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
You're right. This isn't good. No way I would allow a kid of mine to be "randomly tested" for any reason, whether he was a member of the football team or the French Club, or anything.
Imagine the problems encountered had it been necessary for me to submit to a piss test to receive my conceal carry permit?
Teach them that when they are young, and they will continue to believe that when they are adults.
Actually, this already exists to some degree. According to the implied consent law, if you are driving, you have consented to be tested for driving under the influence. If you are stopped,the police have the right to test you for alcohol through a blood, breath or urine test. If you refuse, you can lose your license, even if it is later found that you were not under the influence. That is because you agree to being tested as a condition of getting your driver's license...
Boy, your degree from the Clinton University of Slime has failed you in your lame attempt at smearing a person who has a far superior intellect than your pot-damaged grey matter.
Bad analogy, you are talking about the difference between a privilege and a right (remember the 2nd Amendment?)
Wrong. Every American holds unalienable rights. Minor's rights are held in proxy and exercised in their behalf by their parents or legal guardians.
A parent can assert a minor's right against searches without probable cause and a warrant, just the same as you or I can assert our own rights.
Children are not wards of the state.
Part of Bushs faith-based-initiative no doubt, when the Jehovah Witnesses come a knocking, besides watchtower, they will be carrying a search warrant.
The irony of all this is their logic is 100% backwards.
Kids inolved in some type of extra-curricular activity are less likely to use drugs than those that aren't, because (imho) they find something more productive to focus on then drugs. The testing program discourages any kid that might be experimenting with drugs from getting in extra-curricular activites and finding something more interesting to do than just hanging out with his friends doing drugs.
A better alternative would be to require anyone that does not participate in an extra-curricular activity to be tested. You're going to catch a much higher percentage in that group.
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.