The Law of Unintended Consequences in action.
Is THIS what they had in mind with the war on drugs?
Its almost as though they are saying "What have you got to hide?"
"Let us look in your bladder won't you?"
Christ Almighty.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
To: Mikey_1962
We'll put cameras on your streets, too.
To: Mikey_1962
I guess you have to be that old to remember when unconstitutional searches weren't routine.
3 posted on
07/22/2005 1:47:17 PM PDT by
thoughtomator
(How many liberties shall we give up to maintain the pretense that we are not at war with Islam?)
To: Mikey_1962
he was lucky he wasn't taken to the hospital and tasered into compliance, as one PD did somewhere
To: Mikey_1962
All is not lost - there is reaction against this by some parents who want him rehired.
See:
July 21, 2005, 10:06AM
Fired crossing guard gets show of support
Parents want HISD to rehire 79-year-old who was terminated for refusing drug test
By JASON SPENCER
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3275476
5 posted on
07/22/2005 1:48:55 PM PDT by
bwteim
To: Mikey_1962
"He's the only one with loving touch. He knows you by name," said Kenneth Bonte, a student. These days, Kenneth, that's not always a great thing. But we agree that he cares and that this should never have happpened.
6 posted on
07/22/2005 1:49:54 PM PDT by
theDentist
(The Dems have put all their eggs in one basket-case: Howard "Belltower" Dean.)
To: Mikey_1962
If they suspect he is drunk, can't they just have him blow on a breathalyzer? If he is not otherwise impaired doing his duties, then what's the point of the test?
8 posted on
07/22/2005 1:51:05 PM PDT by
seacapn
To: Mikey_1962
Hmmmm. Crossing guard, 79,
Must have been a "pop" quiz.
9 posted on
07/22/2005 1:52:15 PM PDT by
AxelPaulsenJr
(Pray Daily For Our Troops and President Bush)
To: Mikey_1962; All
"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear".
This is exactly what the 5th amendment is supposed to prevent.
11 posted on
07/22/2005 1:53:31 PM PDT by
Little Pig
(Is it time for "Cowboys and Muslims" yet?)
To: Mikey_1962
There is no harm in treating all people (except Muslims) as potential criminals if we can save just one life.
</sarcasm>
15 posted on
07/22/2005 1:55:48 PM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws spawned the runaway federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
To: Mikey_1962
It's not entirely unreasonable to ask that people associated with school children should take random drug tests. It's important to protect children from drug dealers, as far as possible. But the whole point of random drug tests, surely, is to use a little common sense. The folks who chose him to test, and then pressed the issue, clearly had no common sense.
It's really the same with random bag checks in the NYC transportation system. It makes some sense, but not if they absolutely refuse to do elementary profiling (i.e., young males).
16 posted on
07/22/2005 1:56:05 PM PDT by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Mikey_1962
I understand him. For him it comes down to trust. No one in their right mind would see a 79 year old crossing guard as a habitual drug user. For the school bureaucrats, its important to make people go through a humiliating ritual to get their i's and t's crossed. Whatever happened the good old American presumption of innocence principle? The Drug Warriors have gone overboard in assuming every one who refuses to take a test must be high. The burden shouldn't be on the employee to prove he's clean, the burden should be on the government to prove he's breaking the law.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
25 posted on
07/22/2005 2:00:52 PM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Mikey_1962
Light signed the form, but did not read the fine print. At 79, he probably COULD NOT EVEN SEE THE FINE PRINT!!!
29 posted on
07/22/2005 2:02:41 PM PDT by
RetiredArmy
(The government and courts are stealing your freedom & liberty!)
To: Mikey_1962
Guilty or innocent, it is always best to observe ones right to remain silent. I have no problem with tests decreed due to probable cause, I have a big problem with random tests, and refuse them. Once refusal cost me a possible job, the other time I never heard anything and worked the whole job.
Drug tests by their very nature require the individual to offer evidence against ones person.
This person made the right decision, as long as he is willing to bear the consequence, otherwise he will have to give testimony for against himself in order to remain employed.
I am from Massachusetts, so I am used to this; the rest of you all better get used to the idea too, as it will soon be national policy to work for any government or private entity that deals with them.
I want to see mandatory drug tests for all elected officials and their staffers... We will have a man on mars before this though.
33 posted on
07/22/2005 2:04:51 PM PDT by
mmercier
(a long acquaintance with sorrow)
To: Mikey_1962
I've never encountered a school district policy that didn't suck. It's the glorious age of Zero Tolerance.
40 posted on
07/22/2005 2:08:23 PM PDT by
Junior_G
To: Mikey_1962
79 years, he should know how the world works, he should understand about impartial rules, and he should not be carrying a chip on his shoulder. Grow up!
To: Mikey_1962
In related news a 5th grade student today was killed while trying to cross a busy street on the way home from school. Asked to comment, Principal Paul Bearer could only say "BUSHFAULT"
To: Mikey_1962
I dislike drug tests in general, just for how invasive they are (even urinalysis).
I get to look forward to quarterly drug tests as a soldier, though (joy).
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: Mikey_1962
91 posted on
07/22/2005 2:58:27 PM PDT by
sandydipper
(Less government is best government!)
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.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson