Topic awaiting preservation: Drug testing in schools? (Page 1 of 1)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/student.drug.testing.ap/index.html

I think this would be a step too far. I think that, once again, this goes back to being a parental issue rather than an administrative one. Of course, there are circumstances in which the school would ahve to be involved....but random testing? It seems insane...


{edit - oops, meant to post this in the Silly forum....any feel like moving it over? }

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-01-2004).]

Hhhmmm... I agree sort of. Random drug testing in school goes too far. If there were actual drug programs in place to help and policies of 'no punishment first strike' then perhaps it could work. Right now it just seems like too much government interference. That's creepy and were I a student, I would be totally against this policy, mostly because I smoked pot all through high school. As a parent though, I'm not entirely opposed to it. I do think an argument for random drug testing of school sports team is possible and I like that drug testing provides an out to some students under peer pressure. Mixed feelings.

I agree, way too far. This is something for parents to decide, not government. And if government insists on sticking its nose in here, parental consent should be obtained.

In all, this is yet another example of the federal government overstepping its bounds and spending money where they shouldn't and really don't need to. Why should my tax dolars help pay for somebody else's kid to get a drug test? The parents need to be in charge of this, that is what health insurance/medical assistance is for.

[rant]All part of the building of a socialist america. You pay the government, and they redistibute the wealth to the "less fortunate." This Robin Hood mentality of taking from the rich and goving to the poor will only breed more laziness. Why work hard to get somewhere in life when the government will take care of you regardless? Why shoot for a 6 figure income when all that means is more taxes. A short 40 years ago and people with these kinds of ideas would have been called communists.[/rant]

Moving ...

Jestah

Amerasu you sound way too much like my principal to have smoked through highschool =\.

Principals are people too

NO WAY?

Amerasu - do you have any proof to back that up?

Now, I can understand the desire to keep kids off of drugs. I can understand the school becoming involved when there is an obvious problem. I like the idea of active programs designed to keep kids off drugs.

I am terrified of the prospect of random drug tests, in schools or elsewhere in society. At a place of employment, it's different. You choose to be there, and can at any time leave and find employment with a company who does not require testing.

The idea of random compulsory inspection of one's self to check for compliance with the law is just a tad bit too orwelian to me. It doesn't take much of a jump to see this expanding to random searches, random interrogation, etc.

This should stop NOW and not later when it spreads to other facets of society.

Educate the children, educate the parents. Keep your piss-cup to yourself.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-03-2004).]

I'm taking back my mixed feelings. I was reading a scary site yesterday (www.ztnightmares.com) and it drove home the fact that people will be behind these drug programs & school testing procedures and whenever people are involved, emotions and ideologies are involved, bureaucracy too, and someone will end up getting burned pretty badly. If some overzealous school administrator tried to tell me what was going to happen with my kids, I know I'd pitch a fit.

My high school prinicpal sucked. He was also the Guidance Counsellor if you can imagine such a thing. He had this cool guy act going on like some kind of hipster beatnik but he was offensive and sneaky in every possible way. A hide behind walls and listen kind of guy. I take back the principal remark too

For half of my high school like my principal was a nice, funny Irish Guy. Great sense of humour. Knew how to make kids want to do things, instead of just making them do it whether they want to or not. Then, about 3/4 of the way through my High School like, he retired. Damn! Our next principal was a bitch. She didn't know the first thing about dealing with teenagers. I was entirely convinced that she didn't actually like us.

Then, later on, the year after I graduated to be exact, she become my boss, and I found that everything I thought and about her ws entirely correct. And then some.

A tip to all those out there who are still in High School and are planning on working after High School: Do Not...I repeat Do Not ever, ever, ever take a job at your old High School...even if they offer it to you. Thye will screw you over, and it will be one of the most hellish jobs of your life.

Speaking as someone that is not far removed from high school, (I graduated less than two years ago and my father has been working as a high school teacher/coach for nigh on 30 years) I would completely support any kind of drug testing in schools and for athletes in particular. My baseball teammates often came to practices and games stoned and/or drunk. Its killing the program there because it has become a stereotype that the baseball guys are wild.

I'm typically against government social programs but this one is (for once) spot on. I'd even take it a step further, instead of making the tests "random" and run the risk of causing students to feel targeted make the test mandatory for all.

---------------------------------------
www.bonfirecoalition.com.
---------------------------------------

That is completely insane and stomps all over civil and constitutional rights.

The scenario you bring up is exactly where education and teacher/parent involvment is the primary issue.

If such things became madatory in my child's school she would be moved to a new one, or schooling would be moved to home.

It's funny - people worry about our right being taken. Hell - nobody has to take them, we seem to be lining up to give them away!

Which rights would we be giving up? Our right to hold on to possession of 100% of our own blood? Or our right to break the law? We don't have a right to the latter, and the former implies that it's not the testing that's bad, it's the method, which is subject to change at any time. I'd submit that we're losing more freedom by allowing children to continue to use drugs, because a greater loss of freedom here is the loss of the ability to keep our children in a drug free public school system. Conceding that we can't eliminate drug use, and that parents should ultimately be responsible for the actions of their children doesn't cut it when some parents refuse to be responsible.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with stealing money from people, just to spend it on a war on drugs, a war that fails over and over again. Also, personally I whole-heartidly believe that most current 'illegal' drugs should be legalized. However, as long as they're illegal, lets at least prevent children from using them, and as long as we're going to spend the money, lets do it right, and completely crack down on children using illegal drugs.

The biggest violation of our rights here is that we have a political system where the government feels it's ok to steal from the public to fund programs that don't equally assist every person they steal from. As long as we let our government tax us, fighting drug use in high school students, in my opinion, is one of the best uses for the money they take.

This is from a student who graduated from high school less than a year ago, and one who (more than) occasionally indulged in the use of illegal drugs.

- A couple other things. Rights could potentially be violated here, if in anyway, the system of collecting blood for testing somehow catalogued this blood, for later comparative testing, specifically, turning over samples to police without a warrant to take blood from the suspect. This could end up stomping all over people's fifth amendment rights, as well as throw a wrench into the practice of police evidence gathering (by resulting in a system where people are arrested without the police doing a comprehensive, and proper search). As long as no blood samples are kept after the tests are finished, I don't think the same problems would exist, because as I stated earlier, you don't have a right to be a criminal, nor should a school need probable cause to examine it's students for criminal activity.

Well the problem is parents arn't doing there job. So someone has to, as always it's end up being the states job. I simply hate having to pay for it. As one who doesn't, and likly will never have children. I dislike having to pay for others children. Let along those on drugs. But we single/childless people don't realy seem to count for much in this sucky world.

I've never used illeagle drugs, and rarely perscription drug for that matter. Hell I didn't drink alcohol until I was 19, which was legal age at the time. It was simply the law, I respected that. I don't see why others can't, it was very simple just don't do it. Duh... But then this is way the country is going to pot. Every one thinks they should be allows to do what ever, where ever they want. It's this careless disregard for basic law that causing more and more laws, leading to unjust laws. Just Imagine what Copyright law 10 years out will look like, might be scary. All simply because people think nothing about coping software, images, and music. Which is morally and civilly wrong.

As for civil and constitutional. It depends on who's rights are involed/violated. The minors are not the only people effected. Theres the tax payers, the school system/teacher who would surely be sued if the student got killed doing drugs on school grounds, the insurace companys. Oh how about the safty of other students and teachers. Do you want your childen in a shop class with stoned students? All those people have rights too.

What about testing and background testing of Bus Drivers and Techers. In most states I bet they are tested already. We have to protect the children they say. Why are they so special, shouldn't the teacher and staff have protections.

Besided there are always options. Those that dissagree have Home School or Private School. I am sure if there was a enough damand there would be a private Ceech and Chong High.

J. Stuart J.

We have a right not to be subjected to random compulsory searches, whether that search is of our home, our car, or our blood.

Should an apparent problem present itself, then the institution in question (in this case, the school) has an obligation to step in. It has no right to subject every student to drug testing.

On top of that, it basically says to all of our children "we're idiots who don't know what's going on in your life and we don't trust you!"

What type of environment is that for our children to grow up in?

quote:

---

as long as we're going to spend the money, lets do it right

---

Amen. Let's educate the people - the students, the parents, and the teachers.

quote:

---

Well the problem is parents arn't doing their job

---

And when parents don't do their job, they need to be educated just as the students do. And when that doesn't accomplish anything, there are guidence councelors, there are peer groups, and if a student is obviously having a lot of problems, there are more extreme measures.

Do we have to skip right to the end and enforce totalitarian measures to make sure everyone is following the rules? If we're ready to go that route with this issue, we might as well be ready to go that route with everything.

It *really* is not that big of a step from where we are right now in the US to, say, another Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Russia. It really isn't. And this is one more bad step...

Dan, what would you say if this test was not only for pot, cocaine, LSD, etc. but was also for alcohol or nicotine? (In the states it is illegal to use tobacco before 18 and alcohol before 21.)

You say this is not about taking our rights because we do not have a right 'to break the law'. I say it is about a right to privacy. Would it be OK with you if everybody's homes and offices were searched once per month to look for stolen goods?
The arguement that says 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you needn't worry' is foolish and overlooks the real point -- ownership.
Ownership involves privacy. To take away privacy is to take away ownership.

A search without probable cause is against the Constitution of the USA because is denies control and ownership from rightful owners - it does not matter is that is your home, your car or your blood.

This is all starting to seem very "1984"...

I have always felt that drug testing of any sort is a serious violation of a person's privacy. If I wanted to smoke pot on my off hours in the privacy of my own home, that is my business, and no one elses. So long as I can competently perform my job each day without incident, I don't see that my employer has a right to know what I do when I'm not working for them.

As for students, if they are over 18, they are adults and can make their own decisions. If they are under 18, their parents make their decisions for them. If I were a parent, I would have major problems with the school mandating that my child submit to any kind of blood test or urinalysis. If the school system is going to drug test, they should at the very least require parental consent of all students. Whether I used in school or not was a non-factor, my parents also believe that drug testing is a violation of privacy. They wouldn't have consented for it when I was in school. I know that for a fact.

There are some issues though, that warrant some sort of intervention. Athletes should not be taking drugs. Sport activities themselves take a major toll on a developing body. Taking drugs during that sort of intense training isn't good for you in all kinds of ways. But the students should be educated properly and then penalized by suspension from the team if they are caught using. Coaches and administrators should educate themselves on the physical signs that a person is using drugs so that they can accuratly assess a student's condition. It's pretty obvious when you look at someone's eyes, or listen to their speech, or watch their movements. You can tell the difference if you know what you're looking for. A test should be a last ditch effort after every other option has been tried. Athletes should be able to make a commitment not to use drugs, especially if they really want to succeed at what they are doing.

There is no substitute for talking to your kids, and listening to what they have to say. We don't trust our teenagers, yet we forget that we all went through the same things, physically, emotionally, mentally... We have a little more technology, but the interaction really hasn't changed. The adolescent years are hard. Junior High and High School students are among the cruelest beings on the planet. We should support our kids, not alienate them. Mandatory/Random drug testing in schools will do just that. It is a clear message to our kids that we do not trust them, and that we automatically assume that they will make the wrong choice when faced with a difficult decision. How is that preparing them for adulthood? We take away all their choices and then wonder why so many college graduates are still living with their parents well past the age of 30. Nothing we do in grade school prepares kids for the real world. Drug testing is not going to help this situation. It is a specific solution for a wide range of problems and it does not address the underlying issues.

This can only get worse.


[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 02-04-2004).]

I agree that some drugs should be legal, and then tax the hell out of them. Might as well make money, instead like we to tobacco. But I not see it being legal for minors anyhoo. So the problem would still exist in the schools.

quote:

---

Athletes should be able to make a commitment not to use drugs, especially if they really want to succeed at what they are doing.

---

Why should Athletes be treated special? Why should they be subjected to testing? It's ok for Terry in chess club, or debate to use pot, as no one cares if he/she suceeds. Way should others be expected to commit to not using drugs.

J. Stuart J.


[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 02-04-2004).]

I do agree with most of what you are saying. But personally I think that it's closer to metal detectors at airports, then random searching of people?s homes and offices for stolen goods. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of this policy, but I just don't think that informing parents that their children are using drugs is as bad as police performing a search without probable cause, and a warrant)

As I said, if the problem is with taking students aside, and taking a blood sample, then it's the method that's at fault. If the same tests could be performed, in the distant future, by students simply walking through the front door, and only the tests that were positive would be seeable by the enforcement agency responsible for ensuring a drug free school, would that system be so bad?

I don't like the idea of students being randomly tested for drugs anymore than anyone else does, especially since this is almost virtually guaranteed to lead to punishment of students rather then protection. However, this is simply a critique of the idea, and how well it would work to eliminate drug use in schools, and as I said, so long as we're going to fight this fight, (which I strongly believe we shouldn't do) this is probably the best way to win it.

---
I know I seem to be all over the place on this, defending the idea in one paragraph, than coming out against it in the next. As I've stated, I don't want this to be implemented, and just like most people, I'd much rather see the government taken out of this issue completely, and parents become more responsible. But until both of those things happen, this seems like a much better use of the billions and billions of wasted tax dollars that the government spends on the war on drugs, then the current system; life imprisonments for repeat offenders, and government sponsored rehab programs that have very low success rates. Education, as DL brought up, is more important than prevention. Education on this subject should be mandatory anyways, even if drugs were ever legalized.

quote:

---

I think that it's closer to metal detectors at airports, then random searching of people?s homes and offices for stolen goods.

---

Ok, let's take that analogy a little further.

Metal detectors at airports check for things that people are hiding on their body, at that moment. The things they are looking for are things that can be used to kill a large number of people who are all choosing to use this means of transportation. You are not obligated to ride on airplanes.

Drug testing in school, on the pther hand, is different for two major reasons:
1) Testing does not determine whether you are currently under the effects of a drug, it determines if you have been under the influence of a drug - depending on the drug, it can detect things from a week to a month in the past.
2) Children are obligated to go to school. It is illegal, barring an approved home schooling program, for them not to.

So if the principles of drug testing were applied to air port security, they would be able to go to your home and see if you have any knives at home, check your credit card records to see if you've bought any box cutters recently, maybe hold you responsible if you had been in someone else's home (at a party maybe) who did in fact own some potential weapons which could be used to hijack an airplane.

And you'd be forced to go to the airport once a day for a round-trip flight to the next town and back...

=)

quote:

---

Why should Athletes be treated special? Why should they be subjected to testing? It's ok for Terry in chess club, or debate to use pot, as no one cares if he/she suceeds. Way should others be expected to commit to not using drugs.

---

That is nothing resembling what Bodhi said.

She said very clearly that testing in such a case should still be a last resort, when all proper methods have failed.
Also, I am quit certain that "terry's" parents care quite a bit whether they succeed or not, even though he is not an athlete.....




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-04-2004).]

Good points...
How about one that falls in the middle.. the random testing of the speed of moving vehicles by police? Especially since it's degenerated into a cash-grabbing scheme for cops, and not the protection of the drivers on the road that we all were told it would be.

I know, once again it's arguable that this only detects people who are currently breaking the law, and not the people who were speeding the day before. I just don't think that that's a very sound argument. The speed we travel at should be at least as private as the illegal drugs we use, right?

My comparison you alluded to was actually meant to mean that it's nothing like police searching without a warrant, and not that it is actually similar to airport security. It's just closer to the latter than the former. Specifically because the children are not going to go to be prosecuted if they test positive, it'd best be used as a method for informing their parents that their children are using these drugs. The police don't have to be involved at all.

The speed at which one is traveling now is representative of an imminent threat (or lack thereof) to those also using the roads now. One could hardly argue that a person's pot smoking last Saturday has any effect at all to the immediate safety of anybody on Thursday.

One might be able to argue that an addiction could cause somebody to engage in a violent crime to obtain money to pursue the addiction...but that:
a) requires quite a stretch, as the same arguement would be STRONGER for adults than children, thus requiring the police to test every single citizen, not just children
b) also requires some actual act, not just a potential act -- that is, the violence is the crime, not the addiction
c) would only be limited to addictive drugs (including alcohol and nicotine)

*sigh* I play a sport. I'm an active Tennis player. I'm used to smoke pot on many occasions. I stopped for Tennis (Feb 15 drug testing starts) but will sure as hell start when the season's over.

Two weeks ago my school was raided randomly for drugs and seems to have made quite popular news. As you can clearly read, FIVE students were arrested and charged with possession. Three of those Five were very close friends of mine. They were all older grades, but still very close. They were all expelled. They were all placed on probation. And now, their lives are completely shattered.

Before Christmas break, approx Dec 14, my Principal Mrs. Surace sent a news letter home to all the students that our school was going to subject to a drug raid. She pulled a nice-ass fucking trick, too. In the letter she said no students would be in the presence of dogs (because they become very aggressive around the drug), however, when we were all called to the gym and asked to leave our bookbags, purses, etc in the classroom, she said that the dogs' last stop was us, and that we were all going to be subject to search. That was a lie, and because of that lie, some idiot threw a bag of weed in the garbage can, but missed. And that's a good way to get about 50 students to haul-ass out of the vacinity of that bag. Someone narc'd on him, he was caught, arrested, and expelled. My three friends were all narc'd on. All three of my friends had bags in their car, and not all cars were searched. Someone narc'd on them, all three. So their cars, and only their cars were searched. I called one of them after school, and asked what happened, turns out one of them didn't even have any weed, he just had a pipe and some rolling papers. He resisted arrest and was jailed, and later bailed out miraculously by a support group of friends (bail was $200, I chipped in $5). I talked to him later at a party the next day (Saturday). He said since he was already on probation, the police were especially eager to find something. He explained how they tore out his seat, and hoisted the dogs up in his SUV (which they didn't do to anyone else's car). They made him empty out all compartments where they seized a pipe and some rolling papers, which really isn't enough to make arrest but they made an exception. He resisted arrest.

Anyway.... I'm fine with drug tests for atheletes. It makes sense (sort of). I'm partially ok with the raid (despite the expulsion of my friends), to the extent that I do not think she should have lied, because we were never present to the dogs. I never got to see the dogs, as did none of the other 700 students in the gym. I do not think that testing random students under random circumstances with no liable reason is just. I am very against the whole idea.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 02-05-2004).]

The search by the dogs was announced.

That's a good thing. That's ok. It is a school, and they are well within their rights search their own building.

I have to say that, with an announced search by police with dogs eminent, your friends are complete MORONS for bring their weed to school. They deserve whatever punishment they received.

I don't know how different state laws work, or even if this is regulated by state law or federal, but I know that where I live possession of drug paraphanalia, with certain stipulations, is enough cause to be arrested. The fact that your friend "resisted" arrest with the evidence for the reason of his arrest - on a rather small charge - right in front of him makes him an even bigger moron. He has made it much worse for himself.

quote:

---

your friends are complete MORONS for bring their weed to school.

---

I will agree.

However, they're the kind of people that, deep down (or in) they are rather intelligent people, that just made/make really stupid decisions. However I still think expulsion was not necessary, last year they caught someone selling it in the bathroom and he just got sent to an alternative center, he returned this year and is doing fine.

But, as I said. It was stupid to bring it to school. But remember they would have got away with it if they weren't narc'd on. =\

I just heard last night of a HUGE bust at a High School in Alamance County, NC (that's one county over...) 49 students were searched and arrested in their classrooms and dragged out in handcuffs in front of their peers. One of those students was a new recruit for the UNC basketball team in Chapel Hill. The charges are alleged, innocent until proven guilty you know... but this boy's life is now in ruins. Whether he was involved or not, the charges and the arrest alone will prevent him from playing at any of the ACC schools, ever. (Being a Duke fan, I'm not particularly bothered, but it is still a shock!)

The biggest thing that strikes me about this is the absolute stupidity of not only the other students, but a much anticipated addition to an old and highly revered college basketball club, in being involved in drug sales at or around a school campus. In case you didn't know, school is where Big Brother is watching you the most! It's one thing entirely to use on your own time, in your own house (backyard, neighborhood creek/woods, etc.) - but why, oh why would you take it to the school yard? *much head shaking*

In response to the question about athletes being treated differently, just think about it... These are growing kids involved in strenuous physical activity. They stand a chance of not only hurting themselves physically, but of also hurting other students if they do not have all their wits about them. A chess team member is not so likely to hurt himself or others physically if he's a little stoned in a match or two.

Given the recent events I just mentioned, I need to clarify my stand somewhat: Parents and School Administrators and Teachers should discuss drugs with their kids, should educate themselves and the kids on drugs and the health risks involved, and then any student participating in any school sponsored event should be willing and able to sign and abide by a commitment to live drug free.
Only in a situation where it is apparent that a student is immediately under the influence of an illegal substance, should a drug test even be considered, and then, only with parental consent.

But think about this kids: You are required by law to go to school. The school's administrators and teachers are government employees. The school has an obligation to not only teach you the law and the consequences of breaking said law, but also to protect the student population from the influence of people who break laws anyway.
Regardless of what one's personal opinion of drug use happens to be, these drugs are currently illegal. When you are at school you ought to know better than to engage in illegal activities. Whether you used before you left the house, or use at lunch time, or use leaving campus at the end of the day. This stuff does not belong in schools. But your administrators and parents shouldn't have to tell you that. Anyone who is dumb enough to bring their drugs andor paraphenalia to school with them deserves to be caught and punished, if for nothing else than their own lack of common sense. Call it thinning the herd... Contrary to some popular beliefs, getting arrested is not a "cool" thing.

quote:

---

Why should Athletes be treated special? Why should they be subjected to testing? It's ok for Terry in chess club, or debate to use pot, as no one cares if he/she suceeds. Way should others be expected to commit to not using drugs.

---

Although I'm unaware of there being an illegal drug designed to increase performance in a chess player, I'm well aware of drugs used to increase performance in athetes. In HS, athletes compete against each other for awards such as scholarshipes. A young child shouldn't be told to either break the law and potentially harm their body or forfeit any chance of winning.

Jestah

I'm just going to add my two-cents on this topic. I really don't have a problem with the idea or practice of random drug testing in schools. Private corporations, and also government positions can have as a condition of employment permission to subject oneself to random drug testing. It has less to do with ensuring that the employees are adhering to the law than ensuring a safe and productive workplace. I don't see a problem with public schools engaging in the same practice. It has been argued that students don't have a choice about going to school. This much is true - up to a certain age. (I believe it is 16 in Minnesota) However, there is a choice in which school a student attends: public, private or home-schooled.

As long as students are attending public schools, they are doing so on the government dollar. In a sense, they are like employees of the government. They are expected to perform to certain levels, and if they do not, they don't advance or are expelled. The government has a right like any other entity to protect its investment. Students are an investment in the future. I know I'm tired of spending my hard earned money on some baked dim-wit that can't succeed because his brain has been fried by drugs.

Drug testing is also a protection of other students - not unlike the metal detectors adorning the doors of many of today's schools. If your child were injured or killed on school property by another student wigged out on crack or some other drug, would you not be asking what the school could have done to prevent it?

I also believe that screening should include alcohol and nicotine. Students are too young to legally be using these drugs which can also affect their performance. A 15-year-old having a nic-fit in math class is not able to pay attention to what is being taught.

I don't believe that random drug testing is a violation of civil rights. Taking drugs is not a right protected by the constitution. If it is the "random" part that is the problem - schedule the testing. Many drugs are detectible on tox screening several days after use.

I had no patience for drug users when I was in school. It is my personal belief that if those students had stood a greater chance at getting caught, less of them would have been on them in the first place. And those very students would have caused less disruption in class and would have contributed to a better learning environment overall.

Nice summary of drug types, effects and tox detection

(edit -forgot url)

[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 02-08-2004).]

quote:

---

they are doing so on the government dollar

---

Nonsense - I pay taxes in my town (and to the state and federal governments) for the very purpose of paying for the public education system! They go to school on my dollar.

A private school has more of a right to make the rules as they see fit, as attending a private school is an elective issue. Home schooling implies that parents don't have to work.

Public school is the default...and on that is not easy to work around unless you've got a rather healthy income.

It's also impossible to get around paying the taxes that support public schools - so I pay for that either way.

And again - if there is reason to suspect that a student is using drugs in shcool, then the school has a right, even an obligation, to respond.
But random testing which detects what a student has been doing outside of the school system is beyond the scope of their rights.

In employment, you truly have a choice of where to go.

In schooling, the "choice" is mostly nominal. . .

quote:

---

Taking drugs is not a right protected by the constitution

---

Neither is owning unregistered weapons, but we still have a right not to have our homes searched without probable cause.
The randomness is only a small part of the problem.
If local law enforcement called you up every few weeks to schedule a search of your house to make sure you didn't have anything illegal inside, would you be okay with that?

I sure wouldn't. And I wouldn't be okay with them doing the same thing to my urine or blood.




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-08-2004).]

Just to interject here a moment but, when was the last time your house was randomly searched for illegal guns, DL? They've never been to my house. As a matter of fact they've never been to my house unless someone has complained about something. They aren't going to be bothering people unless they've been given a reason too.

On the randomness note of it... yeah, it seems to flaunt the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment speaks of "unreasonable search and seizure". Is this unreasonable? Maybe. I personally don't think so.

I do agree that it is the parents responsibility to teach their children and guide them. I think it is the responsibility of everyone around those children to inform the parents of activities that can harm those children or cause them to harm others. Some parents aren't around their kids often enough to know what is going on with them. If they aren't told what is going on with their kids, they aren't going to be able to take care of this on their own.

I'm not a major defender of Federal government in any educational arena, but along with Dan, I think this is the best usage of their misdirected funds I've heard of. (or MY misdirected funds, if you prefer DL).