Theordore Dalrymple:

"Whenever I say to someone that I do not believe that there is a universal human right to healthcare, that person always asks whether, then, I want to see people dying in the street from treatable disease. I in turn ask that person whether he can think of any reason for not allowing people to die in the street other than that they have a right to treatment. The fact that, as often as not, the person has great difficulty with this question suggests not only that our state, but our minds and moral imaginations have become highly bureaucratised."

Get rid of the Department of Education, the NEA, and the AFT, and lots of these problems go away.

The term "zero-tolerance" is just another way of saying "we refuse to use judgement or common sense".

This is inspired - indeed almost required - by the litigious society. If you treat all kids strictly according to the rules, you can never be accused of making the wrong decision.

This is, after all, the society where parents sue when their kids are not selected for sports teams, when they receive poor grades, when they are suspended for misbehaving, etc, etc.

Even so, Brian is absolutely right: the situation would be immensely improved if school were under local control. Get the federal nose out of local business, and many problems go away.

Silly girl, she made the mistake of not relying on the school for her birth control (free condoms). Never show initiative for taking care of yourself and showing the system it's not needed. It gets petulant and vindictive.

Private school. Charter school. Home school. It's nonsense like this that has made the alternatives so popular. I'd rather live on a tight budget than surrender my impressionable kids to a bunch of fools who want to rationalize their own vacuousness by lowering the bar.

Having taught at the high school level for seven years, I can promise you that teaching has become a passionless profession where the actual knowledge learned by students is a mere byproduct of the entire system. Administrators and teachers, in their quest for more power and pay, interact just like teenagers, except with maybe a better vocabualry and a more stern expression on their serious faces.

The problem is, if you allow kids to start taking pills, the teachers have no way of knowing whether or not a pill is ok or not. People could stuff whatever drugs they wanted into a Tylenol bottle. It isn't realistic for teachers to be able to identify different types of pills.

Most schools have a system where if you have prescription medication, you drop it off with the school nurse. You can also often get basic over-the-counter meds from her, depending on the school.

Teachers have enough to do without analyzing the contents of every pill bottle.

The problem is, if you allow kids to start taking pills, the teachers have no way of knowing whether or not a pill is ok or not.

Fortunately it's their job to teach, and not their job to know or care what medication someone takes. Unfortunately they don't realize it.

Zero tolerance policies are one of my hot button issues and frequently tempt me to get involved in local school politics. In my school district, "weapon" is defined so broadly that students aren't allowed to bring books to school. Of course that's only selectively enforced.

When I was in high school I ignored the prescription drug policy because I carried a rescue inhaler (and because I was an arrogant little snot.)

I'm of the opinion that the reason so many schools have a 'zero tolerance' policy is so that administrators and school boards don't have to tax their brains to actually think about an issue, put it in perspective, make a decision, weather the consequences of that decision.

Part of it is in response to lawsuit happy parents who will defend their precious snowflakes against anyone who dares to whisper that they might be raging brats or downright dangerous to others.

You know when this shit will stop?

When a teacher confiscates an asthmatic's rescue inhaler, and that child dies. When a teacher or some other bureaucrat ends up charged with negligent manslaughter, then reason will return.

A big part of this stems from the idea that it is somehow the school's responsibility to make sure that your child is returned to you in relatively the same condition in which you last saw them.

One of the most asinine justifications I've heard for zero-tolerance policies:

"Well without zero-tolerance rules then a valedictorian who's never had a detention and brought Nyquil would be treated differently than the school hooligan."

Well . . . . DUH! There's something really wrong with a system that can't tell the difference between a a good kid transporting Nyquil (the case that triggered our argument) and a fuckup who's caught bringing a thermos full of grain alcohol ad kool-aid for the fourth time that year.

People in the upper echelons of the public education system will, if they're being honest, tell you that the purpose of the public school system is not to educate, but to indoctorinate. Education is merely a by-product, and in many instances an unwanted one. It's been this way for most of the American public school system's history, going back to the early 20th century. Public schoos are a contrivance by the elites to try to raise the general public to be good little sheep, and not question their betters too much. You'll notice that these elites never, ever send their own children to a public school or any other school where they might accidentally mingle with the hoi-polloi.

I totally agree with pseudonym that it should not be the teacher's job to worry about what pills a student is popping. Teachers have an awful lot of responsibilities dumped on them that have nothing to do with educating.

It's ridiculous to expect teacher's to have to monitor student's pill taking. Either the zero tolerance that is in effect stays or leave the responsibility to the students and let them take whatever pills they want.

The penalty is out of proportion to the offence. The same penalty as bringing a gun to school and a greater penaly than being caught high on an illegal drug is absurd.

She apparently took the pill at school because it has to be taken at the same time each day. Could she not have planned to take the pill at 8:00 every morning or 6:00 every evening? She knew that she could have taken the pills to the school nurse, but didn't want to take the time out of her lunch break.

Perhaps she should have "studied the handbook closely" when she received it. I can't get quite so worked up about someone who choose to break the rule and complains when she gets caught.

Of course teachers can't be expected to monitor a student's pill taking. But once they find out it was harmless and the parent is aware of it, the case should be closed! The student should be warned to take her pill at home next time or give it to the school nurse. But to carry though with a punishment as if she did something wrong -not enough words for how stupid that is. And it really makes my blood boil that one of the few teen girls out there who responsibly takes birth control - with her mom's consent, even - should be a victim of this insanity.

Cousin Dave said it all. They don't want the kids making decisions based on facts and the preponderance of evidence. They want sheep. Why do you think people who know anything are excluded from juries? Independent minds are a threat to this government.

Ah well, dinosaurs like me are almost extinct. Have fun with the religion of peace, kids.

I can't get quite so worked up about someone who choose to break the rule and complains when she gets caught.

My little brother got a set of class rules from his math teacher

Rule One. No talking to other students
Rule Two. If you have a question ask someone next to you before you ask the teacher

I wont bother posting the rest of the rules

My point is that if you disagree with the rules, work on getting them changed.

Knowing the rule, choosing to break it and then complaining when you get caught doesn't get a lot of sympathy from me no matter how stupid the rule or outrageous the penalty.

If my child brought home those rules from the math teacher, I would be calling the principal to point out the absurdity. I wouldn't sit back and wait for my child to be punished for breaking the rule and then get worked up about it.

Cousin Dave, today's schools do a good job of preparing students for life in corporate America, where an overpriced college degree is more important than a good work ethic, and professionalized H.R. departments care more about keeping themselves from getting sued than with recruiting and keeping good talent.

Here is my question to all school board members.

"I personally think there is a difference between heroin and aspirin. I trust teachers and principals to be able to tell the difference. What do you think?"

The way to stop this is to have every parent pull their kids from class during the two weeks of idiotic suspension. If the schools are half full, the rules would change.

Curtis - they'd just send the cops around to gather the kids and arrest the parents for child abuse.

Never mind that in many cases sending your kids to public school is child abuse.

"I personally think there is a difference between heroin and aspirin. I trust teachers and principals to be able to tell the difference. What do you think?"

Most people can tell the difference between someone cooking a powder in a spoon, drawing it into a needle and then injecting it between their toes and someone opening a bottle of Bayer's, but heroin and aspirin are not the only drugs out there.

If I wanted to take an illegal pill, I would get a bottle of Advil and hide the pill in the bottom. I'm fine with students pill-taking not being monitored, but I wouldn't expect teachers to distinguish among all of the different drugs available.

why didn't she do the 'polite' thing and 'pop' her Pill in the girls' room? out of sight, out of mindlessness!

Fortunately it's their job to teach, and not their job to know or care what medication someone takes. Unfortunately they don't realize it.

True, but a classroom full of kids poppin' a mood-altering narcotic substance can make for a very difficult teaching environment. So, knowing whether a kid is popping an aspirin or a hit of ex can be a part of monitoring a classroom.

I've known enough kids who popped a little something to "take the edge off" before class or even while in class. Random pill popping can be an actual problem for a teacher...and for the non-medicated students trying to absorb what little knowledge the public school system actualy passes on these days.

BTW, why is this girl taking birth control pills in the middle of the school day in a public area? Is she showing off to the other girls? Advertising her availability? Has she never heard of those once-a-day pills or the patch?

That said, zero tolerance is nothing more than the triumph of bureaucracy over common sense.

Ahh, the insanity of zero tolerance-zero intelligence. Where you can, nay should be teaching 12-14 year olds sex ed, toss free rubbers in their faces and then lambast them when they dare take that advice, have sex, take pills and oh my goodness, show independence from the state/school etc..

School these days really is only to show kids they're serfs in society. Get in a fight and defend yourself? Thats suspension for fighting, despite evidence the other person threw the first punch.

Fortunately it's their job to teach, and not their job to know or care what medication someone takes. Unfortunately they don't realize it.

True, but a classroom full of kids poppin' a mood-altering narcotic substance can make for a very difficult teaching environment.

Actually Ritalin is quite popular.

Since when is a classroom full of kids not a difficult teaching environment?

If you want to prohibit disruption, prohibit disruption, don't prohibit things that might someday lead to disruption.

Zero tolerance = zero thought = zero discretion.

Worse, the authoritarian mind-set is mandated for all future administrators.

Talk about your totalitarian thought control... .

Bradley13 was right, that a zero tolerance policy is the same as saying "our teachers cannot be trusted to make a decision. They can't be trusted to see what a pill is, only that one has been taken."

We should have a bit of language fun. Students should "proudly" proclaim that their teachers and school systems are Zero Tolerance. Let them deny it!

There should be T-shirts "My teachers are Zero Tolerance".

My children have attended two Fairfax County elementary schools and I am happy to say that, so far, we have not had any problems overzealous foolishness like this. There are small things like a rule against kids depicting weapons in drawings (according to the rules, all the knights in shining armor and policemen in little boys' artwork should be unarmed), but even that rule is not zealously enforced (when my son brings home his pictures of knights in shining armor and police, they are armed).

Our only bad experience was at a regular parent-teacher conference where a school counseler gently objected to a picture my son had drawn of two stick figures fighting (karate-style fighting). The assignment had been to write one rule at the top of the page and then draw a picture illustrating the rule. My son's rule was "no fighting," and his picture was of two stick figures fighting (as in what not to do). The counselor expressed mild concern a) that he drew people fighting when the rule was "no fighting" and b) one stick figure was kicking the other in the private parts.

For my part I told the counselor that her concern, however mildly expressed, was absurd because A)The stick figure was NOT kicking the other stick's privates, he was kicking the other stick's stomach, as was obvious on even cursory inspection, B) My seven year old knows nothing about sex anyway so there was no possibility of any illicit intention or meaning, and C)my boy drew a picture of two guys fighting to illustrate his rule because two guys NOT fighting could mean anything. In other words, the message of his picture was "Don't do this!"

The counselor backed off immediately and we never heard another word about it or anything else stupid like it.

So, while this young lady's experience was very unfortunate, I do not think that it necessarily reflects Fairfax County schools as a whole. We've been happy with them.

Conan, Ortho-Evra ("the patch") has been linked to higher incidences of blood clots, stroke, and heart attack in women than regular daily pills. It delivers an estrogen dose 60% higher than regular birth control pills. It is also a pain in the ass... it's like having a band-aid on your abdomen all the time. It itches, and it falls of frepeatedly if you sweat. I wouldn't want my daughter on it.

When I'm on the pill, I typically carry it in my purse. You need to take it at the same time every day, and if you forget, you take it as soon as possible. So, it makes sense to carry them on you.

If a teenager is mentally competent and has a perscription for a medication, a school should not be allowed to keep that child from carrying their meds (particularly in the case of life-saving medications such as rescue inhalers and insulin shots). Zero-tolerance policies are stupid.

That being said, the girls shouldn't have whipped out her BC in public (if that's what happened).

They had to enforce the rule. Because if they didn't, everyone would start taking their pills at random times throughout the school day. And if there are a lot of kids taking legal drugs, kids are going to start taking illegal drugs.

And, unfortunately, it IS the teacher's job to stop kids from taking illegal drugs. The children are minors, and the teachers are liable, and if some kid overdoses on legal meds, or takes illegal pills, the teachers will be held responsible.

It is unrealistic to make teachers closely examine every pills the kids take. Not allowing pill-taking at all is much more sensible.

And kids will lie, lie, lie to you. "This is my allergy/ADD/birth control/heart condition/whatever pill" they will say to the teacher, when she asks them why they are taking a pill. There are plenty of pills that are legal pills, there are plenty of illegal pills that look legal. Teachers cannot be expected to keep track of who is taking what pill. That is absolutely absurd. And they can't sit idly by when minors abuse drugs around them, which they DO. Any idea of what would happen to a teacher who took a kid at their word, and then it turned out the kid was popping something illegal?

What do you expect to happen... kid takes a pill, teacher asks "Are you supposed to be taking that", kid says "Yes, I have X condition", teachers calls up nurse to see if this is true? Do you realize how many times a day the teacher would have to call the nurse? The teacher wouldn't be able to get anything else done!

Sorry, but the legal drugs need to be banned from school with the illegal ones.

And yeah, punishment needs to happen, because if there are no consequences, kids will all start taking their meds whenever they feel like it, and the situation will get out of control very quickly.

So if you don't ban meds, the only other solution is to make sure the teachers are not held responsible at all for any illegal drug use that happens. Fat chance of that happening.

WHy again was she taking BC mid-day in school? It must have been to show off, esp since she was seen doing it. And I agree with Nicolek, either teachers have no responsibility for what happens, or everything needs to be banned. Punishment was extreme, but it's not like she didn't have a written policy telling her that beforehand.

NicoleK,

Actually it is not the teachers job to prevent kids from taking illegal drugs. It is their job to teach hence the word "teacher" not "nanny state enforcer."

If in order for my children be able to take antihistamines and aspirin, then other kids take illegal drugs, then I am OK with it. BTW, if my kids want to take illegal drugs, the school will be not able to prevent it with a silly no aspirin rule. They are quite bright and ingenious.

I do not think they are taking illegal drugs but I imagine they will eventually. I do not really mind moderate use.

If a teenager is mentally competent...

I guess there's always a first time.

...and has a perscription for a medication, a school should not be allowed to keep that child from carrying their meds (particularly in the case of life-saving medications such as rescue inhalers and insulin shots).

I'm with you on that one. Lifesaving medications being kept hidden away in an office (and possibly lost or misplaced or locked in a cabinet) is a recipe for disaster.

"They had to enforce the rule. Because if they didn't, everyone would start taking their pills at random times throughout the school day. And if there are a lot of kids taking legal drugs, kids are going to start taking illegal drugs."

You just jumped from point A) not enforcing the rule, to point B) kids taking pills at random times during the school day, to point C) kids taking illegal drugs at random times during the school day - with the zeal of a true nanny-stater.

Get rid of the stupid rule. Kids will take their necessary pills at different times of the day, just like they will when they're adults. Big effin' deal.

Some kids will take illegal drugs, too. That's already happening, rule or no rule, and it has everything to do with what kind of parents and environment they are in, and nothing to do with girls taking Midol for PMS.

I can't believe we even have to have this discussion. Or that people are still putting their kids in government schools. Yet we do, and they do! Where is that giant, population-sized clue-by-four when we need it?

" ... if you don't ban meds, the only other solution is to make sure the teachers are not held responsible at all for any illegal drug use that happens. Fat chance of that happening."

Which is precisely the problem.

I suspect you and I actually agree on the way things *should* be, but people have to stop putting up with things the way they are. How do we get to the point where teachers aren't accountable for student drug (legal or illegal) use? WE change that. They are OUR schools, right?

If your kid is in a school like that, pull them out and put them in a different one. And if your broke ass can't afford to educate your kid with more than what the government has to offer, why don't you try teaching them something yourself? Or get on the school board and raise hell. If you don't have time to do that, you don't have time to have kids anyway and shouldn't have any. Or why not get together with some other parents and figure something out?

Actually, it IS the teacher's job to enforce rules and laws at the school, and any teacher who thinks it isn't, is gonna get fired.

And kids do need nannies. A nanny is someone who looks after kids. That is what schools are for... one of the original purposes of the public school system was to get kids off the street and look after them. To nanny them, if you will. (The other purpose was to turn them into good factory workers).

People expect teachers to do everything, including babysit their kids and raise their kids for them and teach them manners and everything. Most schools don't let kids go off-campus during the school day, or smoke, or have sex in the student lounge. Teachers are expected to enforce these rules, effectively being baby-sitters (which is what a nanny IS) when the kids aren't in class. Because they are liable. If they don't... they are lucky if getting fired is all that happens to them.

I think there are very few parents who would send their kids to a school that was a free-for-all.

I don't think that most schools can realistically do the "unschooling" thing, letting kids do what they want and follow their hearts. You want that, send your kid to Sudbury Valley, or homeschool them. Both valid choices.

The public schools are huge factories. The kids can't all get individual attention, and yet the teachers are expected to enforce a lot of rules and regulations. This is why you have blanket bans.

Yes, Pirate Jo, I am hoping to educate my own kids, if my husband will go along with that. (So far the kids exist only in our imagination and my ovaries). But at the same time, if my kid was popping uppers and the teacher saw and didn't stop him/her, I'd be pretty pissed. But we can't expect teachers to analyze every drug out there. Hence, the ban.

This is the problem with large schools.

No, Nicole. This is the problem with the nanny state that assumes that everyone is a criminal.

The probable irony is that this student took the birth control pill in public because she knew that it was benign, and probably had the container to prove it. It was public BECAUSE it was harmless.

I think many of her classmates are taking recreational drugs, but either secretly or not during the school day. This is probably a ritual punishment of should-be-legal behavior, because the school is not able to catch the truly illegal behavior.

The punishment is disproportionate because the school is ineffective in its policies. The innocent get caught because they can't imagine that anyone would want to punish them, when others are getting away with it.

Brian, I think what NicokeK has done is lay out, very truthfully, the way things are. She's absolutely right, in looking at current policies and tracing them to their roots. If I had to write what she just did, I'd be puking into a bucket. But what she says is true.

She's smart enough to get her own kids (if she has any) into something different. More power to you, NicoleK, and good luck.

Although I don't think "large schools" have to be that way though. It's, as you say, the underlying problem of shirking responsibility - and I'm losing patience with these stupid people. Look, you want Internet and a 50-inch TV screen? Air conditioning? Toilets that flush? (Even a little device you can buy at Target for a buck, in case it doesn't?) Fine. Me too. Then you live in a world where technology has also engineered potentially self-destructive drugs. Teach your kids some common sense. If you don't have common sense yourself, then get it, and THEN teach it to your kids.

If an abundance of children are actually popping mind-altering substances at school during the day, then I want to know who their parents are. If they are my neighbors, then I'm going over to their house.

It's creepy, 'IF-THEN' statements are creeping into my everyday speech.

Actually, it IS the teacher's job to enforce rules and laws at the school, and any teacher who thinks it isn't, is gonna get fired.

People expect teachers to do everything, including babysit their kids and raise their kids for them and teach them manners and everything.

If an abundance of children are actually popping mind-altering substances at school during the day, then I want to know who their parents are. If they are my neighbors, then I'm going over to their house.

They are. The bulk of the boys are on Ritalin, and the girls are on Prozac and birth control.

It's creepy, 'IF-THEN' statements are creeping into my everyday speech.

Learn C++. No then.

"the case of a 13-year-old Arizona student who was strip-searched in 2003 by an administrator who suspected that she was carrying ibuprofen pills."

The administrator must have been a woman - if it had been a man, they would have made sure to mention it. Instead they leave us to hopefully assume it was a man.

oops..left the wrong link again

Zero tolerance policies are bullshit. Does anyone here honestly think that if said birth control pill-popper, or any other student for that matter, had the urge to eat some Xanax or ex or other illegal pill, that they would do it in view of anyone else? No--they'd go to the restroom and take it. A pill can rest all day in a pocket, quite comfortably, and without being detected, and can disappear down a throat in a matter of seconds. It's when students start dragging big prescription packages out in front of everyone that it gets noticed.

A crackdown on legal drugs likely has very little effect on the presence of illegal drugs in schools or anywhere else. It seems that school administrations are treating the well-behaved, responsible students like delinquents more to make a point and set an example than to teach them a lesson.

'The problem is, if you allow kids to start taking pills, the teachers have no way of knowing whether or not a pill is ok or not.'

What did they do before 'zero tolerance'? Kids who looked high/drunk/spaced out at school were sent home and were disciplined. Every kid in the school was not kept from having a normal life because some people MIGHT use drugs. Kids used to bring their prescriptions to school, it was the parent's responsibility and also the school nurses' in the elementary grades. In high school we took Bufferin, Midol,cold meds, what we needed, that's normal. Not this 'every pill could be a hit of E, so ban all pills!' insanity.

It's called Club Med in some schools; kids that need specific meds throughout the day go to the nurse and get their dose. Seizure meds, glucose checks paired with insulin shots, etc. Life saving meds? Let the kids have their inhalers, they know best when they need it and shouldn't need to bow, scrape and submit for permission. My daughter needs Diastat (valium for seizures) but cannot self administer while seizing. The teacher isn't qualified. At school, the rooms are all on intercoms that go straight to the nurse and she hauls ass. Usually the principal comes running too, if he's in house, even though it's not in his job description and he can't really do much. Love him for that. BUT the school is a smaller elementary, not one of these warehouse-sized high schools. That would/should be a deal breaker right there.

There aren't many problems at our school. Probably because it's private, and there's no b.s. about probationary status, primary/ secondary/ tertiary infractions, hearings, etc. giving offenders wiggling room. Your kid gets caught with a narcotic, they're gone (this nonsense about BC wouldn't go anywhere with our school). They come to school under the influence, they're gone. They get caught knocking boots on campus, they're gone. In fact, if a girl gets pregnant, she and baby daddy (if he's a student at the school as well) are gone. And the tuition will not be refunded, you can't sue, you've signed a contract to that effect. So the kids get to go home after screwing up and face the parents after they've jettisoned $5,000 cash, and have to enroll said delinquent elsewhere and juggle kids at two different schools since they don't want to punish any siblings for the infraction.

Our school has drawn a hard line in the sand based on common sense. Local families will try to send their out-of-control kids to us to "fix" them (thinking maybe some of that Christian stuff will rub off on 'em?) but applicants don't get to just walk in. There are interviews with previous schools and teachers so our school finds out why the switch. When the truth invariably comes out, they are told point-blank: One strike, and they're out. No refunds. We're not a rehab facility or boot camp. Parenting needs to be done at home.

As Draconian as it sounds, consider this; In this recession, all the other private schools have had massive drops in enrollment. Our has substantially increased. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head. Parents and potential students know the rules before enrolling.

Maybe common sense isn't completely dead, it's just left the public school system and gone elsewhere.

And is it just me or are the schools also getting more and more intrusive into the home life? T's in kindergarten for God's sake and it's already beginning. Monday a flier came home asking for the usual annoying $4 for mother's (and pc like because it's in the summer, father's) day gifts.

OK, well and fine. I'll gladly give him $4 to get his mom a little gift but, no, that's not good enough for the school. Next paragraph: don't just give your kid the money, make them earn it and even listed the chores you are expected to give them to earn it. Now I believe in kids having chores and earning their allowance but this sure as hell shouldn't be dictated by the fucking school.

Grammy's tough all on her own and he knows it, knows he has to hang his coat, put his shoes by the door, pick up after himself and so on and so forth in Grammy's house and knows she is sure as hell more stubborn than he on these issues. The reward he invariably asks for -- to sleep over on Friday night. This has been working well for quite some time and the boy hasn't been asking for much in return. Now if I indulge him with $4 that isn't even for himself, we've got to explain how he earned it to the nanny state?

T's headed for trouble. He's a flirter. He loves knights and superheroes. I cringed when I read that about the pics, Dennis. His will invariably have swords. He was a knight for Halloween last year and had a styrofoam (gasp!) sword. Seriously, I wonder how long before we have to explain letting him play Pacman and Harry Potter on my PS2.

And as for life threatening meds go, he has very serious food allergies. Currently, he's too little to be in control of them so it really is a necessary evil to put it in the school's hands. But in his teens, his epi-pen should be at hand just in case he ingests a peanut or something with eggs in it. I can just see him getting busted for carrying Benedryl when he's 16 and Benedryl has saved his life more than once already. At this point, I'm wondering whether it'll be that or flirting with some girl that gets him kicked out of junior high.

I too think that it's ridiculous for teachers to make determinations about pills. But this zero toleration stuff is nonsense and just punishes the good kids without resolving anything. If a kid is high on illegal, kid is disruptive (and, if they aren't, they're not a problem, now are they, except perhaps to themself) punish the disruption up to and including expulsion.

"The truth is no defense", which is a concept that has been bandied about in legal circles lately. From the story (which I read here, moons ago) about the ibuprofen strip search, just the act of having "pills" on you is noxious, regardless of anything else. It is quite like thought crime. You have not broken any law, but you can be punished for an aspirin in your purse or a nasty thought in your head. Popping a pill in public is similar to being politically incorrect in the press or even the internet these days. (I hope that your kind readers check out the several judicial processes against bloggers and elected officials (!) in Europe). You can now face criminal charges and possibly be extradited for reporting inconvient facts in Europe and other land masses.

I connect these two seemingly disparate points, because it is all part and parcel of the attitude that "if you're innocent" (i.e. meek) you will go along with an invasion of your privacy and your rights as a free thinker and human being. We are essentially making life impossible for anyone but Jesus, Mother Teresa and Ghandi.

This is something that I totally noticed after being in France for awhile; here privacy is still sacrosanct, and my French hubby thinks that this story is unbelievable. In that he cannot believe that a student would be suspended for popping pills during school hours, if her behavior was otherwise fine.

And, yet, at least in France, we make excuses for horrible, even criminal, behavior. I really think that it has to do with the fact that cops (and the state who they represent, and who eventually represents us) find it much easier to fill their quotas and bank picking on the civilized and law abiding. Screw the police state and catch the people who break the laws. Don't make more laws, just do your job, fearless leaders!

We are essentially making life impossible for anyone but Jesus, Mother Teresa and Ghandi.

And I'm not so sure about Jesus.

"The term "zero-tolerance" is just another way of saying "we refuse to use judgement or common sense"."

So so so so so true. Could we get some kind of group together to put this slogan up on billboards all over the country?

I don't know how I'm going to get through my son's school years without an assault charge... School administrators were silly little men when I was in school -- these days they are patently ridiculous.

Scott - either send the kid to a private school, or home school. It's your only hope, really. You send him to a public school, they'll have him on psychotropics inside of a year.

Well, the comment that compares the valedictorian with Nyquil to the kid who brings alcohol loaded Kool Aid is the reason that schools use zero tolerance.

Ever heard of the term "disparate consequences?" You can bet the lawyers have. Read the ongoing disputes about sentencing differences between crack and powdered cocaine. And this is the result. Lack of commonsense but evenhanded consequences, which some seem to think are perfectly acceptable.