http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=180201 - http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=1802 01

Found this on the MJ morning show website. I for one am against. Thoughts?

Against? Why.

As far as I can tell, if you're on school property, and they have the right to search lockers and bags, this isn't any different.

I say go for it.

While they're at it, I say they should make drug testing for teachers mandatory as well.

I have nothing against them searching you or locker or anything like that, but requiring somebody to take a drug test in a public school is an invasion of privacy. If you want to drink underage on you own time thats your business, not your schools.

Da Hui wrote: I have nothing against them searching you or locker or anything like that, but requiring somebody to take a drug test in a public school is an invasion of privacy. If you want to drink underage on you own time thats your business, not your schools.

Why isn't it the school's business when their student population is drinking under age to the point where their academic progress backslides, or they get hurt/killed doing something stupid?

How can any school hope to turn out productive students when they're getting smashed all the time?

Oh yeah, and underage drinking is illegal isn't it? So since there's a law against it, finding the purpetraitors of that law doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

If your under the age of 18 you have no rights.

wow. if youve been drinking on the weekend theyll kick you off  teams and extra curricular activities and want you to take counseling

at first i thoguht they just meant in school, like they thought you were on drugs or watever, not what you do in your personal time, thats ridiculous

kids arent allowed to be kids

Schools do not need warrants to search a student's locker or bag for illegal or stolen items. All they need is reasonable suspicion.

NJ vs. TLO stated that public schools are representatives of the state, and that searches ARE legal as long as they aren't excessively intrusive.

More to the point of this issue:

"Urine tests of student athletes were upheld in Vernonia School v Acton (515 US 646 [1995]), when the court again used in loco parentis, a lowered expectation of privacy for athletes, and the need for deterrence of drug use, particularly among athletes, as justifications for forced testing. Said the Court: "Fourth Amendment rights, no less than First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, are different in public schools than elsewhere; the "reasonableness" inquiry cannot disregard the schools' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children."

If they can drug test athletes, why not the rest of them?

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html - http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html

Because athletes voluntarily went out for sports.

And the lockers are school property.

I view these tests as similar to schools randomly searching students rooms - IN THEIR HOUSES - without a warrant.

This is complicated stuff, but this seriously creeps me out.

Reb Cpl wrote: Schools do not need warrants to search a student's locker or bag for illegal or stolen items. All they need is reasonable suspicion. We are not talking about going through a backpack though. If someone brings alochol or anything else to school yes I think they should be punished.   NJ vs. TLO stated that public schools are representatives of the state, and that searches ARE legal as long as they aren't excessively intrusive. What would you deem to be excessively intrusive? Yet again we are not talking about someone being under the influence at school we are dealing with being tested Monday morning to make sure we didnt have a beer on Saturday.

Edit: Clark you just made my point exactly.

But the question to be asked is:

If noone else of doing something about excessive underage drinking, why then can't the state?

It would have to have been a serious problem for this state to want to require it. If its a problem, it needs to be stopped.

The parents and local police forces aren't doing anything about it, why can't the state through the medium of the schools?

Essentially, voting against something along these lines would be paramount to either ignoring the existing problem, or condoning the deviant behavior of underaged drinking.

I still fail to see a problem with it. I would have contested it when I was in high school, but thats because i wasn't able to make mature, rational decisions back then, which is the entire point of this case.

Look, several times in the last few years, students have been in deep trouble for drinking alcohol within the walls of the school I work at itself.

Where does this behavior start? On the weekends when theres a lack of supervision over irresponsible, reckless adolescents who, despite their own beliefs are NOT capable of making decisions themselves.

At 15-18, you're going through a serious volatile time in your life. Having alcohol added to it, coupled with the apparent indifference of your authoritative figures only makes things worse.

If its a problem, it should be stopped. If they're underage and in violation of the law, they should be in trouble for it.

If your argument is "but they're not doing it at SCHOOL, how come they get in trouble?" How come its okay for bus drivers, state employees and other workers dependant on the standings of their employers to be ejected from employment for failing a drug test, should they have smoked weed on friday night after work? If thats all legal, then so should be the testing of students in a state facilitated school, regardless of wether or not their hazardous activities are taking place on or off school grounds. ESPECIALLY if they're underaged.

Da Hui wrote: Reb Cpl's Link wrote: A tactic undertaken by more and more schools of late is that of searching of student lockers, bags, and of their persons. I dont see anywhere in that where it states the drug/alcohol tests are legal.

That was just to indicate the types of authority that the schools have granted to them as a state representative. Sorry for not clarifying.

Reb Cpl wrote: But the question to be asked is: If noone else of doing something about excessive underage drinking, why then can't the state?

Now that's an interesting question.  And a complicated one at that.  But even if we presume that this is an appropriate function of the state, is there not a less 1984ish way of going about it?  Other countries have drinking issues as well - have we looked at what they have done?

And what exactly make "underage drinking" a problem?  Is it just "alcohol is bad, mmkay", or is there a particular effect (driving, pregnancy, w/e) that we are worried about?  And if so, can we target the final problem rather than drinking in general?

This whold thing seems a bit knee-jerk to me.  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that not a lot of thought went into this.  My experience with school board politics is that it is all about hysterical parents that have no sense of law, economics, social science, or anything else, and flip out about any damn thing without any investigation at all.

It would have to have been a serious problem for this state to want to require it. If its a problem, it needs to be stopped.

Did I read the article wrong?  I thought this was a school district, not a state-level policy.

Essentially, voting against something along these lines would be paramount to either ignoring the existing problem, or condoning the deviant behavior of underaged drinking.

Absolutely disagree 100%.  Absolutely.  If anything, I would suggest the opposite.  My theory on why there is so much goofy behavior by teenagers in this country (and college students as well) is that we have this big-brother approach in our schools.  In many other countries, high-school students are treated like responsible adults.  If you treat someone like a child, they tend to act like one.

Shouldn't we be teaching our teenagers how to be adults?

Yeah, I misinterpreted it as a state thing, as opposed to school level.

So? the bit still stands. The area needs to have had a problem for it to be considered at all.

What is the problem? Pregnancy, drinking/driving?

How about blatant violation of the law for one thing, atop of the potentially hazardous environment for teens?

Ever seen a 16 year old have to get rushed to the hospital for alcohol poisoning? Ever watch a 20 year old lay in the middle of the floor covered in her own urine, blood and vomit? I have, and I believe that had a program like this been in place early enough, the situation might have stood a chance at turning out differently.  

It would seem to me that people in this area would want their kids protected from the off chance that one of their peers paints the sidewalk with their heads because they've been drinking theirselves stupid on a friday night.

Am I saying that I never did anything stupid when I was a kid? no, oh boy, no. But knowing what I got away with scares the hell out of me when I think about having kids of my own.

Reb I've seen plenty of bad things happen with drugs/alcohol. It's not the schools job. Parents need to take care of it.

Also I am very against drinking/driving. But testing someone Monday morning isnt gonna stop them.

Reb Cpl wrote: How about blatant violation of the law for one thing, atop of the potentially hazardous environment for teens? Ever seen a 16 year old have to get rushed to the hospital for alcohol poisoning? Ever watch a 20 year old lay in the middle of the floor covered in her own urine, blood and vomit? I have, and I believe that had a program like this been in place early enough, the situation might have stood a chance at turning out differently.

And these things are worth stopping - but I question whether this is the way to do it.  This is the easy way out (assuming it would work, which we shouldn't), but at what cost?  Furthering the coddling of our children, so that they are even LESS prepared for reality when it hits?

Don't you think that college binge drinking (in my experience, MUCH worse in the US than anywhere else I know) is related to the sudden transition from totalitarianism to liberty?  Wouldn't we be better TEACHING responsibility instead of making their decisions for them?

The parents AREN'T doing anything about it, regardless of wether or not its their responsibility.

And Clark, I agree with you, its a matter of 'how we stop it' and until now, there haven't been alternatives. So take this step to lay the groundwork for figuring it all out.

And yes, education is important, it really is, but that type of education is something that again falls under the parental guidelines, since the state governs almost fully the curriculums of schools, leaving little to no room for the proper education in this matter.

And again, if the parents fail to provide that education, then rather than prevention, we have to focus on punishment.

A sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.

Also, I don't see a problem with that Arizona sheriff. Not in the least.

Neither do the people of his county apparently. Argue with them about it.

Civil liberties of people who decide to abandon civil laws and guidelines should be limited. Why grant someone who disregards the established laws of a country be given the same rights as someone who spends their life as a law-abiding citizen?

....but thats a discussion for another day.

I think if a kid wants to drink underage so be it, they'll learn for themselves what alcohol can do to them, most likely they'll end up drinking to much and throwing up. Plus they'll be more educated on alcohol and its affects first hand. They'll always be someone who hasent drank before and will pound somthing back fast casue they think it should hit them fast and they usually get alcohol poisening. There shouldnt be a penalty for a few 16-17 yr olds enjoying there free time away from school. Plus it may push some kids away form there schools sports team cause they'd rather enjoy being a teen.

Reb Cpl wrote: Civil liberties of people who decide to abandon civil laws and guidelines should be limited. Why grant someone who disregards the established laws of a country be given the same rights as someone who spends their life as a law-abiding citizen?

Generally agree with your post.

The problem here (as with most civil liberties issues) is that the innocent get swept up with the guilty.

If we only did random testing on the kids that had been drinking, that would be one thing.  But that obviously isn't the case.  What will happen here is that the law-abiding citizens will suffer due to the school's efforts to catch the baddies.

Clark Kent wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: Civil liberties of people who decide to abandon civil laws and guidelines should be limited. Why grant someone who disregards the established laws of a country be given the same rights as someone who spends their life as a law-abiding citizen? Generally agree with your post. The problem here (as with most civil liberties issues) is that the innocent get swept up with the guilty. If we only did random testing on the kids that had been drinking, that would be one thing.  But that obviously isn't the case.  What will happen here is that the law-abiding citizens will suffer due to the school's efforts to catch the baddies.

I didn't say it was a perfect plan, its merely a start I suppose. And you're right, why should the innocent have to suffer on behalf of the guilty?

My guess would be then the innocent would have a stronger voice in quelling the guilty behavior that got them in that position in the first place.....but thats a nieve hope.

Its all too familiar when you think of airport screeningd isn't it?

I agree something needs to be done. But this is not the correct way.

And Reb yes, parents aren't doing what they need to do. If parents where stricter it would lead this this problem decreasing.

Music and other forms of entertainment are glorifying this. Kids nowadays listen to music like 50 Cent and think oh wow drugs are cool. I'm not saying that we should blame 50 or censor music I just think  kids are to irresponsible to handle the media. How can we ever hope to have a cleaner society with kids walking around constantly plugged into a media that glorifies drug usage. Censoring it won't work. Its not constitional to say "you cant smoke in a movie", so what are we supposed to do. Programs like D.A.R.E. have little to no effect. Kids are allways trying to outsmart police thinking they'll never get caught. So yet again this falls under the responsibilty of the parent to moderate what their kid does and who they are with. I say stricter punishments for underage Alcohol usage for both the kid and the parent. Parents will crack down on this so that they dont have to pay a fine for little Billy going out and getting into an accident drunk.

ShortyBP wrote:   The key word in your statement is "responsible". Even if we teach our teenagers to how to be adults, are we teaching them to be "responsible"??? ... I don't want to teach our Teenagers how to be an 'Adult' in our age and time. I'd rather teach them how to be Responsible and Accountable. ...You can't really teach Responsibility without also teaching Accountability.

Excellent points. 

More specifically, my beef with the US education system is that we give the students virtually no responsibility.  We have some accountability, but we have separated the two.  High school students have to take little "tardy slips" to the office if they are late.  They need their parents' permission for every damn thing.  They can't leave the school campus.  They can't wear certain clothes.  That's embarrassing, that's unnecessary, and it tells the students that they are not trusted.  It makes school a system to beat instead of a place to learn.

How do you learn responsibility?  Not by teaching, but but experiencing.  And we should be gradually exposing are kids to responsibility from a very young age, instead of tight-fisting them until they go to college, where we suddenly declare them all growed up.

We need to start giving students trust and responsibility at a much earlier stage in school - like the first grade - and ratchet it up.  By the time they are graduating high school, there should be no massive transition to college, because they should already be treated like adults by their school.

High Voltage wrote: Reb, AA doesn't work.. Where's your morality, kids should not drink underage because it is morally wrong. When you start treating the law as if it were a set of moral guidelines, I think it is time to re-evaluate your standing.

No? Cool. I'll tell that to the recovering alcoholics I know, one being an alcohol and other drug counselor at the college I went to, I'm glad you could clear that up for me.

No, I didn't say anything about kids not drinking because its morally wrong, its legally wrong, and its dangerous.

And can't laws be seen as moral guidelines? Laws against such things as rape and torture seem to be a shot at doing exactly that.

Da Hui wrote: I know plenty of alcoholic's who are underage.

its 19 here, so in this case id have to know 16-17 yr olds (highschool students)with drinking problems, so in which case i know none

"Having a few with your friends can be just as dangerous as climbing into a car and crashing into a tree."

I fail to see how

little devil wrote: Da Hui wrote: I know plenty of alcoholic's who are underage.   you live in the states, it's 21. of course theres some its 19 here, so in this case id have to know 16-17 yr olds (highschool students)with drinking problems, so in which case i know none "Having a few with your friends can be just as dangerous as climbing into a car and crashing into a tree." I fail to see how

Having a few with your buddies can lead to you crashing into a tree. Therefore it is just as dangerous.

^^^^ If your driving, this isnt driving, its having a few at a party. 

Where does it say that once you crack a beer or bottle and get a nice buzz on you drive your car?

I havent read that rule, seems ive been missing alot of booze cruises.

^ Agreed.  I've long held the belief that PUBLIC mandated drug testing flies in the face of one of the tenets of the US Constitution.  You are, in effect, presumed guilty until proven innocent.  You want to drug test new employees for your company, fine.  You want to drug test atheletes at the school because they specifically agreed to it in their student/athelete guidelines, fine.  But this carte blanche testing of general population types is a little too Orwellian for my tastes.

I feel the same way about random sobriety check-points - guilty until proven innocent...

The bottom line is the "state" trying to babysit the population because parents aren't doing their job, and that's just not the role of government, school boards, or any other "agency" as far as I'm concerned.  Punish those who are guilty, but don't go fishing for them.  THAT'S un-American in my estimation...

oldsoldier wrote: If you are not doing drugs period or alcohol underage, fear not, if

And if you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to fear from illegal wiretaps.  And if you aren't a crook, you have nothing to fear from the police searching your home.  And if you aren't a Jew, you don't need to worry about the Gestapo (I declare this not an actual Godwin violation).

Yep - that sounds familiar.

oldsoldier wrote: My point is the level of justifacation of the illegal acts, by the residents here.....not conform to the law, just ensure there are no means to enforce the law.

Who are these residents?  I see no attempted justification of illegal acts in this thread. 

There are some that make the obvious statement that legality =/= morality, but that hardly reaches the level of justification.

oldsoldier wrote: I do believe many states have what is called "implied consent" for reasonable searches (to include drug testing) while in a Public school, in order to maintain the safety of the group. I am looking thru NYS and NE law and I know that Lincoln Public schools can "p" test under a probable cause statute.

You just made my argument.  Probable cause.  Not what these folks are talking about in NJ.  Again, fishing for guilty parties.

oldsoldier wrote: For example, when I worked here in the PD we had to arrest a single mother because of an accusation of abuse from a 4th grader, the foundation is Mom took away here cell phone, and the child in a fit of rage accused the mother of abuse while in school because she was crying, teacher asked why, so between the legal fees, disruption of her life, and personal damage done to the mother by the system, and a verdict of unfounded, I have no doubt that lady will ever question any marginal act of that child till she is up and gone, under the fear of a repeat of the exercise.

oldsoldier wrote: Clark, maybe a bit of profiling, but we must consider the possibility that there are those here on this forum who use illegal substances, or as minors in thier state consume alcohol, and fear getting "caught" by a system trying to enforce the laws of the land, drives thier arguements.

Always a possibility, of course.  But based on my knowledge of the people in this thread, most of the objections to this suggested policy come from people who do not fit that category, and who are arguing purely from a principled position.

I am looking now, an article by a Judge that has written recently that our laws are designed to be more easily circumvented than enforced under the current system.

Certainly true - starting with the Bill of Rights.  Our entire country is founded on the idea that we are willing to let many criminals get away rather than infringe on the rights of the people.

And there are those who by intent use our laws against our society and understand the methods in which to render our laws impotent against thier illegal acts. (yes governmental, as well as criminal)

Also clearly true.  But that's the point - nobody doubts that universal wiretaps, searches, and seizures would be devastatingly effective against crime (including terrorism).  We could completely prohibit gun ownership, allow any police officer to search any person or place at any time, allow indefinite detentions of people for no reason, and crime would no doubt plummet.  We would all be so much safer.

But that is also the society that the USA specifically was meant NOT to be.

oldsoldier wrote: Understand totally the Constitutional questions, but where is the line of personal responsibility of the citizen, and the trend to keep lowering the exsisting standard of personal responsibility is leading to more and more questions and problems in enforcement of exsisting law.

If you read my posts, you will note that I am favoring MORE responsibility.  My principal overriding concern with the US educational system is how we coddle our children.

But how is randomly testing people related to personal responsibility?  It is a complete intrusion into the person of innocents.  That has nothing to do with personal responsibility, and everything to do with government intrusion into the lives and bodies of innocent bystanders.

Is the Constitution a "Living Document" as many state, or only falls under that catigory when convienient to the current cause celebre?

The Constitution is, and must be, a living document.  Anything else is completely idiotic.  A literal-only interpretation of the Constitution is completely non-sensical.  But that does not mean that the principals are flexible.  Particular applications will always vary, and the gray zone is very wide - but the central premise (in this case) that the government cannot randomly go about searching people must stand inviolate. 

If I want to drink I'm gonna drink. I'm not really gonna care about a test with no consequences. It's just the idea that this is goin in.

Jack Carver wrote: this columnist suggested that people who get welfare checks should have to take drug tests, since he has to take one to work and pay taxes to provide the money in the first place.

Interesting theory.  I suspect it comes down to how you consider "welfare checks". 

As with all things welfare, people lump them all together into a fictional "welfare".  There are many programs that constitute "welfare", and we might treat each separately.  A blanket statement about "welfare" is almost certain to be at least partially wrong.

Take one of the biggest welfare program out there:  Social security.  Should a retiree who has worked for years and contributed to social security have to be clean to get retirement checks?  Are we prepared, as a society, to let our old/disabled folks rot in the streets because they do drugs?

Another large welfare program:  AFDC - Aid for Families with Dependant Children.  Clinton cut this program back a bit, but it is still quite extensive.  The purpose of this program is to provide for children with poor parents.  Should we let the children starve because the parents are potheads?

Not easy questions.

Other welfare programs are maybe a little less traumatic to consider:

Unemployment benefits - here perhaps the columnist's position seems a little more logical.  The question to consider is perhaps whether unemployment benefits are an "entitlement" or a "qualified benefit" (or other words of your liking).  And does unemployment benefit the recipient or the society?  If it is a benefit for the recipient, one would think society could take it back.  If, on the other hand, the theory is that society benefits from keeping these people off the streets, then would not that theory apply regardless of drug status?

Stafford loans and other student aid - perhaps the easiest to take away, emotionally speaking.  We might feel that students are being given a great gift, and we shouldn't waste it on those that can't play straight.  The same recipient/society analysis applies, but I think this one is easier to argue.

And so forth.  Short answer:  "Welfare" isn't a single thing, and the question does therefore not have a single answer.

oldsoldier wrote: Random testing in the workplace is a norm in our society. Maybe a preperation for "real world" issues such as random testing could begin to instill a higher level of awareness of thier need for responsible behavior, instead of the culture shock of the transition to adult responsibility "kids" expierience today.

I think this is the best argument so far in this thread. 

It doesn't quell my constitutional concerns, but if this is framed as preparation for reality, there might at least be some benefits to the program.  Based on the article, however, it appears to be doing the opposite - not preparing, but diminishing.

Maybe it is just a matter of presentation.

oldsoldier wrote: Benjichang: "This however is random, forced testing of people who are merely going to class." Now replace class with work, and the difference is?

I'll take that one:  You don't have to get a job, nor is the employer required to offer you one.  Neither is true for (public) school.

You dont have to have a job. Your required to go to school.

Edit: Clark beat me to it.

oldsoldier wrote: Oh, and here in Nebraska, the State is trying to make the consumption of wine during communion by underage attendees a misdomeaner. The Church can not limit the State, but yet the State can limit the Church....What Happened to this seperation of Church and State.

So if im rastafarian can I smoke weed?

oldsoldier wrote: Oh, and here in Nebraska, the State is trying to make the consumption of wine during communion by underage attendees a misdomeaner.

I bet thats going over real well.