Watch Out Newby (High-school alcohol tests)

[Rule]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325915.500?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19325915.500

[iago]

"As many as half of our kids are doing this," says Reynolds.

Sounds like a pretty low estimate to me.

[Newby]

Why the fuck would it matter if I drank on the weekend if I am not drinking at school?

This is flat out stupid.

[Joe]

It's more for if you get smashed before school. Alcohol is out of your system, even if you're hung over, right? You're not impared by the alcohol, you're impaired by the fact that you're throwing up and feeling dead.

[CrAz3D]

sound pretty unconstitutional to me.

if homosexual sodomy/sodomy in general is legal (in some instances) then this ought to be too.  what if your parents gave you something to drink???...thats completely legal.

stupid socialist stateism!

[iago]

Why the fuck would it matter if I drank on the weekend if I am not drinking at school?

This is flat out stupid.

Because it's illegal, I imagine.

[Quik]

what if your parents gave you something to drink???...thats completely legal.

Not really.


They should probably crack down on all of the drugs being taken before/during school before they worry about the alcohol problem. And I wholeheartedly agree with iago's first statement, that's 30% - 40% too low, as far as my observations have been.

[Joe]

sound pretty unconstitutional to me.

if homosexual sodomy/sodomy in general is legal (in some instances) then this ought to be too.  what if your parents gave you something to drink???...thats completely legal.

stupid socialist stateism!

lol, nonconsentually sticking an object up someone's bumhole isn't legal.

[Hitmen]

what if your parents gave you something to drink???...thats completely legal.

Not really.

It might depend on what state you live in, but at least here it is legal for a parent to let their kid drink, within certain limitations of course (with the child's safety in mind). I'm sure it's taken on a case by case basis, but you can give your kid a glass of wine or a beer, or even a few, but if you're letting the kid get plastered every night and the state finds out DSS is probably going to be on your ass.

[CrAz3D]

what if your parents gave you something to drink???...thats completely legal.

Not really.

It might depend on what state you live in, but at least here it is legal for a parent to let their kid drink, within certain limitations of course (with the child's safety in mind). I'm sure it's taken on a case by case basis, but you can give your kid a glass of wine or a beer, or even a few, but if you're letting the kid get plastered every night and the state finds out DSS is probably going to be on your ass.

state to state, yeah.

[Newby]

Because it's illegal, I imagine.

So is pirating movies. Are they gonna come search my hard-drive for pirated movies and suspend me for each one?

[iago]

Because it's illegal, I imagine.

So is pirating movies. Are they gonna come search my hard-drive for pirated movies and suspend me for each one?

That's not a bad idea.

[Newby]

That's a terrible idea. What I pirate at home does not influence my school career very much whatsoever. I'd rather be kicked out of school because the MPAA catches me, then have them catch me and kick me out as motivation to prevent the former example from occurring.

[Joe]

Get a grip Newby, seriously. Coming to school drunk and pirating movies have NOTHING in common.

[Newby]

Get a grip Newby, seriously. Coming to school drunk and pirating movies have NOTHING in common.

Where does it say that?

Big Brother has arrived at a high school in New Jersey. Determined to stop their students consuming alcohol at weekends, staff at Pequannock Township High School in Morris county are to start using a controversial test that can detect if students have been drinking up to a week earlier.

Get a grip joe, seriously. RTFA next time.

[iago]

Well, this thread seems to indicate that you have absolutely no respect for laws. And when somebody breaks a law, they should be punished, otherwise laws don't work. And apparently, you aren't being punished, so laws aren't working.

Perhaps there should be a crackdown on teenage criminals before they grow up? Especially the smart ones, because they're the ones that end up committing white-collar crimes.

[Newby]

Perhaps there should be a crackdown on teenage criminals before they grow up? Especially the smart ones, because they're the ones that end up committing white-collar crimes.

.

Well, this thread seems to indicate that you have absolutely no respect for laws. And when somebody breaks a law, they should be punished, otherwise laws don't work. And apparently, you aren't being punished, so laws aren't working.

Your music collection is legit? Don't tell me you would be fine with the police randomly showing up at your doorstep, "oh, because you visited this bar, we're searching your computer for pirated music. every pirated song is a year in prison."

You're right, though. I have no respect for laws that I find useless and stupid.

[dark_drake]

You're right, though. I have no respect for laws that I find useless and stupid.

So you're saying you think a minimum drinking age law is stupid and useless? 

[iago]

Your music collection is legit?

Yes, actually -- I live in a country that isn't controlled by the RIAA. Downloading music here is perfectly legal, since we pay for it when we buy blank media. In fact, because we're paying to download music, whether or not we do it, it's practically mandatory here, otherwise you're paying them and getting nothing.

Note: Uploading music here is illegal, which was mentioned on Slashdot this week. But that's fine, my music was all downloaded.

You're right, though. I have no respect for laws that I find useless and stupid.

See Drake's response.

[Newby]

You're right, though. I have no respect for laws that I find useless and stupid.

So you're saying you think a minimum drinking age law is stupid and useless? 

Yes.

[iago]

Yes.

Let's say you had to write a letter to your MLA (or whatever they call the people who represent you in the US) -- what would you say? How would you defend that position.

[Newby]

Yes.

Let's say you had to write a letter to your MLA (or whatever they call the people who represent you in the US) -- what would you say? How would you defend that position.

Survival of the fittest. If kids do really stupid shit and end up dying of alcohol poisoning, well, that's their fucking issue for not researching what alcohol can do to you. We complain about overpopulation; this is a brilliant solution to the problem.

[iago]

Survival of the fittest. If kids do really stupid shit and end up dying of alcohol poisoning, well, that's their fucking issue for not researching what alcohol can do to you. We complain about overpopulation; this is a brilliant solution to the problem.

You got in a car (trunk, even) with a drunk driver. You could have easily been removed from the gene pool in that situation.

Drunk people are stupid. Kids are stupid. The combination is lethal.

[CrAz3D]

Well, this thread seems to indicate that you have absolutely no respect for laws. And when somebody breaks a law, they should be punished, otherwise laws don't work. And apparently, you aren't being punished, so laws aren't working.

Perhaps there should be a crackdown on teenage criminals before they grow up? Especially the smart ones, because they're the ones that end up committing white-collar crimes.

The school system is not a legal setting.
Their rules are only rules, not law.
A school enforcing rules outside of the classroom is something like a business firing people because they're not religious (or because they are religious).

[Super_X]

Well, this thread seems to indicate that you have absolutely no respect for laws. And when somebody breaks a law, they should be punished, otherwise laws don't work. And apparently, you aren't being punished, so laws aren't working.

Perhaps there should be a crackdown on teenage criminals before they grow up? Especially the smart ones, because they're the ones that end up committing white-collar crimes.

The school system is not a legal setting.
Their rules are only rules, not law.
A school enforcing rules outside of the classroom is something like a business firing people because they're not religious (or because they are religious).

Well, you could say that if they go to a public school, they're in a "Legal setting." Because the government helps fund it.

I, for one, am not in agreeance with that. I mean, I don't think that it should be administered. Unless a kid stumbles into school drunk, it's not the school's buisness. I mean, it said it can even detect soap, or communian. If some one get's repromanded for that it's religous discrimination. And, how would they know what kids to select? They said "20 kids per week." Does that mean that they are going to profile 20 kids? I know people that are in the bottom 100 of the school that don't drink because they have problems with it. I also know people in the top 20 at my school that drink. It's just a biased way of passing judgment and a subtle way of saying "We think you abuse your body and break the law." It's stupid and a violation of out fourth ammendment. They would need a warrent to search any other part of our body, why is the excroment different?

[dark_drake]

The school system is not a legal setting.
Their rules are only rules, not law.
A school enforcing rules outside of the classroom is something like a business firing people because they're not religious (or because they are religious).

Could you explain your analogy further because it doesn't make much sense to me right now. 

Also, don't schools enforce drug-free zones and keeping weapons off of school grounds? Those are just a bit more than just school rules, IIRC.

Really, I don't see why so many people have a problem with this; schools do drug testing (at least mine did once in a while). However, once they start testing for alcohol, it's a bad thing.

I, for one, am not in agreeance with that. I mean, I don't think that it should be administered. Unless a kid stumbles into school drunk, it's not the school's buisness. I mean, it said it can even detect soap, or communian.

. . .  They would need a warrent to search any other part of our body, why is the excroment different?

Greg Skipper in the article is very critical of just using this test.  If there is a positive, he believes there needs to be something else.

Also, I imagine excrements from our body are a bit like garbage. Police are allowed to search your garbage without a warrant.

[CrAz3D]

drugs are illegal, so thats all of the US of A.

weapons off of school grounds is a law also.



My thing is about business interfering with personal life, something it has no place being.  School is a certain thing, otherwise they need to keep their nose outta my business.
Its Big Brothering at its worst.

[dark_drake]

drugs are illegal, so thats all of the US of A.

weapons off of school grounds is a law also.

My thing is about business interfering with personal life, something it has no place being.  School is a certain thing, otherwise they need to keep their nose outta my business.
Its Big Brothering at its worst.

Tobacco wasn't even allowed at my school; is that a law? 

Also, I don't think there's a problem having a gun in your car; at least I've never heard of it being a problem around here.    As long as you aren't running around in public waving a gun, you're usually fine.  However, it is illegal to have any sort of firearm, in your vehicle or otherwise, on school grounds. 

Once your personal life begins interfering with business, it becomes more than just personal. I'm sorry, but if your religion requires you to show up to work hungover or buzzed, I don't think any business will keep you around.

[rabbit]

Tobacco wasn't even allowed at my school; is that a law?

Yes.

Once your personal life begins interfering with business, it becomes more than just personal. I'm sorry, but if your religion requires you to show up to work hungover or buzzed, I don't think any business will keep you around.

They are talking about the principle of the thing (they aren't showing up drunk, AFAIK).  Being tested by your school to see if you got hammered Friday night is an invasion of privacy.

[CrAz3D]

Once your personal life begins interfering with business, it becomes more than just personal. I'm sorry, but if your religion requires you to show up to work hungover or buzzed, I don't think any business will keep you around.

I'm not talking about the drinking aspects of religion...just religion as a whole.

drinking on the weekend doesnt have to have any influence on your school work.  the top 3 in the graduating class of my highschool are all good kids and all drank.
And they're all doing well at their respective universities.

I'm not saying drinking cant lead to poor performance, however it isnt the direct cause

[iago]

The school system is not a legal setting.
Their rules are only rules, not law.
A school enforcing rules outside of the classroom is something like a business firing people because they're not religious (or because they are religious).

That's great. But last time I checked, underage drinking isn't a rule, it's a law.

There are too many minors who have access to alcohol. How many people here have never touched alcohol till they're 18 (or 21, whatever)? I'd gamble that there are very few, so at some point, somebody has to start enforcing these laws, or kids grow up accustomed to breaking laws, which is never a good thing.

[CrAz3D]

The school system is not a legal setting.
Their rules are only rules, not law.
A school enforcing rules outside of the classroom is something like a business firing people because they're not religious (or because they are religious).

That's great. But last time I checked, underage drinking isn't a rule, it's a law.

...sometimes.
So long as your parents give it to you I'm pretty sure its legal (so long as you're not smashed...cause then that'd be child neglect/abuse I think).

Also, one would think that our justice system is supposed to enforce the laws...since they're laws and all.  Schools let law enforcement deal with kids breaking the law on campus (drugs, guns, whatever).

[Newby]

You got in a car (trunk, even) with a drunk driver. You could have easily been removed from the gene pool in that situation.

Drunk people are stupid. Kids are stupid. The combination is lethal.

I am not denying that. Had I been removed, life would have kept moving on.

[iago]

...sometimes.
So long as your parents give it to you I'm pretty sure its legal (so long as you're not smashed...cause then that'd be child neglect/abuse I think).

Then perhaps the school should phone the parents and ask them if they gave the alcohol to their child?

Also, one would think that our justice system is supposed to enforce the laws...since they're laws and all.  Schools let law enforcement deal with kids breaking the law on campus (drugs, guns, whatever).

The justice system needs to catch them somehow, and whatever they're currently doing obviously isn't working. They need to crack down on teenage crime, big time. You don't want people to get accustomed to breaking the law, otherwise they won't stop when they grow up. "It's a stupid law anyway" -- can justify pretty much any crime, and I'm sure it seems like a great justification at the time.

I am not denying that. Had I been removed, life would have kept moving on.

But kids are naturally stupid. They'll drink and they'll do drugs if they don't think they'll get caught. And when they do, some will die in car crashes, and others will freeze to death on their doorstep, and others will drown in a shallow pond behind their house (those last 2 have both happened recently in Winnipeg). If you can't depend on parents to enforce laws, somebody should.

[CrAz3D]

1) I dont think that the schools should be testing for alcohol like that.  We need to return to being a society of responsible persons, we're entirely too reliant upon the government to be our mommy & hold our hand.

2) What about the kids that have parents that let them drink?  Should we just disregard the notion of privacy in our private lives for the higher morality of society?

3)

[iago]

1) I dont think that the schools should be testing for alcohol like that.  We need to return to being a society of responsible persons, we're entirely too reliant upon the government to be our mommy & hold our hand.

When was society responsible again? While it was killing the Indians? Burning witches? Enslaving blacks? People aren't naturally responsible, that's why the government has to step in with laws to protect people from themselves/each other.

2) What about the kids that have parents that let them drink?  Should we just disregard the notion of privacy in our private lives for the higher morality of society?

While you're under 18, yes. Before you're an adult, you are legally the responsibility of somebody else, whether it be parents or teachers.

3)

That, I can agree with.

[CrAz3D]

Personally responsible...I should've been more clear.

...it is legal for parents to give kids booze...this has been stated before.

[dark_drake]

They are talking about the principle of the thing (they aren't showing up drunk, AFAIK).  Being tested by your school to see if you got hammered Friday night is an invasion of privacy.

I don't think a single kid in my school that was tested for drugs showed up to school high, but they still tested them.  The only person I can remember here bitching about drug tests was Gamesnake.

The problem I see here is that far too many people think it's acceptable to break a law that they deem inconvenient. What other laws will a person deem inconvenient as he gets older? Really, the way I see it is if one law can be deemed unimportant, any law can be.

1) I dont think that the schools should be testing for alcohol like that.  We need to return to being a society of responsible persons, we're entirely too reliant upon the government to be our mommy & hold our hand.

I think we need to be a society of responsible persons. Unfortunately, not very many people are being very responsible about following the laws in this country.  People need to be held accountable for their actions. However, minors drink, think it's great, and learn absolutely nothing; that's why they need to be punished.

2) What about the kids that have parents that let them drink?  Should we just disregard the notion of privacy in our private lives for the higher morality of society?

The parents will tell the school/law enforcement that they allowed their child to drink.  Seriously, though, how many times have your parents been with you giving you the alcohol to make it legal? I really think that the school has this right; they're trying to protect the students. 

[CrAz3D]

When I was little my dad gave me beer occasionally.  Wine at dinner sometimes.
Never drunk though, that'd be abuse.

The schools are just perpetuating the problem of Big Broher.

[trust]

While it's the schools right, I think this is kind of dumb.

[Towelie]

I'd gamble that there are very few, so at some point, somebody has to start enforcing these laws, or kids grow up accustomed to breaking laws, which is never a good thing.

Could you tell me how they could enforce this law without invading the privacy of people's lives?

[iago]

I'd gamble that there are very few, so at some point, somebody has to start enforcing these laws, or kids grow up accustomed to breaking laws, which is never a good thing.

Could you tell me how they could enforce this law without invading the privacy of people's lives?

I already said, if you're under 18  you don't deserve privacy. You're under the care of either parents or guardians or teachers or something. Whoever's looking after you should have every right to invade your "privacy" -- when you grow up, and you're in charge of yourself, then you should have privacy.

[iago]

The schools are just perpetuating the problem of Big Broher.

Not "Big Brother", "Big Parent" -- and like I said, parents have every right to look after their children.

[Towelie]

I'd gamble that there are very few, so at some point, somebody has to start enforcing these laws, or kids grow up accustomed to breaking laws, which is never a good thing.

Could you tell me how they could enforce this law without invading the privacy of people's lives?

I already said, if you're under 18  you don't deserve privacy. You're under the care of either parents or guardians or teachers or something. Whoever's looking after you should have every right to invade your "privacy" -- when you grow up, and you're in charge of yourself, then you should have privacy.

Ok, that is your parent's responsibility. I am saying how can they enforce it through the GOVERNMENT? That is the only way it will be fully enforced.

[Quik]

So, iago.. I'm somewhat curious. Do you support the enforcing of this purely, as your arguement states, because there is too much underage lawbreaking? Are you trying to say that older generations never broke laws, and since society has deteriorated so far as letting high school students drink alcohol on weekends, we need to do something extreme like this?

[Super_X]

I do not agree with the schools parenting the children. People are pawning their kids off onto public education. Parents are the sole gardians of their own children, why should we have our schools taking their place?

The real problem with this (in my eyes) are: The schools doing it, and having it already happen. I'm a fan of preventative maintenance, if a kid gets expelled for drinking, he's going to remain uneducated and do it more. It's a cycle.  (I personally am against with-holding education as a punishment. That's just keeping our generation ignorant. If we're ignorant, then our country will become that way as well.)

I don't think a single kid in my school that was tested for drugs showed up to school high, but they still tested them.  The only person I can remember here bitching about drug tests was Gamesnake.

See, I do know people that have come to school drunk, or high. That has happened many times, that should get a drug test at the students cost. Not just guessing that the ethanol sugars that are leaving your body a week later belong to alcohol. Also, alcohol doesn't leave your body for 24 hours (usually) So, if they test quickly enough, they could catch the kids that come to school drunk or hung over.

[edit]
Here's a question for any one:
Would you rather have a cop pull you over once a week and then give you a pollygraph to see if you've been speeding, or would you rather be cought doing it?

[CrAz3D]

I'd gamble that there are very few, so at some point, somebody has to start enforcing these laws, or kids grow up accustomed to breaking laws, which is never a good thing.

Could you tell me how they could enforce this law without invading the privacy of people's lives?

I already said, if you're under 18  you don't deserve privacy. You're under the care of either parents or guardians or teachers or something. Whoever's looking after you should have every right to invade your "privacy" -- when you grow up, and you're in charge of yourself, then you should have privacy.

...so 17 year old kids that have consensual sex should be imprisoned?

The schools are just perpetuating the problem of Big Broher.

Not "Big Brother", "Big Parent" -- and like I said, parents have every right to look after their children.

...same concept...

[Ender]

The schools are just perpetuating the problem of Big Broher.

Not "Big Brother", "Big Parent" -- and like I said, parents have every right to look after their children.

I think it's a good idea for schools to play the part of parent in situations such as underage drinking and drugs. Many parents aren't competent enough to do the job themselves...

[dark_drake]

Here's a question for any one:
Would you rather have a cop pull you over once a week and then give you a pollygraph to see if you've been speeding, or would you rather be cought doing it?

I'm pretty sure the fifth ammendment guarantees that the cop can't do that. 

With the drugs, people can still deny it, but evidence can still be found against you.

[iago]

So, iago.. I'm somewhat curious. Do you support the enforcing of this purely, as your arguement states, because there is too much underage lawbreaking? Are you trying to say that older generations never broke laws, and since society has deteriorated so far as letting high school students drink alcohol on weekends, we need to do something extreme like this?

Don't get me wrong, I don't support anything. I'm just playing the role of "devil's advocate".

But I do have a problem with people becoming accustomed to breaking laws. Laws exist for a reason, and if they're stupid laws they should be removed through proper channels. That's how the government is supposed to work, isn't it?  Democracy = ruled by the people (literally).

Here's a question for any one:
Would you rather have a cop pull you over once a week and then give you a pollygraph to see if you've been speeding, or would you rather be cought doing it?

I already said the difference between this and regular privacy violations -- when somebody is charged with taking care of a minor, the minor should be entitled to no privacy. Until you turn 18, privacy should be null and void. Once you've grown up, then you're entitled.

But I do thing They need to do something about speeding -- like I said above, people are accustomed to breaking laws. Perhaps raise the speed limit by 10km/h and enforce that as a hard limit.

Not "Big Brother", "Big Parent" -- and like I said, parents have every right to look after their children.

...same concept...

No, not at all the same concept. "Big Brother" is when you're being spied on by your peers, such as by the government. There are serious problems and consequences with this. In this case, it's a parent. And parents have some right to invade your privacy in the name of protecting your well-being. And in this case, since the schools are playing the part of the Parent for a good chunk of a child's life, the same applies to them.

Would you feel any differently if parents were required to fill out consent forms saying that the school can check if a kid's been drinking or doing drugs?

[CrAz3D]

The schools are just perpetuating the problem of Big Broher.

Not "Big Brother", "Big Parent" -- and like I said, parents have every right to look after their children.

I think it's a good idea for schools to play the part of parent in situations such as underage drinking and drugs. Many parents aren't competent enough to do the job themselves...

So basically, its ok for the government or government entities to invade and force morals down our throats?...I think thats a pretty good argument for anti-abortion laws being legal.

No, not at all the same concept. "Big Brother" is when you're being spied on by your peers, such as by the government. There are serious problems and consequences with this. In this case, it's a parent. And parents have some right to invade your privacy in the name of protecting your well-being. And in this case, since the schools are playing the part of the Parent for a good chunk of a child's life, the same applies to them.

"big brother" is just the government looking into your personal affairs to protect you from things you might not see coming...like terrorism.
the government forcing moral views down your throat is facism...so I guess you're right.  Big Parent might fit the bill a bit better.  So, welcome to a totalitarian society.

also, it would make a huge difference if parents gave consent

[iago]

So basically, its ok for the government or government entities to invade and force morals down our throats?...I think thats a pretty good argument for anti-abortion laws being legal.

No, but it's ok for the government or governmental entities to ensure people are following laws. Is "not killing people" a moral, too? Are you sick of the government forcing you not to kill anybody?

"big brother" is just the government looking into your personal affairs to protect you from things you might not see coming...like terrorism.
the government forcing moral views down your throat is facism...so I guess you're right.  Big Parent might fit the bill a bit better.  So, welcome to a totalitarian society.

What part do you not understand about CHECKING MINORS? They aren't standing on the street randomly checking people, that would be completely different. But while the children are under the care of schools, like I said, schools have a responsibility to ensure that the kids are doing ok.

also, it would make a huge difference if parents gave consent

That's interesting. So kids can invade their children's privacy, but the school can't? I thought privacy was a basic right, why would certain people be able to abuse it but not others?

[deadly7]

That's interesting. So kids can invade their children's privacy, but the school can't? I thought privacy was a basic right, why would certain people be able to abuse it but not others?

Everybody's equal; some people are just more equal than others.

[CrAz3D]

So basically, its ok for the government or government entities to invade and force morals down our throats?...I think thats a pretty good argument for anti-abortion laws being legal.

No, but it's ok for the government or governmental entities to ensure people are following laws. Is "not killing people" a moral, too? Are you sick of the government forcing you not to kill anybody?

"big brother" is just the government looking into your personal affairs to protect you from things you might not see coming...like terrorism.
the government forcing moral views down your throat is facism...so I guess you're right.  Big Parent might fit the bill a bit better.  So, welcome to a totalitarian society.

What part do you not understand about CHECKING MINORS? They aren't standing on the street randomly checking people, that would be completely different. But while the children are under the care of schools, like I said, schools have a responsibility to ensure that the kids are doing ok.

also, it would make a huge difference if parents gave consent

That's interesting. So kids can invade their children's privacy, but the school can't? I thought privacy was a basic right, why would certain people be able to abuse it but not others?

not killing people is a moral, yes.

also, kids ARENT caring for the students outside of school

further..."kids can invade their children's privacy"...what does that mean?
Privacy is interpreted to exist, also in the forms we have its levels vary

[dark_drake]

not killing people is a moral, yes.

also, kids ARENT caring for the students outside of school

further..."kids can invade their children's privacy"...what does that mean?
Privacy is interpreted to exist, also in the forms we have its levels vary

I assume that he means parents.

[Super_X]

Here's a question for any one:
Would you rather have a cop pull you over once a week and then give you a pollygraph to see if you've been speeding, or would you rather be cought doing it?

I'm pretty sure the fifth ammendment guarantees that the cop can't do that. 

With the drugs, people can still deny it, but evidence can still be found against you.

I just read my pocket constitution, and you're right. So, no pollygraph, how 'bout a black box with an RFID chip to send out a signal once a week to the local P.D.?

Would you feel any differently if parents were required to fill out consent forms saying that the school can check if a kid's been drinking or doing drugs?

That is better, but I still don't like it. Parents should take care of their children, not any one else. Also, Why would the government be able to inforce this. There is no where in the constitution that says that the government can regulate children. Children are products of the parents, the government only has the right to regulate the people that are not minors. If minors had a voting voice, they could be regulated, but they don't so they shouldn't be.

[deadly7]

That is better, but I still don't like it. Parents should take care of their children, not any one else. Also, Why would the government be able to inforce this. There is no where in the constitution that says that the government can regulate children.

Elastic clause.  If the government believes it needs to have more stringent controls over pre-adults, it is granted that power.

Children are products of the parents, the government only has the right to regulate the people that are not minors. If minors had a voting voice, they could be regulated, but they don't so they shouldn't be.

Ideally, yes.  However, also ideally, kids wouldn't be doing retarded things that required governmental action.

[Super_X]

Children are products of the parents, the government only has the right to regulate the people that are not minors. If minors had a voting voice, they could be regulated, but they don't so they shouldn't be.

Ideally, yes.  However, also ideally, kids wouldn't be doing retarded things that required governmental action.

If the parents cant teach their young, punnish the parrents. If the parents don't inforce the law, it's the parent's faunt the child is acting the same way. The children are being raised in a house that underminds the national and state laws, they will almost always follow suit.

[dark_drake]

I just read my pocket constitution, and you're right. So, no pollygraph, how 'bout a black box with an RFID chip to send out a signal once a week to the local P.D.?

I got to thinking about this, and really, this would be a massive invasion of privacy. This black box would have to track exactly where your car is to determine whether or not you're breaking the law.

With this alcohol test, though, all they care about is whether or not the minor has been breaking the law.

If the parents cant teach their young, punnish the parrents. If the parents don't inforce the law, it's the parent's faunt the child is acting the same way. The children are being raised in a house that underminds the national and state laws, they will almost always follow suit.

I'm all for punishing the parents as well, but the minor must bear some responsibility; it was a conscious choice to do it.

[cheeseisfun]

what if your parents gave you something to drink???...thats completely legal.

Not really.


They should probably crack down on all of the drugs being taken before/during school before they worry about the alcohol problem. And I wholeheartedly agree with iago's first statement, that's 30% - 40% too low, as far as my observations have been.

I think it would matter which drugs. Alcohol is one of the worst. From what I see, if you were to judge the most popular drugs by most harmful to least harmful, I think it would go like this:

Meth->Crack->Heroin->Cocaine->Alcohol->Pain Killers (abused)->Real MDMA->Psychedelics->Marijuana

Alcohol is way up there because, well, it can cause a lot of problems. It would be most logical to crack down on alcohol, since meth, crack, heroin, and cocaine are not very abundant in high schools, at least not here. In high school, more people smoke weed and drink than anything else.

Going to school drunk is pointless anyway, at least to go there drunk and learn. Most people do it because it's fun, and for social reasons. I've never been intoxicated in any way at school, but I do know that the most prevalent drug being sold/used in school is Marijuana. The only reason that may be bad is because Cannabis should be a drug for adults (18+), not 15 year olds who are trying to be cool.

And although I drank in my high school days (and I still do a bit, but rarely), I think it's stupid to do it while so young. But I would not bash Newby for doing it, because then I'd be a hypocrite.

All in all, though, I think drug tests are an extreme privacy invasion.