October 2, 200718 yr I don't think it is constitutional to drug test all students, so that point is moot. From what I've read, many schools are taking a broad interpretation of the SC ruling that said athletes can be tested. The case that this is based on was passed because the justices said that the school had a drug problem and that athletes in THAT SCHOOL were known to have drug users. Justice Scalia (or Justice Thomas?) said that schools should be very careful in how they interpret their ruling. Some schools are now testing kids that drive to school. Is that an "extracurricular" activity? Or is it the way to have all students tested?
October 2, 200718 yr I've always thought the point of random drug testing in schools, were for extracurricular activities and student-athletes. Not just for illegal drugs but for enhancements, which may elevate level of play. . From what I've read, that would not be the case. The 1995 case that schools now use dealt strictly with general drug use.
October 2, 200718 yr Some schools are now testing kids that drive to school. Is that an "extracurricular" activity? Or is it the way to have all students tested?Very good question and not trying to interpret, but if utilizing school property, by driving onto and off with a vehicle, I would be in favor of. One accident on school property, resulting from a student who is utilizing illegal substances and operating a motor vehicle, is one too many. Again, I'm sure various law enforcement agencies could/should become involved then.
October 2, 200718 yr Can I assume that those in favor of testing athletes would also be in favor of testing all students if allowed?
October 2, 200718 yr Can I assume that those in favor of testing athletes would also be in favor of testing all students if allowed? I would have to think about it. Presently, I have not because I don't believe it is constitutionally to test all students.
October 2, 200718 yr I would have to think about it. Presently, I have not because I don't believe it is constitutionally to test all students. You're for prevention, right?
October 2, 200718 yr You're for prevention, right? Yes, BUT you can't violate the constitution to have prevention. If we can, than lets just test everyone everywhere.
October 2, 200718 yr Can I assume that those in favor of testing athletes would also be in favor of testing all students if allowed?I wouldn't be opposed to it. I'm not speaking regarding legal or affordable but allowing parents/guardians to know, if there children are using illegal substances. I'm really for extracurricular activities and that would include sports, buses and those who supervise those activities.
October 2, 200718 yr I wouldn't be opposed to it. I'm not speaking regarding legal or affordable but allowing parents/guardians to know, if there children are using illegal substances. I'm really for extracurricular activities and that would include sports, buses and those who supervise those activities. If I am not mistaken, parents can buys drug tests at CVS. Not the schools job to do this for every student. Parent's job. It is the school's job to make sure that they are putting a football player on the field for practice and games that will not endanger themselves or others.
October 2, 200718 yr If I am not mistaken, parents can buys drug tests at CVS. Not the schools job to do this for every student. Parent's job. It is the school's job to make sure that they are putting a football player on the field for practice and games that will not endanger themselves or others. I agree and that is why in Post #60, I stated having students tested prior to each fall, by the parents/guardians.
October 2, 200718 yr Yes, BUT you can't violate the constitution to have prevention. If we can, than lets just test everyone everywhere. Hold it. You said you're for prevention. I said lets suppose that the SC says you can test all students. Are you ok with that in the name of prevention? Note: The majority of the SC, IMO, broadened the scope of legal student testing with their 2002 ruling. If schools can now test choir members and people that drive on campus, aren't they really saying "find any reason you can and we'll back you up in the name of prevention?"
October 2, 200718 yr It is the school's job to make sure that they are putting a football player on the field for practice and games that will not endanger themselves or others. That seems to go against what you said earlier. You said "prevention" is goal #1. Why do we care if the child who we are trying to prevent from being a user also happens to wear a jock?
October 2, 200718 yr If I am not mistaken, parents can buys drug tests at CVS. Not the schools job to do this for every student. Parent's job. It is the school's job to make sure that they are putting a football player on the field for practice and games that will not endanger themselves or others. Don't disagree with you but I STRONGLY believe that if a school suspects drug abuse by a kid on the team they should be allow to test. If it comes back positive yes it is a parents job to try to fix the problem. You know better than anyone LBBC kids today can be VERY crafty in hiding something like this from a parent.
October 2, 200718 yr What does any of this have to do with kids on teams. Nothing. It's all or none simple as that. Just because a kid is gifted enough to play a sport or be in a club, doesn't mean they get singled out. You have to test them all. Why should they be tested before your average student?
October 2, 200718 yr Don't disagree with you but I STRONGLY believe that if a school suspects drug abuse by a kid on the team they should be allow to test. If it comes back positive yes it is a parents job to try to fix the problem. . From what I've read, the schools do have the power to test/search if they have a suspicion.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.