XPost: alt.education, alt.true-crime, pdx.general   
   XPost: or.politics   
   From: lojbab@lojban.org   
      
   "nimue"  wrote:   
   >>> And it sucks that the school presumes to dictate what the students do   
   >>> on their own, off-campus time.  Like if a kid never uses or carries   
   >>> any drugs on school property or at school events, but smokes a joint   
   >>> or three on weekends or might take the odd bong hit at a party, how   
   >>> the fuck is that the school's business   
   >>   
   >> The school is part of the state.  The state has an interest in its   
   >> citizens following the law, and in enforcing that interest.   
   >   
   >So this is about state control?  The state is using whatever measures it can   
   >to make sure its citizens aren't violating any drug laws?   
      
   In particular kids - kids whose parents have consented.   
      
   >Maybe the state   
   >should just randomly drug test any citizen who want to use public   
   >transportation.  After all, that is a choice.   
      
   It is, and they probably could.  But they won't because that might   
   dissuade people from using public transit, which would not be good.   
   And it would do nothing about the bulk of people who do not use public   
   transit.   
      
   >I find it so alarming that you think the state or the school should be   
   >allowed to randomly drug test people.  What's next?   
      
   Drug use drops, we hope.   
      
   >>> and what gives them any right   
   >>   
   >> ... the legal authority.  States do not have "rights".   
   >>   
   >>> to test the kid and then enforce their own anti-drug sanctions   
   >>   
   >> What gives the state the legal authority to have laws against all   
   >> sorts of things?  "We the people" through our elected representatives.   
   >   
   >States have laws.  That's fine.  However, if someone hasn't been convicted   
   >of breaking those laws, the state shouldn't be allowed to piss-test that   
   >person.   
      
   Why not?   
      
   >Right now the school can piss-test those athletes for no reason   
   >whatsoever.   
      
   The reason is that they want to participate in the prestigious   
   athletic program, and their parents have consented.   
      
   >That's scary.  Why don't we just go into your home to make sure   
   >you're not stealing cable?  I have no reason to suspect you are, but you   
   >might be.   
      
   1.  I am not a kid   
   2.  No one with authority to do so for me has consented.   
   3.  There are laws against breaking and entering.   
   4.  The state doesn't much care whether someone steals cable.  There   
   is no "War on Cablestealers".   
   5.  I pay for cable, and am using it now to send this message.  The   
   cable company knows this and would not want to alienate me, since it   
   likes my business.   
      
   >>> (separate from and in addition to the real ones, meaning the stae or   
   >>> federal *law*)   
   >>   
   >> Such drug testing is authorized by law.   
   >   
   >I know that.  That's scary.   
      
   I'm not scared.  But then I don't use drugs.  And I've had a kid who   
   falsely thought he could fool the tests, who learned better, and seems   
   to be flying straighter as a result.  A parent couldn't ask for much   
   more.   
      
   lojbab   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)