XPost: alt.education, alt.true-crime, pdx.general   
   XPost: or.politics   
   From: lojbab@lojban.org   
      
   "nimue"  wrote:   
   >> "in loco parentis"   
   >>   
   >In loco parentis is ONLY in effect during school hours when the student is   
   >in school.   
      
   The kids are only drug tested by the school while in school.   
      
   >>> 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?   
      
   No.  It may make it legal, however.   
      
   >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   
      
   Schools and states don't have rights; they do have powers.  The state   
   (of which the school is a part) has the power to do so for anyone who   
   wants to do any number of things that the state gets to license or   
   approve.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Of course the workplace gets away with it.  Same argument - you are   
   not obliged to work there, and the employer can set damn near any sort   
   of ridiculous constraints on who may work for him, so long as he does   
   not violate the explicit protections of the civil rights act and other   
   such.  (The state as employer has somewhat more restrictions BECAUSE   
   it is the state and thus falls under the constitution.  Private   
   employers don't have to obey the constitution, which is after all a   
   set of rules for government, not for all of society).   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Students' rights are limited.  Witness the recent USSC decision on the   
   kid who exercised his free speech.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   The presumption of the law is that the drug impairs.  If the employee   
   uses drugs, he is presumed to be willing to violate the law.  Why   
   should the employer trust him not to be impaired on the job.   
      
   >There is no way that could protect a company.   
      
   If the person gets in an accident, and the company has NOT tested, a   
   lawyer could make the case that the company has not exercised due   
   diligence to keep its serfs under control.   
      
   >Do you know who gets drug tested?   
      
   Anyone that the employer chooses.   
      
   >Heck, years ago I got drug tested when I   
   >took what was basically a secretarial position.  What was the point of that?   
      
   The employer didn't want to hire a druggie.  The employer has a right   
   not to hire a druggie, and the employer has the right to fire one.   
      
   >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.   
      
   You aren't the employer, and the employer need not justify himself to   
   you.   
      
   Your civil liberties are rather limited in a private workplace.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Due diligence.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   They'd have to pay for it.  Why not let the taxpayers do so?   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   That is arguable.   
      
   >It is wrong to force them to submit to drug testing.   
      
   I don't argue "right" or "wrong".  It is apparently legal, so they CAN   
   do it.   
      
   lojbab   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)