Drug Testing of High School Athletes
 

The Supreme Court heard a case today in which the legality of testing high school athletes for drugs was questioned.

The ACLU & friends argue that it is unconstitutional and contrary to the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search without probable cause.

The school is arguing that by choosing to represent the school in athletics, students open themselves up to greater scrutiny.

Here's how I see it: I had to pee in a cup when I came to work for SAIC. SAIC doesn't want druggies working for them. That's fine. By choosing to work here, I am opening myself up to a drug test. The school does not want drug users to represent them at athletics. They are asking that athletes take drug tests. By choosing to be on an athletic team, students are opening themselves up to drug tests.

So while I support the legalization of drugs, I have no problem with drug tests, provided you are given a way to avoid them. Don't want to pee in a cup? Don't sign up to play football for your school.

What do you think?

I agree with your view. It was your choice to work for SAIC and it is a student's choice to play in school sports. As long as the conditions are laid out for the students, they should stop bitching about it. Nobody is forcing them to play in school sports.

I wholeheartedly agree. I play a number of sports for our school, and i would like to see them happen. But at least extend them to the staff, coaches, etc... I really dont specifically care one way or the other, but if you are gonna do it, then do it RIGHT. Test all the atheletes, just not 'randomly' picking a few.


And as a high school soph, i have to remember that I HAVE NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER when i am in school. So you might as well. The aclu has a lot of work cut out for itself when it comes to schools. And nobody is really willing to care, cause most of us cant vote anyways.

Whaaat?
 

High school athletes doping up? What the hell? Did I miss something? As a high-school senior, I have to say I'm shocked. Even my school has some big rivalries but I highly doubt any of our athletes use performance-enhancing drugs for a boost. The risks aren't worth the rewards, especially in high school. Jeez... I guess it won't be long till we have toddlers all hopped up on steroids so they can be the first to walk.

As for the ACLU's case, I don't think they have one. Like verbatim said, you have close-to-zero rights on campus already. Besides, by voluntarily joining a sports team, you choose to abide by the school's sports-participation regulations, which, presumably, include the ban of drugs.

Yes, and if the student wants to go to college, while preserving their rights but having no after-school acitvities on their resume, well that's just too bad for them.

They wanted to preserve their rights... or just to avoid having to pee in front of their teacher. Or perhaps they were aware of the fact that drug tests have numerous false positives and wanted to be cautious. And now that's on their permanent record. I guess this is the part of the "acceptable losses" of the drug war?

Quiz question #1: Drug tests test for drugs. True or false?

Look, no one has a right to after-school activities such as sports without drug testing. If you join up, you make some sacrifices - some of your time after school, the streak you've got going for not pissing in a cup, etc. Yeah, I want to get a job that pays lots of money and I'm in a position of trust and responsibility. I want to get that without having to take time out of my day, go down to a shitty medical clinic and fill a beaker with like 20 ounces of hot urine. But I don't have a right to a job without pissing in a jar. It's just not written that way.

I have no after-school activities on my resume. I've talked to many schools, and they have no apprehensions about bringing me on board. Wow. Big fuckin' deal, I wasn't a star quarterback or the leading scorer on my school's basketball team. They know that not all kids do that shit, and that's okay.

If you *want* to have all that goody shit on your record, you make some sacrifices. Like peeing in a cup maybe.

Everyone that has lived a life of "preserving their rights" has made some sacrifices. Sometimes they give their lives. Sometimes they turn down a job because they have to pee in a cup.

As for false positives - those are always cleared up. My sister has back spasms and was on some tylenol with codeine. She got a false positive for morphine. She told 'em she was on the pill, showed the prescription, and she got the job. Big deal.

Re: Whaaat?
 

Apparently. It's not about performance-enhancing drugs. If you don't know a football player or basketball player that has smoked weed... well, then you don't know too many basketball or football players.

If it was for peformance enchancing drugs (which aren't as uncommon as you'd think, even at high school level stuff, which can open directly into pro league and serious $) fine, but for recreational stuff? Worries me it might be start of a push for random drug testing of *all* students, that frankly, i find that extremely distrubing (not that i've got anyhting to hide).

Now <b>that</b> (testing on all students) I would object to. Public education *is* something that we're guaranteed to, and they can't rightfully take that away from you.

I think drug testing on all students would be shot down, simply because it's a pain in the ass and an invasion of privacy for no good reason.

Hmmm i honestly don't know anymore. Some private schools here are trialing it, thinkfuly i'm at a public school (technicially) but even thethough is scary. I mean even testing athaletes for recreational drugs is a tad...questionable, i mean i can't see hwo having hte occasional joint is going to affect your peformance that is of relavence to the sport.

It doesn't have to be affecting their performance at the sport. Schools simply don't want drug users representing them at athletics. Maybe they don't want there to be a scene if the user gets caught. Maybe they don't want to lose one of their best players if they get busted. That's okay. It's their choice.

As for private schools, well, there isn't much you can do about that. There <b>are</b> many studies about drugs affecting your work and schooling. Not only that, but I personally have witnessed kids getting into drugs and drinking and then flunking out of high school. Private schools need to sell themselves. They don't need newspaper headlines like "Calvert Hall student dies of overdose" and shit like that. They just don't.

You wanna go to private school? You make some sacrifices.

Sorry
 

Oh... just weed. Sorry, my mistake :D I'm just a dumbass. Twice in my school district (once in my school and once in one nearby), the police put undercover agents in a lot of classes to catch drug dealers. I was quite surprise to hear there was no uproar about students' rights and such, except from a few radical teachers.

Lots of people do weed, but I don't see why athletes should be singled out - it's illegal for any student to be doing it, right? Why not impose the same restriction on all extracurricular activities, then you could say "Joining Chess Club is completely voluntary - if you don't want to pee in a cup, don't join!" Technically speaking, you wouldn't be denying anyone the right to public education, just excluding them from everything but going to class.

Right. But they haven't proposed that, so we haven't talked about it. :)

I'm not sure exactly <b>what</b> the tests are for, but I gather that it's for recreational-use drugs, not performance enhancing.

No, that's precisely what they are proposing. Testing of athletes has already been ruled contitutional; they're debating it for ALL after-school activities.

Link

I guess my quiz question was too easy? Drug tests do not test for drugs. They test for metabolites produced by the human body.

Yowza!

MSNBC's article has been edited heavily, and it now says shit about "all extracurricular activities". GG, MSNBC. Oh well.

Well, it sure doesn't change the fact that you can opt out of the drug tests by opting out of extracurricular activities. It may not be a pleasant choice to make. Shit, it might not even be fair. Unfortunately, fair is a made up word. It doesn't apply in this world. Nothing's fair. Life is tough. Sometimes you're forced to make tough choices.

I would have loved to have coasted through my first 20 years and had everything my way. I would love to never have to make concessions to get something I want - like parting with my money to build that new computer, or getting a credit card (and therefore throwing away some privacy) so that eventually I can have enough credit to get a car and a house and that sort of thing. But I made those concessions because life is too short to sit around smugly being "right". Yeah, drug tests are a pain in the ass. You don't want to take it? Fine. Don't take it. If you're in the Chess Club and they come to you and say they want you to take a drug test, then quit the club and tell them to go fuck themselves. That's a decision for you to make. Just don't sit there and bitch about how it's not fair or it's unconstitutional. There is no right to a Chess Club.

Even if drugs are legalized, there will still be drug tests. SAIC still won't want to hire heroin addicts of cokeheads. Schools still won't want their star basketball players to end up like Len Bias.

You can sit there, unemployed, and be right. You have exercised your power to <b>choose</b>. That's your choice.

These types of searches, while resulting (they hope) in the positive of a drug free student body, are little more than training to get young people used to the intrusive police state we're leaving them with. We were appalled when our school administration pulled the fire alarms and ran the police dogs through the building looking for pot. Now your chess coach has to make sure you pee in the cup instead of smuggling a sample of your little brothers urine in. You know that shy super-nerd kinda kid who won't go out for soccer because he doesn't want to shower with the team, well now we're going to prevent him from joining the chess, choir, or D and D clubs as well. "You've nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide." Isn't that what they always say? Well think about that when the vice-principal has his rubber glove up yer ass. Step by step folks, dwi roadblocks without cause, car searches, airport security abuses of women... King George is starting to look liberal these days.

Another article... boy, no doubt where this writer stands.. her supreme court reporting is not usually this fired-up.

And I have to agree with her. I don't see any compelling interest in drug testing of the general student population. And, I'm sorry, if this passes muster, there is nothing to stop them from just testing the entire student body. There has to be some expectation that privacy rights will be balanced against institutional and societal needs. I just don't see that the problem is bad enough (in either numbers or degree) that this is justified.

OK now, screw that, forget all those namby-pamby civil libertarian arguments I just made. Show me the money!!! According to the link I posted above, the Tecumseh School District (which is involved in this Supreme Court Case) nabbed 3 drug users out of 505 drug tests conducted. That's 0.59%. Well at this point, I have to ask, how much does it cost to do a drug test? And who pays this cost? If I'm a taxpayer in this school district, I want to know what return we're getting that justifies this investment. Sounds like a waste of time and money to me. The whole business is ridiculous, and I don't doubt the Supremes will approve of it.

Indications are that it's time for random drug testing of the members of the US Supreme Court, perhaps.

No. They are attempting to institute mandatory drug tests for extracurricular activities. These tests would take place at the beginning of the year and then randomly thereafter. They're not preventing him from joining. They are demanding that you compromise. If you want to taste the fruit, you give something in return. I don't understand why it's so hard to understand the concept of give and take. You part with your money every time you fill your gas tank with fuel. HOW UNJUST! You just gave away some of your financial freedom! I KNOW! LET'S SUE!

<b>THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CHESS CLUB</b>. There is a right to privacy, yes. <b>You</b> have to maintain it. If you are walking around naked, you cannot claim that everyone is invading your privacy. If you have your door open on your house, you cannot claim someone looking in is invading your privacy. Well, you can <b>claim</b> it, but you will get laughed out of court. You have to maintain your privacy. If you want to live a life where no one invades your privacy, that's fine. But you have to make concessions for that privacy. Don't enjoy a credit card. Don't bask in the convenience of having a telephone. Don't join the chess club.

When you go to the airport, do you bitch and moan about searches without a warrant? Honestly? Do you say "hey, yeah sure, you can scan my luggage. Just show me your search warrant." To have the luxury of flying, you make some concessions. You go through a metal detector and your bags get X-rayed. HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

<b>NO!</b> If you don't like it, <b>don't get on a plane</b>. There is no right to fly the friendly skies.

Of course they couldn't. But this isn't at all like going door to door for cups of piss. This is more like going door to door, saying "Hi, would you like some girl scout cookies? The cost is a cup of urine, on which we will perform drug tests." You say "yes" and then want the cookies while bitching and moaning about how peeing in the cup is contrary to your 4th Amendment rights. Guess what? <b>Don't take the cookies!</b> If you don't want to open yourself up to the skeptecism, don't. You don't have to.

It would be wholly different if they were demanding drug tests to attend public school. You are guaranteed schooling by the law. You are not guaranteed a spot on the chess club. You make concessions to get there. One of them is now a drug test.

You make the choice.

Not really. Besides the fact that they have probably already undergone drug tests in their careers, nothing that they said shows any indication of drug usage. Whether your point was that what they were saying was so "wack" that they might be on drugs or something like "their hypocrisy is astounding" doesn't really matter. I'm sure any single one of the justices of the Supreme Court would take a urine test at the request of higher ups. Why? Because they, unlike some idiot high school students, understand that life is a give and take proposition. They like their seat on the bench, so to them, giving up a little privacy is worth it. If they didn't think it was worth it, they wouldn't be there.

There is no right to be a member of the Cellar ...
 

Indications are that it's time for random drug testing of the members of the Cellar, perhaps. ;)

If that were a Cellar stipulation and I thought the Cellar were valuable enough to pee in a cup for, sure.

There is no right to the Cellar. The Cellar is not constitutionally guaranteed. There is no law that states that you cannot be denied access to the Cellar.

God bless you. You're the perfect subject.... I wonder what you're trying to hide?

The protection of the Constitution does not just apply to constitutionally guaranteed rights, as you argue.

Right now the Supreme Court Justices are hearing the case to decide the very issue of this thread.

If it were as simple as dhamsaic suggests, this case would not have reached the appeal to the Supreme Court.

This is the law which may apply to make such random drug testing in schools illegal, on the grounds that it may be either "unreasonable" or without "probable cause" as applied to the facts of the case before the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court will not dismiss the Constitution as quickly as you may think. The Judicial branch is there to uphold the Constitution if the face of laws, regulations and deliberate actions of government, however expedient, that may prohibited by the Constitution. Let's see what they decide in this case. A ruling is expected this summer ...

"Unreasonable." What is unreasonable? That's what the Supreme Court is deciding.

Incidentally, they're going to decide that testing someone for drugs after they request to join a competetive extracurricular activity is "reasonable". Mainly because it is.

That is called <i>spin</i>. I would argue that more accurate wording would be "If people were not as stubborn as they are with regard to what they feel is theirs and what is inalienable, this case would not have reached the Supreme Court".

All of the examples I have stated are <b>privileges</b>. They are not necessary. Extracurricular activities are not necessary. They are <b>privileges</b>. Just like <b>all</b> privileges, you give something in return. Sometimes it's money. Sometimes it's a cup of pee and a little bit of privacy. If you don't want to give it up, don't.

It must be real nice to murder people that annoy you. Shit, they're off your case for good. For that <b>privilege</b>, you give up many of your rights - by going to prison. If you don't want to make the concessions, then don't do things that require you to make concessions. It <b>is</b> that simple.

Lets not forget about the teachers and coaches who have to put up with this. Say you're a closeted gay choir director (or a closet Constitutionalist) and you've been assigned by your administrator to oversea one of these situations. You find yourself unable to view the situation clinically and you want out. Sorry, its part of your job, you are fired. Do we really want to add cup holder to anyones job description? You're a great voice coach but if it makes you uncomfortable to watch a bunch of kids piss in a cup we'll just hire someone less qualified.

The shy kids parents pay the same property tax rate, shouldn't that nervous kid get as much out of his public school as everyboby else?

We've got differing views of what is "unreasonable". Is a desire to play chess "probable cause?"

Heh Heh I keep posting right on top of yah.

No.

Is wanting to fly on an airplane probable cause?

Is this a mile high chess club?

Are you purposefully overlooking the surrender of rights (freedom of speech, freedom from search and seizure) involved in flying on an airplane, or are you seriously just not seeing it?

I will try and make this very clear.

Flying on a commercial airplane requires you to be searched. It is not a violation of your rights because, by agreeing to fly on the airplane, you are agreeing to be searched.

Joining a chess club requires you to be tested for drugs. It is not a violation of your rights because, by joining the chess club, you are agreeing to be tested.

In both cases, a person's "privacy" is taken away from them.

Yet you are not arguing against the former while dubbing the latter as some gross conspiracy to erode the rights of American citizens.

One is acceptable while the other is not.

Yet they are, at the very foundation, the same thing - temporarily resigning a liberty for an end.

So we're afraid somebody is going to fly a chess board into a building?


Actually, I have doubts about many laws which restrict travel. The humiliation of going through the next generation of imagers is going to raise some serious doubts. My wife used to travel for a consulting company. Would she be willing to put up with those kind of intrusive searches? Probably not.

What I am inelegantly asking is what value are the school administrators and the individual chess players getting from the students humiliation? There is value in a safe flight. It is doubtful any lives will be saved by these urine tests but it is likely that some kids who would gain much from the competition and comradery of a club activity will not participate because they are easily embarassed. Some kids will choose not to participate because they are stoners. This would give them one less structured activity in their day possibly pushing them further into the drug culture. IMHO

Hmmm...

Three things are coming to my mind on this one:

--The stir 4 years ago over Mark McGwire using andro.

--The US bobsledder thrown out of the Olympics for testing positive for steroids. He insists it was a contaminated supplement.

--This past week's episode of "Boston Public," which involved a situation like this.

What ever happened to good diet and exercise?

The supplement industry is booming. Lots of people use them, including younger folks. I'm no chemistry major (I dropped that after one semester), but I wonder what type of effects these supplements have on still-growing bodies, not to mention, long-term effects down the line. And then you have pot, coke, etc., which is another story.

I'm inclined to go with testing student athletes. It would 1) keep athletes on their toes and 2) get them prepared for what they may face in college, pro sports, and/or the Olympics. Keep the playing field as level as possible...hopefully.

I'm not so inclined to apply this to other extracurricular activities. It probably sounds unfair, but I don't really see a real need for it in, say yearbook or the chess club...yet.

Could you imagine it? Chess club members being tested for high levels of ginseng or ginkgo biloba. :)

The difference between an airplane and a chess club
 

Doesn't the fact that the government is involved in the taking-away of privacy make it different than when you're involved with a private company? The Constitution does not apply to AA, Delta or Continental (I forget the wording exactly, but it's supposed to limit the powers of the government, right?) If one chooses to voluntarily surrender one's privacy in return for something else, the free market (within limits) allows this. If the govt. wasn't involved at all in airlines and security, you might see a new airline form without security procedures to capitalize on untapped demand (of conspiracy nuts etc.)

If the same thing is legislated by the govt., which is, essentially, a monopoly enforced by brute force, there are only two choices - drug testing or no chess (to resurrect my horrible example). This is written into law and pretty close to irreversible.

I can't think anymore (it's late and I have homework to do) and as I re-read my argument, it makes less and less sense. Ignore me now (especially Dhamsaic - I do not need to be ripped a new one ;)

;) ;)

Dham....what is this shit???
Wouldn't expect you to argue such an obviously see though argument and then to use a clearly pointless and misleading analogy is just...*sighs*

BUllfuckingshit they are, they are slowing introducing mandatory drug testing, it’s just an easy way of doing it with - hey take a look, no justification. I mean private schools, fine, I don't give a fuck, the system produces spoon-fed morons who drop out of uni anyway, what does it matter, but public schools are another matter. What next? well gee if you want to do *that* subject you'll have to submit to drug test, regular cavity searches and random humiliation. Its a backdoor way of forcing all students to do drug tests, considering too that many schools force you to do at least one extracurricular activity (including mine). As for your analogy...wtf is that shit? Paying for a product = giving up personal freedoms with no just reason to join an extracurricular activity?

As for storm trooper drug raids, we've had one too, going to a high profile public school means our school cares more about image than anything else. They did exactly that, fire alarms, then full locker/drug search. The unprecedented move alienated a huge cross-section of the school, around 40(out of just over 1400, and I know that around 100 odd students weren’t caught, so it wasn’t even effective) students were caught, and expelled, but a petition signed by nearly everyone was submitted over it, as you can see, next time, we'll be ready – Media war. Net result? A few causal pot users were expelled, and nobody trusts the school administration *at all* a sad state of affairs when a school body such as ours boycotts the SRC as a sign of protest.

Oh, Phrontistes, don't get scared by dham's napalm drops, "fire and fury, signifying nothing......" ;);):D

Jag -

How do you figure this is a see-through argument?

Secondly, it's only a pointless analogy if you consider analogies pointless. If you don't, it's not. And it's not misleading. I will say it again - <b>You surrender something every time you get something worth having</b>.

Now. Consider this for a moment. The US Government is taking over security at airports. This means that they will be the ones performing the searches. They will be scanning bags and wand-ing passengers. They are more government and less commercial than the public schools. Based upon the 4th Amendment that Nic has posted, you would have a stronger case arguing against security at airports than you would against urine testing in high school "competetive extracurricular activities". Based upon the Constitution and its amendments, schools have more of a right to search students than the security screeners at airports will have to search you. Think about the precedent that this case will set (if decided in the students' favor) and all the nasty work that will have to go into undoing it when someone challenges airport security.

Now think about the fact that no one has much of a problem with airport security. It's a pain in the ass and can be time consuming, but that's part of the territory.

The same will be true with competetive extracurricular activites in Oklahoma now.

Personally, I think it's kind of silly and definitely unnecessary, but I don't think that the students have a leg to stand on. Maybe half of one. Maybe.

You are very well read in conspiracy and how humanity will come to and end because of Big Brother. I think you need to balance it out with something about how humans are generally benign and dumb and don't quite have the desire or brains to pull off some of these things you accuse them of trying. You and I both know that cavity searches would never fly (unless it were the oral cavity), and including that in there is simply ridiculous. The uproar from parents would be phenomenal. The notion of cavity searches at school is absurd.

You know this in your omniscience?

There is certainly a possibility that they are moving toward that, yes. But I find it difficult to see how you can say, with any certainty, that this practice of urine testing students in "competetive extracurricular activities" is simply a giant ruse that will lead us into a world where all students are tested for drugs on a regular basis. The fact of the matter is that you don't <b>know</b> that's what they are doing. You have to look at their argument for what it is, not what it might be. You wouldn't want someone twisting your arguments or ideas such that the merit of your opinion was based upon what said opinion <b>might</b> be - you would want it based upon what said opinion actually <b>was</b>. Why do you twist someone else's argument then? Why do you turn urine testing on students in "competetive extracurricular activities" into the Orwellian nightmare that it's not?

Give and take
 

Some concessions you make in life make sense. For example, you submit to security procedures on flights because there is an obvious potential for the shit to hit the fan -- you are stuck in a sardine can in mid-air for a few hours with a hundred or two other people, and you want to make sure none of those people are able to stop you from landing safely. Not to mention the safety of people on the ground should the control of the plane be taken from the pilot.

The security measures at airports are also in line with the specific threat we are trying to thwart. Mainly, they are trying to detect weapons and/or explosives, either of which has the potential to cause a catastrophe in the hands of an airline passenger. Note that you do not have to pee in a cup to board a plane.

Air travel is only necessary if you want to partake in a highly mobile, global lifestyle. Cars and trains are quite usable for intra-continental travel such as a New York-Seattle or Rome-Brussels trip. Note that when you drive a car you are subject to many restrictions -- you must have a photo driver's license, and in the U.S. a police officer can search your vehicle without a warrant if he can show some ``probable cause.'' This is because when you operate a car you have the potential to cause some havoc, and that risk has to be countered. To board a train you don't even need to have ID -- just buy a ticket with cash and hop aboard.

dhamsaic's recurring point seems to be that since there will always be justified, necessary concessions in life, we shouldn't think twice about creating new, counter-productive, overly intrusive, unjustified and unnecessary ones -- apparently just to send the message that "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!" Hopefully, dh, you won't take this personally; I actually get much enjoyment out of your usual posts. However, I find your "point" in this thread to border on the asinine.

Sure, life is not fair. Nor is anyone suggesting that we try to grab this law of nature by the horns and attempt to create a rosy, pink 100% fair world for everyone. The question is: Why go out of our way to be explicitly unfair for no good reason whatsoever?

There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to a Chess Club, to be sure. Where's the constitutionally guaranteed right to a Chess Club free of potheads? Failing that, where is the threat from kids who would come to a Chess Club and play while stoned? Failing that, what are we hoping to achieve, what do we as a society stand to gain, from instituting such a policy across the nation? If it is not to protect rights, or to counter a threat, what is it for? (Answer this question to my satisfaction, and I'll owe you a drink. However, "to make money for the drug-testing industry" or "to psychologically prepare students for an overly intrusive police-state in the future" will not satisfy me).

There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to pizza, either. Would you object to a policy that called for the urine testing of anyone who wants to buy pizza? Sure there's no good reason for it, but the pizza industry still doesn't want to serve heroin addicts or cokeheads, so why shouldn't they be allowed to reach into your bladder to make sure you're an acceptable client? After all, life's all about making sacrificies. You want pizza, you pee in the cup. If you don't want to pee in the cup, you can always go eat Chinese with the other druggies.

Well, thanks for reading the awfully long post if you made it this far. BTW, I too have made the concession of taking a drug test for my current employer, for what it's worth. That doesn't mean I'm going to consider it an immutable part of our social structure from now on.

VS -

I have to keep this short because I have work to do, but I will try and respond to your points real quick.

First, let me state that I agree with the statement that testing students in "competetive extracurricular activities" is <b>stupid</b>. It is a waste of money. At the very most, urine testing should extend to athletes. That's it.

That having been said, I don't think that the students challenging the practice have a leg to stand on. They will lose, and rightfully so. They are challenging it with improper ammunition. Appeal to the taxpayers and say "this program is ineffective and wastes money; demand to have it stopped!" It is well within the bounds of the law to test students for drugs so long as they are given an opt-out (i.e., don't join the chess club). Some even think that it may be constitutional to test all students anyway. That's not what we're talking about, so we're not going to go there. But it's just to illustrate that the testing of students in "competetive extracurricular activities" is constitutional.

Now, I personally have no problem with testing athletes for substances. Here's why: it <b>is</b> of a real benefit. We do stand to gain. The world has lost many great athletes to drugs. The one I mentioned earlier, and the one that's closest to me, is Len Bias. If you don't know who he is, do a Google search. In a nutshell, he was probably going to be bigger than Michael Jordan. He was the University of Maryland's all-time highest scorer until this weekend, when Juan Dixon broke his record. He was first draft pick in '86 to the Celtics. He died from cardiac arrest induced by cocaine. His legacy now, instead of becoming the greatest NBA talent in the history of the league, is the cautious tale of athletes and drugs. Sadly, it seems to have been forgotten by many.

Even putting Len Bias and "illicit narcotics" aside, performance enhancing drugs have had a negative effect on sports. They give an undeserved edge to players, which ruins the competition. Sports aren't particularly interesting to me, but winning or losing in, say, the Olympics or a high school lacrosse game is <b>life</b> for some of these people. It <b>matters</b> to them. Cheating should not be tolerated, and stamping that out is simply good practice.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, are pain reducers in sports. Many injections and pills are used by athletes to reduce the pain so they can play. There's a big problem here - many of them wind up permanently damaging their bodies. Your body hurts for a reason - something is broken! Don't ignore it. Many athletes don't understand this (let's face it, not many football pros are intellectual giants, no offense to them), and they wind up regretting it later. I don't think we should set out to save everyone from themselves, but I think people should understand what they are getting into before doing it. If you choose to ruin your knees, that's fine. But I want you to understand what you're doing before you do it.

Drug testing can catch and prevent all of those. Whether or not you agree that those are benefits to society I'm not sure, and you don't need to buy me a drink even if you do - I don't drink. What I think is important is that we, as citizens, become more aware of what exactly our rights are and what we can do to fight gross tresspasses. Fighting this with the 4th Amendment is absurd. It is truly absurd. It is conditional. If a cop came up to you on the street and demanded to search you, he could not do so. You could sue under the 4th Amendment. If he came up to you and said "Yo, If I give you a donut, can I search you for weapons?", you can't do anything. It would be absurd to try and sue under the 4th Amendment because it was conditional; you could simply refuse the donut and walk away.

There's still more to respond to and this is long already, so I'll get to it later if I feel like it. In the mean time, please read over this post a few times and consider the validity of its points and the absurdity of arguing drug searches under the 4th Amendment in this case.

Somethign reasonable mabye. To take your petrol thing, the guy givng you the petrol has to buy it shimself, not to sell it at the same or a higher price would disadvantage him whereas a school not drug testing students doesn't lose something as a result.



The cavity search but was sarcastic, the point was real. Think about it, waht better way to justify it, sport they already do professinaly, then just spread it form there, *most* peopel are indeed pretty dumb, the not-so-dumb ones are usually the ones in positions of power. ANd don't tell me they don't have the desire to do it.

NO, but its where it is leading, drug testing for private schools, workplaces, then extracuricullar activities, medial checkups? gee certianly starting to cover most ground, add a few more and you hove close to blanket coverage.

There is usually little correlation between what is legal and what is right, or justified na dsometimes, what is allowed. All power can be abused, doesn't mean it or, or it should.

Its not a conspiracy
 

Creating a precedent does not involve a great conspiracy. Its only a matter of people not asserting their rights when authority demands submission. Each time someone rolls over for something like this, authority assumes that power and human nature being what it is will eventually ask for the next submission. As Senator Alan Simpson put it, "There is no "slippery slope" toward the loss of liberty, only a long staircase where each step must first be tolerated by the American people and their leaders."

dh - thanks for the reply. I concede that testing athletes for performance enhancers, pain killers, and the like is justified. I'm having trouble swallowing your Len Bias argument, though. What makes basketball so special that we should protect only possible basketball greats from shooting themselves in the foot? "That Johnson boy coulda been a great computer programmer if he hadn't OD'd on smack/shot himself in the head/drove his car off a cliff." Institute narcotics testing and a ban on driving licenses for CS undergrads? I dunthinkso. :)

Anyway, sorry about that...back to the subject. I'm glad to hear we agree that the idea is ludicrous. I am also hopeful that you agree with me that it ought to be illegal, whether it currently falls into the scope of the Constitution, any existing Federal laws or not. I see the situation a bit differently than "Yo, I'll give you a donut if you let me search you for weapons." More like, "Yo, you can't go into the donut shop you have breakfast at every morning, until you let me strip-search you for weapons." Even so, there are two key differences between your child's Chess club and your favorite donut shop: first, the former is funded by the government and intended to be available to "all", at least in spirit; and more importantly, the Chess club is a monopoly. You can always find another donut shop, but if you're a quiet, brainy 9th grader there's only one place you're going to go to get to play chess and meet other students like you from your school.

Sure, we can say "but only if you don't mind staying away from all substances we don't like and letting us inspect your urine on a regular basis to PROVE it" -- but we've both agreed that this is stupid. It's not doing anyone any good, unless we are specifically aiming for a society full of alienated, cynical and pissed-off people. The justices, in deciding this case, probably thought along the lines of "We need to fight the Holy Drug War, and this seems like it can slip right by the Constitution on a technicality, cool deal, let's do it!" Were I in those shoes, my line of thought would predominantly be "How can I protect as many rights as possible with this measly little amendment given to me."

Maybe that's just me. However, there is no reason for this ridiculous drug war and its rhetoric to keep advancing deeper and deeper into our collective brains. How many people are actually convinced that there are crazed marihuana fiends plotting to take over the chess club, anyway?

Re: Its not a conspiracy
 

Whether a slope or a staircase, we've already slipped and are heading down it head-over-heels.

To put things in perspective, I believe that during the year that Len Bias died, 800 people died in the same way.

That sounds like a large number, but at the same time there were probably about 50,000 auto deaths, 700,000 heart disease deaths, 70,000 Alzheimer's deaths, etc. 800 is a tiny number.

Furthermore, Mr. Bias' death was probably caused by these attitudes about drugs and athletes. He went through three heart seizures before his friends called for help... probably because everyone felt his ball-playing future was on the line. If he'd gotten help sooner he probably would have survived.

Too much of what has been posted suffers from too much talking past one another. Some reasons why.

First, define drugs. Performance enhancing drugs (steriods), hazardous recreational (heroine), non-hazardous recreational (mariguana), hazardous legal (cigarette), etc?

Then do we discuss based upon laws made by brided politician or upon the real merits (defeciencies) of the drug?

Do we seek to identify drug users to punish or help?

My personal opinion: hazardous drug users such as heroine, cigarettes, alcohol, and cocaine require help. Just punishing them by banning participation is counter productive (but very much part of the right wing Republican mainstream). Helping requires numerous steps including getting the addicted to identify that they are an addict, getting users to appreciate the problems created for himself, and taking the user through rehab - a process that easy includes multiple relapses. Relapse - the sole reason that right wing extremists say all drug treatment is wasted money.

What good is banning people with such problem from programs (ie chess) that could only help them to recover? Notice that I have just said screw the law. Too many drug laws are not based upon solving the problem because those lawmakers regard those with the problem as 'Them'. Only 'Them' sells or uses mariguana. Therefore 'them' must suffer mandatory sentences equivalent to murder. Laws are irrelevant until the purpose of those laws are defined - based upon logic - not politics.

Appauling is the punishment of mariguana users. They are not a threat to anything but their own performance. A mariguana user will obviously see his own mistake when he starts losing every chess game. Banning him from chess will only make the non-hazardous entertainment drug user less likely to see the error of his ways.

Regardless of the Supreme Court or the myopic laws, the only important point is how to get the individual to see / appreciate problems created by himself. To make help available. That Supreme Court ruling ignores (as it legally should have) the whole issue of drugs - how to get a user to want to get help and why is help routinely not available. Why did a drug usering neighbor have to rob a local gas station of $20 before he could get treatment? The crime here is government response to the problem - not the drug user.


Then there is the performance enhancing drugs. There is a point where banning maybe appropriate. If one wishes to excell above others today at the expense of 20 years of life, then one appropriate measure is to make such drug taking unprofitable - ban him from the sport.

If laws were based upon solutions rather than political bribes, then we would be discussing the rights of these drugs in terms of "does the government have the right to interdict into your actions for your own personal benefit". But we are not asking such questions because too many laws are based even on this most absurd condition - mariguana is more dangerous than murder, but cigarettes are OK.

The whole problem with the Supreme Court ruling and the debate here is that even basic knowledge is thrown away. Even basic definitions are not defined. Does government have the right to step in when you are in touble? Usually. But we are not even discussing that. We have associated Heroine with Mariguana and and declared cigarettes as safe. Therefore all arguements are invalid. Until basic definitions make sense, then everyone will simply argue past one another.

when he runs his post through a spell checker. :cool:

He's not technically wrong. It's the Spanish spelling of the word.

Good point.
 

What was I smokin'? :confused: