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:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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?   
   >   
   > Marijuana can show up in a urine test as long as 30 days after you   
   > last smoked.  I do not know if 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.   
   >   
   > That's all true.  I think it is abominable.  I think it is disgusting   
   > that a person has to give up his or right to privacy to engage in   
   > something healthy and good.   
      
   They can still engage in healthy and good. Just not on one of the   
   school's teams. And said team sports are probably bad for them anyway.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > How is it not?  Yes, it is.  How dare someone say, "I want to know   
   > what you do on your own free time," for no reason at all?   
      
   You want to play the game, you play by the rules. You don't like the   
   rules, play elsewhere.   
      
   >   
   >>Drug testing for school staff could be a condition of   
   >> employment.   
   >   
   > It's not in NYC.  I do not think it is in Oregon.  I'll tell you --   
   > you've got a union, and your job doesn't involve hazardous work,   
   > you're not getting drug tested.   
      
   Maybe. Maybe not.   
      
   >   
   >>Playing sports requires subjecting one's self to random   
   >> drug testing. Those are the rules.   
   >   
   > They are the rules.  The rules are wrong.  And it is revolting that   
   > someone who clearly doesn't think smoking pot is wrong would enforce   
   > that rule.   
      
   The rules are the rules. You don't like the rules, change them or move.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Fine.  Insert "athlete" in between "any" and "student."  It's still   
   > wrong.   
      
   No, it isn't. See STEROIDS. THAT is why they have the rule.   
      
   >>   
   >>> That's wrong.  Apparently, this school   
   >>> had that policy for student athletes. I think the policy is wrong   
   >>   
   >> I think it is right.   
   >   
   > Clearly you do.   
   >   
   >>Look at the drug use in professional sports.   
   >   
   > What about it?  There is drug use EVERYWHERE.   
      
   There is Rape everywhere.   
      
   >   
   >> There are, unfortunately, parents out there who would fill their kids   
   >> with steroids to improve the kid's athletic ability.   
   >   
   > If you think that is happening, call CPS.  Don't violate the rights of   
   > students to privacy.  Don't train them to accept such violations as   
   > normal.   
      
   What 'violations'?   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > If this policy has not been enforced since he has been principal, I   
   > will be very pleased.   
      
   The coaches probably enforce it.   
      
   >   
   >>I doubt he even set the policy.   
   >   
   > I doub it, too.  The court case happened in 1995.  The principal would   
   > have been in his late 20s then, young to be a principal.   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   > They might.  If that is suspected, call CPS.   
      
   Just HTF would 'suspect' steroid use without testing?   
      
   > Go through the usual   
   > legal procedures one does when abuse is suspected.  However, if you   
   > think the possibility that parents might be making their kids do   
   > steroids is reason enough to drug test all athletes and their right to   
   > privacy, you're not thinking right.   
      
   No, you're not. If you don't like it, change it or move.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > You know what?  I take that back.  I *did* think that airplane pilots   
   > should be tested for drugs because a fuck-up due to being impaired on   
   > their part could mean the deaths of hundreds of people.  However, drug   
   > testing them won't work, so I take it back.   
      
   Yeah, it will. And rules on alcohol use.   
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > What abuse?   
      
   In this case, abuse of steroids.   
      
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)