XPost: alt.education, alt.true-crime, pdx.general   
   XPost: or.politics   
   From: lojbab@lojban.org   
      
   "nimue"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is legal.  It's wrong.   
   >>   
   >> There is no point in discussing "right" and "wrong" in the absence of   
   >> an agreed upon moral standard (which will never happen).   
   >   
   >What -- are you some kind of Nietzchean nightmare?  You may not agree with   
   >my definition of right and wrong, but I have one.   
      
   Of course you do.  And mine is different, and never the twain shall   
   meet.  That reduces right/wrong decisions to the level of   
   nonnegotiable assumptions, and arguments based on conflicting   
   assumptions are a waste of time.  So what possible benefit is there of   
   discussing things in terms of "right" and "wrong"?   
      
   >>> It is preparing these students to expect to give   
   >>> up their right to privacy, to see it as normal.   
   >>   
   >> I doubt it.   
   >   
   >Why?  I don't.   
      
   Kids have no privacy from their parents unless the parents grant them   
   that privacy.  Drug testing at school requires parental consent (as   
   does participation in athletic programs).   
      
   >> Kids had far less privacy, and far fewer rights, a century ago; still   
   >> they managed.   
   >   
   >So?  Women couldn't vote, then.   
      
   Most places.   
      
   >The slave trade was legal.   
      
   Not in the US.  Slavery was outlawed a lot more than a century ago.   
      
   >What is your point?   
      
   The American concept of privacy rights is based on our Constitution   
   (and even then only as penumbrally implied).  The constitution has not   
   been changed with regard to privacy (whereas it has with respect to   
   women voting and slavery).   
      
   >>> Heck, I think it's preparing them to deal with future probabtion   
   >>> officers.   
   >>   
   >> A useful skill, if they think their "rights" include the right to   
   >> violate the law.   
   >   
   >They don't have the right to violate the law, but they do have rights.  You   
   >seem to forget that.   
      
   They have the rights that we the people have enshrined in our   
   constitution and laws.   
      
   >>> One of my biggest   
   >>> complaints about  many schools is that they prepare students to   
   >>> "succeed" in prison.   
   >>   
   >> I doubt it.   
   >   
   >I work in one such school.  Trust me.   
      
   And your expertise in what is necessary to train kids to succeed in   
   prison derives from ...?   
      
   >> Yes you do, if it happens to be organized league soccer.   
   >   
   >You do not have to be licensed to play any high school sport.  Got it?   
      
   Of course you do.  Parents have to sign permission forms.  Doctors   
   have to sign medical forms saying it is OK.  Parents may have to sign   
   drug testing consent forms.  The kid has to meet any academic   
   constraints.  All these are qualifications must be met in order to   
   have license to play.   
      
   "License" is merely legal permission.  The state is authorized to set   
   requirements before granting license.   
      
   >>Leagues have   
   >> rules.  Teams have rules.  One of the current issues is whether a   
   >> homeschooler should somehow have the right to play in competitive   
   >> sports.  They are not "licensed" to play for any team, the license   
   >> being granted by enrollment in a school associated with a team,   
   >> possibly meeting some academic standards, and not being a drug user.   
   >   
   >Yeah -- let's further alienate kids who are doing drugs.  That ought to   
   >help!   
      
   They are choosing to alienate themselves.   
      
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Oh, I took an ed law class a while back.  Students' 4th Amendment   
   >>> rights are pretty much non-existent.  As for the 1st, that's going,   
   >>> too.   
   >>   
   >> It isn't "going".  It never was.  Fifty years ago a kid who cussed at   
   >> a teacher would have been paddled, with possibly greater repercussions   
   >> for repeat offense, like expulsion.  Now they just get a detention, or   
   >> possibly a suspension for a couple of days.   
   >   
   >If a teacher paddles a student, that teacher loses his job, and rightly so,   
   >imo.   
      
   That wasn't the case when I was a kid.   
      
   >I guess you feel differently, but I see the end of corporal punishment   
   >as a sign of progress.   
      
   It may be a sign of progress.  But failure to progress in ways you   
   desire is not regression.  A student cannot lose a 1st amendment right   
   that he never had.   
      
   >>> So?  What does that have to do with a liability lawsuit?   
   >>   
   >> If he fails a drug test, he is by definition impaired while on the   
   >> job.   
   >   
   >No, he's not.  What definition?   
      
   Whoever required the testing.   
      
   >If the drug is no longer affecting him,   
      
   ... then it won't be detectible.   
      
   >>> That makes no sense.  Are you saying  that we can assume the   
   >>> principal got high at work because he got high at a state park   
   >>> during summer vacation?   
   >>   
   >> If he fails a drug test at work, then he was legally impaired at work.   
   >   
   >How?  Is that in the links?  I didn't read them.  Alcohol will show up in   
   >your system after you are no longer drunk.   
      
   If alcohol shows up in your system above a legal limit, you are *by   
   law* considered impaired.  Such testing for example applies to   
   "driving while intoxicated", and exceeding the limit is what defines   
   you as "intoxicated".   
      
   >> But if she falls and breaks her wrist because she is impaired, then   
   >> she will require reimbursement for sick leave, and for medical costs   
   >> if she is covered.  She may sue over these benefits.   
   >   
   >Shows what you know -- that secretary is suing whether she is impaired or   
   >not if she falls and breaks her wrist.  It's the company's slippery floor,   
   >or bad carpet, or bad lighting -- don't you know anything?   
      
   If she is more likely to have an accident because she is using drugs,   
   then the drugs are part of the cause.  The studies show that accidents   
   drop significantly when there is drug testing.  This suggests that   
   drugs are involved in many accidents.   
      
   >>> Well, when my right to privacy is taken away, I want to know why.   
   >>   
   >> Because you want to get paid.  He who pays the piper ...   
   >   
   >It's wrong and I don't think it should be legal.   
      
   Live somewhere where it isn't legal then.   
      
   >>>> Due diligence.   
   >>>   
   >>> Please.  Invasion of privacy and a waste of time and money for no   
   >>> reason.   
   >>   
   >> If it truly is a waste of time and money, a company likely won't do   
   >> it.   
   >   
   >They will.   
      
   Why?  If there is no benefit to them, it cuts profits, and violates   
   the shareholder's desire to MAKE MONEY FAST, which is the primary   
   reason that the company exists in the first place.   
      
   >>Per the cites, companies apparently have observed increases in   
   >> productivity, reductions in sick time and accidents.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)