Drug Testing of High School Athletes

[Griff]

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.

[SteveDallas]

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.

[Nic Name]

Several Supreme Court justices embraced the idea of random drug tests for students involved in after-school activities ranging from band to chess club, a major step toward allowing drug testing for all students.

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

Originally posted by Griff
well now we're going to prevent him from joining the chess, choir, or D and D clubs as well.

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.

“The police could not go through your neighborhood, door to door, saying, “We’d like a urine sample to see if maybe you’re using drugs, ’ ” said Graham Boyd of the ACLU. “They can’t do that in schools either.”

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.

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

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.

[Nic Name]

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.

[Griff]

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

[Nic Name]

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:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.

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

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.

[Griff]

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?"

[Griff]

Heh Heh I keep posting right on top of yah.

No.

Is wanting to fly on an airplane probable cause?

[Griff]

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.