coming to a school near you.....

Tagged:  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_re_us/teen_drinking

concerned about big brother? worried about your public school stepping on your "parenting" toes? upset with how your taxdollars are being spent? join the club.

the expansion of govt into our personal is beginning to garner more attention, but it doesn't seem to be slowing down. as a parent, i'm irritated about the school district looking into my kid's weekend activity. that's my business as a father and not their business as a public school system.

additionally, it's another $120k of your hard-earned tax dollars being spent. notice it was a federal "grant" (i hate that term as it is often used to muddle who is actually paying for it).

what is a taxpaying parent to do!?

No votes yet

forgot to ask this....would you want this in your local school system?

I have no problem with this program. Underage drinking is a real problem today.

The article states:
Students who test positive for alcohol will not be kicked off teams or barred from extracurricular activities. Instead they will receive counseling and their parents will be notified, Reynolds said.

The kids will not be reported to the police or punished in any way other than having to talk to their parents and/or a counselor. If they were fined or penalized in any permanent way, then I might feel differently.

If the kids follow the rules, they don't have to worry about it.

I totally agree with you GZ, its a parent's responsibility to keep your kids from drinking! PERIOD! NO one elses! The schools are for learning, not for parenting.

Obviously enough parents out there aren't doing a very good job of keeping their teens from drinking or this rule wouldn't have come up and even the ones who think that they would have to admit that you can't be with your child all the time so there is no way you can know just exactally what you're kid is up to.
Well here is a very real tool to assist you as a parent to keep your child from underage drinking.
Do you use those home test kits on your kid or do you just assume that your kid is a good one?

Why shouldn't it lead to being off the Football team? As a parent if you find out your kid is out drinking up a storm why wouldn't YOU pull that privledge yourself?Or are you one of those old school "boys will be boys lets pull an all night kegger because we're going to state and it doesn't matter if I'm too hung over to take that english test because everyone knows I'm a star and going to pass anyway" kind of people?

My problem is that we already have too much government probing into our personal lives. I dont want anymore.

Ok there can be some instances where drug testing can be justified, like with the athletes, i dont have a problem with that, but to test every kid. How about testing the ones who are suspect?

I agree that there are some parents that dont care what thier kids do, but that is another issue all together and i dont think the government should interfere.

Also lets say with TPS, who's gonna pay for it? The city doesn't have enough money, the school system doesn't have the money for it. And if its a goverment grant to the schools i think it should be used for something good, not to catch the "bad" students.

The school system has no authority to test anyone

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

last year

As a whole I really don't have a problem with the government randomly testing children for alcohol. However I question whether if it's the schools who should be doing it.

Conversely I don't feel this is a violation of civil rights - AS LONG AS THE CHILD IS UNDER THE AGE OF 18. My reasoning is because children already have limitations because of their age already. An 8 yr old can't drive. A 17 yr old can't drink. So wouldn't those laws be a violation of their civil rights as well?

Also if a parent has a problem with this they could always pull their kid from the school and either send them to a private school or home school them. However like I said before I'm not for the school becoming the parent.

Additionally I would like to add I think the drinking age should be 18. 18 is when our children become adults they should be able to make all adult decisions. However I conversely believe that they shouldn't be allowed to drive until they are 18.

If the above happened and an 18 year old was found driving intoxicated just once I would fully support a law that removed their driving privileges until the age of 21. Make it a one strike and your out law.

I think with all the different age limits on things we add confusion to our system. By making 18 years old the standard for everything we elminate the confusion and can deal with the problems head on without the side arguments that tend to get in the way.

MikeyA

MikeyA

And I didn't find out...you in on the 7th - yes?

Anywhoooo.....in Ohio, you may give YOUR child alcohol. It's a 'parental right', (thus far). Of course if you abuse this and the child is given alcohol in a manner that is abusive - the powers that be step in. It is perfectly legal to order a glass of wine with dinner for your child.

It has always been a parental right and cultural choice that children may be given alcohol for medicinal purposes as well as libation. I'm sure that will change now that the Nanny's seek to control the world. They don't allow for cultural choice or difference. We all have to fit into the same cookie cutter outline that they've defined for us.

My kids do have the option of toasting the New Year and I do use alcohol as a fever reducer, (you rub a 50/50% solution of alcohol to water on their mid-bodies and the rapid evaporation mimics perspiration and lowers the body temperature), as an agent to reduce inflammation of the gums due to teething and one of the major components of a hot toddy to break a fever when a child has the flu.

We also, (shock, horror, gasp), use alcohol during communion at church.

Okey dokey - all you Nanny's...tell me why these age old remedies and religious practices are illegal now. Because there are times my kids would definitely test positive...

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Let me get this straight: you actually WANT your school system to violate the civil rights of your children and others? And spend your and others' money doing so?

What the hell is wrong with you? Do you want your kids to get a head-start on the fascist/nanny state?

A school has no business running chemical tests on children. If a kid is incapable of performing on that day, just send him home. Parents are the ones responsible for controlling teenage drinking. The school system is ONLY responsible for teaching kids.

You then said: "If the kids follow the rules, they don't have to worry about it."

"If you don't break the law, then you have nothing to worry about -- when we stick a microscope up your ass, in your bloodstream, in your bank accounts, library records, home, car, etc."? Where have we heard this excuse to violate civil liberties before? Oh, yeah: each and every time our government tries to violate them.

Stop being afraid, MaumeeMom. Your cowardice is costing us all.

If they were fined or penalized in any permanent way, then I might feel differently.

just give it some time. i'm willing to bet this will proceed down a path towards punishment. it will start by taking away priviliges like football or band. it could lead to suspensions.

could charges against the parents be next?

I agree that this is primarily the job of the parents; however, many parents are falling down on the job these days and, unfortunately, the schools are having to pick up the slack.

How about testing the ones who are suspect?

Who chooses which kid to test? Random testing is more fair. These tests show if the kid has been drinking over a period of days - not just those who are obviously drunk at the time of the test.

Madjack,

I want it clear that I'm not disputing what you are saying but you mention 10 percent of drug tests being thrown out. Then you describe them as a "false positive".

I've done work with the legality of drug tests and it's been my experience that those thrown out weren't necessarily false positives. Instead they were thrown out because "chain of custody" of the tested urine was compromised. That meant the testing authority couldn't PROVE that the urine wasn't tampered with.

This doesn't mean the urine was tampered with it means they couldn't prove it wasn't and thus the sample was thrown out. Also it should be noted that roughly 70% of those retested after an initial test was thrown out retested positive. So of the 10% thrown out roughly only 3% could be argued successfully as a false positive.

MikeyA

MikeyA

If it's the winner you're talking about, her ex-husband has 'em. I heard he was asking $5 a set.

The runner up, now, that's different. Right, Katie?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

No I can't give you numbers. I'm just going on the fact that if parents were actually paying attention to what was going on and teaching their kids then there wouldn't be a need for someone to have come up with this idea in the first place.
Yes schools are supposed to teach not parent but you're kidding yourself if you don't think that in a lot of ways they are in fact being called on to cover the ass of the parent who are dropping the ball on a regular basis.
I'm not saying the idea of random mass testing is perfect but maybe at some point it would be a better choice then just turning a blind eye.
Should it go back on the parents? Maybe not the first time (they would of course be notified) but if kid pops up as a repeat offender then the parents should be called onto the carpet.

My reasoning is because children already have limitations because of their age already. An 8 yr old can't drive. A 17 yr old can't drink. So wouldn't those laws be a violation of their civil rights as well?

could you be confusing rights and privileges? additionally, you're commenting on "limitations" of an activity. i think this subject speaks more towards invasion or intrusion.

i again point to the 4th amendment. does it not apply because these kids are under 18?

Sorry, GZ, I'm no coward.

Do you think by calling me names and using profanity that I will blindly follow your opinion? Nope!

These drug tests are no different than tests given by an employer. School is the kids profession when they are teenagers.

If a kid is incapable of performing on that day, just send him home.

That is a good idea - a kid comes to school drunk or high - let him drive home risking injury to himself or someone else.

Again - I disagree with you and I don't think your bullying posts will change my mind.

just give it some time. i'm willing to bet this will proceed down a path towards punishment. it will start by taking away priviliges like football or band. it could lead to suspensions.
Why shouldn't they be punished? Underage drinking is against the law. Why should they not have to face some kind of consequence for their actions?

Test the students exhibiting abhorrent behavior, or behavior consistent with drunkenness or use of recreational substances. Translation: If the kid acts drunk or high, test him. I don

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

No, the schools have no such responsibility, either morally or legally. From your attitude, I can only imagine that you are letting your own failures mould your policies toward the responsibilities of school systems. The sheer expense you're advocating is ruinous.

You are a nanny-statist. Get help.

I hadn't thought about the legal aspects, such as chain of custody. That's an excellent point. Thanks, MikeyA.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

They also point out that common household products such as mouthwash can produce a positive test result. School officials acknowledge the test is sensitive, but Reynolds said in order for students to test positive, they would generally have had to consume the equivalent of one or two drinks.

this came from a local new jersey newsradio site.

i just want to point out two words that should even concern the proponents of this testing. please pay attention to the words SENSITIVE and GENERALLY.

how could you have confidence in such a measure?

GZ usually uses bully tactics when he disagrees with a persons opinion. If you read most of his opinions you can tell he is an insecure man. By lashing out the way he does makes him feel superior to everyone else. Go to TOLEDOTALK and you can see he did the same thing there, too.

"All evil and unhappiness in this world comes from the I-concept."

i think we just fundamentally disagree. underage drinking is against the law, but when did a public school system become a law enforcement agency. why are the schools allowed to disregard the 4th amendment?

aside from all that, i simply believes it infringes on my family and is a place they don't belong.

i have asked myself this question alot of late...."at what point did the citizens of this country become so dependent on govt?" after hearing of this matter, i continued to ask that question.

MaumeeMom said: "Sorry, GZ, I'm no coward."

Yes, you are. You want the school system to enforce parenting details upon your kids and all other kids. This is a stereotypical, PaulHem-esque pattern of using institutions to attack citizens and pre-citizens. Stop using institutions to do your dirty work. Do it yourself. Show some backbone and character.

MaumeeMom said: "Do you think by calling me names and using profanity that I will blindly follow your opinion? Nope!"

Who cares? I certainly don't. Adults curse; get used to it, and squirt some tears over it on your own time.

MaumeeMom said: "These drug tests are no different than tests given by an employer. School is the kids profession when they are teenagers."

You're having difficulties with reading comprehension that fall under what we expect from TPS graduating students (or at least what we "feet held to the fire" types consider the minimum). Recall that I said:

"Do you want your kids to get a head-start on the fascist/nanny state?"

Drug-testing by institutions is part of the fascist/nanny state. What you advocate may be no different, but that's not the point I was making. Drug testing must stop before we test and punish from birth to death. Whatever happened to the real Reagan Republicans around here?

I mean, what's next for your cowardice? RFID chips in your kids? When does violation of civil rights really end for you?

MaumeeMom said: "That is a good idea - a kid comes to school drunk or high - let him drive home risking injury to himself or someone else."

My experience in sending children home involves calling parents or guardians who must come and fetch said child, who is for the interim held in an office. Your distraction attempt is rather anemic; try a real argument next time that doesn't take 0.2 milliseconds to counter.

MaumeeMom said: "Again - I disagree with you and I don't think your bullying posts will change my mind."

Who cares? I'm not talking TO you; I'm only using your terrible ideas as a sounding board for the audience. I already know that your cowardice (largely, fear and loathing) is far too deep to be repaired. The fence-sitters are the ones that I don't know about. It's possible that they can be saved. But you? Hell, I've already given up on YOU. (Cowardice AND ego: you're a real piece of work, MaumeeMom.)

Keep trying GZ - I'm not biting.

I have been GZ's target in the past. Most of the time I just ignore him...

You want your kids to be tested for illegal substances? Fine, do it yourself. If you think your kids have a problem with alcohol, that's between you and your kids. Don't make it everyone's problem because you're too afraid of angering your son or daughter by having them submit to a drug/alcohol screening.

And to MaumeeMom: How exactly is underage drinking "a real problem today"? When was it not a real problem? The real problem is that no parents today want to take responsibility for their kids' actions and instead want the government to "do something about it". Doesn't it frighten you that TPS may be allowed to tox screen your kids? They can't even have a board meeting without a blowup, but you trust them with keeping your kids from drinking?

As Bill Hicks once said, "Go back to sleep America, the government is in charge."

---------
"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

GZ is no more a bully than you are a genius. You're pathetic.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Pathetic? You are ignorant!

"All evil and unhappiness in this world comes from the I-concept."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.