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  

[Lent]

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.

I didn't say they have no bearing. I said they do have a bearing which includes the probable cause issue. You keep misreading the arguments which makes discussion with you a virtual impossibility.

[Lexington Green]

All together now, children -- "I pledge allegiance to the Police State of America."

[Lent]

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.

That of course is not the point I was trying to make. All the talk of illegality was in the context of what turns out to be a very intollerant State requirement. I notice that many who argue the loudest in the context of an intollerant State requirement so easily do so in the context of drugs. The fact of the matter is that the argument is a slippery slope and includes behaviour which most of us have in engaged in to one degree or another. Hence the "problem" turns out to be more pervasive than we think. Do we therefore wish the State to address the issue consistently and broadly or do we desire them to stay the %$ll out of our childrens lives when they're being educated and growing (as much as is possible).

[That Subliminal Kid]

This is great! Another slap in the face of Libertarian insanity, and a splash of reason and rationality for us all!

[Carry_Okie]

What do you bet that they'll use this to make certain that your kids are taking their ritalin?

[dcwusmc]

Actually, your joy over this abomination DOES make you the problem. Glad you recognize that sad fact.

[hattend]

Are they going to test teachers and administrators, too?

Why Not? (See, I know the answer)

I would hate to be going to public school in America today.

[tacticalogic]

That of course is not the point I was trying to make. All the talk of illegality was in the context of what turns out to be a very intollerant State requirement. I notice that many who argue the loudest in the context of an intollerant State requirement so easily do so in the context of drugs. The fact of the matter is that the argument is a slippery slope and includes behaviour which most of us have in engaged in to one degree or another. Hence the "problem" turns out to be more pervasive than we think. Do we therefore wish the State to address the issue consistently and broadly or do we desire them to stay the %$ll out of our childrens lives when they're being educated and growing (as much as is possible).

I think we're on the same page, but from different directions. My point is that this kind of tactic (drug testing) puts the issue of drug use into a stricly legal context. The message to the kids becomes not "Know what it's all about, do what's in your own best interest and avoid what isn't, and learn to take care of yourself." but "Do what the state tells you to do." We find it easy to think of drugs and alcohol as two different things because we've been programmed that way. That's how the government sees it from their narrow legalistic view, and it makes it easier for them to get us to agree to this kind of thing if we all think like they do.

[dcwusmc]

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."

157 posted on 6/27/02 9:28 AM Pacific by freeeee


Is this the sort of reason and rationality you have in mind? You can't have it both ways. Much as you want to, it ain't gonna happen. Either it's ALL right or it's all WRONG. It's not RIGHT when YOU do it and WRONG when the liberals do it. Kindly temper your euphoria with a modicum of (un)common sense.

[Lent]

I think we're on the same page, but from different directions. My point is that this kind of tactic (drug testing) puts the issue of drug use into a stricly legal context. The message to the kids becomes not "Know what it's all about, do what's in your own best interest and avoid what isn't, and learn to take care of yourself." but "Do what the state tells you to do." We find it easy to think of drugs and alcohol as two different things because we've been programmed that way. That's how the government sees it from their narrow legalistic view, and it makes it easier for them to get us to agree to this kind of thing if we all think like they do.

Agreed.

[varina davis]

Good news! If you hate individual rights and liberties.

One more reason for home schooling. Public (federally subsidized) schooling was an invention of the federal government late in the last century to ensure future generations would lock-step toward uniformity.

[FreeTally]

Oh, come on. We both know the 4th amendment is "libertarian insanity".(/sarcasm)

[Teacher317]

who are you going to choose if you have only one spot?

The one without the drug conviction.

[mindprism.com]

There is no right to public education period.

Exactly. Hence, there is no right to take money from people and spend it on something deemed a 'privilege' whereby they justify a requirement of you to forego your rights to access the 'privilege'.

[mindprism.com]

What an obnoxiously-ridiculous concept making drugs illegal is. Let's just dump the whole idea and expand our freedoms, Dude! Live free or die, ya know!

It is a obnoxious concept to hold one man responsible for the harms another man inflicts. It is immoral. That is what the drug laws do, they get thier rationality from the psychic-friends network.

[mindprism.com]

Bad analogy, you are talking about the difference between a privilege and a right (remember the 2nd Amendment?)

You assume all rights are listed in the BOR, therefore, under that assumption the state may deny your right to bear children as it does in China.

[mindprism.com]

Hard to argue that not being allowed to play football is anywhere near as limiting.

The public is in error when it takes taxes and spends them on a 'privilege' that requires the surrender of rights to access that privilege.

Simple huh.

[Kryptonite]

Whine away!

[mindprism.com]

My kids who choose to do somthing constructive with their time WILL not be treated as a criminal!

It is a good thing if you realize the true key to effective, peaceful revolution lies in harnessing the discontent of the youth. They KNOW what the schools are about, they live it.

Free the minds of the youth, free the future of America. Its the key, its how we got here - through indoctrinated IGNORANCE.

[Moleman]

What kind of hideous totalitarian world have I brought children into...