Replies

I disagree (and so does the Supreme Court). I'm fully in favor of testing kids for drugs before they can attend school. Driving, as Hatteras says, as well as attending school, are privileges. Kids on drugs on the road endanger my family. Kids on drugs in school endangers my kids. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of testing kids in school with regard to sports and other extracurricular activities. I say, go to it.

Actually, the rationale that the court used to ok the drug testing of kids is the fact that they do not have rights as do adults (at least Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas take this view). Others on the court support testing because they are collectivists (especially Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens). You appear to agree with latter- that there is a collective interest for the society to keep kids who use drugs out of the chess club.

On the face of it, testing kids who participate in extracurricular activities sounds like a great idea - yay! a drug free environment for kids! The fact is, most kids who participate in extracurricular activities are on a college track, get good grades, and are not in general trouble makers. So, if this group of kids fail to exhibit problems related to drug use, or problems in general, why test them in the first place?

It's just like looking for terrorists at the airport - the blanket approach means the blue haired grandma gets the same scrutiny as does the angry Middle Eastern male aged 20 - 40. When you look at everybody, you don't see anyone in particular. Another example: managers who send out memos and create policies affecting entire departments or companies because of the transgressions of a single person. It's bad management, it happens all the time, and it's a bad formula upon which to deal with kids on drugs at school. Teachers, counselors, and administrators know the kids they interact with and they could do more to help our society by focusing on kids with problems rather than testing the kid trying to join the debating team or Key Club.

On the face of it, testing kids who participate in extracurricular activities sounds like a great idea - yay! a drug free environment for kids! The fact is, most kids who participate in extracurricular activities are on a college track, get good grades, and are not in general trouble makers. So, if this group of kids fail to exhibit problems related to drug use, or problems in general, why test them in the first place?

It's a false premise. I know (personally) of lots of kids who do extracurricular activities (in particular sports) who are troublemakers, who do drugs, and who endanger my kids. My older son goes to a private high school with very privileged kids. Drug use is common. I do NOT want the kids who influence my kids to be doing drugs. A lot of parents agree with me. A lot of us will vote for drug-testing in schools.

It's just like looking for terrorists at the airport - the blanket approach means the blue haired grandma gets the same scrutiny as does the angry Middle Eastern male aged 20 - 40. When you look at everybody, you don't see anyone in particular. Another example: managers who send out memos and create policies affecting entire departments or companies because of the transgressions of a single person. It's bad management, it happens all the time, and it's a bad formula upon which to deal with kids on drugs at school. Teachers, counselors, and administrators know the kids they interact with and they could do more to help our society by focusing on kids with problems rather than testing the kid trying to join the debating team or Key Club.

If you think the 'good' kids don't do drugs, you're in an outer universe somewhere, citizenK. But that's beside the point. There's no harm to a kid required to pee in a cup. And if we could detect and get rid of terrorists by having everyone pee in a cup, I'd be all for it.