Police state / authoritarian mindset: prove you need {thing} and we'll consider allowing you to have it.

Same argument the gun control crowd uses: who needs small/large/cheap/expensive/concealable/"high capacity"/scary black weapons.

Land of the free? Used to be.

When I was a teenager, my mom frowned upon drugs as did the school. We had the same rules. No drugs whatsoever.

I ended up not graduating from high school, sick with monthly migraines and repeated bouts with strep. When I was almost 22,I finally had a doozy of a headache that incapacitated me for more than 24 hours, therefor, I went to the emergency room and finally received a simple solution: Ibuprophin, taken up to 8 at a time.

This simple discovery changed my life. I could go to school and hold a job. One employer (at least) assumed that I suffered from hangovers because whenever I was scheduled to work starting in the afternoon rather than the morning, I often had a headache and vomited. I found out later about these let-down migraines which occur after finally relaxing after a period of hard work.

I was able to deal with the migraines as soon as people stopped diminishing and dismissing them. Eventually I was able to reduce the frequency, but medication practically saved my life. I felt well enough to eat and sleep, which kept my blood sugar stable and helped prevent a visious cycle of headaches.

I'm sure it is the same with cramps. I've heard that they can be debilitating too.

I'm very against the war on drugs. I am against abuse, but the proper drugs can allow people to function and be productive.

I wonder if part of the problem that we have with antibiotic abuse is that people have such negative feeling about drugs that they stop taking them as soon as they start to feel better rather than completing the cycle.

Is that cop also a doctor? If so, is he her doctor? If the answer is "no," to either or both of these questions, then he doesn't need to know what she uses it for, or if she needs it.

The only thing that the law should be interested in is if the drug is legal. Since Midol is OTC, then his concerns stop right there.

I was going to make a joke about the police preferring the dangers of untreated PMS rather than allow a student to possess a standard OTC medication, but I'm too disgusted.

This story begs a couple of questions.

First, what probable cause did the police have to conduct a drug search in that school that day?

And second, and to me more disturbing, is why did a trained drug dog trigger on a single sealed bubble packet of an over the counter medication?

Given the propensity for police to search until they find something, anything, they can charge with, up to even pushing the confrontation until they can "justify" an disorderly conduct charge (ie.. you're getting agitated or POed at the way you're being treated == disorderly), having a dog trigger on something absolutely legal and as mundane as midol is disturbing. Then interrogating a child in front of her classmates about something as intimate as her medical needs (never mind *why* she needs them, it's her body, her privacy) is unconscionable.

You can not have a war against an inanimate object, ie.. 'drugs'. You can only conduct a war against people, and in this case, it's a war against ourselves. And we're losing. The goal of the 'war on drugs' is to stop illicit drug use. We're losing thousands of lives a year to the war, hundreds of thousands of PoWs in prison and drug use is higher than ever. That's a lost war in my book.

"...why did a trained drug dog trigger on a single sealed bubble packet of an over the counter medication?"

Well, being sealed doesn't do a thing. The scent cone would emanate right through any kind of packaging. However, that being said, police dogs are not trained to detect pills - prescription or OTC. It makes the story kind of fishy, but that is not to say that the dog didn't triggered off a false positive, which is fairly common.

At any rate, these sorts of suspicion-less searches really bother me. They serve, in my opinion, to do nothing more than instill fear in the populous. To do this to children is even more frightening. This is what I would call homegrown terrorism, and it is what our country has devolved to at the hands of the police, the TSA, DHS, the FBI, CIA and a multitude of other government agencies. It has come to a level of intrusion, indoctrination and control that goes far beyond George Orwell's "1984".

Rope.

I've not seen this verified, but I've heard that there are traces of illicit drugs on most US currency. Perhaps they were just looking to confiscate the kids' lunch money.

Drug dogs are a modern police force's magic, probable-cause-generating dousing rod. Maybe the dog did signal the cop, maybe he didn't. Who's going to question it?

"My dog signaled on your backpack."
"Uh, all he did was lick his balls."
"Yeah, that's how he's signaling me today. Weird huh?"

Oh, but it's okay. They're children, and children don't have any rights as enumerated in the Constitution.

Ask that mental giant Radwaste. Who could possibly forget the staggering stupidity he demonstrated on August 20, when he claimed, "Children do NOT have rights as enumerated in the Constitution"?

Of course, the Supreme Court disagrees, as they stated in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines School District, when the majority opinion declared,

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.

Gee, they talked about the students' rights to freedom of speech. And the Supreme Court is also allowing these children the right to sue in court, since the kids were aged, 13, 15 and 16, and the principle litigant was the 15-year-old. Well, obviously the court is wrong. When the Constitution talks about citizens of the United States and persons born in the United States, they were obviously excluding children, who according to 'Waste just aren't persons.

But you wait and see...Rad's gonna head on over to the Supreme Court right now. And he's gonna make them fix that ruling. That will show those stuffy old judges to consult 'Waste before they decide who has rights and who doesn't!

Sorry, that was poorly said. I didn't mean to infer that Mr. Padgett's story was fishy. I should have just left that sentence out :)

"Gee, they talked about the students' rights to freedom of speech. And the Supreme Court is also allowing these children the right to sue in court, since the kids were aged, 13, 15 and 16, and the principle litigant was the 15-year-old. Well, obviously the court is wrong. When the Constitution talks about citizens of the United States and persons born in the United States, they were obviously excluding children, who according to 'Waste just aren't persons."

The right to sue, is not much of a right. A corporation has personhood for the purposes of a law suit.

Children have fewer rights, constitutionally, and otherwise, than adults in the country, and fetuses, even a day before birth, have almost none at all.

Isab: Children have fewer rights, constitutionally, and otherwise, than adults in the country, and fetuses, even a day before birth, have almost none at all.

The statement as originally made, is that children have NO rights.

Obviously, as much as you're trying to mitigate the damage 'Waste did to his own credibility, even you don't agree with that.

While we are technically splitting hairs here, in the eyes of the law, a statement that children have no rights, is a lot closer to the truth, than children have the same rights as adults.
There are a number of privledges in American society that are extended to children, but if you go strictly by the bill of rights, very few of them apply at all to children as individuals, and the law for the most part treats tham as chattel of either the state or the parent.
Lets take the 2nd amendment for example, although we could go through them one by one. Children have no right to own a gun. In this case, they are no better off than a convicted felon.
They also can't vote. They do have a right to an attorney if they are charged with a crime and prosecuted as an adult, but they have no right to an attorney in family court.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the extension of police searches into schools, but not becuase it is a violation of the kids constitutional rights against searches.
I dont like it because it blurs the line between the criminal code, and a civil institution, (the schools) which I think is problematic.

Isab, then, you're being ridiculous. You know Waste's statement is completely wrong. The Tinker ruling plainly states that children have a right to free speech and didn't feel the need to stipulate that this was one of the few constitutional rights that children have.

You'll have to join Radwaste in going to straighten out the Supreme Court and forcing them to fix that ruling.

It's as if you're engaging in ambiguous and meaningless drivel to avoid saying what you know to be true.

I can probably guess the answers to Scott's questions:

"what probable cause did the police have to conduct a drug search in that school that day?"

They don't need probable cause; they only need the school's permission, as the school has essentially full parental rights over the children. Some school administrator wanted to teach the students to be good little sheep, so...

"why did a trained drug dog trigger on a single sealed bubble packet of an over the counter medication?"

It didn't. Either it could tell that its handler wanted it to trigger, or it smelled her lunch and got hungry, or... There is zero penalty for false alarms, so even the (few) good police handlers get sloppy. Most of them never bother to get good.

There needs to be a penalty for a false alarm: dock the handler a day's pay. There also needs to be an independent (non-police) witness to any and all search procedures, because there are too many cases of police planting evidence when they want to find some.

"interrogating a child in front of her classmates about something as intimate as her medical needs is unconscionable."

Damn straight. Disciplinary board.

" Isab,, then, you're being ridiculous. You know Waste's statement is completely wrong. The Tinker ruling plainly states that children have a right to free speech and didn't feel the need to stipulate that this was one of the few constitutional rights that children have."

In the Tinker case
The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

This was an extremely narrow rulling, and one you clearly dont have the legal background to understand.

Last I checked, the first amendment was still subject to time place manner restrictions, and the court has never found that it applied to a dress code forbidding things like obscene graphics or slogans on clothing. A student standing in the hallway yelling political slogans, would also not be protected speech.

Again just because students have a very narrow right to wear black arm bands without being kicked out of school does not mean they have the same first amendement rights in school, as an adult standing on their own property.

I dont need to get the Supreme Court to change their interpretations of the consitution. What is needed is for them to write their opinions in a manner so that you understand how narrow they are, and how little they apply to any kind of generalized constitutional rights for children, that you believe exist.

But what do I know? Clearly my having a JD, as opposed to being a massage therapist, warps my view of constitutional law.

Let get this straight - a 13-year old girl has OTC pills for cramps, and this dumb-ass cop asks what is it for?

Forget for a minute the rights violation (not really, but for this argument's sake) where the hell did he go to police academy? Does he not have a wife? or daughters? Does he have no women in his life that he doesn't understand some women/girls get cramps that Midol might help?

Further, what the hell is he asking this in front of the other students for? Has he no sense of privacy?

If this were my daughter I would demand nothing less than an apology from this stupid cop.

Isab: This was an extremely narrow rulling, and one you clearly dont have the legal background to understand.

Translation: I'm completely wrong, I know it, but I'm going to pretend that it's just too complicated for the other person to understand. When all else fails, I flaunt my imagined superiority.

Charles, I'd be after his job, myself. No other outcome than this idiot being fired is acceptable.

Even if he doesn't have a wife or daughters -- his personality being what it is, I wouldn't be surprised to find that no woman could stand him -- surely he's been exposed to advertisements, television commercials, magazine ads, or something that might have clued him in as to what Midol is.

'It didn't. Either it could tell that its handler wanted it to trigger, or it smelled her lunch and got hungry, or...'

Yup. Happened to me in Honolulu airport. The dog got all excited and tail-waggy (not a full barking reaction) about my bag as they walked the dog around in the baggage area. I had cookies in my bag, guy took my word for it.

I've never seen dogs at the Honolulu airport, but it's only a matter of time.

I read a story about 20 years ago by someone who had taken a trip to visit friends and needed to borrow a suitcase from them for his return trip. The dog went nuts on the suitcase, but ultimately nothing was found. After talking to his hosts, the traveler learned that their cat was fond of sleeping on the bag.

Translation: I'm completely wrong, I know it, but I'm going to pretend that it's just too complicated for the other person to understand. When all else fails, I flaunt my imagined superiority. -- Patrick at September 21, 2013 12:19 PM

No, you probably aren't. But get a clue that most of us don't give a fuck about a misstatement that was made by someone on a blog comment. If you don't want to consider that there is no legal, or other, authority you hold over the rest of us, that is your fucking problem.

Get a clue that the world doesn't revolve you and your desires.

'I've never seen dogs at the Honolulu airport, but it's only a matter of time.'

It was a couple of years ago, maybe they stopped? They were beagles with blue vests on. Being little walking eating machines, beagles may not be the best choice for a security dog :-D I am traveling through Honolulu next month, I'll see if they're still there.

Jim P., child, self-styled (and sadly delusional) authority on the Constitution, I will continue to bring it up as often as I like. And since Amy's blog doesn't have an ignore function, I suggest you get over yourself with your imperious demands that people post as you want them to, and get used to it. It won't be the last time. And it was no "misstatement." It is his solid conviction. He truly believes this, and he has reiterated it in that very same blog entry.

He and his adoring sidekick lujlp have decided to bring up my refusal to discuss the TSA on this blog -- with its absence of commenters who actually know what the fuck they're talking about when they bring up the Constitution, including you and Isab, your delusions to the contrary -- as often as they possibly can.

So, I've decided I'm going to bring up Radwaste's profound ignorance of the Constitution as often as I can. If a better method could be utilized, I would certainly employ it. But 'Waste does not listen to reason, so I must resort to fighting fire with fire as they saying goes. It also serves the purpose of illustrating what should be obvious: Radwaste is no more an authority on the Constitution than you are. So, discuss the constitutionality of TSA with him? It's like discussing astrophysics with a preschooler.

"So, I've decided I'm going to bring up Radwaste's profound ignorance of the Constitution as often as I can."

I dominate your every waking thought, and you dream of me. Until you can be assured of my death, you will not rest - even then, you will be prone to fits, in which you imagine the audacity I display in suggesting that your opinion, even backed by Supreme Court Citation, is not even close to the whole story, much less "right".

Cite the complete and unfettered right of student children to speak at any time, on any subject, per the 1st Amendment. Try to ignore the numerous court cases, as well as the practical aspects which LIMIT this for the underaged.

Cite the complete and unfettered right of children to execute contracts, to bear arms, to vote, even to travel unaccompanied, and you will in every case expose a guardian because they are considered incompetent to exercise those rights. They are protected exactly as registered mental defectives should be and are.

You have an amazing capacity for hate. It's eating you up.

And all of this, every bit of it, stems from an argument where you thought to post a court ruling on the Constitutionality of TSA searches, then claimed when challenged not to have an opinion one way or the other. That's simply cowardly. Later, in some amazing, clandestine "reasoning" process, you declared that no, you would NOT say one way or the other on that issue. Wow. That was helpful (not to anyone).

I recognize your ability to cite court rulings. Such things make your own thoughts dim by comparison, especially when you can be coaxed to soil yourself enough to explain how you think they apply.

Meanwhile, do try to get out more. Just as you must make it to court to protest the officer's pulling a gun on you, there are real situations you simply cannot be bothered to notice.

Hey - look at me! I should get points for civility, shouldn't I? I don't PMS into epithets at all!

Meanwhile, Patrick: can you do anything other than cite court cases? Please, that would be nice to know.

crella, I've lived in Honolulu for the last 18 months and made a few flights in that time. But I've always had an armload of kids with me, so I probably wouldn't notice anything that didn't run up and hump my leg.

I cant imagine why Patrick is so upset, I mean after all, most courts have ruled that children have no right to privacy in public schools.

And we all know how much stock Patrick puts in courts ruling americans have no rights in public.

So why is he suddenly all upset?

When I was a senior in high school, the day of a concert, a classmate brought in the family violin (a Stradivarius, so very old and probably had lots of people smoking pot around it at some point), and her instrument locker was next to mine. So I got pulled from class the day before a test in an AP class, and asked to open my locker, because they wanted to search it, and my viola had a note the inside of its locker door that any search without a warrant would result in a lawsuit for multiple billions of dollars against the police department of the city my high school was in (not my hometown, but a neighboring one), and the school resource officer wanted to lecture me about not having any rights. While I was there, they opened the other student's locker, and proceeded to try and open the case. I almost got tasered by the school resource officer because I, as an 18 year old, asserted that they would have to have her there to search her $26,000 violin (she let a very few of us know that her parents had put off buying new cars for 15 years in order to pay off her uncles so that she and her sister could use the instrument to further their music careers), or I would sue on her behalf, and require that they arrest me, then explain to the school board what they had done (my mom ran the campaigns of three of the six school board members). They did get her to open the case, and searched it, finding that the rosin for the bow set the dog off. It's one of the reasons I've had serious doubts about the drug war for years.

"having a dog trigger on something absolutely legal and as mundane as midol is disturbing. "

I can assure you that the dog did not trigger on the Midol. The dog triggered because he was cued to do so by his handler or someone else in the room.

Jim P., child, self-styled (and sadly delusional) authority on the Constitution, I will continue to bring it up as often as I like. And since Amy's blog doesn't have an ignore function, I suggest you get over yourself with your imperious demands that people post as you want them to, and get used to it. It won't be the last time. And it was no "misstatement." It is his solid conviction. He truly believes this, and he has reiterated it in that very same blog entry. -- Patrick at September 22, 2013 6:38 AM

Jim P., child, self-styled (and sadly delusional) authority on the Constitution, I will continue to bring it up as often as I like.

Please show me an example of where I was wrong on a Constitutional issue?

And since Amy's blog doesn't have an ignore function, I suggest you get over yourself with your imperious demands that people post as you want them to, and get used to it.

Please tell me where, before this, I have actually made a demand? And even in this case my statement was:

No, you probably aren't. But get a clue that most of us don't give a fuck about a misstatement that was made by someone on a blog comment. If you don't want to consider that there is no legal, or other, authority you hold over the rest of us, that is your fucking problem.

Get a clue that the world doesn't revolve you and your desires. -- Jim P. at September 21, 2013 10:57 PM

what is my demand?

It is more of a plea to get over it and grow up. But you decided to respond in this manner. So please show me where I have said anything other than ignore some shit and move on with life.

You dared to disagree with the great and powerful Oz, er, Patrick.

There are consequences for disagreeing with Patrick

There are consequences for disagreeing with Patrick -- lujlp at September 24, 2013 10:07 AM

That he'll ignore me? Let him draw a smaller circle. Go for it. It shows that he can't argue from an objective viewpoint. I will accept I'm wrong if someone brings up facts that I'm wrong. If you are arguing on opinion, then I can accept some of those, but get a clue.

That he'll ignore me?

unfortunately not. Oh he might claim to, but half his posts are it seems spent obliquely replying to those he is 'ignoring'

That he'll ignore me?

unfortunately not. Oh he might claim to, but half his posts are it seems spent obliquely replying to those he is 'ignoring'

Posted by: lujlp at September 24, 2013 3:34 PM

Yes, and if I didn't have reason to believe otherwise, I would peg Patrick as a 14 year old girl, living at an elite English boarding school with a socialist staff.