Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard?

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> "nimue" <cup_o_cakes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> I expect that any student known to be drinking would be punished.
>>> What's the difference?
>>
>> If a student is reeling around drunk in the school's halls, he can be
>> punished.  If he gets drunk on the weekend, far away from school, I
>> don't see how that is any of the school's business.  However, if a
>> kid smokes pot on the weekend and then is drug tested during the
>> week, his urine (I assume it's a urine test) will turn up dirty.  He
>> will have to face consequences for something he did off-campus.
>> Why?  Why does the school have that kind of power?
>
> "in loco parentis"
>
In loco parentis is ONLY in effect during school hours when the student is
in school.  If a child gets hurt in school, it's the school's fault.  If a
child gets hurt at an amusement park over the weekend, the school has
nothing to do with it.

>> That's wrong.  Apparently, this school had that policy for student
>> athletes.
>
> No one is obliged to be a student-athlete.
>
Do you honestly think that makes it all right to do random drug testing? 
I
am astonished at that.  Sure, no one has to be a student athlete, but
being
one should not give the school a right to do something the state doesn't
have the right to do unless a person has been convicted of a crime (I am
talking about random drug tests -- not giving a suspected DUI a
breathalizer).  I still can't believe the workplace gets away with doing
this.

>> I think the policy is wrong and I think it's sad that a principal
>> who smokes pot himself tests students to see if they did.
>
> The principal isn't a student-athlete.  Still, he is subject to
> testing and fines for violating the law.  The student-athlete who
> tests positive is not subject to the punishment that the principal
> faced.

So?  The policy that allows the school to test student athletes for drugs
is
wrong and a violation of the students' right to privacy.
>
>> Keep in mind, none of these
>> kids may have ever smoked in school, but that doesn't matter.  FWIW,
>> I think it's wrong to test people in the workplace for drugs as well
>> unless they fly airplanes or do something where being impaired would
>> have deadly consequences.
>
> It doesn't have to have "deadly" consequences.  All it has to do is
> potentially open the company up to a lawsuit for the company to have
> justifiable cause.  Any sort of impairment qualifies.  Only ADA-type
> impairments have to be accommodated; anyone else can be fired for
> being impaired.

That makes no sense.  Random drug tests cannot prove that a person was not
impaired at any given time.  There is no way that could protect a company.
Do you know who gets drug tested?  Heck, years ago I got drug tested when
I
took what was basically a secretarial position.  What was the point of
that?
A friend of mine worked for a company that managed apartment complexes. 
She
scheduled the times for the pool guy to visit, the laundry repair man,
etc.
She was drug tested every month.  I never saw the reason for it.  I have
no
idea what kind of a lawsuit the company could have faced because of her. 
If
they did face one, I have no idea how saying, "Well, she passed her
monthly
drug test," could prove anything.
>
>> We are just handing away our civil liberties, left and right.  Why
>> do people let schools drug test their children?
>
> Because they would do it themselves if they could.

They can, actually.  Just go down to Duane Reade and buy the drug testing
kit.  Easy.
>
>> What is going on?
>
> Parents don't *want* their kids allowed the freedom of adults (and
> non-parents even more so).  They want their kids constrained fifteen
> ways from Sunday by strict rules (except of course when those
> constraints are inconvenient to them personally).

I am not requesting any particular freedom here.  I am saying these kids
have the right to privacy.  It is wrong to force them to submit to drug
testing.
>
> lojbab

-- 
nimue

"Let your freak-flag fly, and if someone doesn't get you, move on."
Drew Barrymore