Monday morning alcohol testing at schools...

hippiemom

chopitdown wrote:

That's a good question. I wonder if their justification is that it may be unreasonable search but since there is no criminal charge or processing that will occur, the ramifications of the search and seizure aren't great. I mean the evidence can't be introduced under the 4th amendment, but big deal they aren't introducing evidence in court. You work in a law firm...ask one of the lawyers

Are you crazy? I avoid them whenever possible. Where's soulsinging, he should be taking ConLaw now

I do know what it would mean if I were on the Supreme Court ... it would mean that your right to be secure in your person and effects SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED without probable cause .... period.

chopitdown

hippiemom wrote:

Are you crazy? I avoid them whenever possible. Where's soulsinging, he should be taking ConLaw now

Yeah c'mon soulsinging, as long as you wont bill us, what's your take?

hippiemom wrote:

I do know what it would mean if I were on the Supreme Court ... it would mean that your right to be secure in your person and effects SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED without probable cause .... period.

fair enough.

soulsinging

chopitdown wrote:

Yeah c'mon soulsinging, as long as you wont bill us, what's your take?

we're still on the commerce clause. 4th amendment comes later. ill get back to you

im just happy this is being paid for with federal funds. if the city wants to do this, they can charge their citizens for it.

1970RR

Collin wrote:

I think drug testing students is stupid and wrong too, not just alcohol testing (which is a hard drug by the way).

Testing athletes for drugs is something different, imo.

I dont get the idea of testing athletes and other extra curricular people as being OK.
Wouldnt young people who are using drugs/alcohol or at risk benefit from the extra participation outside of classes? I would hope that participating in these activities would help ween people away from drugs & alcohol. Forcing them to be tested for drugs just drives them away from participating at all. I am not sure that I see that as a solution.

Collin

1970RR wrote:

I dont get the idea of testing athletes and other extra curricular people as being OK.
Wouldnt young people who are using drugs/alcohol or at risk benefit from the extra participation outside of classes? I would hope that participating in these activities would help ween people away from drugs & alcohol. Forcing them to be tested for drugs just drives them away from participating at all. I am not sure that I see that as a solution.

I meant athletes who participate in competitions.

Pearl Jam and toast

Those fucking control freak PTA cocksuckers need to leave the kids alone.

If Johnny wrecks his car driving drunk that's his problem. It's possible to drink responsibly you know.

miller8966

1970RR wrote:

I dont get the idea of testing athletes and other extra curricular people as being OK.
.

Ever hear of steroids?

1970RR

miller8966 wrote:

Ever hear of steroids?

The typical drug tests given too student athletes and extracurricular participants do not test for steroids, only the normal street drugs.

JaneNY

There is nothing in the article about the consequences of refusing to be tested. I wonder what those would be. I bet this won't stand up in court though, and I'm guessing someone will challenge it.

Thorns2010

hippiemom wrote:

Are you crazy? I avoid them whenever possible. Where's soulsinging, he should be taking ConLaw now

I do know what it would mean if I were on the Supreme Court ... it would mean that your right to be secure in your person and effects SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED without probable cause .... period.

I might be wrong, but didn't the Supreme Court already say random locker searches are not against the Consitution?? I don't see this really being any different from a legal sense.

soulsinging

soulsinging wrote:

we're still on the commerce clause. 4th amendment comes later. ill get back to you

im just happy this is being paid for with federal funds. if the city wants to do this, they can charge their citizens for it.

i totally forgot that on thursday chief justice john roberts is speaking to our 1L class and teaching a constitutional law seminar. so maybe ill ask him what he thinks

Rushlimbo

One word -- wizzinator.

chopitdown

soulsinging wrote:

i totally forgot that on thursday chief justice john roberts is speaking to our 1L class and teaching a constitutional law seminar. so maybe ill ask him what he thinks

well I guess that's one way to find out.

chopitdown

JaneNY wrote:

There is nothing in the article about the consequences of refusing to be tested. I wonder what those would be. I bet this won't stand up in court though, and I'm guessing someone will challenge it.

we do random drug testing of the athletes at the university I'm at and refusal to be tested (or even missing a test w/o prior notice) is equivolent to a positive finding (at least in disciplinary action...nothing on a medical / personal record that I'm aware of). Again, at this HS there's no repurcussions for a positive test...just counseling and parental notification. So even if the kid refuses and they treat it as + nothing really changes.

PJPOWER

They should at least be required to ask the parents permission before doing the tests, right?

Collin

You know in many European countries the legal drinking age is 16 and it's not like younger teens (14, 15 year olds) can't get their hands on beer.

These American teens drink a beer and they get counseling?

Well maybe it's because you're allowed to drive when you're 16 in the states. In Europe, it's usually 18 (or 17 and a few months or something like that).

But anyway, they get counseling? This whole thing is insane!

hippiemom

Collin wrote:

You know in many European countries the legal drinking age is 16 and it's not like younger teens (14, 15 year olds) can't get their hands on beer.

These American teens drink a beer and they get counseling?

Well maybe it's because you're allowed to drive when you're 16 in the states. In Europe, it's usually 18 (or 17 and a few months or something like that).

But anyway, they get counseling? This whole thing is insane!

I agree. The test doesn't differentiate between a kid who has been drunk every day for the past 6 months, and the kid who had a strawberry margarita on Friday night.

A kid with a drinking problem is going to exhibit other symptoms (falling grades, poor attendance, etc.), so you don't need a test to find those kids, all you have to do is pay attention. And the kid who has three beers after the football game doesn't need counseling, so it's all a huge waste of time and money.

soulsinging

hippiemom wrote:

I agree. The test doesn't differentiate between a kid who has been drunk every day for the past 6 months, and the kid who had a strawberry margarita on Friday night.

A kid with a drinking problem is going to exhibit other symptoms (falling grades, poor attendance, etc.), so you don't need a test to find those kids, all you have to do is pay attention. And the kid who has three beers after the football game doesn't need counseling, so it's all a huge waste of time and money.

but it's so much easier to just say that alcohol is the cause of all the kids' problems and give a test and label the failing kids as needing counseling than actually have to pay attention on a daily basis, get to know the kids, and tailor solutions to their situations. one size fits all approaches are so much cheaper and less demanding.

my2hands

i work with this age population.

they will test for alcohol, meanwhile their student body ingests LOADS of prescription drugs for a variety of BS reasons.

the prescription drug epidemic is quite frightening considering it is accepted and supported by most professionals and parents.

we are raising a nation of pill popping zombies, mark my words.

chopitdown

hippiemom wrote:

I agree. The test doesn't differentiate between a kid who has been drunk every day for the past 6 months, and the kid who had a strawberry margarita on Friday night.

A kid with a drinking problem is going to exhibit other symptoms (falling grades, poor attendance, etc.), so you don't need a test to find those kids, all you have to do is pay attention. And the kid who has three beers after the football game doesn't need counseling, so it's all a huge waste of time and money.

to play devils advocate...if an underage kid is having 3 beers after a football game; they are willingly taking part in an at risk behavior which could be the symptom of an underlying problem. The kid who has 3 beers may be developing into the kid with drinking problems and they are trying to curb it.

That said, I can see why they want to do it, but I really don't like it.