Best
193 Comments
Post
  • #5
    !
    They had better take that money and put it to good use, like hiring more teachers and improve the test scores of the students, people have lost their minds on this drug paranoia, it has become a phobia.
  • #96
    !
    Or they could hire BETTER teachers instead of more, and toss them an increase in pay, make the pay attractive enough so that they might actually care if they get fired. But that would mean we would actually need a way to evaluate good teachers vs. bad, which means we would need to purge most current school administrations and...nah, forget it.
  • #50
    !
    They don't have those rights once they are on school property. Just like they don't have 1st amendment rights.
  • #58
    !
    @AceLuby it's still wrong. Unless that student demonstrates some kind of behavior that they are using drugs then this is uncalled for.
  • #104
    !
    @AceLuby

    I agree with you on this one. As a truck driver I'm required by federal regulations to submit to random drug testing. School is government property. Now if someone wants to home school their kids where they can't influence other kids with their drug habit.......
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    !
    I have mixed feelings on this...obviously you can't have kids in school 'high', it is not
    condusive to learning. So, I would think they would be a candidate for dropping out
    of school, a high school drop-out will not be employable, and will most likely to
    have to go on the system, more entitlements...more taxpayers money. 50.00 is a
    drop in the bucket compared to the alternative. Just sayin'...
  • #17
    !
    That's so true. And after re reading the article and seeing they are taking special precautions that a positive test not be used against a student in future. Also, involving no police makes me consider it really is in the best interest of the kids. I can see where this could be helpful if used like they've stated here.
  • #19
    !
    But why choose the most expensive way to test? Why not use urine test, or nowadays they have test in the form of a Q-tip, swirled around in the mouth. I think any form would achieve the same end result here, so why choose hair folicle test?
  • #33
    !
    @Happy2BeHere I think it's because urine testing can be unreliable due to 'fake pee', it comes in powder form and they keep it near their bodies to get a more accurate temp., as it has to be real close to 98.6.. Also, hair testing can detect a
    longer period of drug use. I trained a girl at work and could not figure out why she
    just didn't seem to 'get' it and moved so very slowly. I later found out she had been fired from her previous job, after wrecking the company car while being high. She
    always wore very baggy clothes and kept the fake pee very close to her body in
    case she was randomly tested. Anyway, she got fired for being incapable of doing her job.
  • #34
    !
    @Happy2BeHere - Good question. Most of corporate America is switching to the saliva test because it is so cheap and easy. If you're going to invade the privacy of a captive audience in the form of underage public school students, the least you can do is find the cheapest method of doing so. The only reason they want the hair test is because, at least in the case of cannabis, it will test positive if you've used the stuff during the life of that entire hair, which could be months or even years.
  • #73
    !
    @Denizen_Kate ..saliva testing shows positives basically when taken so I guess if they're testing to check someone for being high at that moment, it's a good test. But if they're looking for longer term usage, urine is the best bet but as mimi said, so often that is faked. Hair shows even long-term use but is not easily faked. Guess it depends on the purpose of the test in the first place.
  • R Load more replies

  • #14
    !
    Maybe they should test the teachers and faculty as well. You may be surprised how may teachers smoke weed and other drugs. Oh and while your at it, make sure you test a lot of the coaches as well for PED's. I know many that do them too!
  • #40
    !
    Where I live the teachers union refused to do teacher drug tests for ANY reason.
    I agree with you though the teachers should have to do them. Especially if they/we are going to expect kid to do them.
  • #28
    !
    Also, like GOOD2BEHERE(?), good question. Also, it does vilate their 4th amendment rights. Then, I imagine, there will be a court case brought about regarding any of the cases brought about above. More $s will be lost...
  • #45
    !
    @cleverusername I know the ballot initiative passed but am unsure of the details. Perhaps DARSB has more details. I believe he's better informed on this than I am. Nevertheless, I won't be using the stuff.
  • R Load more replies

  • #94
    !
    BTW~ you live near me, and I agree w/ your bio. Every creature does have value, except mosquitoes and fleas! LOL
  • #78
    !
    When Florida's corrupt governor Rick Scott mandated did drug testing on welfare recipients, it WAS NOT done to find drug users, it was a tax giveaway, government pork wasting as much as a million taxpayer dollars. The CEO of the company that did drug testing is a personal friend of Scott's.
    ----------
    Scott lied, claiming many of welfare recipients were on drugs (25-50%, depending on the day or who he spoke to). The test results said differently, showed that only 108 of the 4,086 people (2.64%) tested positive, less than a third of the US average (8.9%).
    ----------
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-d...
    ----------
    http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2012/may/04/editor...
    ----------
    The only welfare cheats in Florida were the corporate welfare cheats like the drug testing company, and scum like Scott who gave them the money.
  • #66
    !
    It makes far more sense to drug test any & all people involved in 'welfare, section-8 , HUD - SSI -, etc . Everybody , from the recipients to those that work for the gov't. agencies handing out 'entitlements' using taxpayer's money.
  • #79
    !
    @cleverusername I don't want to see children on drugs at all . But let us play fair here, why don't we start drug testing the School Boards , Administrators & Teachers first. Force them all , from DC on down to simply ' practice what they preach'.
  • #88
    !
    @mudpike They are randomly tested here. Also, if you apply for a job at a healthcare facility, you will be tested for nicotine, also hair samples. Hospitals ,
    and healthcare facilities are smoke free and only will hire non-smokers.
  • #89
    !
    @mudpike "But let us play fair here, why don't we start drug testing the School Boards , Administrators & Teachers first. Force them all , from DC on down to simply ' practice what they preach'. "

    I agree. Where I live the teacher union flat out refuses to submit themselves to drug testing for any reason. We can't expect our kids to do what the adults in charge of them refuse to do.
  • #95
    !
    @cleverusername - Like many of us out here , it's mandatory & required for employment. This is one thing that gives unions another black eye , not saying that I'm anti-union - it should be cut & dried , take the test or take a walk .
  • R Load more replies

  • #30
    !
    This is nothing more than another chapter of Reefer Madness and paranoia. Testing when a child, or an adult for that matter, gives no reason to suspect is a blatent assult on privacy and personal liberty. But then again, one of the sectors that promotes cannabis prohibition (let's face it, that's what they're really looking for) is the drug testing business. There is your real motivation for this. I wonder who got paid off to enact this rule and I wonder what their relationship is to the manufacturer of the drug kits.
  • #181
    !
    @harold_lloyd - whether it's public or private, money is a very big influence when it comes to things like this. Just because it is not a gov't entity does not make it any more right. Drug testing without any sort of reasoning is still a detriment to a free society whether public or private.
  • #182
    !
    @Len_in_NY2 "Just because it is not a gov't entity does not make it any more right."

    If you want to start a discussion about the difference between 'right' and 'legal', we'll be here a long time.

    "Drug testing without any sort of reasoning is still a detriment to a free society whether public or private. "

    Why?
  • #183
    !
    @harold_lloyd - Well we already know that just because something is "legal" does not make it right. Take a look at the "legal" things our gov't leaders are allowed to do (such as insider trading, etc.). Slavery was "legal" for a long time, did that make it right ?
    So you really think that there can be a free society when people are forced to submit to testing when those in authority demand it regardless of the fact that they've done nothing to interfere with anyone else's rights or safety?
    Also, there has been more than enough evidence that the whole drug war and the curtailing of personl liberties that come with it is based moreso in profit than anything else.
  • R Load more replies

  • #22
    !
    It's not the school's place to play cop, especially randomly. What does this say to the kids beyond "guilty until proven innocent?"

    I wonder how many kids will shave their heads?
  • #121
    !
    HMMM.....most jobs require for you to be "guilty until proven innocent". Most jobs, if you have a small, inexpensive accident want that same test. Some jobs I've been on (CDL driver) require you to do this randomly 1 to 2 time a year.
    Their are more spots on the body than the head to get hair. One driver I knew was bald as a billiard ball, had no chest/arm/leg hair to speak of.....guess where got his sample from? Thank goodness HE didn't have a bikini wax....;-)
  • #139
    !
    @stepped_in_it These are kids who are mandated to be in school; they aren't employees.

    Any school representative who takes hair ANYWHERE but the top of the head will get a quick trip to the police station. That's definitely a "bad touch."
  • #9
    !
    I think Politix may just get this poll answer thingy worked out in our lifetimes but I will not hold my breath.

    As the saying goes not just 'No' but 'HELL NO!' I can and do support dress codes or preferably uniforms. I have no problem with strict rules regarding acceptable behavior in the schools.

    But don't think you or your surrogate can put your hand on my child's person without consequence!

    Are we really that concerned over drug use or is that just an excuse to promote the idea that the state may do as it wishes to us and we should not object? Government schools already do much to promote the concept of community property. They let me back on campus at my son's elementary school, but, not before returning all of his school supplies which they had thrown into a common pool to be shared by all.
  • #18
    !
    My daughter-in-law is a teacher, you would be surprised at the number of kids who
    come to school high, and even do drugs at school...It's against school policy, if the
    rules are broken, as in any other school rule, if they are found to have drugs in their system, it may be a good time for drug counseling or in some cases early reha The
    age of drug abusers is getting younger all the time.
  • #27
    !
    @mimi57 Actually, mimi, I probably wouldn't. What I am surprised at is how often this behavior is tolerated by school administrators. And parents who contribute greatly to administrators reluctance to actually do something.

    We also can't be sure that we can close that door once it is opened. We give the government permission to randomly test our children for suspected drug use we open the door to random testing for other things. There is also the problem with false positives, creating a new market for drug masking supplies.

    I don't know about you, but, I would not have been happy to get a letter from my child's school chastising me for feeding him pizza the night before. Or wondering why there is a pain killer in his system but they have no record of him having the prescription.
  • #38
    !
    @Canoochee If my child was using drugs in or out of school...and they will, once they get that drivers license, you have NO idea what they do. I would appreciate
    knowing it as soon as possible so I could take the appropriate measures to 'correct' it.
    (:
  • #47
    !
    @mimi57 Mine is turning 22 in a couple of months. I have already traveled that road. I don't know about where you are, but, here I learned what the school officials are telling you is often true. The times when it is not are what makes it where you can't trust anything they tell you. Especially where it concerns suspicion of drug use.

    There is no good answer granted. I preferred to keep my own tabs on my son and did not trust the government to do it for me. Nor will I give the government permission to start. A private school considering this policy would be up for discussion.
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    !
    Well... it's really not unconstitutional as they are minors attending a public school, however, it IS a giant waste of money. Even a small school of 1,000 students it would cost $50k... per time. Enough for two full classrooms of iPads, an experienced teacher, or to put towards an IB or AP program or 5... So many other things this money could be used for to actually benefit the students.
  • #15
    !
    $50k times 12 for each year the students are in school thats asuming the don't start teasting the kindergarden students, and it costs alot more than that, in KY they charge $980 per drug test.
  • #60
    !
    "... it's really not unconstitutional as they are minors attending a public school ... " The SCOTUS decisions of 1995 and 2002 specific stated that random drug testing was constitutional only for those students involved in extracurricular activities.
  • #144
    !
    just learned that it is a private school. Politix sure is tricky. So by all means it is up to the parents if they know about it and send their kids their then cool.
  • #185
    !
    It would be unconstitutional if it were a public school. Children are required by law to attend school. Its not like they are there out of choice. So it is more important to protect the constitutional rights of people in public schools.
    Drug testing of anyone should only be done with consent - in this case the consent of the parents.
  • R Load more replies

  • #180
    !
    End the war on drugs, end the war on guns, end the war on all repression. Grow up America and learn to mind your own business.
  • #102
    !
    It's unconstitutional AND a waste of money. I am against all mandatory drug testing anywhere on anyone for any reason other than probable cause. I am also against sobriety checkpoints or road blocks for the same reasons. These things cause needless disruption, inconvenience and are incredibly inefficient in finding their target.
  • #140
    !
    @harold_lloyd "In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that schools could randomly drug test students. But since then various circuit and district courts have struck down mandatory, suspicionless drug testing in schools on the grounds that it violates 4th amendment rights concerning warrantless searches and seizures."

    Depends on opinion. I agree with the lower court stated opinion. Think first, talk later.
  • #154
    !
    @Russell797
    Thinking at all would be a change...

    It's a private school, a Catholic school.

    Do you understand what that means?
  • #165
    !
    @harold_lloyd Why do you have to be so condescending? The question I responded to was this "Is random, mandatory drug testing in schools a good idea?" Get it? In schools, not the particular school mentioned.
  • #168
    !
    @Russell797
    I am condescending because you are not up to my standards in rational thought.

    "It's unconstitutional AND a waste of money," was your original response to,"Is random, mandatory drug testing in schools a good idea?"
  • R Load more replies

  • #100
    !
    Parents can buy drug tests at the store and test their kids themselves and that falls under parental authority. As it is they're only informing the parents, so how about parents drug test their kids themselves. Not only is this unconstitutional and disrespectful of students, it wastes tax payer dollars. Pay for your own drug tests, parents.
  • #68
    !
    I think it's a good idea. Hair follical testing detects drugs for a much greater period than regular testing. Cocaine is detected for as long as 3 months out as opposed to just 72 hrs. through urine. I don't think the 4th applies to minnors if the parents are on board, and if they are not, you have to wonder about them.$50 for this type of test is not expensive, I'd give the school the money to test mine!
  • #61
    !
    Well they are government schools, and we know that now we are subjects of the government so they have the right to search you inside and out if they want.

    Isnt the new amerika great? No bill of rights or constitution to be bothered by.
  • R Load more comments...
Post