XPost: alt.education, alt.true-crime, pdx.general
XPost: or.politics
From: lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net
"nimue" wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "nimue" wrote:
>>
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "nimue" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>> "nimue" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What kind of lifestyle do you think people who smoke pot live?
>>>>>>> They are just like anyone else, except they smoke pot. This guy
>>>>>>> clearly paid his bills and did his job. The only problem I have
>>>>>>> with him -- and it's a BIG one -- is his hypocrisy in supporting
>>>>>>> the random testing of students for drugs. THAT is not good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if he drinks a beer now and then? That bother you?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Why would it? I don't care if he smokes pot, so why would I
>>>>> care if he had a beer?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you think he's a hypocrite.
>>>
>>> I think it is hypocritical to force students to undergo drug testing
>>> when you yourself are doing drugs. Don't you? He is supporting and
>>> enforcing a policy that is meant to expose and punish students who
>>> are doing something he clearly thinks it is all right to do. That's
>>> hypocritical. Do you not agree? And can you tell me how having a
>>> beer fits in there?
>>>
>>
>> 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.
Will it? How long before it's sufficiently out of the system? Do they
test for alcohol?
> He will have
> to face consequences for something he did off-campus. Why? Why does
> the school have that kind of power?
The parents want the kids in sports, so they follow the schools rules.
NTM, the Supremes said it was OK. If the kids are not in sports, the
school does Not have that power.
>>
>> What the Principal did is the equivalent of a speeding ticket.
>
> That's not the point. I don't care if it's the equivalent of a
> speeding ticket. I think it is wrong that schools are allowed to drug
> test their students. That is an absolute and utter invasion of
> privacy.
No, it is not. Drug testing for school staff could be a condition of
employment. Playing sports requires subjecting one's self to random drug
testing. Those are the rules.
> I am not talking about a kid reeling around drunk in the
> halls.
Nor am I.
> I am talking about a policy that allows the school to test any
> student for drugs at any time.
They don't have that policy. Only those who wish to engage in sports.
> That's wrong. Apparently, this school
> had that policy for student athletes. I think the policy is wrong
I think it is right. Look at the drug use in professional sports. There
are, unfortunately, parents out there who would fill their kids with
steroids to improve the kid's athletic ability.
> and
> I think it's sad that a principal who smokes pot himself tests
> students to see if they did.
I doubt that he does it. I doubt he even set the policy. That tends to be
a school board issue.
> Keep in mind, none of these kids may
> have ever smoked in school, but that doesn't matter.
Keep in mind that their parents might fill them full of steroids.
> 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.
Where do you draw that line?
>
> We are just handing away our civil liberties, left and right. Why do
> people let schools drug test their children? What is going on?
Because of abuse.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
