Posted on 06/27/2002 7:07:44 AM PDT by 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
Hmmmm. The better question would be "How may drivers under the influence of Nyquil or sleep deprived are endangering other drivers in Idaho at this moment?." Nyquil is legal and available OTC and impairs your reactions. Sleep deprivation is a major impairment. Impairment can take many forms, so why focus on any one method.
---max
I had to use a pencil in my mouth to type out the words - my fingers just wouldn't do it by themselves. You people are a bad influence on me :)
The Supreme Court is way far from mainstream on this one, and seriously in jeopardy of destroying constitutional rights of the individual permanently.
Remember, this court is the same court that thought regulating the PGA was in the national interest. Casey Martin gets to violate the rules, because he is handicapped.
Whoa, are you ever missing the point. A kid's not going to get into Harvard without extracurricular activity on his record. And he won't be able to participate in extracurricular activity unless he pees into a cup. It doesn't matter whether that person uses drugs. It's not "use drugs and lose Harvard." It's "piss in the cup or lose Harvard." Get it?
So in other words, you don't agree with the Court's decision? Sounded earlier like you thought the Court was right.
There's been more than one such study. The most recent was a British Government study. I don't have a cite, but an article about it was posted on Free Republic 6 months or so ago.
From another perspective its perhaps not so surprising. I know of athletes who routinely compete at an extremely high level stoned on pot. Obviously, 99% at least of high level athletes are straight, at least during competitions (not counting any lingering influences of steroids), but the fact that some individuals can compete at literally international levels in sports requiring fast reflexes and coordination like snowboarding and beach volleyball while actually stoned shows that any concentration, coordination, or reflex degredation can not be overwhelming.
Well, while I wouldn't know an "official" libertarian opinion from my elbow, common sense tells me that governmental entities do NOT have the authority to hand out privileges to one, some, many, all, or any individuals. It is a total reversal of the relationship between citizen and state, hence the problem with the very existance of public schools to begin with.
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.
It's a shame you don't believe in the Constitution, because if you don't care what the courts think, but only what you think, you are promoting anarchy, not Constitutional law.
In addition, if that is the case, then you want to give the government the right to regulate what is posted here on FR, or said in Limbaugh. You see, Freedon of the Internet or Freedom of Radio are not mentioned in the Constitution. It's only the Courts that have expanded Freedom of the Press to include radio, TV, the internet, etc.
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.
Sorry, but you are way off base, both factually and intelectually, as well as legally.
#1 Drug testing is incredibly effective. In the military it reduced drug usage from 42% to 3.5%. In the schools that have used it, drug testing cuts drug use 50% each year until it drops to about 3-4%, as opposed to the 45% seen in the schools in your area.
Individual rights are routinely given up. There is no warrent to search my bag or body, or even probable cause, but they are searched before I enter an aircraft, government building or even some schools,.
Please, beleive in the Constitution, but not in what someone tells you it means. We need strong Constitionalsits, but can't aford to have them be wrong, as above.
I don't care what the courts think, I care what the Constitution says. The two are frequently different, and I always side with the crystal clear language of the Constitution over the subjective opinion of a man. That is believing in the Constitution, as opposed to the politics that undermine it. Abiding by the word of the Constitution is not anarchy. Far, far from it. The Constitution is a set of laws, laws for government that cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment. When we ignore it for expediency, we embrace anarchy. For without adherence to the Constitution, laws are whatever men say they are. And that defines anarchy.
Observe the decision:
"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."
They freely and openly admit to violating a right. And their justification? An overriding interest. So to them, the Constitution isn't a law at all, it's merely a suggestion to be overridden at the first earliest convenience. That is not rule of law. It is rule of men. Making up the law as you go, even when the majority does it, is anarchy, anarchy under color of law.
You see, Freedom of the Internet or Freedom of Radio are not mentioned in the Constitution. It's only the Courts that have expanded Freedom of the Press to include radio, TV, the internet, etc.
The 1st Amendment does not grant rights, it merely recognizes pre-existing unalienable rights. I have the absolute right to free speech over any medium I damned well please, provided I (or a consenting party) pay for it. And it says freedom of the "press", not "printing press". So all media are covered even ones not yet invented. While it's nice that the 1st Amendment and the courts (somewhat) recognize that, I don't need their approval. If they choose not to support the natural right to free speech, the right is not absent, it is merely violated, and the court would change its role from upholder of rights to that of oppressor.
#1 Drug testing is incredibly effective. In the military it reduced drug usage from 42% to 3.5%. In the schools that have used it, drug testing cuts drug use 50% each year until it drops to about 3-4%, as opposed to the 45% seen in the schools in your area.
The ends do not justify the means. Warrantless searches that lack probable cause are unconstitutional in every instance. The effectiveness of warrantless searches such as random drug testing is utterly irrelevant. Besides, it is a given that law enforcement will be more difficult in a free country. The Bill of Rights was meant to limit the power of government because it was seen that the "cure" of unchecked government powers is worse than the problem itself. The job of the police is only easy in a police state.
Individual rights are routinely given up.
Individual rights are incrementally given up. Have you asked yourself what the invariable end result will be, if this continues unchecked? Rights cannot be routinely given up forever without fundamentally altering the nature of this country. The inevitable result of continual erosion of rights is the absence of rights, ie. Tyranny.
There is no warrent to search my bag or body, or even probable cause, but they are searched before I enter an aircraft, government building or even some schools,
Following that logic, if someone slaps your face Monday, it's perfectly ok for them to punch your stomach on Tuesday. After all, the precedent has been set. The slippery slope argument will get nowhere with me. I dismiss it out of hand.
Please, beleive in the Constitution, but not in what someone tells you it means.
Just a moment ago, you were telling me judges have a right to tell me what it means. Which is it?
Next, who says they meant the media and not the printing press. The courts do. You like that decision, so it is ok.
I only raised the issue of the effectiveness of drug testing because you said it was ineffective. Why did you say it was ineffective when you now admit it is effective, but the end does not justify it?
The real problem you have is that the Court has not agreed with you here.
When I used the word "think", what I really should have written for you is "decide." Trying to tell the world that the Court is wrong and you are right is about as effecious as King Canutte commanding the waves to stop.
Rights are often in conflict. When that happens, courts decide how to resolve it, as they have in this case.
I tend to agree with the Beatles in their anthology when they all said that when they recorded music while stoned and listened to it the next day, they said it really sounded like shit and most likely burned the tapes.
Even Ringo just won a court order to stop the release of an album he recorded while stoned on alcohol. He said it also sounded like crap. He's been sober for 7 years now.
Ozzy Osbourne said that him and his group should be fuc*in' dead from their drug abuse and even told the live audience to drive safe so they could come back and blow their ear drums out again.
Willie Nelson said, 'If you're wired, you're fired!'
You know RAD? Rock Against Drugs! (Yeah, right. But it's the thought that counts, I guess)
Even my drumming magazine says 'Play It Straight'
I personally can't stand being around people who are drunk or high on drugs.
Kids avoid detection by switching to drugs that are not being tested for (there are too many for any program to test for anywhere near ALL of them). The school then looks good because the tests come up 'negative' - so they must be reducing the usage!
This is a scheme that was cooked up by the drug-testing industry (their lobbying group is at datia.org), and they have spent a lot of time and money building up the image that they have a 'solution' -- this emperor has no clothes.
Not only do I (and the rest of my family) NOT use illegal drugs, I neither drink alcohol nor smoke (ANYTHING).
You must have a large financial interest in the drug-testing companies, right? Or are you among the bureaucratic socialists that try to run our public education system?
Only the ignorant or self-interested are such rabid exponents of this ridiculous wate of time and money -- there are much more effective solutions already available, that do not subject innocent kids to this invasion of their self-respect.
I have absolutely no doubt that the Supreme Court would find such a measure unconstiutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.