?

All in good time! Then we'll also get blood tests for people that eat too much sugar, street patrols for "heavy" people that drive rather than walk, speech police for those that speak their true beliefs, thought police for those that don't think "correctly", the list is endless. It's just a matter of time.

[TBall]

I wonder if any of the kids end up trying certain hard drugs that don't show up in tests.

[ned]

[Madame Dufarge]

Voted in the kid's favor, naturally. It's running 87% for him.

That said, I'm kind of happy every time I see a story like this. How many epiphanies have sprung from up close and personal contact with the Control Freak culture?

It's my fervent wish that every incident like this creates more and more warriors against the Nanny State.

[Madame Dufarge]

Idiot.

[ozone1]

Freeping as we speak

[ned]

Mr. Happy Lungs says:

Quit Smoking!

(It's for your own good!)

[Madame Dufarge]

Madame Dufarge says: Blow it out your ass.

[ozone1]

Who hired you to be my nanny?

[ned]

ned says, "I'm gonna like Madame Dufarge!"

;-)