School board votes to drug test some students

The Times-Journal ^ | Published March | By Mark Harrison29, 2006

[mysterio]

And we wonder why our children don't value privacy and freedom. We have taught them that Orwell's nightmare of statism is actually utopia.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Know your rights]

And we wonder why our children don't value privacy and freedom.

It's not clear that WOD-loving "conservatives" want their children to value those things.

[freepatriot32]

nanny state ping

[Supernatural]

Drug test the teachers and the administrators.

[MRMEAN]

"Where does the Partnership get its money?"

---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060319/us_nm/drugs_testing_dc

W.House pushes more schools to drug-test students

By Andy Sullivan
Sun Mar 19, 9:12 AM ET

Student athletes, musicians and others who participate in after school activities could increasingly be subject to random drug testing under a program promoted by the Bush administration.

White House officials say drug testing is an effective way to keep students away from harmful substances like marijuana and crystal methamphetamine, and have held seminars across the country to promote the practice to local school officials.

But some parents, educators and school officials call it a heavy-handed, ineffective way to discourage drug use that undermines trust and invades students' privacy.

"Our money should be going toward educating young people, not putting them under these surveillance programs," said Jennifer Kern, a research associate at the Drug Policy Alliance, a non-profit group that has frequently criticized U.S. drug policy.

Requiring students to produce a urine sample or hair sample for laboratory testing is a relatively recent tactic in the United States' decades-long "war on drugs," along with surveillance cameras and drug-sniffing dogs in school hallways.

Adults in the military and many workplaces have long been subject to testing, but U.S. courts have ruled that public schools cannot impose random tests on an entire student body.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that schools can randomly test student athletes who are not suspected of drug use, and in 2002 ruled that all students who participate in voluntary activities, like cheerleading, band or debate, could be subjected to random tests.

Since then, the Bush administration has spent $8 million to help schools pay for drug testing programs. The White House hopes to spend $15 million on drug-testing grants in the next fiscal year.

Roughly 600 school districts now use drug tests out of about 15,000 nationwide, according to officials from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

White House officials liken drug testing to programs that screen for tuberculosis or other diseases, and said students who test positive don't face criminal charges.

The threat of a drug test also helps students resist peer pressure, said John Horton, an associate deputy director at the drug-control office.

JUST SAY 'NO I CAN'T'

"If I'm at a party and somebody says, 'Hey, do you want a hit of dope?' if I can look at that person and say, 'No, I can't,' then that's one more tool to say no," Horton said at a recent drug-testing conference in Virginia.

Critics say the White House's emphasis on testing comes at the expense of counseling, treatment and education programs.

Studies are mixed on the programs' effectiveness. Several individual schools reported declines in student drug use after implementing random testing, and a survey of 65 Indiana principals found drug use decreased at more than half of the schools where testing occurred.

But a 2003 national survey of 76,000 students found no difference in drug use between schools that test students and those that don't.

Illicit drug use remained steady among high school students between 1997 and 2004, with roughly half of high school seniors saying they had tried illicit drugs at some point, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Several school administrators said the White House presentation had persuaded them of the benefits of random testing. But Baltimore social worker Karen Harris-Waites said many in her school district would probably see a mandatory program as too intrusive.

That's happened in other school districts. Williamsburg, Virginia, decided to adopt a voluntary testing program earlier this month instead of a mandatory program.

And Roanoke County, Virginia, rejected a mandatory program in 2004. "It just seems to be very intrusive," said Roanoke County parent Larry Morgan. "Just because they say you can do something doesn't mean it's good policy."

[mugs99]

"We create these prisonlike environments, then we take our hunter-warrior types and label them attention-deficit disordered and put them on drugs."...Neil Bush

LOL!
His brother George thinks it's ok to drug kids with the dangerous drug Ritalin, but wants them drug tested for pot!
.

[Know your rights]

His brother George thinks it's ok to drug kids with the dangerous drug Ritalin, but wants them drug tested for pot!

Guess which drug GOP campaign contributors profit from.

[robertpaulsen]

If you're son plays a contact sport and is injured by another student recklessly high on drugs, you'll be screaming to high heaven complaining that the other student should have been tested.

You'll sue the school, the coach, and probably the cheerleaders for good measure. And I'll end up paying higher property taxes to settle your $50 million law suit.

Of course, if you and your son and your attorney are willing to sign an iron-clad waiver that if your son is injured by such a dopehead you won't sue, well that's different. Get the rest of the moms to do this and, "Play ball!".

[robertpaulsen]

your son. sheesh.

[Know your rights]

Fair enough ... but that argument doesn't seem to apply to Family, Career and Community Leaders of America, Future Farmers of America, high school chorus, scholar’s bowl team, math team, student council and French and Spanish clubs.

[robertpaulsen]

If it's a school sponsored event, and the student is driving to that event (local or away), then it would apply. IMO.

[Ken H]

If you're son plays a contact sport and is injured by another student recklessly high on drugs, you'll be screaming to high heaven complaining that the other student should have been tested.

1. How would failure to have done a drug test on this student at some time in the past make the school more liable?

2. If a player is recklessly high, the coach has no business letting him play. There's where the school's liability would be.

[robertpaulsen]

"1. How would failure to have done a drug test on this student at some time in the past make the school more liable?"

More liable? How about simply liable?

In the eyes of a jury looking at a $50 million civil lawsuit, they want to see that the school at least tried. Personally, I don't think it's up to the school to test -- I think that's the parent's job. But past lawsuits have proven me wrong.

"2. If a player is recklessly high, the coach has no business letting him play. There's where the school's liability would be."

Ever watch football? Special teams? On the kickoff? Those guys are crazy! Or they're all "recklessly high".

Which is it, KenH? Can you tell the difference between aggressive football and reckless behavior?

[Ken H]

More liable? How about simply liable?

If a "recklessly high" player causes an injury, the school is liable, regardless of whether a drug screening program was in place. Therefore, it makes sense to ask how it makes the school more liable not to have one.

In the eyes of a jury looking at a $50 million civil lawsuit, they want to see that the school at least tried. Personally, I don't think it's up to the school to test -- I think that's the parent's job. But past lawsuits have proven me wrong.

There have been lawsuits where the failure of a school to institute a drug screening policy was a factor in determining liability for an injury? I've not heard that before. (other than your post)

Can you tell the difference between aggressive football and reckless behavior?

You said "recklessy high on drugs", which should be observable in the lockerroom, for example. It would also be a tip off if the player continues to jump up and down, and pump his fist, even during the National Anthem.