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?

 

The concept of testing athletes only would also go against the consistent message of "kids who participate in sports are less likely to take drugs and drink alcohol."

I would support random drug testing for all students/faculty or heck anyone who draws a paycheck or welfare check for that matter. All students/employees deserve to go to school or work each day without being exposed to those who choose to partake. As someone stated in a post earlier "what do you do with the students that test positive that do not participate in extra-curriculars? To my knowledge suspension/expulsion is not an option. Someone feel free to correct me if you know otherwise.

 

I definitely support testing for students with privileges such as extra-curricular participation, driving, etc.

Yeah, if the testing is the reason that the athletes don't do drugs, than it is successful. The goal of testing is NOT to catch people but to prevent.

 

Also, there are programs that happen, at least in our school, that talks about the reasons not to be involved in drugs/alcohol. Each athlete in that season is REQUIRED to attend or they are ineligible to compete.

 

If the tests stand alone with no educational program, than I believe it is an incomplete program.

 

cshs81, thats kinda sounds like what I was saying, no?

cshs81, thats kinda sounds like what I was saying, no?

 

You may have "said" that but that's not what I read. I read "I'm not guilty of anything so test away" which goes against the 4th amendment. I think you later responded saying that's not what you really meant. So, I assume you're like others on here that are OK with students being tested but , at the same time, are not open to law enforcement/govt searching your house - even though you're not guilty of anything.

at the same time, are not open to law enforcement/govt searching your house - even though you're not guilty of anything.

 

If law enforcment wants to come search my house, then fine! They won't find anything! There is no reason for them to search my house.

 

There is though, a reason to drug test students.

Veronia School District v. Acton (1995)

 

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district. Schools must balance students' right to privacy against the need to make school campuses safe and keep student athletes away from drugs, the Court said. The drug-testing policy, which required students to provide a urine sample, involved only a limited invasion of privacy, according to the Justices: "Students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy."

 

The Court noted that all students surrender some privacy rights while at school: They must follow school rules and submit to school discipline. But student athletes have even fewer privacy rights, the Justices said, and must follow rules that don't apply to other students. Joining a team usually requires getting a physical exam, obtaining insurance coverage, and maintaining a minimum grade point average. And athletes must be willing to shower and change in locker rooms, further reducing their privacy. "School sports are not for the bashful," the Court said.

 

In a more recent case, Board of Education v Earls, 2002, upheld drug testing in schools.

If law enforcment wants to come search my house, then fine! They won't find anything! There is no reason for them to search my house.

 

There is though, a reason to drug test students.

 

Wrong.

 

Child pornography is a growing problem in the US. I'll assume you're a male. Therefore, you fit the profile , thus, you have to open up your PC for inspection.

 

You're OK with that?

Veronia School District v. Acton (1995)

 

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district. Schools must balance students' right to privacy against the need to make school campuses safe and keep student athletes away from drugs, the Court said. The drug-testing policy, which required students to provide a urine sample, involved only a limited invasion of privacy, according to the Justices: "Students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy."

 

The Court noted that all students surrender some privacy rights while at school: They must follow school rules and submit to school discipline. But student athletes have even fewer privacy rights, the Justices said, and must follow rules that don't apply to other students. Joining a team usually requires getting a physical exam, obtaining insurance coverage, and maintaining a minimum grade point average. And athletes must be willing to shower and change in locker rooms, further reducing their privacy. "School sports are not for the bashful," the Court said.

 

In a more recent case, Board of Education v Earls, 2002, upheld drug testing in schools.

 

1. I did chuckle at the "shower and change in lockerrooms" line.

 

2. Why just athletics? If the overriding concern is "prevention" why stop at athletes?

 

3. If we all agree that a student's right to privacy goes out the door, why are we OK with just testing athletes?

I have no qualms with either side on this issue.

I think however, if a school chooses to do so, then there better be a good reason as to why they are doing it, or that their agenda is clear and concise.

I understand the whole priviledge v right issue.

IMO, schools can find better ways to spend their money than on drug testing.

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 testedQUOTE]

It is considered a privilege,which can be tested. And as well,the parked cars can be sniffed by drug dogs and searched...without a warrent.

It is considered a privilege,which can be tested. And as well,the parked cars can be sniffed by drug dogs and searched...without a warrent.

 

At what point is someone considered to be taking advantage of a "privledge?"

 

You say driving a car qualifies. What about participating on the Academic team?

 

Working in the office after school?

 

Student Senate?

 

Intramurals?

 

Team Manager?

 

Prom Committee?

 

We could massage the definition of privledge to include almost any child who does anything besides ride the bus to school and take classes and then ride the bus home, right?

At what point is someone considered to be taking advantage of a "privledge?"

 

You say driving a car qualifies. What about participating on the Academic team?

 

Working in the office after school?

 

Student Senate?

 

Intramurals?

 

Team Manager?

 

Prom Committee?

 

We could massage the definition of privledge to include almost any child who does anything besides ride the bus to school and take classes and then ride the bus home, right?

 

My point!!:thumb: At some point,some school is going to say that ALL of their kids are in a club,participating in athletics or driving and test them all radomly...Is THAT considered constitutional? The dead horse awaits the whip!

My point!!:thumb: At some point,some school is going to say that ALL of their kids are in a club,participating in athletics or driving and test them all radomly...Is THAT considered constitutional? The dead horse awaits the whip!

 

IMO the random tests apply to all or none.

IMO the random tests apply to all or none.

 

Mine,too...But the Supreme court has ruled otherwise..I get the feeling that this will come before it again,what with parts of the Patriot Act being tossed this week,and things could resolve..or get uglier. At any rate,it cannot get any more confusing than it is now. It needs to be tested in court for a clearer picture. And it will be...bet on it.

I don't think that is constitutional. Because if we are worried about the roid rage in the school hallways, why aren't we worried about it when they are walking the streets of the town.

 

I think different rules apply. Students can have lockers searched randomly. Students are subject to car searches if their cars are parked on school property. These things can't be done in town, but at school they are ok.