Watch Out Newby (High-school alcohol tests)

[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.