It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Drug testing and you...

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 12:04 PM
Posted this here because it has the opportinity to get rather dirty.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Random drug testing gives students a strong answer to the social pressure to try drugs," he said. "It helps schools identify those using drugs so they can intervene with counseling and treatment before experiments turn into addictions."
According to the bill, grants would be given to school districts for "Drug-Free School Demonstration Programs." But funds would only be granted to districts that met a series of requirements. The first requirement listed is that the program "includes, consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, random drug testing of students." The US Supreme Court has upheld the testing of student athletes and students involved in extracurricular activities, but has not addressed the constitutionality of random drug tests of all students. The Peterson-Osborne-Souder bill would, if passed, almost certainly generate a challenge that would end up before the nation's highest court.

I complete disagree with this new adventure. (No it isn't due to who is pushing it either.) I honestly believe that this is wittling away liberties and freedoms, something that has been going on for some time. You cannot honestly tell me that this is not violating Mr. 4. This is an illegal search, IMO, because there is no probable cause other than them being young.

Also, this primes the youth to allow this when they are older. After all, they will be used to it. I would like to know what you think. Am I just taking this the completely wrong way?

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 12:22 PM
dude, they better not do that, or i'm screwed...

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 01:58 PM
I agree. In a public school, funded by the federal government (subject to Article 4), and the state governments (subject to federal law) this would be unlawful for the general population.

For corporate America, I am for it if the company so chooses. A person can pick which jobs they are employed at, and are subject to the rules and stipulations the company requires for employment.

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 02:00 PM
KJ: Holy crud! We agree on something!

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 08:29 PM
I know, it's a big shocker.

Let's not make it a regular occuance. I don't want ulcers

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 09:13 PM
I also agree with what has been said so far. Usually it is the corporations who receive federal funding (or a tax break) who test for drugs as it is mandated by the government. Most companies would choose not to do it because, as we all know, a person should be based on their individual merits and not by what they choose to do in the privacy of their homes.

As a person on probation I signed away a lot of my constitutionally garunteed rights in order to be spared jail time. It's a sad thing, but If I had not then there would be no real punishment for the crime I committed. Perhaps they consider this the same sort of contract for students. We let you go to school for free, so long as you don't do such and such. Makes sense to me, however unfair it may be.

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 10:44 PM
Insite, I'm sorry I have to disagree with that. Whenever you start removing rights, you start out small. They are beginning with the 4th amendment. I think of this as a search without probable cause.

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 11:06 PM
It doesn't belong in the public school system. They should spend the money on something that will actually benefit public education...

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 11:40 PM

Originally posted by insite
Perhaps they consider this the same sort of contract for students. We let you go to school for free, so long as you don't do such and such. Makes sense to me, however unfair it may be.

I don't know what you are in disagreement with... In my post I attempted to find the justification that the government would deem appropriate that made the most sense to me. I never said whether it was right or wrong.

Let me clarify, It's wrong and I don't like it one bit. Removal of rights sucks and I've been through it. Although the difference between me and these poor students is the fact that I actually did something to warrant the treatment. As a parent I would use this as the final straw to pull my kids out of public school.

*EDIT: During high School I was a complete pot head who dabbled in anything and everything and still kept straight A's. I think the propaganda surrounding drugs these days keeps the public severely jaded to the point where parents relinquish control of their own children to government mandates. It's a sad fact of American life and I hope to move before I ever bring a child up in this sad society.

[Edited on 2-29-2004 by insite]

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 11:47 PM
Sorry, misread a bit of it. I thought you were making excuses for the new measures instead of how they could and would justify it.

posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 11:49 PM
That's okay, I knew it must have been a simple mistake (on my part for not being clear enough).

BTW, awesome topic.

posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 12:06 AM
Bush is a retard.

This is not cool. This is another example of losing freedoms and making the majority suffer for what a couple of dumbasses do. Another example of this is the breathalyzers in cars in New Mexico.

posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 12:08 PM
Yes, it is against American Ideals to punish all to catch a few.

The focus should be at the root of the problems rather than the effects or perpatrators of crime, although catching criminals is a good thing and important.

posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 02:06 PM
I'm with KJ on this one.....

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 10:16 AM
Lol, I don't really have a problem with being tested. I can see why others would. But, I have nothing to worry about. I'm tested randomly anyway.(USAR)

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 10:50 AM
"Drug use can quickly turn to dependence and addiction, trapping users in a vicious cycle that destroys families and ruins lives. Students who use drugs or alcohol are statistically more likely to drop out of school than their peers who dont. Dropouts, in turn, are more likely to be unemployed, to depend on the welfare system, and to commit crimes. If drug testing deters drug use, everyone benefitsstudents, their families, their schools, and their communities."

What part of this doesn't make sense to you guys?

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 10:58 AM
Slowly stepping over our constitutional rights.

I believe it was LBJ who said, "Once you break the hymen, it gets easier to come back." Once you start removing rights, it will be easier to come back and take more. It may start little: random piss tests for students or no rights for "suspected terrorists". But the government will continue to find more things to limit and restrict us from and slowly piss away our rights.

It takes one small change to make things acceptable. Don't let this one be the start of that. Meaning, this is too important just to say, "Well, they could be throwing their lives away. This could help."

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 11:10 AM
"The bill, The Empowering Parents and Teachers for a Drug Free Education Act (H.R. 3720) would set guidelines for testing accuracy, test result confidentiality, and would require parental consent -- but parents would have to proactively opt out of the program if they did not want their children to be submitted to drug testing. The bill would not allow schools to turn drug test results over to law enforcement, and test results would be destroyed after the students left school. "

So...let me get this straight.....your argument is over the students right to get high?

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 11:15 AM
It's not about a student's right to get high. Look at that little excerpt from the CONSTITUTION and tell me that this proposed piece of legislation does not violate it.

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 11:18 AM
Well, if the parents consent, then I don't see a problem with it.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in