Several years ago when my youngest was in high school, I noticed a form to opt in for drug testing in her registration packet. When we went to the school to turn all the forms in, the woman working the table was shocked that I refused the drug testing. She tried to give me a hard sell about wouldn't I want to know if. My reply to her was if I thought my kid was doing drugs, I'd have her tested myself and I would never entrust something so personal and private to school administrators. The look on her face was priceless.

I'm still trying to figure out why they'd mandate drug testing for prospective members of the scrapbooking club. What are they looking for? Steroids? I had no idea scrapbooking was so competetive.

I’m actually torn on this one. While I am a staunch defender of the Consitution and will defend the right to privacy of citizens, this isn’t the same as the feds coming into your home without cause or randomly sampling a private citizens urine on the street.

All public schools are Drug Free zones and they are government buildings and therefore must adhere to a certain drug free standard. All the activities in that school are funded through government money or grants and take place (for the most part) on school grounds. So, by that argument (which I’ll admit is not the strongest) I don’t think it’s illogical for the school to require the participants to be tested for drugs. It's government money being used afterall, so the government gets to decide on how it used and by who.

Now, would I leave that testing to the hands of the school administrators? Hell, no. I don’t trust them to sharpen a pencil properly, but the ideaology behind it isn’t exactly ripping apart the Constitution like the TSA does.
Do I still believe there must be just cause? Yes. However, we seem to have no problems with private companies requiring drug tests for employees, or random drug testing of welfare/government aid recipiants so really, what makes this different?

Government doesn't have any money. They're using yours. But given this argument, math class at a public school is also funded through "government money", why not require annual drug tests for enrollment and random tests throughout the year?

Yes, technically, the money the government uses is our tax dollars but the argument is the same. After it comes out of our pockets, it's no longer ours and we don't get to decide what happens to it, unfortunately. (I'm not getting into the "we decide when we vote" argument because we all know that voting these days is really just trying to decide who you can live with for 4 years).

"But given this argument, math class at a public school is also funded through "government money", why not require annual drug tests for enrollment and random tests throughout the year?"

Well... why not? Once you set foot on government property, you must adhere to thier rules. One of those rules is "no drugs". Again, public schools are using public funds to educate our children. If a child is bringing drugs onto the government property that is a pubic school, then they have no business being there. I am not saying I don't have problems with it but I can understand the ideology. And like I said, no one argues against drug testing for welfare recipiants for the same reason. Again, what makes this different?

The main problem I see against it is the fact that they are CHILDREN and cannot legally consent. Thier parents must consent. But thier parents want all the benefits of the goverment money and not all the requirements so they won't and the kid ends up suffering. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. People like to cherry pick what rights they want defended and what rights they don't. It's all or nothing. If you're (general) okay with it in the case of welfare recipiants and government workers, then one can argue that you must be okay with it in the case of public schools and other government owned properties...

Again, I am not saying I agree with this requirement nor would I willingly consent either. I think there is already far too much dumbass legislation in place where public schools are involved. I am only saying that I can see a defense for it, considering all the other expections to our rights being taken from us we've allowed these days, and I say this as a stauch defender of the 4th ammendment.

They are keeping it "fair" by making everyone sign the consent, but I doubt that she will ever get tested. My son is a star college athlete. He has been "randomly" tested for drugs three times now. He has had to report at 5:30 in the morning before he pitched every time, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

>>While I am a staunch defender of the Consitution

Considering your posts, this statement is extremely suspect.

>>Well... why not? Once you set foot on government property, you must adhere to thier rules.

Because we have the 4th amendment which prohibits the government from conducting searches on citizens without a warrant or probably cause. The schools are government institutions that are bound by the constitution. This is in fact a variation of the violations the TSA puts air travelers through every day. And here you are looking to carve out another exception to the 4th amendenment for the schools. Good job "staunch defender."

@Sabrina: "All public schools are Drug Free zones and they are government buildings and therefore must adhere to a certain drug free standard."

There are certain circumstances where a physical test might be appropriate to prove the subject is drug-free: Public trust positions, for example, or positions requiring a security clearance. Indeed, military personnel are tested from time to time (What's worse than peeing in a cup? Watching other people do it. I've had to do that and it's not fun).

But middle school students? I'm not sure what problem the school district is trying to solve. It's a long stretch, but I could almost understand the desire to test athletes, but I would think the concern would be more over student athletes using performance-enhancing substances than the usual illegal drugs. I can't think of any reason to test the arts and crafts kids if you don't have a reason to suspect them in the first place.

And for the record, I don't favor drug testing on welfare recipients, either.

The purpose of a public education is to produce a compliant citizen. Check the box and move on.

Now the president's wife, who wasn't on my ballot, is telling the schools what to feed the kids, in her inimitable, one-size-fits-all mentality.

But we need a Department of Education, and national educational testing, because something bad might happen.

I should also point out that I disagree with the vast majority of our Government's policy towards drugs, and so I find it even more reprehensible when they use policies I do not agree with as justification to further erode the 4th amendment.

This is a timely topic for me. Just yesterday a kid at my daughter's middle school got arrested for trying to sell drugs during gym. What is the rule on drug dogs? If some kid drops his drugs in my daughter's book bag and the dog smells does she have to submit to a search, or can she make them wait til I get there? For the record, she is not that type of kid, but the hallways are so crowded that if a kid was looking to avoid the routine drug sniffing, he could put something in her bag without her noticing. I always tell her not to submit, but to call me if there is an allegation, but is a drug dog probable cause? Any thoughts?

Heh. I wonder what would happen if a school actually found proof a student was on illegal drugs and proudly presented this fact to the parents, and the parents said, "As long as he's a good student and stays out of trouble, we don't give a damn."

Yep, Sheep, a dog indicating is probably cause.

Sisij, the nest step would be CPS. And probably the cops.

However, we seem to have no problems with private companies requiring drug tests for employees, or random drug testing of welfare/government aid recipients so really, what makes this different? -- Sabrina at September 25, 2012 11:40 AM

Private business is required, by various laws from the war on drugs, to test you. You think they want the hassle associated with it? There are some jobs I think should require drug testing -- such as pilots, train conductors, truck drivers, etc. The accidents that they can cause could be in the hundreds dead and millions in damage. But they should be industry driven, not government driven for the most part.

I have no big problem problem with the testing government aid recipients. The reason why is that that is my money they are getting. The government took it out of my paycheck when I spent my hours of work earning it. They also take it out my pocket when I buy stuff. The government does not earn money, they take it at the point of the IRS guns.

Now when an aid recipient is getting my money -- they should have to follow certain rules -- looking for work, making themselves employable, helping improve the community. If they are sitting at home stoned out of their minds -- why should I be paying for it?

And saying its unfair -- then you are saying that the MDA should have to support anyone who applies. The Catholic Association should have to support anyone, not just Catholics.

I don't have a problem giving someone a hand up -- I'm sick of giving people a hand out. There should be a social safety net, but 47% of the country should not be recipients.

"...this isn’t the same as the feds coming into your home without cause..."

No, this is much much worse. This is going straight to your child's body.

What is NOT a drug free zone?

Declaring something a "drug free zone" is akin to saying something is a "non free speech zone" You can't just declare that people have no rights in certain areas.

I'm a tiny bit more lenient about extra curricular activities, but frankly I oppose it across the board.

And the government has rules it must abide by to, you don't surrender your rights by being on federal property, or state property, or any property but private property. Rights are rights for a reason, the constitution is an imposition of restrictions on government, not on US.

Look, I am not defending the drug testing of kids. At all. I am also very much oppossed to the "war on drugs" and the TSA (I rail against them daily). It's a pointless waste of money and a huge infringment on our rights. What I am saying is that I can see how it CAN be defended. When you consider all the other rights American's have allowed themselves to surrender, and how we as a society are able to easily justify drug testing in other situations, I can see how this testing in schools can also be considered "reasonable".

A school is a government building. Government buildings are bound by the war on drugs laws to make sure they keep drugs out of the building. How else can they do that without performing searches or drug testing? There is are drug sniffing dogs but we've already seen an example of how that can also go wrong and even then, some would argue that the dogs are a violation. They are also bound, as also pointed out, by the Constitution to uphold the 4th ammendment. The two things in and of themselves contradict each other in a way. Until someone either repeals the war on drugs, or revokes the 4th ammendment (which is not a favorable option and is agarunteed way to force a nation to rebel)what other options do these schools really have?

Sabrina: "All public schools are Drug Free zones and they are government buildings and therefore must adhere to a certain drug free standard."

I think I see your point. Once you open the door to these types of rights violations by government it weakens the argument against such violations everywhere else.

Since illegal drugs are illegal everywhere, the whole country is supposed to be a drug-free zone, including your living room, churches, theaters, WalMart and everyplace else. Drug testing or any other kind of search without probable cause is no less illegitimate in a government-owned school than it is in your home or any other place.

And it's not the government's money. We call it "taxpayer money" because it's our money that the government is supposed to be managing on our behalf, in what we (collectively) consider to be our best interest, and not according to the whims of some grandiose politician or bureaucrat.

momof4: "Sisij, the nest step would be CPS. And probably the cops.

Exactly, which would result in more harm being done to the student and his family than the drugs would have caused.

Sabrina: "All public schools are Drug Free zones and they are government buildings and therefore must adhere to a certain drug free standard."

Ken: "I think I see your point. Once you open the door to these types of rights violations by government it weakens the argument against such violations everywhere else."

Yes. Thank you. That's exactly where I was going with my posts. I shoulda just said that instead of trying to explain it what was going on in my head in my under-caffeineated state. Duuuuh....

By the way, can someone explain to me how to do italics in this format so I don't have to keep re-posting and taking up valuable space here?

I'm just not convinced that choosing not to fight your kid's marijuana habit constitutes abuse. But then my kid can't even say marijuana.

By the way, can someone explain to me how to do italics in this format so I don't have to keep re-posting and taking up valuable space here? -- Sabrina at September 26, 2012 11:47 AM

<i></i> = italics
<b></b> = bold
<blockquote></blockquote> =

quoted text

non-internet formatted text

There are others, but that should give you a head start.

Thank you, Jim. Sorry for the thread disruption, folks.