XPost: alt.education, alt.true-crime, pdx.general   
   XPost: or.politics   
   From: lojbab@lojban.org   
      
   "nimue"  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"   
      
   >That's wrong.  Apparently, this school had that policy for student athletes.   
      
   No one is obliged to be a student-athlete.   
      
   >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.   
      
   >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.   
      
   >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.   
      
   >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).   
      
   lojbab   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)