Drugs tests for kids!!!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They're not talking about reasonal cause though - they're talking about ALL students being drug tested.

Do you have your chidren drug tested? They have home kits - why wait until the schools do it if you support it?

I don't suspect it, my daughter is a "goody two shoes", and my son is only turning 8 soon. I simply have no problem with the schools doing this. It doesn't bother me in the least. I see it as an outside tool that aids in the very important and extremely complicated, difficult effort to keep kids "unconfused" and on the "right" path, in an age of mixed messages. Of course I'll talk and explain, but it's not that easy JD. Since I'm basing my "lack of fear over loss of liberty" concerning drug testing in schools on my hard earned personal experience, you can type up all the little quotes you want, but my inner wisdom and common sense tells me to go ahead and throw as many roadblocks as I can into the outwardly appearing "fun and easy street" that actually leads to wasted potential and bodily harm. When it comes to my precious children, I am thinking of the actual, REAL picture in front of me, not political rhetoric. You might feel differently if you actually had invested years of love and life raising some children.
It's a local descision here in my area, and I say "no problem". They sent a letter home asking for parents opinions several years back. I wrote out a long reply stating reasons why I supported it. They have occasional dog sniffing locker searches but no tests yet. Once again, I have no fear of "loss" of anything here. All I personally see is a great opportunity to offer a simple, "concrete" reason for kids that are wobbly on their ideals, and used to tuning lectures from mom out (quite common in the mind of a 13 year old) to make the right choice. You only have one chance to bring your kid up. They only have only have one childhood. Drugs suck.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Janny

I know I started tis whole thread n all, but does anyone know whose idea this testing thing was?

It's government policy. Head teachers will be given the choice whether they want to do tests or not from next month. I think it was pioneered in the US though - at least that's where Blair got the idea from. Bush praised it in the State of the Union, didn't he?

Ironically, the drug which shows up most on drug tests is cannabis, which has just been downgraded. So you'll catch users more and punish them less.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lizra
. Since I'm basing my "lack of fear over loss of liberty" concerning drug testing in schools on my hard earned personal experience, you can type up all the little quotes you want, but my inner wisdom and common sense tells me to go ahead and throw as many roadblocks as I can into the outwardly appearing "fun and easy street" that actually leads to wasted potential and bodily harm. When it comes to my precious children, I am thinking of the actual, REAL picture in front of me, not political rhetoric. You might feel differently if you actually had invested years of love and life raising some children.

As someone who used a lot of drugs in High School and, yep, suffered the consequences, AND who has "invested years of love and life raising some children" (total cumulative years so far : thirty, and counting) I am totally opposed to random drug testing in schools.

Start with random drug and alcohol testing of our legislators - after all, what they're doing is supposedly important- and work down from there.

The most incredibly idiotic suggestion in all this is to require drug testing for after school activities.

So some kid's on drugs and his friend asks him/her if they'd rather play badminton/chess/come to the science club-
"of course, first you have to pee in the bottle"

"Eh, no thanks, I'll just head over to the back alley instead"

And let's just totally ignore all the empirical evidence that it just doesn't work- hey, why let facts interfere ?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Hemel
I agree with The Gaffer's mild and considered sentiments

An excellent point, well put.

Originally posted by Hemel
I note, btw, that Tony Blair now, because of heckling over the Hutton report, is going to have fewer members of the public admitted to the public gallery in the house of commons. He is also going to erect a glass screen ... against bullets, he says ...

That Bliar's a wise pranker isn't he? It's just so he can look at himself in the reflection.

Oh wait a minute, here's an even more considered sentiment:

Originally posted by Graymouser


"Eh, no thanks, I'll just head over to the back alley instead"

And let's just totally ignore all the empirical evidence that it just doesn't work- hey, why let facts interfere ?

Exactly. And at the same time you'd just be reinforcing the lack of trust between individual and institution. Not to mention teaching kids how to cheat on drugs tests.

It seems that the message from this thread so far is that drugs testing works if you don't need it, but if you do it makes the problem worse.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
As someone who used a lot of drugs in High School and, yep, suffered the consequences, AND who has "invested years of love and life raising some children" (total cumulative years so far : thirty, and counting) I am totally opposed to random drug testing in schools.

Start with random drug and alcohol testing of our legislators - after all, what they're doing is supposedly important- and work down from there.

The most incredibly idiotic suggestion in all this is to require drug testing for after school activities.

So some kid's on drugs and his friend asks him/her if they'd rather play badminton/chess/come to the science club-
"of course, first you have to pee in the bottle"

"Eh, no thanks, I'll just head over to the back alley instead"

And let's just totally ignore all the empirical evidence that it just doesn't work- hey, why let facts interfere ?

Well, It's "agree to disagree" time. (I've invested 27 years in child rearing myself) Hey! Go ahead and test the legislators, who cares, not me! Of Course, they are adults.....

I believe the "after school activity test" would work more like this...

"Here Caitlin, wanna smoke this joint with me?" After a quick thought Caitlin replies, " No, I really like being on the basketball team (school newspaper, naturalist club) and I don't want to get kicked off. No stinky joint for me!"
I stated my personal empirical evidence. It would work! It would prevent some kids from drug use. (not all, that will never happen unfortunately) I personally observed (during my youth) that the schools doing nothing had no positive effect whatsoever. Well, anyway, I told my school board what I thought.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
I don't suspect it, my daughter is a "goody two shoes", and my son is only turning 8 soon. I simply have no problem with the schools doing this. It doesn't bother me in the least. I see it as an outside tool that aids in the very important and extremely complicated, difficult effort to keep kids "unconfused" and on the "right" path, in an age of mixed messages. Of course I'll talk and explain, but it's not that easy JD. Since I'm basing my "lack of fear over loss of liberty" concerning drug testing in schools on my hard earned personal experience, you can type up all the little quotes you want, but my inner wisdom and common sense tells me to go ahead and throw as many roadblocks as I can into the outwardly appearing "fun and easy street" that actually leads to wasted potential and bodily harm. When it comes to my precious children, I am thinking of the actual, REAL picture in front of me, not political rhetoric. You might feel differently if you actually had invested years of love and life raising some children.
It's a local descision here in my area, and I say "no problem". They sent a letter home asking for parents opinions several years back. I wrote out a long reply stating reasons why I supported it. They have occasional dog sniffing locker searches but no tests yet. Once again, I have no fear of "loss" of anything here. All I personally see is a great opportunity to offer a simple, "concrete" reason for kids that are wobbly on their ideals, and used to tuning lectures from mom out (quite common in the mind of a 13 year old) to make the right choice. You only have one chance to bring your kid up. They only have only have one childhood. Drugs suck.

Let's start coming into people's houses or putting up road blocks. I was against the Indiana roadblocks. Those were overruled by the Supreme Court and Indiana had to remove them. Would you be willing to have a roadblock in front of your house? All for the sake of protection - right?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Lizra
Well, It's "agree to disagree" time. (I've invested 27 years in child rearing myself) Hey! Go ahead and test the legislators, who cares, not me! Of Course, they are adults.....

I believe the "after school activity test" would work more like this...

"Here Caitlin, wanna smoke this joint with me?" After a quick thought Caitlin replies, " No, I really like being on the basketball team (school newspaper, naturalist club) and I don't want to get kicked off. No stinky joint for me!"
I stated my personal empirical evidence. It would work! It would prevent some kids from drug use. (not all, that will never happen unfortunately) I personally observed (during my youth) that the schools doing nothing had no positive effect whatsoever. Well, anyway, I told my school board what I thought.

Caitlin might also be at basketball practice, and too busy to stand around smoking joints.

Pot is really awful for you, but people have the right to do idiotic things to themselves. If we really want to crack down on unhealthy activities, why aren't we doing something about the two big ones? Forget pot when you have serious bullying, and childhood obesity in schools.

What were the Indiana road blocks JD?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What were the Indiana road blocks JD?

It was where they set up road blocks and then would search the cars. The news showed them actually searching under seats and stuff. There was an online chat hosted by channel 6 news with the Indiana governor and I brought this up - how it was unconstitutional and how I would sue if I was stopped. After arguing with me for several minutes he didn't want to talk about it. It was soon taken to court and the Supreme Court ruled that Indiana's roadblocks were unconstitutional. I should have written a letter telling him "I told you so"

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Let's start coming into people's houses or putting up road blocks. I was against the Indiana roadblocks. Those were overruled by the Supreme Court and Indiana had to remove them. Would you be willing to have a roadblock in front of your house? All for the sake of protection - right?

In the Great Garden State there are several roadblocks that over 100,000 people face every day in their daily commute. They are known by the more colloquial term of "toll booth".

[I have heard that these roadblocks occur in other parts of the USA as well. ]

People must be very cautious of giving up liberties and freedoms for one perceived good or another.

While it is easy to give up you freedom/liberty it is difficult to regain what you lost.

I still think that testing for drugs should only be done when you have a reasonable suspicion of drug use. Not without just cause.

Many schools (and work places too) get around this by making drug test mandatory before being permitted to participate in after school activities (or work). On this issue, I am less clear. It is not a given right to work in the workforce or participate in after school activities. But I still do not think it is right to test for drugs with out due cause. (I guess it is simpler not to due illegal drug. I guess I'll take what Rush was taking. )

[Janny]

but people have the right to do idiotic things to themselves

Maybe it's a moot point, but it is still against the law, regardless of the arguements of confusing children in England by downgrading the classification of cannabis.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
After arguing with me for several minutes he didn't want to talk about it.

Ack! Why do I find that so funny!
I do go with "reasonable cause" only, also. It would be too expensive, and mostly needless in many cases. Lot's of work places require you to pee in a cup before you get a job. (I remember my Goody Two Shoes daughter had to, before signing on at Wal Mart, it was rather funny, since she's as clean as a whistle) Get ready for the real world kiddos!