It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitutionality/legality of school rule...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Refusal to undergo substance abuse screening will net you 5 days of O.S.S and 5 days I.S.S, CST evaluation, conference with Substance Abuse Counselor, Mandatory Behavior Contract, Re-entry hearing w/ assistant superintendent.

2nd offense = 10 days - O.S.S, Board of Ed. hearing; Possible expulsion.



If I am correctly reading "refusal to undergo substance abuse screening," if I refuse a drug test (random or targetted), I risk expulsion? Doesn't this violate my right to privacy and right to not self-incriminate?




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
The government spends billions educating the kids of today. If some kid is going to go to school high on whatever, then he shouldn't be there wasting everyones time and taxpayer money. If you have nothing to hide, why refuse the screening?



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Well i dont do drugs but i dont want anyone unreasonably searching my piss!!! IT is a blatent violation of the constitution but the school is throwin the exact thing to the parents of what u just said.

Sometimes you need to worry even tho u have notin to hide!



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
If you smoke a splif in the weekend or in the evening, or whenever on your personal time, its on YOUR time and noone has any bussines with it(xcept your parents maybe)

Doing some sort of drug doesn't mean your stoned at school, drug residue found in tests can be from months before, heck, if you sit in a room with some friends and one of them is smoking a splif, good chances are that they can find residue in your blood from it. If they want to do drug screenings, they should aswell do alcohol screenings and screenings for medicine abuse, like anti depresants and stuff.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Only one thing wrong with your post....The drugs they want to test for are illegal.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
None of my kids so drugs and we are fighting this at their school. If a kid is thought to be high or if the parents request it I dont have a problem with it, BUT.....I damn sure dont like my kid being treated as a criminal "randomly" or otherwise.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
The government spends billions educating the kids of today. If some kid is going to go to school high on whatever, then he shouldn't be there wasting everyones time and taxpayer money. If you have nothing to hide, why refuse the screening?


I guess the flag at this school would look like this then.



A BLATANT violation of human rights. They better not try this with my kids. What's this saying to our kids, "Doesn't matter how good you are, we still won't trust you."

Edit- changed your to this.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by intrepid]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I've always thought that drug testing should be mandatory in schools !

I also think that to hold ANY, I say ANY job, you should have to submit to drug testing.... cashier, stock room clerk, lawyer, anything...

Drug Screening for everyone I say....



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
I've always thought that drug testing should be mandatory in schools !

I also think that to hold ANY, I say ANY job, you should have to submit to drug testing.... cashier, stock room clerk, lawyer, anything...

Drug Screening for everyone I say....


This wrong on so many levels. The gov't is prying so far into my life now. When do we draw the line, blood tests for entrance to kindergarten?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Yes, its a total invasion of privacy,(not like the government has a problem with invading it) and you should be pissed.

Why is marijuana illegal? Simple its a plant and can be grown anywhere. While prescription drugs have to be made in factories, which are taxable. If the government cant make a buck off your pain and suffering, they jail you instead.

Pardon me if I like to smoke a PLANT, instead of taking drugs I have to buy at the supermarket. If you dont want to smoke, thats fine, just leave me the **** alone while im doing it!! Im not in front of you blowing smoke down your mouth, nor am I around your children. I'm at my own home, minding my own business.


[edit on 8/26/2004 by WhiteWolf420]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
I've always thought that drug testing should be mandatory in schools !


Are you serious?? Do you honestly believe that the government, and not a child's parents, should determine whether or not a student is tested for drugs?
If a school has reason to believe that one of their students is using drugs, they should notify the parents, in as discreet a manner as possible, and allow them to deal with the situation.
The government does not need, or deserve, anymore power than it already has.
To say that they have the right to require this of your child, is to give up your own parental rights and acknowledge that the government knows what is best for your family, and you don't.
What happens when they decide that your child should not be raised by you anymore, since he/she tested positive for drugs, and they take your kids away from you? Or do you really believe that something like that could never happen?


I also think that to hold ANY, I say ANY job, you should have to submit to drug testing.... cashier, stock room clerk, lawyer, anything...

Drug Screening for everyone I say....

And what would this prove? That a lot of people smoke weed or use other drugs that the government has deemed "bad" (as opposed to the "good" FDA approved drugs the media and doctors push at you from every direction)? How does a drug test prove whether or not a person is capable of performing their job well?
A person who drinks alot of caffeinated beverages can be just as dangerous, or productive, as a person who does some speed before going to work. A person who's extremely tired is, at best, no different than a person shortly after they've smoked a bowl, and neither one should go to work in such a condition.
If a person who is exhausted, gets drug tested, it won't show up that they are too tired to perform their job safely. On the other hand, if I smoke a joint on Saturday, and get drug tested on Monday, I would test dirty regardless of the fact that I am 100% sober and am fully capable of doing my job.

The case for drug urinalysis is further undermined by the fact that there exist alternative means for detecting impairment. Most promising of these are performance tests, which measure reaction time, alertness, and agility at various tasks. Computer-based performance tests are now on the market and have started to be used in some workplaces. Performance tests have the obvious advantage of measuring actual impairment, regardless of the cause. Unlike urinalysis, they can detect problems caused by alcohol and other, untested drugs, as well as stress, fatigue, and emotional distress. In addition, they have the important advantage of disregarding private behavior that is irrelevant to job performance. www.norml.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join