Poll on Drug Testing

[ballisus]

I have two children playing in High School Sports, I have no problem with them being tested, however at the same time,

the system needs to be correct and the punishment needs to be set in stone regardless of the player. What about the rest of the students that are not involed in sports, do we care if they are on drugs? I have no problem with the testing, because I will know if my kids or on drugs before the school does!!!! and the last thing they will be worried about is ball!!!

[swamp]

With the political climate of the day, what makes you so sure the school will tell you if they do find drugs?

[mg]

hmmmmmmmm!

 

interesting response from the feel good section.....

 

so Ballisus, you mean your kid would come up and tell you hey pop, i smoked a "blunt" last night, or hey pop, i need the computer with the webcam so i can watch some "spankervis" tonight? hmmmmmm....unique....

 

well, anywho, i go back to my last question, who would be for drugs or against drug testing?

 

only those that are for right to use drugs, or those that place personal liberty and freedom to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences on society or the public at large.....

 

it is all about me, me, me, me, and nothing about my friend, or my neighbor, my teammate, my classmate, etc.....

 

[Edited by mg on 4-14-03 7:38P]

 

[OSHSman]

No, I'm arguing the point because an issue like this can very easily have a snowball effect. Take away one civil liberty and then it becomes OK to take away another, and then another, and then another, ect......

 

BTW, nice clue. You don't go to jail for testing positive to any drug. You go to jail when you are caught while possessing an illegal drug.

 

While we're on the subject of clues, leave alcohol out of this. The last time the governement tried to tell the American people they couldn't drink it didn't work out to well. Prohibition only led to the production of non-regulated alcohol that was more prone to make people go sterile and blind, and also led to the rise of organized crime.

 

And also, if you want to drug test me, come on up to old TTU in Cook-vegas and make me pee in a cup. Unless you drop a little bit of the reffer in my urine while I'm not looking, you won't find anything. I'm just concerned about individual freedom.

[Guest BigCountry05]

I have watched basketball for quite some time now and I have not only watched it but have been heavily involved with it, and I personally beleive that what is expected of athletes as of today has dwindled to a little less than bullcrap. About 6 or 7 years ago, athletes were expected to keep good grades, have a social life but not do supid things such as drinking and drugs, and they were also expected to represent the school well. Drug testing will eliminate some use of drugs and alcohol, but tell me how you represent your school if you are drunk or high on drugs.

I think drug testing is fine. And on a note that is sort of related, I think that coaches and administration should expect more of their athletes morally, and be a little more strict on those who don't quite follow the rules.

[Edited by BigCountry05 on 4-14-03 7:49P]

 

[mg]

at what point does your "personal freedom" infringe on other persons rights?

 

such as the right to drive down the street without being killed by a drunk driver......or the right to get on a jet not being piloted by a drunk dude....or high on marijuana...

 

what about the personal liberty when it infringes on the unborn child whose mother is smoking pot, meth, using crank or crack.....

 

at what point does personal liberty infringe on my 15 year old daughter who is at a party and some dudes personal freedom to use ecstasy and slip it in a drink, and then date rape my or your daughter....

 

so tell me oh wise one, just what did those great men who crafted that Constitution mean, when they spoke of "personal liberty"? What did personal liberty mean in 1775 and 1776?

 

when does your personal liberty infringe on mine?

[Edited by mg on 4-14-03 7:55P]

 

[Guest BigCountry05]

point well taken you are exactly right on that one

[OSHSman]

You're not making a connection to what we're arguing here. What happens to the man that kills someone while he's driving drunk? The same thing that happens to a man who, while he is sober, decides to run from the cops during a traffic stop and kill someone else as a result.

 

What happens to the mother that smokes crack while she is pregnant? The same thing that happens to the mother that stuffs her new born into a plastic bag and throws the baby into a dumpster.

 

What happens to the guys that slip a mickey to your daughter and then rape her? The same thing that happens to the guys that rape her w/ out the use of a date rape agent.

 

What happens to the pilot that gets drunk before he flys? The same thing that happens to a pilot that ignores the commands of an air traffic controller and causes a mid-air collision.

 

You are speaking of criminal acts, I'm talking about illegal search and seizure. I recently read an article in Playboy (yes, there are articles in that magazine to go along w/ the pictures, and some of us read those articles) where some cops in Louisianna arrested some guys and charged them w/ premature DUI. The men had just been sitting in the bar having a few drinks, who knows if they would have decided to drive home or call a cab? This situation is kinda like that, your testing w/ no reason to test other than the stereotype that all of today's teenagers use illegal drugs.

[OSHSman]

BTW, please don't try to put words into the founding father's mouths. Please don't try to determine what they would say about modern situations. Take what they wrote down at face value, they were much smarter than you or I will ever be.

[unbiased]

ANY school cannot just search a vehicle because they want to..that is th elaw..However all they need is an ounce of reason to search unlike law enforcement officials.

 

Also, there is alot mentioned on here about personal freedom..hey you give up a portion of that freedom by stepping on school grounds. Let's face that fact. The laws are setup to Protect all students at the school and administrators have extremely loose guidelines as to what they can and cannot do. Believe me I have been there personally.

 

There are procedures that must be followed but..you relinquish rights when on school grounds. That is why signs are (should be ) posted around the school grounds, basically tellingyou what rights you are forfeiting.

[Edited by unbiased on 4-14-03 10:14P]

 

[mg]

oshsman˜..many people have just done just exactly what you said....taking what those men who drafted the constitution had stated, and over the years have, as you say, "put words in their mouths"....do not accuse me of putting words into their mouths as i am very well versed in constitutional law and the intent of those men who were of moral fiber.... do not say take it at face value, unless you know "what that face value is"... history and their own words define their "intentions"....

 

i believe that it is YOUR perception that drug testing people who participate in extra-circular activities stereo-types them (the student athlete) as drug users...it may very well be your opinion as well that it is a violation of the 4th amendment (UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE)...note that this amendment addresses UNREASONABLE search, so i guess your interpretation is different than that of the SUPREME COURT....

 

does drug testing at your work place stereo-type you as a drug user, or testing those persons in safety-sensitive positions (ie bus driver, etc) as drug users, heck no........

 

drug testing has nothing to do with stereo-typing of any person or class....it is merely an example of how we deal with this problem in our society today......

 

i guess it is all about how you look at it....... from my perspective, i have been told by many athletes that the testing has given them just what they needed....... a reason to tell their friends no, i can't cause i have to take random test......

 

but i hope that you agree on one thing, and that is a society without drugs would be a better society......and yes, i agree with you...i do not want to live in a police state and have "unreasonable search-seizures"....

 

also, be carefull of what you read in playboy...they have been sued many times for "libel"..might want to just "stick" to the pictures...better yet, get you a webcam and you too can watch "spankervis"....free!

 

this is my last post on this subject....i will respect your opinion, and move on....

[Edited by mg on 4-14-03 11:45P]

 

[OSHSman]

One, the article was in the forum section of Febuary's issue (I think), a section that gives no opinions, it's just a section where they print selected stories from the wire reports.

 

Two, while the founding fathers were most certainly intelligent, you might want to watch which of them you give the attribute of "moral fiber". There are a couple who's beliefs in Christianity were far different than what most of the conservitive baptists would have you believe.