Supreme Court approves random drug tests for many public high schools

Associated Press / SFGate

[RCW2001]

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/06/27/national1005EDT0546.DTL

(06-27) 07:05 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court approved random drug tests for many public high school students Thursday, ruling that schools' interest in ridding their campuses of drugs outweighs an individual's right to privacy.

The 5-4 decision would allow the broadest drug testing the court has yet permitted for young people whom authorities have no particular reason to suspect of wrongdoing. It applies to students who join competitive after-school activities or teams, a category that includes many if not most middle-school and high-school students.

Previously these tests had been allowed only for student athletes.

©2002 Associated Press  

[UnBlinkingEye]

If you are the admissions board at any school, and you see a kid that has a 3.8 and a 1500 on the SAT but nothing else on his application, and you see a kid who has 3.65 and 1450, but he was class president, editor of the student newspaper, captain of the Varsity Lacrosse team, and physics club member, who are you going to choose if you have only one spot?

The one who isn't a white male?

Back on topic, I thought the Supreme Court's duty was to defend the Constitution not destroy it.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Whatever.

[MindBender26]

Sorry, but the courts don't agree with you.

Ask any kids in your area how bad the drug problem is in your schools. It's horrible everywhere.

School kids have restricted rights. There is no freedom of speech (want to yell in class?) assembly (want to walk out of class?) etc.

Finally, anyone who has ever taken a shower after phys ed with 30 other stinking kids knows there is no privacy in high school!!!

[Diddle E. Squat]

You have no idea how I live or what I believe. Your concluding that I live a puritanical lifestyle just because I didn't engage in underage drinking is shallow stereotyping and jumping to conclusions. Just another reason why I doubt your ability to see beyond the extent of your own lifestyle.

[dcwusmc]

Otherwise, most THINKING parents should get their kids OUT of these cesspools. Sad thing is, your kind of "thinking" makes it hard for parents to properly take care of their own kids. Let gooberment do it. Let the schools teach kids about sex, about condoms, about drugs. Let parents abdicate their own responsibilities.

Let's get rid of ALL drug-testing. It is an affront to EVERYONE. Let "fitness for duty" be the sole criteria... if you show up at work or school unfit to be there because you're under the influence of ANYTHING, legal or otherwise, a simple test of your reflexes and reactions can say that you should be sent home to sober up and any punishment can be meted out based on some OBJECTIVE factor... you should not be toking or drinking or smoking other than tobacco on school or company premises and you should show up sober and ready to study or work. What you do on your own time is between you, your parents (if you are a minor), your family and your God. No one else and most assuredly NO BLUENOSES who can't even handle their OWN lives.

[ganesha]

Spending money on dope is not a great use of money,(although he could grow his own), but that's beside the point.

The issue is whether the football team is an economic necessity. If it is, then he should not be required to surrender his constitutional rights to participate. Even if he never actually uses drugs, he is still giving up his rights if he is searched without probable cause. The government funds high school sports. The government funds state universities. The state university both uses football as a qualification for admission, and awards athletic scholarships. Therfore the government has created a situation where there is a substantial economic reward for participating in sports.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

If an adult forces my kid to the jon and intimidates him into dropping trou and demands he perform some humiliatingly private act, I am going to meet the degenerate with a shovel and impress upon the pervert that when he violates the privacy of my children's person he loses his ability to speak and walk.

He can then enjoy a life of privelidge while what remains of him is carried around in a basket.

[Lent]

You have no idea how I live or what I believe. Your concluding that I live a puritanical lifestyle just because I didn't engage in underage drinking is shallow stereotyping and jumping to conclusions. Just another reason why I doubt your ability to see beyond the extent of your own lifestyle.

So instead of answering the question you take offense about my characterization of what you perceived to be the issue. Whether you live like a monk has no bearing on the argument. What has bearing is the issue of moral failure. In this case the moral failure includes a breach of State interests. That is the issue including YOUR failure in supervision as a father/mother.

There is another component to this issue though. And that is the issue of reasonable and probable grounds. Transplanting the rational...If there are three houses on your block (for arguments sake) and two of them have been busted for drugs, because your neighborhood has a "problem" the police ought to break down your door to search your house as a random act to preserve the public good. Solely because of the perceived "problem". And to be sure, the State act of requiring the seizure of personal bodily fluids without probable cause or reasonable and probable grounds is as intrusive a process as a random search of your home without the same probable cause. If you give the State an inch...

[freeeee]

Sorry, but the courts don't agree with you.

I don't care. The 4th Amendment is crystal clear: No probable cause, no warrant, no search. The courts willful neglect to enforce the Constitution undermines its own legitimacy.

Ask any kids in your area how bad the drug problem is in your schools.

And then ask them if drug testing would change a thing. Drugs can't even be kept out of supermax prisons.

Rights are not to be set upon a scale and subjectively weighed against perceived good in violating them. Either it takes probable cause and a warrant to conduct a search, or it doesn't and government searches whoever and whenever it damned well pleases.

Rights mean that government can't do something, even when it is in their interest. That's why they are there in the first place. They set bounderies for govenrment that cannot be violated under any conditions, not just when its convenient or expedient.

[Kryptonite]

Right, now it's me that is the problem.

Take your whining to the SCOTUS. Sheesh. Unbelievable.

[AmishDude]

If you hate individual rights and liberties.

Uh, they're already required by law to go to school, I would start there, if I were you.

[FreeTally]

I don't care. The 4th Amendment is crystal clear: No probable cause, no warrant, no search. The courts willful neglect to enforce the Constitution undermines its own legitimacy.

Sometimes, even people on are side forget that being required to piss in a cup can also be considered "required self-incrimination", a violation of the 5th amendment.

I think the 4th and 5th amendments are clear examples why its my belief that the "founding fathers" never intended on the possession of objects or the ingestion of substances to be within the realm of government authority. Prohibitory law was never considered to be legitimate by the foundes of this country. Nor is the concept consistent with common law.

[1rudeboy]

Children are not wards of the state.

Except when they are in public school. In loco parentis and all that . . . in fact, the notion that the child does not enjoy the same constitutional protections in school as he does outside the grounds is the foundation for all these public-school/drug-testing decisions.

[Diddle E. Squat]

The issue is whether the football team is an economic necessity.

Correct, and I say no. It(and other extracurriculars) is a nice option, an opportunity, but it isn't the only path to success. Good grades would be a fine alternative, as would entering essay contests, non-school opportunities and programs(there are plenty of help agencies, both public and private, to link up poor kids in the inner city).

[Diddle E. Squat]

Your the one who introduced lifestyle issues(underaged drinking), so to now say that they have no bearing just shows you to be arguing whatever stance seems effective at the moment.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I totally agree that the Courts ought to impose some intellectual honesty in some of its decisions.

Last week's decision regarding coercion of a drug suspect on a Greyhound bus and today's decision are perfect examples, in my opinion, of end-running the real issue.

In Miranda, which the Court upheld not more than two sessions ago, it ruled that people need to be informed of their rights, basically because they are too stupid to know what they are.

Flash forward to last week's decision, in which the Court didn't feel that the search was coercive nor felt that a suspect needed to be made aware of his rights to refuse a search, when he is on a bus, surrounded by cops towering over you, telling him that if he refuses a search, they'll search his bag anyway and they'll probably take him to jail.

That's coercion in any way, shape, or form, and the Court knows it--problem is they won't just come out and say that coercion is constitutional.

Today's decision is much the same way--instead of just out and out saying that warrants aren't required and the police can search anything it damn well pleases, the Court does this bizarre balancing charade that insults the intelligence of people who follow these things. I agree and I wish the Court would at least just be honest about what it is doing.

[freeeee]

Except when they are in public school. In loco parentis and all that.

School: "Students have no rights against warrantless searches, no matter what parents say. Loco parentis means while students are here, we are their parents and what we say goes."

Conservatives: "Hooray!"

School: "We're going to be teaching fisting and condom use and reading 'Heather Has Two Mommies' to the kids, no matter what parents say. Loco parentis means while students are here, we are their parents and what we say goes."

Conservatives: "Oh no! Who gave you that power?"

School: "You did."

[rintense]

You know, I am so sick of this "its extra-curricular acrivities which are a priveledge" nonsense. EC activities are paid with the SAME TAXES USED TO PAY FOR CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES. There is no "distinction" when it comes to public funds.

Not true of every public school district. When I went to high school, we had to 'pay to play' because the district didn't have any money to give us. Many schools face this problem.

[dcwusmc]

They may NOT do drugs and STILL object to being tested. I don't do drugs but I find drug-testing to be invasive, annoying, demeaning and wrong. I do not now nor have I ever subscribed to the notion that it's OK to do something invasive because "If you do no wrong you have nothing to hide." That is completely contrary to the spirit AND letter of the 4th and 5th amendments and a complete abomination.

[tacticalogic]

Well, I asked. Good for you by the way. Unfortunately, I did partake of the evil drink (thankfully there's a statute of limitation on these type of offences). I was never a drug user however. Casual or otherwise.

I think the most effective way to keep kids from getting involve with drugs is education. They need to know how they affect you and how people become addicted to them, and that message needs to be rational, objective, and consistent. Saying "I drank alcohol, but I didn't do any drugs." doesn't square with that, IMHO.