Skip to comments.
Crossing Guard, 79, Fired Over Drug Test
KPRC ^
| 7/22/05
| Mikey_1962
Posted on 07/22/2005 1:43:50 PM PDT by Mikey_1962
HOUSTON -- A 79-year-old school crossing guard was fired over a drug test, but not because he failed it, Local 2 reported Thursday. Francis Light refused to take it, violating Houston Independent School District policy.
Light has been a familiar face at Oak Forest Elementary School in northwest Houston for 16 years as the school's crossing guard. He was fired last month after refusing to take a random drug-alcohol test. Light said his system is clean, and after so many loyal years on the job, he was insulted.
"I got to think as long as people know me, long as I've been doing this, then they want me to take a drug test kind of made me mad," he said.
An HISD spokesman said all employees are subject to random tests.
Light signed the form, but did not read the fine print.
"He's the only one with loving touch. He knows you by name," said Kenneth Bonte, a student.
Parents said they would miss Light's presence at the school intersection.
"It sounds like there was a misunderstanding. He should've been handled possibly more gently," said Vonda Bonte, a mother.
"He's as much a part of the school as teachers are," said Ann Zallar, a mother.
Light said he should have just submitted to the drug-alcohol test, but said there are no hard feelings. He said that he will be turning 80 years old soon and he was considering retiring anyway. Light just did not want it to end like this.
HISD considers all refusals to take the drug-alcohol test as a positive test.
It requires employees to submit to the tests immediately. The district has a policy to terminate all employees who refuse to take the test
(Excerpt) Read more at click2houston.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: drugwar; eightyyearoldstoner; passthebong; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-138 next last
To: Black Tooth
I have read where teachers are not randomly drug tested, and also, the people that conduct the tests, are not randomly drug tested.
LOL! Please.. Cops are'nt drug tested. Wake up people. Doctors aren't randomly drug tested. Politicians aren't drug tested. Random Drug testing is for the little guy:
"THIS MEAN'S YOU!!"
Now back to work...
81
posted on
07/22/2005 2:47:51 PM PDT
by
Smogger
To: Smogger
Random Drug testing is for the little guyYou got it. Who's a greater danger when high: a crossing guard or an armed police officer?
82
posted on
07/22/2005 2:49:42 PM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: RetiredArmy
If some old coot cant read employment paperwork then he shouldnt be a crossing guard. Being OLD doesnt excuse you from the restrictions of a signed agreement. He never should have signed the paperwork if he couldnt "read it or see it" as you put it.
83
posted on
07/22/2005 2:50:10 PM PDT
by
Tiger Smack
(www.tigersmack.com <------- for LSU & SEC sports/news/stuff)
To: Eagles Talon IV
What is it with some people on this forum and in society in general that they believe rules should only apply to some people and not others?Seniority.
And, the memory of times past when we were a nation of free standing individuals, not a hive of regimented drones.
84
posted on
07/22/2005 2:51:29 PM PDT
by
Racehorse
(Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
To: Smogger
>> How about cops? Oh.. nevermind their unions are strong enough to keep them of the table..
I am a union worker. Apparently mine is not that strong.
85
posted on
07/22/2005 2:52:22 PM PDT
by
mmercier
(a long acquaintance with sorrow)
To: Eagles Talon IV
What is it with some people on this forum [...] that they believe rules should only apply to some people and not others?Who believes that? It appears to me that those opposed to random drug testing for this guyu are opposed for all crossing guards.
86
posted on
07/22/2005 2:53:17 PM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Mikey_1962
87
posted on
07/22/2005 2:56:31 PM PDT
by
HawaiianGecko
(Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results is the definition of insanity.)
To: BlackbirdSST
You must be real proud. Blackbird. I'm always "real proud" when Justice Scalia agrees with me, as when he wrote the opinion in Veronia School District case in '95. Blackbird
You must be "real proud" of your screen name. You know, it appears automatically at the end of your post, so you don't have to type "Blackbird" in every time. You did know that, right? Or are we just randomly typing "Blackbird" after every paragraph? Blackbird.
Actually, it's kind of fun. Blackbird.
Addictive in a way, almost. Blackbird.
Alright, I'm stopping now. Blackbird.
Really. Blackbird.
Blackbird.
88
posted on
07/22/2005 2:56:59 PM PDT
by
Luddite Patent Counsel
(Theyre digging through all of your files, stealing back your best ideas.)
To: Luddite Patent Counsel
Similarly, there are circumstances, such as those bearing upon public safety, under which random drug tests are perfectly reasonable.
And why is this reasonable? Not one known event has ever occurred to show drug testing has saved one life or prevented one accident. Drug testing was implemented as a solution to a problem that did not exist. It was just another step down the road to tyranny. Even now, the only people being arrested or charged with anything remotely like this are the pilots who try to fly planes drunk, not a part of the drug testing phenomena.
Yes, and that should be used to justify making the law whatever you want it to be.
No, the way it was written in the Constitution. Even the black robes struck it down in some cases, in recognition that at least the 4th Amendment exists.
There are two kinds of conservatives. One kind is a strict constitutional conservative that believes we should follow the original meaning of the constitution. That is the kind of conservative I am.
The second kind of conservative believe that their agenda needs to be followed no matter what it takes to achieve it, similar to the liberal side of the house, only with a different agenda. That is the kind of conservative you are.
You aren't posting from jail, are you?
I fight for freedom whether it personally affects me or not. It runs in my veins.
To: Tiger Smack
Whatever floats your boat pal. I'm done.
90
posted on
07/22/2005 2:58:11 PM PDT
by
RetiredArmy
(The government and courts are stealing your freedom & liberty!)
To: Mikey_1962
91
posted on
07/22/2005 2:58:27 PM PDT
by
sandydipper
(Less government is best government!)
To: microgood
For a guy with no sense of humor, you're pretty funny. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, you're a walking time bomb.
92
posted on
07/22/2005 3:00:11 PM PDT
by
Luddite Patent Counsel
(Theyre digging through all of your files, stealing back your best ideas.)
To: Luddite Patent Counsel
And "unreasonable" is still a word with actual meaning, and is still in the fourth amendment. Glad I could help. Luddite, if you wanted a cup of my pee, I'd say that was pretty unreasonable. If it were blood and not pee, would you still feel the same way? That the taking of blood was not an unreasonable search?
"Eh, just sit still while I prick you with this needle to take your blood. I mean, your blood is not your body, so why bitch and moan about it? It's just your blood!"
Just to clarify: Your body is even more important than your property, Luddite. What rights do you think you have, as concerning your body? Or is your body simply a vessel for the government to test and tap at their whim?
93
posted on
07/22/2005 3:03:00 PM PDT
by
zoyd
(I'm with the government. We're going to make you like your neighbor.)
To: MikeinIraq
"we are not going to let anybody frighten us from our great love of freedom"
President Bush, today.
94
posted on
07/22/2005 3:08:16 PM PDT
by
patton
("Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write.")
To: Mikey_1962
Hey, there's no Constitutional right to own your own urine. /s
95
posted on
07/22/2005 3:12:42 PM PDT
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: microgood
96
posted on
07/22/2005 3:15:28 PM PDT
by
HawaiianGecko
(Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results is the definition of insanity.)
To: Luddite Patent Counsel
You must be real proud. Blackbird. I'm always "real proud" when Justice Scalia agrees with me, as when he wrote the opinion in Veronia School District case in '95. Blackbird You must be "real proud" of your screen name. You know, it appears automatically at the end of your post, so you don't have to type "Blackbird" in every time. You did know that, right? Or are we just randomly typing "Blackbird" after every paragraph? Blackbird. Actually, it's kind of fun. Blackbird. Addictive in a way, almost. Blackbird. Alright, I'm stopping now. Blackbird. Really. Blackbird. Blackbird.
Now you're just acting retarded. Blackbird.
To: Responsibility1st
Well, they did come to Rush's defense in the medical records matter. I'm pretty sure Rush is still white.
98
posted on
07/22/2005 3:17:31 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: Past Your Eyes
By reading but refraining from commenting on most threads where I have nothing original to add.
To: HawaiianGecko
That may be a true statement but it doesn't have much meaning. It's like trying to prove a negative statement.
I understand what you are saying, but my basic point was that there was no crisis or set of incidents which brought on drug testing. it was basically done because drug tests became available, almost as if it were a welfare program for drug testing companies.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-138 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson