Random drug testing in school approved

[I Are Baboon]

Did anyone hear about this? I saw it on the news this morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.drug.testing.ap/index.html

Some girl and her family sued her school system because she was subjected to a random drug test. She passed the test and said she's never taken drugs, but she considered this a violation of her right to privacy.

All I have to say to her is DON'T TAKE DRUGS, CRACKHEAD, AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. Welcome to the real world, sister.

[BikeGeek]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Did anyone hear about this? I saw it on the news this morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.drug.testing.ap/index.html

Some girl and her family sued her school system because she was subjected to a random drug test. She passed the test and said she's never taken drugs, but she considered this a violation of her right to privacy.

All I have to say to her is DON'T TAKE DRUGS, CRACKHEAD, AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. Welcome to the real world, sister.

We always had random locker searches and bookbag searches. It was only a matter of time before this started.

[gecko]

Phew, good thing I'm done school.

[Toshi]

I don't think it's right to test without reason. Accept it in the schools as we've come to accept it (sort of) in the workplace, and we're one step closer to a police society where you're fine unless you step out of line. Okay, maybe I'm a bit overly Orwellian (and rhyming :D) this morning, but you can see my point, no?

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by gecko
Phew, good thing I'm done school.

Well, this school only tested students who participated in after school activities. This girl was a member of the Math Club and Debate Team, and she was tested. Seems odd to only test students with extra-curricular activities You'd think that would curb the number of students who participate, and schools are supposed to encourage participation.

[ibismojo]

score one for the stoners!! they've got nothing to worry about now that the attention has been shifted to over achievers!

[Toshi]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Well, this school only tested students who participated in after school activities. This girl was a member of the Math Club and Debate Team, and she was tested. Seems odd to only test students with extra-curricular activities You'd think that would curb the number of students who participate, and schools are supposed to encourage participation.
I guess the new math nerds will have to rely on brainpower, rather than The Crack, which undoubtedly helped me through high school. :eek: :rolleyes:

[gecko]

Well I was on most of the sports teams, did all those math competitions (scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a few of them hehe), science competitions, etc....but I did smoke the occasional dubie with my friends, I really don't think I should have been penalized for it, not at the high school level anyway.

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by gecko
I did smoke the occasional dubie with my friends,

You frickin' crack baby. :p

[Toshi]

Originally posted by gecko
Well I was on most of the sports teams, did all those math competitions (scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a few of them hehe), science competitions, etc....but I did smoke the occasional dubie with my friends, I really don't think I should have been penalized for it, not at the high school level anyway.
me too :eek:

[Yossarian]

I am all for random druig testing. I want to know if the drugs I buy are any good or not.

[Will_Jekyll]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


Well, this school only tested students who participated in after school activities. This girl was a member of the Math Club and Debate Team, and she was tested. Seems odd to only test students with extra-curricular activities You'd think that would curb the number of students who participate, and schools are supposed to encourage participation.

I think the reasoning there is that you don't have to be involved in extra-curricular activity and if you so choose to do so you choose to submit to a drug test. They don't test the whole school because you don't have a choice of going to school or not. It's the same general principle that I think they apply to on the job drug tests. Working for a company that does drug tests is your choice if you don't like it you can find another job.

[Daniel(Canada)]

I think it's stupid to do such things. If drugs have become a problem for a kid, it's easy enough to tell. But to do random tests seems kinda stupid to me. But I guess that's coming from a person who will smoke up on occasion. But I think it's definitely an effective way to lower drugs in school, as much as I hate to admit it. But the fact that they only test extra-curricular kids seems like a motivation not to participate.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Daniel(Canada)
I think it's stupid to do such things. If drugs have become a problem for a kid, it's easy enough to tell. But to do random tests seems kinda stupid to me. But I guess that's coming from a person who will smoke up on occasion. But I think it's definitely an effective way to lower drugs in school, as much as I hate to admit it. But the fact that they only test extra-curricular kids seems like a motivation not to participate.

but why would do drugs in the first place if you're involved in ec activities? it's not like being high is gonna help. well...it might. hehe. actually...it doesn't make sense cause they're testing for after the fact. it'd make more sense if you got caught doing drugs on school campus or came to school high, and teachers had a reasonable cause to test the kid for drugs. what you do outside of school is your business...not the school's.

btw, happy birthday.

[Will_Jekyll]

Originally posted by ibismojo


but why would do drugs in the first place if you're involved in ec activities? it's not like being high is gonna help. well...it might. hehe. actually...it doesn't make sense cause they're testing for after the fact. it'd make more sense if you got caught doing drugs on school campus or came to school high, and teachers had a reasonable cause to test the kid for drugs. what you do outside of school is your business...not the school's.

btw, happy birthday.

When it comes to sports they are probably looking for roids. I know when I was in highschool most of the starting line on the football team used them.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Will_Jekyll


When it comes to sports they are probably looking for roids. I know when I was in highschool most of the starting line on the football team used them.

haha, steroids for the human mind. can you imagine that...you're at some academic competition and you're accused of juicing! heh...what i would pay to see that.

[ummbikes]

They should test the teachers too...;)

[Dirt rider]

Originally posted by ummbikes
They should test the teachers too...;)

Hell Yah you know howmany teachers would get busted.:D



Anyhow Im totaly against drug testing by shcools. It is a total invation of privicy. I watched the show and the interveiwer said that 3 out of 505 students tested at that girls school tested positive and asked the girl weather because of this drug test these 3 students where caught and schools should continue to test in order to catch more. Kids who do drugs and have a serious problem with drugs are not smart people and will get caught anyway I was in a class where 2 student where taken out after a locker seach! they where stuipd enough to have weed and its pungent odor in a locker and they go caught.

Also the principal of the girls school said he orderd the test as a result of a "serious drug problem" in his school. im sorry but 3 out of 505 is dick in comparison to my school of 800 students.

Dirt rider drug free

[Bardfor]

Originally posted by Dirt rider


Anyhow Im totaly against drug testing by shcools. It is a total invation of privicy.

I agree that random drug testing in *public* schools is an invasion of privacy... but, if you send your kid to a private school that you have to pay for, then the school should have the power to do whatever it wants to maintain it's student popluation, the school reputation, etc. You (as a parent) are paying extra to send your kid somewhere other than the school provided by the government (public school)...

now, are private schools better than public schools? hmmm....

[ElemenoPee]

only a matter of time b4 they get the rubber gloves out.

that reminds me of a quote from a movie.........'well, the guy with the rubber glove was surprisingly gentle'

[fourgivn1]

Umm, I know we all know this, but drugs are illegal. (Well, not over the counter drugs, but y'all know what I mean. :)

That being said, I'm all for random drug tests - IF they have a reason to test. For instance, if they've never had problems with drugs, then there's no reason. Now, if they suddenly have a kid wander in one day with red eyes, acting all weird, driving 2 miles an hour, and he's got the munchies big time, that'd be suspicious to me. And if they tested him, and he was positive, I do not think it would be wrong to do random drug tests. Drug tests may be an invasion of privacy, but drugs are illegal.....as soon as you take the drugs, as far as I am concerned, you void your 'right' to privacy as far as those drug tests are concerned.

[Spud]

Glad to hear the court is so stoked to do drug screening on teenagers. Now lets get their sorry azzes in the program. After all they are appointed for life and charged with being the final interpreter of the constitution. Also test:
The President and Vice-President
All Cabinet Members
Senators and Represenatives
CEO's and Board Members of all companies regulated by the SEC
Any and all accredited journalists
Anyone who wants a driver's license.......


After all if we need to test 17 year olds in drama club.... :mad:

[fourgivn1]

Hey, I have no problem with that. If the Prez has to get his jumblies groped to make sure he's not packin' anything, then so be it. :D

[ohio]

I don't think it should be allowed. It's one thing for private institutions (businesses/corporations) to test employees who are under contract, but for a govermental organization (schools) to administer random drugs tests without warrant is unlawful search and sezure and sets a dangerous precedent. My school got around this, by having random drug dog searches at the school. A drug dog smelling something is sufficient cause for search... (that one would've backfired if they hadn't warned all the teachers in advance not to bring their stash to school that day).

In addition if you ARE going to have random drug tests, it's ridiculous to limit it to students involved in exatr-curricular activities, as these are the kids LEAST AT RISK. Even if they are using drugs they're much more likely to lead healthy and balanced lives than the kids with NO extra-curriculars who is also using rec drugs.

[Damn True]

The reason for the testing of kids involved in EC activities is because they as participants in funded activites are the recipients of more per-student funding. Addtionally they are representing their schools and communites.
I think ensureing those kids are not using drugs is justified.

[Toshi]

Originally posted by Damn True
The reason for the testing of kids involved in EC activities is because they as participants in funded activites are the recipients of more per-student funding. Addtionally they are representing their schools and communites.
I think ensureing those kids are not using drugs is justified.
But the purpose of the drug testing is to ensure the kids live quality lives, right? In my unscientific opinion (backed up by my and gecko's experience as posted above) the kids in EC activites are less at risk to screw up their lives, even if they experiment with drugs.

[Spud]

The double standard is huge. I can see DT's point. However, If having kids clean for debate club is vital to our national interests than there should be no problem testing judges, politicians and journalists.....

Nobody's got the balls pass that kind of legislation so they test kids, welfare recipients and lance corporals.......

[Damn True]

You are probably right, and I think the testing includes student atheletes as well. If not it should.

But taking your logic, and it is sound, to the next level. Why not ensure that those kids are held to a higher level of accountability so as to be a better example to other kids?

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Spud
The double standard is huge. I can see DT's point. However, If having kids clean for debate club is vital to our national interests than there should be no problem testing judges, politicians and journalists.....

Nobody's got the balls pass that kind of legislation so they test kids, welfare recipients and lance corporals.......


The military does get tested.

[Spud]

Originally posted by Damn True



The military does get tested.

yep, I know the grunts do. What about the highest levels?

[Toshi]

Originally posted by Damn True
Why not ensure that those kids are held to a higher level of accountability so as to be a better example to other kids?
Doing so would be unfair. Not to sound whiny, but expectations are already high for straight arrow kids, and basically forcing them to be totally clean would perhaps make it more attractive to play dumb. :rolleyes:

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Spud


yep, I know the grunts do. What about the highest levels?

The answer is yes.

From E-1 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Toshi

Doing so would be unfair. Not to sound whiny, but expectations are already high for straight arrow kids, and basically forcing them to be totally clean would perhaps make it more attractive to play dumb. :rolleyes:


I see your point, but disagree.

I think the message it sends to other kids is the real point.

You can't achieve "X" if you are doing drugs.

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True



I see your point, but disagree.

I think the message it sends to other kids is the real point.

You can't achieve "X" if you are doing drugs.

If you're putting a policy into effect for it's message rather than it's direct effect, then it should at least be an accurate message.

Looking at the top of my graduating classes (highschool and college), drug use had zero effect on ability to achieve, or overall success of the student. The kids who had problems almost always had greater problems than just drugs and very very few of them were involved in any extra-curriculars. The drugs were the symptom not the cause, and we should be encouraging kids as much as possible to get involved in extra-curriculars...

I see your point, but I disagree about what is most important in this issue.

[Spud]

Originally posted by Damn True


The answer is yes.

From E-1 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Now that's fair. I'd like to see school districts follow such a policy. Principal Skinner, we need you to come to the nurse's office for your random U.A.

[Dirt rider]

Originally posted by Damn True
The answer is yes.

From E-1 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



huh huh ... he said joint.....

[LoboDelFuego]

I think it's totally fair to be testing kids. I don't even think it should be random. I think it should be mandatory. Run the mile, flex test, sit-ups, and piss in a cup. Testing kids would make so many more get caught.
I remember one day last year at my school a rumor came up that they were doing drug testing in the afternoon. Half the kids walked home at lunch or began to drink tons of water (they're stupid). The cafeteria sold every single poppy seed bagel. If we really had had drug testing that day, it would have been great. (Most of the other riders on this board from my school will disagree with me, but who cares.)

It's not an invasion of privacy. Nobody is making you strip or doing a full body cavity search. Drugs are illegal, and even if they weren't, they have no place in an institution of learning. You can't bring a gun or other weapon to school, so some schools have metal detectors. You can't have drugs in school (or anywhere) so schools should have drug tests if they have a drug problem.

edit: spelling correction

[Sideways]

15 of the 25 kids in my High School AP calculus class smoked pot on a regular basis.
All but two had used the drug at some point.
Most of the kids I've kept up from high school with are now doing very well.
There are no correlations between marijuana use and academic success.
Public school systems have no business knowing which students use illegal drugs.

[Sideways]

Oh and I might add that my AP English teacher, who was very well respected and did an outstanding job teaching the finer points of Shakespeare, is an avid marijuana user.

[Skookum]

Drug test a child on probation for commiting a crime. Drug test the staff who work at the high school. But a school should never have the right to test students for any other reason.
Justifying this infringement of rights, takes the power away from the parents. There are avenues to take if a kid is having problems with drugs, and testing is one of them, but at the discretion of the parent only.
No one should condone the use of drugs by students, especially parents. But that's not the issue, the issue is how far do we as a society react or overreact to the fallacies of youth. Certainly drugs can hamper the future of a child, but so can a black mark from a random drug test from a public institution. Think hard about the repurcussions of this policy and argue to me realistically if the benefits outweigh the negatives. Not testing, or drug prevention for a child, but the school dictating when,who, and how.

[BurlyShirley]

I cant even believe im reading this.

Marijuana (regardless of your personal feelings people) is ILLEGAL.

CHILDREN people....do not need to be smoking MARIJUANA!, or doing any other drugs to begin with. Who cares if you did. Would you want your kid smoking Marijuana? I doubt it.

With that said...School is a place for learning. An environment conducive to learning should not include students who are HIGH or INTOXICATED in any form.

I dont care if you a fu%$ing genius, you are not above the law. Being in calculus club or the football team sets students apart as representatives of the school. They should not HIGH or JUICED UP in any way. TESTING is a means of preventing that.

For CHRIST sakes people...use your heads.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I cant even believe im reading this.

Marijuana (regardless of your personal feelings people) is ILLEGAL.

CHILDREN people....do not need to be smoking MARIJUANA!, or doing any other drugs to begin with. Who cares if you did. Would you want your kid smoking Marijuana? I doubt it.

With that said...School is a place for learning. An environment conducive to learning should not include students who are HIGH or INTOXICATED in any form.

I dont care if you a fu%$ing genius, you are not above the law. Being in calculus club or the football team sets students apart as representatives of the school. They should not HIGH or JUICED UP in any way. TESTING is a means of preventing that.

For CHRIST sakes people...use your heads.


Legalize it.
Then students won't be criminals for smoking a little pot.

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Sideways
Legalize it.
Then students won't be criminals for smoking a little pot.

No, they'll just use it more and learn less. And then when it becomes expensive (the government taxes it) and the novelty wears off, they'll just start doing ecstasy or cocaine or something.

The only definitive way to find out if a student has a drug problem without involving undercover cops is to test them. Stop the student, stop the group, stop the problem, save the school, save education.

Personally, I believe that if a student is going to be abusing any form of drugs, then they don't even deserve the education they are trying to be given, and should be summarily executed; or sent to the military/forced labor camp.

Of course, most of my school strongly disagrees with me.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
No, they'll just use it more and learn less. And then when it becomes expensive (the government taxes it) and the novelty wears off, they'll just start doing ecstasy or cocaine or something.

The only definitive way to find out if a student has a drug problem without involving undercover cops is to test them. Stop the student, stop the group, stop the problem, save the school, save education.

Personally, I believe that if a student is going to be abusing any form of drugs, then they don't even deserve the education they are trying to be given, and should be summarily executed; or sent to the military/forced labor camp.

Of course, most of my school strongly disagrees with me.

Kids who want to smoke pot are going to smoke it regardless of legality.
They enjoy being high, and it has nothing to do with novelty.
The kids who end up using harder drugs have other problems that are not related to drugs themselves, and will not be cured simply by instituting overly strict policy.
In fact, criminalizing these kids will have a greater negative effect on their future.
The idea of a "gateway" drug is pure BS, and has no basis in reality.
Wasting tax payer’s money covering up the evidence of deeper social issues will not have an effect on the problem itself.

Pluck and pull weeds all day, but until the roots are gone, social problems remain.

[Eddie420]

I think you got to look at the problems of society. People do drugs to escape it(not that it will help anything). Weed is in a totally different basket to Cocaine,Ecstacy and all the rest. Let's face it, whatever your view alotta law abiding people smoke weed. Doesn't make it right or help the world, but that is the reality.
Remember Burly Surly alcohol used to be ILLEGAL. I think too often the focus is placed on all the illegal drugs when in reality the biggest killers by far are alcohol and ciggrettes.

For drug education I think they should take students to seedy places and show them the ****ed up drug addicts on the street, instead of saying kids don't do drugs mmmmkay, they're are bad.
:rolleyes:

[amateur]

I completely agree with everything Sideways is saying. Most of my AP classes have a high number of drug users in them. The straight arrow kids (as Toshi said) have enough pressure as it is, let them blow off a little steam(or smoke, whichever the case may be) Student athletes have it really hard. After seeing my brother's girlfriend completely break down last year, i've realized how much pressure there is. 4.3 student, track scholarship to Stanford...

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by amateur
I completely agree with everything Sideways is saying. Most of my AP classes have a high number of drug users in them. The straight arrow kids (as Toshi said) have enough pressure as it is, let them blow off a little steam(or smoke, whichever the case may be) Student athletes have it really hard. After seeing my brother's girlfriend completely break down last year, i've realized how much pressure there is. 4.3 student, track scholarship to Stanford...



I took AP classes in high school as well, and yes...there were some drug users in them......including myself. But, what the christ does that have to do with the problem at hand?
This has nothing to do with allowing kids to blow off steam or become less stressed. I smoked to get HIGH. Plain and simple. How did that benefit my education or personal growth?
It didnt.
DRUGS ARE BAD FOR YOU. There's no one here who can logically argue otherwise. Kids shouldnt do them. Plain and simple. Testing is a means of prevention.

[Eddie420]

someone I go to school with gets tested, he just gets someone else to piss in a bottle for him, takes the bottle to the test then pours it in the cup.
Yes he smokes wayy too much:nono:

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by amateur
I completely agree with everything Sideways is saying. Most of my AP classes have a high number of drug users in them. The straight arrow kids (as Toshi said) have enough pressure as it is, let them blow off a little steam(or smoke, whichever the case may be)

So we reward our best students with the privelige to abuse drugs? What ever happened to watching TV or a movie or reading or riding!

I'll say it again: the point of a school is to provide the best possible education for the students. Drugs have no place in education or in the physical school, because they deter thought processes that are basic for education, and create a hostile environment for criminal activity. If you allow all the AP and honors kids to become addicts, look what kind of education you're cultivating. Not to mention other students who are already having trouble in school.

[-BB-]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Umm, I know we all know this, but drugs are illegal. (Well, not over the counter drugs, but y'all know what I mean. :)

That being said, I'm all for random drug tests - IF they have a reason to test. For instance, if they've never had problems with drugs, then there's no reason. Now, if they suddenly have a kid wander in one day with red eyes, acting all weird, driving 2 miles an hour, and he's got the munchies big time, that'd be suspicious to me. And if they tested him, and he was positive, I do not think it would be wrong to do random drug tests. Drug tests may be an invasion of privacy, but drugs are illegal.....as soon as you take the drugs, as far as I am concerned, you void your 'right' to privacy as far as those drug tests are concerned.

Dude... your logic is screwed up here..
"as soon as you take the drugs, as far as I am concerned, you void your 'right' to privacy as far as those drug tests are concerned"
:confused: :confused:
OK so how will they KNOW you gave up that right by taking drugs unless you TEST them for it.
It's like a backwards Chicken and the Egg thing.
The only place it would make sense is for people that were convicted of a drug offence already, and then it isn't called a random drug test... it's called PROBATION.:rolleyes:

[indieboy]

Originally posted by Yossarian
I am all for random druig testing. I want to know if the drugs I buy are any good or not.

ahhaha wouldn't you be able to tell that after you use em :rolleyes: :confused:

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
So we reward our best students with the privelige to abuse drugs? What ever happened to watching TV or a movie or reading or riding!

I'll say it again: the point of a school is to provide the best possible education for the students. Drugs have no place in education or in the physical school, because they deter thought processes that are basic for education, and create a hostile environment for criminal activity. If you allow all the AP and honors kids to become addicts, look what kind of education you're cultivating. Not to mention other students who are already having trouble in school.

Hostile environment?
The last thing I'd want if I were high would be to get into a fight.
A good number of my classmates and I all did very well high as hell in our AP classes, and came away with a lot more knowlege then we went into them with.
It's appearant that smoking pot has little to do with a students ability to learn.
A large percentage of kids smoke pot frequently enough to get busted should they be tested.
What exactly would be the benefit of a black mark on their record?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
Hostile environment?
The last thing I'd want if I were high would be to get into a fight.
A good number of my classmates and I all did very well high as hell in our AP classes, and came away with a lot more knowlege then we went into them with.
It's appearant that smoking pot has little to do with a students ability to learn.
A large percentage of kids smoke pot frequently enough to get busted should they be tested.
What exactly would be the benefit of a black mark on their record?


Dude,

The point is not to give someone a black mark on their record. Testing would hopefully deter people from smoking in the first place because it is BAD FOR YOU.

As i said before...just because some smart kids you know smoke doesnt make it okay for everyone. Hell, i smoked too, but now i recognize that it was wrong.

Sideways...you can go on and on about how Pot isnt that bad for you and this and that, but i know if you know alot of smokers than you know at least one BURNOUT. I know you know at least one guy who started with pot and moved on to god knows what else.

Realize that its not about wanting to control people but more to protect them. Think rationally rather than emotionally. It makes sense.

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude,

The point is not to give someone a black mark on their record. Testing would hopefully deter people from smoking in the first place because it is BAD FOR YOU.

As i said before...just because some smart kids you know smoke doesnt make it okay for everyone. Hell, i smoked too, but now i recognize that it was wrong.

Sideways...you can go on and on about how Pot isnt that bad for you and this and that, but i know if you know alot of smokers than you know at least one BURNOUT. I know you know at least one guy who started with pot and moved on to god knows what else.

Realize that its not about wanting to control people but more to protect them. Think rationally rather than emotionally. It makes sense.

Burly, weed is bad the same way alcohol is bad. Some people can't seem to deal with reality and seek an easy way out. I know people who drink and smoke weed who are ultra functional. Like you said though I know people who use and are completly out of control. I had a good friend got gunned down by a cop, suicide by cop, I think is the term. He started out with beer, then weed, then coke, then meth, and heroin and finally what ever he could get in to his system. I think he was heading towards some sort of violent end from an early age and despite a lot of people trying to intervene the outcome was writen in stone.

Most people I know who smoked weed, grew up, got jobs and mellowed out on usage. They like most people I know have the ability to use alcohol or weed in a casual way. It just didn't become a lifestyle for 'em.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude,

The point is not to give someone a black mark on their record. Testing would hopefully deter people from smoking in the first place because it is BAD FOR YOU.

As i said before...just because some smart kids you know smoke doesnt make it okay for everyone. Hell, i smoked too, but now i recognize that it was wrong.

Sideways...you can go on and on about how Pot isnt that bad for you and this and that, but i know if you know alot of smokers than you know at least one BURNOUT. I know you know at least one guy who started with pot and moved on to god knows what else.

Realize that its not about wanting to control people but more to protect them. Think rationally rather than emotionally. It makes sense.

Deterring kids from smoking pot through random testing is a backwards means of accomplishing that goal.
It acts on fear, and not reason.
If pot is bad for kids, give them truthful information on the matter.
There are some proven negative effects of smoking pot apart from getting busted.
The practice of using fear to keep a population in line is wrong. Plain and simple.

You say "think rationally rather than emotionally", but I don't believe you really mean those words.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways

You say "think rationally rather than emotionally", but I don't believe you really mean those words.

What i mean is really look at the overall situation, not just at how it would relate to you or people you know.

I think plenty of good information is given to kids on why not to use drugs. I know i went through the entire DARE program. I used them anyway. I probably wouldnt have if i were getting tested all the time.

What do you think stops people from killing each other Sideways?

I'd bet in most cases its fear of the law and spending time in Jail or prison. I think its fair to say..."do drugs and pay the consequences."

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Burly, weed is bad the same way alcohol is bad.

I agree:D

Yes...i totally cut your quote. But just to prove a point. If we can see it as both bad and illegal....where's the basis for argument?

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
What i mean is really look at the overall situation, not just at how it would relate to you or people you know.

I think plenty of good information is given to kids on why not to use drugs. I know i went through the entire DARE program. I used them anyway. I probably wouldnt have if i were getting tested all the time.

What do you think stops people from killing each other Sideways?

I'd bet in most cases its fear of the law and spending time in Jail or prison. I think its fair to say..."do drugs and pay the consequences."

I wouldn't want to kill anyone because I would feel really bad about it. (However I wouldn’t rule it out altogether in an extreme situation)
There's a lot of things I choose not to do, not for fear of being caught or suffering social consequence, but instead because my life is more full and rewarding by not doing them.
I don’t need law enforcement to help me make all my decisions.
Laws should be used to support overwhelmingly common social mores.

I don't think that pot is a severe social problem that warrants severe social consequence.
It certainly does not deserve the amount of tax dollars directed towards enforcing marijuana related laws that it receives.
I wonder what medical company will sell the drug tests to public schools.
They'll surly get rich on this one.
I'm glad I got to smoke pot in my HS days without fear of being busted.
I was able to check it out and decide for myself that smoking pot was not terribly fulfilling for me.
I found that riding a bike everyday was a much better release.
But you know what?
Riding a bike everyday kept me well away from my studies through both high school and college.
Is keeping kids focused on school really the issue here?
Maybe they should make sure kids aren't spending excessive time participating in hobbies.
Had they kept me in line and off my bike, I might be working behind a cubical right now, suffering a meaningless life, helping someone else get rich.
Maybe I would be an accountant for Monsanto, typing the Lobbyists salaries on one side, and the income from Roundup sales on the other.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
I wouldn't want to kill anyone because I would feel really bad about it. (However I wouldn’t rule it out altogether in an extreme situation)
There's a lot of things I choose not to do, not for fear of being caught or suffering social consequence, but instead because my life is more full and rewarding by not doing them.
I don’t need law enforcement to help me make all my decisions.
Laws should be used to support overwhelmingly common social mores.

I don't think that pot is a severe social problem that warrants severe social consequence.
It certainly does not deserve the amount of tax dollars directed towards enforcing marijuana related laws that it receives.
I wonder what medical company will sell the drug tests to public schools.
They'll surly get rich on this one.
I'm glad I got to smoke pot in my HS days without fear of being busted.
I was able to check it out and decide for myself that smoking pot was not terribly fulfilling for me.
I found that riding a bike everyday was a much better release.
But you know what?
Riding a bike everyday kept me well away from my studies through both high school and college.
Is keeping kids focused on school really the issue here?
Maybe they should make sure kids aren't spending excessive time participating in hobbies.
Had they kept me in line and off my bike, I might be working behind a cubical right now, suffering a meaningless life, helping someone else get rich.
Maybe I would be an accountant for Monsanto, typing the Lobbyists salaries on one side, and the income from Roundup sales on the other.



Your life history is interesting and all, but it doesnt change any of the facts.

Kids dont need to be on drugs.
Testing will at least make them think twice.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Your life history is interesting and all, but it doesnt change any of the facts.

Kids dont need to be on drugs.
Testing will at least make them think twice.

Don't you think your tax dollars could be spent on education in more meaningful ways?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
Don't you think your tax dollars could be spent on education in more meaningful ways?

Yes,

I think more money should be put into computer labs than into pads for the football team. I think more money should go into the library than into the pockets of those who sit on the school boards. There are alot of things I'd like to see change, but i also think that if we dont dedicate dollars to drug prevention early on, we'll simply be paying them later by keeping inmates that used to be our kids alive in prison.
We'll be paying tax dollars for the government supplied attorneys in their court cases. We'll be paying out of pocket when we have to bail one of them out of jail. And we'll be paying with our emotions when one of them kills a loved one in a traffic accident.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
There are alot of things I'd like to see change, but i also think that if we dont dedicate dollars to drug prevention early on, we'll simply be paying them later by keeping inmates that used to be our kids alive in prison.
We'll be paying tax dollars for the government supplied attorneys in their court cases. We'll be paying out of pocket when we have to bail one of them out of jail. And we'll be paying with our emotions when one of them kills a loved one in a traffic accident.

Me thinks that we already do all of that even with extensive amounts of ant-drug propaganda being pumped into chool children. Maybe the money would be better spent educating parents on how to educate the children.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Me thinks that we already do all of that even with extensive amounts of ant-drug propaganda being pumped into chool children. Maybe the money would be better spent educating parents on how to educate the children.

Maybe...

I dunno, I would agree that education is undoubtedly the key to all of this, but I also see no problem with testing students. Just because they know something is wrong may not stop them from doing it. Perhaps the fear of getting "busted" will work a little better.
Personally, If i had children, I wouldnt be upset about my kids being tested because (a) I would have nothing to worry about or (b) it would alert me of a problem that needs to seriously be addressed.
I dont want my kids making the same mistakes i did.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont want my kids making the same mistakes i did.

They will learn from their mistakes, not yours. Kids need to figure stuff out on their own, and they need to learn from their own experiences. Having someone tell you something is bad, no matter how much that is repeated is not going to alleviate any curiosity someone may have.

If people are taught responsibility, then the rest will follow.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
They will learn from their mistakes, not yours. Kids need to figure stuff out on their own, and they need to learn from their own experiences. Having someone tell you something is bad, no matter how much that is repeated is not going to alleviate any curiosity someone may have.

If people are taught responsibility, then the rest will follow.

I dont have to kill someone to know that its a mistake.
Ive seen the consequences, and dont really need to experience it myself regardless of how curious i may be.

[ummbikes]

I like where this is going, we talked a lot this last quarter in my class about how people should be governed and if we have any right to dictate morality.

The fact is there are people who can rise above casual drug use and lead productive lives. Bill Clinton smoked weed, Bush Jr. used coke, and alcohol. The people who can lead, pesuade, and influence the masses will always do so. Drugs or no drugs.

Like my deceased friend there are those who simply lack the internal ability to progress and so they do not.

If put more government control on things it just creates more government control on things...

It just doesn't work.

Some people will always be leaders, and most will be the great masses of people who follow. Checking to see if they smoke weed will not change who they are and what course in life they will follow.

[ohio]

Originally posted by fourgivn1

That being said, I'm all for random drug tests - IF they have a reason to test.

Then it wouldn't be a random test, would it?

What you're describing currently exists. It's called "probable cause" and schools use it all the time.
--------
Kids who don't find drugs in highschool will find them in college.

Kids who are sheltered from any and all drug use grow up with a lack of understanding and sympathy for drug users often bordering on hate and disgust.

[Eddie420]

kids with hard line strict ass parents are usually the ones that go hit the drugs hardest.
:angry:

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Eddie420
kids with hard line strict ass parents are usually the ones that go hit the drugs hardest.
:angry:

Honestly...not being a smartass, but...how does this relate, and is this something you learned from personal experience or are there facts that back this up.

Because......I'd have to disagree.

[LoboDelFuego]

Well I've been away eating Christmas leftovers but now I'm back in the fray. A couple responses:

Originally posted by Sideways
Don't you think your tax dollars could be spent on education in more meaningful ways?

Yes. I totally agree. Some schools don't need drug tests because drugs are not enough of a problem for them. Some do. In situations where the drug tests would help a school more than other supplies, they will be overwhelmingly used. And I can tell you right now, it will help most schools more than some new Integrated Mathematics III textbooks by Keenan and Dressler.


Originally posted by ohio

Kids who don't find drugs in highschool will find them in college.

Kids who are sheltered from any and all drug use grow up with a lack of understanding and sympathy for drug users often bordering on hate and disgust.

Kids who learn that drugs are wrong and learn how to avoid them as well as knowing that there is an environemnt in whicc you can be happy even if drugs don't exist will keep them off drugs in college.

Kids who are sheltered from drugs will have a lack of sympathy for criminals and idiots who abuse their bodies and place other people in danger. Thats OK by me.

[Sideways]

Marijuana use is not a social problem.

[indieboy]

ok well here's the view of someone who is still in high school and has seen high school from both views of an inner city school and the subs. random drug testing is absurd. it is totally not necessary. there should be things that the schools should be more worried about like actually teaching then whether or not students are dappling in drugs. both my parents were littered in drugs, my mom stopped not to long before she was pregnant w/ me but i remember for a long time my dad chiefin out. so for me i was not sheltered about things of these nature. however growing up in the neighorhood i grew up w/ in atlanta many of the kids i grew up w/ their parents were very sheltering and didn't really expose their kids to much of anything. many of them now are complete addicts. every time i go back up to atlanta to hang out w/ one of my friends almost all of his friends are trying to find a way to get ****ed up. it's really kinda sad to be honest. my exposure to this stuff at a young age made me realize that this was something i didn't want to really get involved in. i'll openly admit that i've done some stuff. never smoked, never will, however i have done escasty once and speed once. once was enough to make me realize that it wasn't what i want to be involved in. for some odd reason i tink the usage of drugs seemed to be more of a problem then the school i go to. i think partly b/c of how much the kids i grew up w/ were sheltered. now don't get me wrong there are a lot of durgs going around at the school i currently go to. not as many or as hard core as the drugs going around teh school i would have been going to in atlanta. the main thing that goes around my school is weed (pot) which isn't nearly as serious as coke, estacy, crystal meth., acid.......which are all things floating around where my buddy goes. and i don't think by doing a drug test it's going to stop many kids from doing what they are already doing. many will just quit whatever activity it may be b/c many EC activities aren't that important to most kids.

[LoboDelFuego]

Sideways: It is a societal problem. A society is made of people, and when one person has a problem that affects anyone else, it becomes a societal problem.

Indieboy: Your situation is exactly what we are trying to eliminate by having drugs thrown out of our schools. You and I spend most of our time at school, and we both know that it's where most kids deal. I advocate that testing be for everything, not just extracurriculars. If you know that you're going to get caught and that your parents will be told and that you might be arrested and will have it on your permanent record, most kids won't do drugs.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Sideways: It is a societal problem. A society is made of people, and when one person has a problem that affects anyone else, it becomes a societal problem.


Theres no problem with marijuna as you describe.
Therefore marijuana use is not a societal problem.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Sideways: It is a societal problem. A society is made of people, and when one person has a problem that affects anyone else, it becomes a societal problem.

Indieboy: Your situation is exactly what we are trying to eliminate by having drugs thrown out of our schools. You and I spend most of our time at school, and we both know that it's where most kids deal. I advocate that testing be for everything, not just extracurriculars. If you know that you're going to get caught and that your parents will be told and that you might be arrested and will have it on your permanent record, most kids won't do drugs.


um not here, where i go to school the kids really could care less about what their parents think, and permanent records aren't going to make these kids blink twice.......and if i had to go through the situation i have gone through i'd do it. i think it made me a better person.....don't regret it one bit......

[Eddie420]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Honestly...not being a smartass, but...how does this relate, and is this something you learned from personal experience or are there facts that back this up.

Because......I'd have to disagree.

Ya i agree silly comment I take it back...my excuse is that I'm really tired and suffering from bike withdrawals, I cracked my rim, all the mechanics are on hols and can't build me a new wheel.
:stupid: :D

[LoboDelFuego]

Sideways: Marijuana hinders your ability to aid society. Take this for example: One of my friends and I are standing at the top of a downhill chute. We are discussing lines. We both agree that this certain line, which includes a sharp turn and a big drop with little room for error is too dangerous to try at high speed. Now two hours later, he has been smoking weed. He comes down the course, and takes the exact line that we said no. He almost clips his rear wheel on a rock and then hits the drop, coming about one inch from smashing into a tree at full speed. He's a good nough rider to pull it off. Most of us aren't. If he were to get hurt, he would be sitting in a hospital, wasting supplies and time that could be benefitting someone who wasn's using drugs. Now I know you're gonna say "well mt. biking itself is dangerous, should we have random tests for that?" My response to this is: Yes, it's dangerous. So is driving a car. So is cleaning out my gutters. When you add drugs to the equation, you make it much more dangerous, and even make it more dangerous for the people around you (certain drugs). I think we can agree that if there were no drugs, many unfortuante events would not occur.

Indieboy: Thank you for joining this thread. You have shed light on an important aspect that the rest of us were ignoring. Indieboy shows us that we're not discussing an ideal world where kids will drop drugs immediately for fear of tests or as a result of tests. He depicts a society in which individuals are indifferent to their eductaion, where they are content to wallow in the slime of ignorance and drug-induced mirages. Here, we don't need school-wide drug tests. We need a police force. We need responsible parents. This is when we need to call in a Cincinnatus. Solve the problem somehow. Anyhow. Get the kids off the streets and into the libraries. (unless they are riding urban, which is ok)

However, your situation only adds to the argument for testing kids involved in extra curriculars. There are students in your school, including yourself, who aspire to be something more than what they are surrounded by. Correct me if I'm wrong. For these students, extracurricular activities are a place where they should be able to be safe from the drugs, and only be with other students who also want to better themselves. Make it the model of an ideal society.

Now I'm tired, but keep your rebuttals coming. It's 3v1 and dammit, BurlySurly I need backup! send the APC of morals and value!

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Sideways: Marijuana hinders your ability to aid society. Take this for example: One of my friends and I are standing at the top of a downhill chute. We are discussing lines. We both agree that this certain line, which includes a sharp turn and a big drop with little room for error is too dangerous to try at high speed. Now two hours later, he has been smoking weed. He comes down the course, and takes the exact line that we said no. He almost clips his rear wheel on a rock and then hits the drop, coming about one inch from smashing into a tree at full speed. He's a good nough rider to pull it off. Most of us aren't. If he were to get hurt, he would be sitting in a hospital, wasting supplies and time that could be benefitting someone who wasn's using drugs. Now I know you're gonna say "well mt. biking itself is dangerous, should we have random tests for that?" My response to this is: Yes, it's dangerous. So is driving a car. So is cleaning out my gutters. When you add drugs to the equation, you make it much more dangerous, and even make it more dangerous for the people around you (certain drugs). I think we can agree that if there were no drugs, many unfortuante events would not occur.


I think you are a little confused about the effects of marijuana.
Folks are a lot less likely to engage in risky behavior when high.
Smoking pot is not dangerous.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
I think you are a little confused about the effects of marijuana.
Folks are a lot less likely to engage in risky behavior when high.
Smoking pot is not dangerous.



Im sorry.......did you actually say that?

I think anything that slows my decision making process is a bit dangerous, not to mention the longterm effects. Driving while high (regardless of any stupid example about being aware you may try to give) is dangerous.

The loss of short term memory, and the introduction of foreign chemicals into the lungs and bloodstream that can cause, among other things CANCER, to me is slightly dangerous.

Now...go ahead and say it...."Well its not as bad a cigarettes and yada yada yad"

BullSh@#, cigarettes dont impede judgement.

[prisspringle]

i see there are many differant views and there are many differant experiances, my town 10 yrs ago was relatively nice looking not that much crime but looking at the present thats starting to chance for the worst, theres at least one drugy dieing a week u can walk down teh high street and point out atleast 1 or 2, crime has risen dramaticly in the past yrs, ok that might not be related to drugs but i wouldn't be suppriced,from my place of work just before we moved i could of gone to about 3 homes that i could of easly bought drugs from, these homes are only down the road and i really mean that from the police station, my friends have done and still do drugs quite often some have no ill effects and live a normal life others for one resson or another have taken a downhill ride which i hope they will pull out of, now bk on subject of random drugs test, here in the uk theres been words of this happening but no REAL plans to do it, my personal opinion is to only test posable risk areas, during my last yrs at school partys were thrown with the deliberate means to get drunk and take drugs, these areas are now getting to be more brought age wish younger and younger kids are taken drugs, tho these areas are from backgrounds where unemployment,drug use and alchol abusment have been part of there lives,i think this problem has many differant solusions and pitfalls and only time will tell if the right one is picked, personaly i'm all for legalising drugs altho only once u'r adult and a limit to how much u can by at a time or per week, this would help remove some of teh cr@p that drug dealers can and do put in the mix of some drugs some can be more harmfull then the drug its self,if u look at where it is legal aka holland theres still problems with additicon but they will be in a better posion to deal with it than we are as they've had more time to, i think we need to let kids choose there own destany and learn from there own mistakes but also tell them before hand wot the risk are, yes this may lead to ppl with problems but look at alcohol and cigarets (sp?) thats just as bad if not worse yet thats ok now since its legal to drink it, even if they totaly get rid of which i dowt they ever will the whole of society will not get rid of problems people will move on to other things wot ever they maybe.

thats my personal feeling on the subject some may not like or agree but thats life people have diferant feelings and ideas.

priss

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Im sorry.......did you actually say that?

I think anything that slows my decision making process is a bit dangerous, not to mention the longterm effects. Driving while high (regardless of any stupid example about being aware you may try to give) is dangerous.



No, driving high is proven (http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/research16/) to be safer.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by Sideways
No, driving high is proven (http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/research16/) to be safer.

I don't know what weed they were smoking, but if you come to the Northwest to smoke, you aren't going to be doing much of anything.

When you smoke the local pot, you are incapacitated.

(It has been many years since I have done so...)

[prisspringle]

wot happens on these tests if u have drugs in your system from second hand smoke? can they tell the differance?and why isn't there drug tests for alcohol being in students systems?

priss

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Sideways
I think you are a little confused about the effects of marijuana.
Folks are a lot less likely to engage in risky behavior when high.
Smoking pot is not dangerous.

What?

You may argue that smoking pot in and of itself is not dangerous. I can't totally argue that. I'm not a biochemist. But consider this: most people who die in house fires die of inhaling smoke. So it can't be too good for you.

No, the real danger of any drug is when it is combined with an activity. Any activity. I personally have witnessed people (while high):

walk into walls
walk through a plate glass door
almost drown in a pool (jumped in, realized he couldn't really swim)
set fire to parts of their body or home

And I don't hang out with too many kids who do drugs. As for driving, the little link you provided says, among other things:

"This suggests that they were unable to control their steering as well when under the influence of the high cannabis dose. This again confirms previous observations that cannabis adversely affects drivers' tracking ability."

[zibbler]

Originally posted by BurlySurly

Now...go ahead and say it...."Well its not as bad a cigarettes and yada yada yad"


No, smoking pot is not as bad as smoking cigs.... it's a LOT worse! What do you think killed Bob Marley? He died of lung cancer because of the amount of ghanja he smoked. Weed is far more damaging to the lungs than cigs are.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by zibbler
No, smoking pot is not as bad as smoking cigs.... it's a LOT worse! What do you think killed Bob Marley? He died of lung cancer because of the amount of ghanja he smoked. Weed is far more damaging to the lungs than cigs are.

it's not the pot itself that is damaging it's the chemicals that are in the weed......same w/ cig's. all the chemicals in them are what are the real problem. i'm not saying that the smoke won't harm you but the chemicals sure do play a HUGE factor in there too.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Will_Jekyll
I think the reasoning there is that you don't have to be involved in extra-curricular activity and if you so choose to do so you choose to submit to a drug test. They don't test the whole school because you don't have a choice of going to school or not. It's the same general principle that I think they apply to on the job drug tests. Working for a company that does drug tests is your choice if you don't like it you can find another job.
A public school is a government institution for supposed learning. The people pay taxes for programs whether they are extra-cirricular or not. It's up to the people not the schools to decide if this is the policy they want to adopt.
If i was a parent of course i would want to stay far away from this damning action. Firstly you are randomly testing a group of kids with absolutely no reason for suspicion.
Secondly what is the ultimate effect of this action. To give kids a scarlet letter and prevent them from assorted means of success through programs within the school. It makes no sense to judge children and their fallacies in an adult fashion anyways. That's part of growing up is making mistakes and learning from them. Not being drawn from a lottery and being the one kid left behind and not get the same opportunities afforded to other kids who very well may lead even a more destructive lifestyle.
Judging our children by limiting their opportunities may very well be a viable option for a kid who has been involved in host of anti-social behavior. You take a kid who has been caught shoplifting or having serious problems, the school and the parents can work together to help him/her. That might include random drug testing, i repeat at the discretion of the parents, or the courts. But we're skipping to a gross overreation when we test kids not only for applying to extra-cirricular activities, and i would mantain the same stance for random testing in the general population as well. For after all isnt this a technique to make the latter more acceptable? Then where do we go? It's anti-American.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Umm, I know we all know this, but drugs are illegal. (Well, not over the counter drugs, but y'all know what I mean. :)

That being said, I'm all for random drug tests - IF they have a reason to test. For instance, if they've never had problems with drugs, then there's no reason. Now, if they suddenly have a kid wander in one day with red eyes, acting all weird, driving 2 miles an hour, and he's got the munchies big time, that'd be suspicious to me. And if they tested him, and he was positive, I do not think it would be wrong to do random drug tests. Drug tests may be an invasion of privacy, but drugs are illegal.....as soon as you take the drugs, as far as I am concerned, you void your 'right' to privacy as far as those drug tests are concerned.
That's not random.
Well unless you have never taken drugs in your whole entire life, you've forfeited your so-called "rights" and so have 98%percent of us here.
edit:oops sorry -bb- got on your case for this too. Oh well kick a man when he's down..;) :D

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Damn True
You are probably right, and I think the testing includes student atheletes as well. If not it should.

But taking your logic, and it is sound, to the next level. Why not ensure that those kids are held to a higher level of accountability so as to be a better example to other kids?
Uhhhmm well then we'd have to accept your "presumed" logic that kids will be influenced one way or the other.
Enter the scenario of the debate class parading around at the assemblies shelling out anti-drug sentiment, but then on a Friday party you see a bunch of em with lampshades on their heads at a ragin kegger.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
I think it's totally fair to be testing kids. I don't even think it should be random. I think it should be mandatory. Run the mile, flex test, sit-ups, and piss in a cup. Testing kids would make so many more get caught.
I remember one day last year at my school a rumor came up that they were doing drug testing in the afternoon. Half the kids walked home at lunch or began to drink tons of water (they're stupid). The cafeteria sold every single poppy seed bagel. If we really had had drug testing that day, it would have been great. (Most of the other riders on this board from my school will disagree with me, but who cares.)

It's not an invasion of privacy. Nobody is making you strip or doing a full body cavity search. Drugs are illegal, and even if they weren't, they have no place in an institution of learning. You can't bring a gun or other weapon to school, so some schools have metal detectors. You can't have drugs in school (or anywhere) so schools should have drug tests if they have a drug problem.

edit: spelling correction
HEIL!!!

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Sideways
Oh and I might add that my AP English teacher, who was very well respected and did an outstanding job teaching the finer points of Shakespeare, is an avid marijuana user.
Yah but most likely has a host of intangible problems like inability to deal with emotions, that nasty habits bring along with it. This is not a good role model, it's too bad to think how she's limiting her potential, and providing an avenue for other to limit theirs.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Skookum
Drug test a child on probation for commiting a crime. Drug test the staff who work at the high school. But a school should never have the right to test students for any other reason.
Justifying this infringement of rights, takes the power away from the parents. There are avenues to take if a kid is having problems with drugs, and testing is one of them, but at the discretion of the parent only.
No one should condone the use of drugs by students, especially parents. But that's not the issue, the issue is how far do we as a society react or overreact to the fallacies of youth. Certainly drugs can hamper the future of a child, but so can a black mark from a random drug test from a public institution. Think hard about the repurcussions of this policy and argue to me realistically if the benefits outweigh the negatives. Not testing, or drug prevention for a child, but the school dictating when,who, and how.
Damn your an amazing hunk of sexiness!

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Skookum
Yah but most likely has a host of intangible problems like inability to deal with emotions, that nasty habits bring along with it. This is not a good role model, it's too bad to think how she's limiting her potential, and providing an avenue for other to limit theirs.


She's limiting her potential???

My AP English teacher was a man, man.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I cant even believe im reading this.

Marijuana (regardless of your personal feelings people) is ILLEGAL.

CHILDREN people....do not need to be smoking MARIJUANA!, or doing any other drugs to begin with. Who cares if you did. Would you want your kid smoking Marijuana? I doubt it.

With that said...School is a place for learning. An environment conducive to learning should not include students who are HIGH or INTOXICATED in any form.

I dont care if you a fu%$ing genius, you are not above the law. Being in calculus club or the football team sets students apart as representatives of the school. They should not HIGH or JUICED UP in any way. TESTING is a means of preventing that.

For CHRIST sakes people...use your heads.
Believe it or not i agree with most of this. However your setting a precedent in testing that doesnt wash with basic principles in freedom. Random drug testing is wrong. Pick and choose for a reason first, then throw them to fiery pits of hell. The latter should be debated as well. Ok we got a doper peice of crap kid let's hang him? uhmm stone him? uhmm sorry i'm being affected by Burly Surly here arent i.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
I think it's totally fair to be testing kids. I don't even think it should be random. I think it should be mandatory. Run the mile, flex test, sit-ups, and piss in a cup. Testing kids would make so many more get caught.
I remember one day last year at my school a rumor came up that they were doing drug testing in the afternoon. Half the kids walked home at lunch or began to drink tons of water (they're stupid). The cafeteria sold every single poppy seed bagel. If we really had had drug testing that day, it would have been great. (Most of the other riders on this board from my school will disagree with me, but who cares.)

It's not an invasion of privacy. Nobody is making you strip or doing a full body cavity search. Drugs are illegal, and even if they weren't, they have no place in an institution of learning. You can't bring a gun or other weapon to school, so some schools have metal detectors. You can't have drugs in school (or anywhere) so schools should have drug tests if they have a drug problem.

edit: spelling correction

dude TESTING for drugs is an invasion of privacy, SEARCHING for drugs on school campus is another subject in itself and is not what is in question. searching for drugs is not a big deal, however testing for them is. espically since most of the kids who are using drugs are not using them at school. i honestly don't know many kids who are dumb enough to light up at school. know some kids that have dropped acid n many other pills at school n snorted coke too before exams. it's really none of the schools business what happens outside of school. end of that discussion period. it's insane that kids are being suspended for fights outside of school and other actions (mistakes) they make outside of school. don't say that it doesn't happen, it may not at your school or in your area, but i have seen and know kids who it has happened to.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Sideways
Hostile environment?
The last thing I'd want if I were high would be to get into a fight.
A good number of my classmates and I all did very well high as hell in our AP classes, and came away with a lot more knowlege then we went into them with.
It's appearant that smoking pot has little to do with a students ability to learn.
A large percentage of kids smoke pot frequently enough to get busted should they be tested.
What exactly would be the benefit of a black mark on their record?
You've obviously not smoked the chronic hydroponic make you dumb enough not to be able to understand a bugs bunny cartoon tabaccky. I would beg to differ.:p
Perhaps you have a valid point of the misunderstanding and demonization of marijuana. But ultimately as Surly has stated it is bad for you. This isnt chicken soup we're talking about. It's like saying cigarettes should be overlooked to because they might help a kid study. I agree let's use proper perspective when talking about drug use, but it has to work both ways.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I agree:D

Yes...i totally cut your quote. But just to prove a point. If we can see it as both bad and illegal....where's the basis for argument?
Just to argue with you knowing you crave it like crack should be any Monkey's motivation to find basis, logical or not.:D

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Your life history is interesting and all, but it doesnt change any of the facts.

Kids dont need to be on drugs.
Testing will at least make them think twice.
Sideway's life history contained the them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yah let's put it in the crapper to make sure kids don't make the mistakes i made.:rolleyes:

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Skookum
Sideway's life history contained the them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yah let's put it in the crapper to make sure kids don't make the mistakes i made.:rolleyes:

Seriously though man, you needn't try everything to know that its bad. Sometimes a little fear is good.

[Eddie420]

Originally posted by zibbler
No, smoking pot is not as bad as smoking cigs.... it's a LOT worse! What do you think killed Bob Marley? He died of lung cancer because of the amount of ghanja he smoked. Weed is far more damaging to the lungs than cigs are.

I'm afraid you're wrong Bob Marley died of skin cancer. Since Bob Marley's Dad was white that where he probably got the gene for it.
It's spelt ganja and look at the statistics related to ciggrette and marijuana.Ciggrette's have killed a thousand times more people and that's not an exaggeration.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Eddie420
I'm afraid you're wrong Bob Marley died of skin cancer. Since Bob Marley's Dad was white that where he probably got the gene for it.
It's spelt ganja and look at the statistics related to ciggrette and marijuana.Ciggrette's have killed a thousand times more people and that's not an exaggeration.


Thats only because 100 times more people smoke cigarettes 100 times more often.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Thats only because 100 times more people smoke cigarettes 100 times more often.


Wait, no........that would be 10,000.

I meant to say that 100 times more people smoke them 10 times as often....yeah, thats it.:D

[Eddie420]

Yeah I get ya:D
Man you should stay off that harsh hydro **** it's messing with your mind.:D

[zibbler]

Originally posted by Eddie420
I'm afraid you're wrong Bob Marley died of skin cancer. Since Bob Marley's Dad was white that where he probably got the gene for it.

Well, here lies another mystery. He may well have died of skin cancer. Some say it was a CIA coverup, some say lung cancer, others say he was murdered. That's besides the point. Weed, can cause cancer and other lung problems.

It's spelt ganja.....

Well, if you wanna split hairs, try this on for size. Quoted from http://www.daweedking.com/marijuana.html

Marijuana, hashish, charas, ghanja , bhang, kef, and dagga are all official names that have been applied to various varieties and preparations of the hemp plant....

Ghanja is a less active form of cannabis. Whereas hashish and charas are made from the pure resins, ghanja is prepared from the flowering tops, stems, leaves, and twigs, which have less resin and thus less potency. Ghanja is nevertheless one of the more potent forms of cannabis....

And so on and so forth.

Bottom line.... the stuff aint good for ya. It may not be as bad as coke, heroin, or other more lethal street drugs, but it's still not good for ya.

[Eddie420]

why would the CIA cover up Bob Marleys death???:confused:
I know it's not good for you.....neither is sitting at the computer and arguing about pointless topics like the spelling of GANJA
:D:D:evil:

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Seriously though man, you needn't try everything to know that its bad. Sometimes a little fear is good.
Smoking pot isn’t bad.
The dosage amount is miniscule.
Risk=hazard*exposure. Exposure to hazardous chemicals in pot is low, risk is low.
Find enough cases of people dying from pot to even begin to rank it as risky.
There’s a long list of worse things people do to themselves everyday.
Sitting behind this monitor can't be good for my eyes.
Breathing in rush hour funk sucks.
Eating fast food is gross.
Stomping on platform pedals is awful on the knees.
Smoking pot is literally nothing in comparison to a lot of socially acceptable and legal activities.
Arguing against pot on the grounds of it being an unhealthy activity is not much of an argument.
Unlike driving, where both hazard and exposure is high and quite often people die.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
Smoking pot isn’t bad.
The dosage amount is miniscule.
Risk=hazard*exposure. Exposure to hazardous chemicals in pot is low, risk is low.
Find enough cases of people dying from pot to even begin to rank it as risky.
There’s a long list of worse things people do to themselves everyday.
Sitting behind this monitor can't be good for my eyes.
Breathing in rush hour funk sucks.
Eating fast food is gross.
Stomping on platform pedals is awful on the knees.
Smoking pot is literally nothing in comparison to a lot of socially acceptable and legal activities.
Arguing against pot on the grounds of it being an unhealthy activity is not much of an argument.
Unlike driving, where both hazard and exposure is high and quite often people die.

So how do all these random facts equal out to pot not being bad?

Like i said before, people will come up with all these lame thoughts and ideas and instances about how pot is not bad. But everyone knows really, that there's nothing good about it.
Apart from just the health risks, just look at the statistics on the percentage of violent crime related to drugs.
I dont have any stats on hand, but how many people can you think of that started smoking pot, and either just burned out and started a career of loafing, or moved on to even harder drugs and ended up in jail for dealing or being caught on possession. I cant think of one damn benefit of marijuana, unless you either have terminal cancer or glaucoma, in which case there are still better legal drugs available.
People will continue to try and find neat little discrepencies and loopholes to justify their drug using. Fine, whatever, but no one will be convinced because its simply not true.

[johnny33fb]

Sideways isnt just trying to give you lame thoughts, maybe they are as seen by you but what i think hes trying to say is that people do degenerating things to their bodies and environment everyday, is one more on the list going to hurt. Im not a drug user i have before tried pot but since people dont see consquences right away (on their bodies not getting caught) they are going to do it for whatever reason. Unless hopefully they have found other activites (e.x. sports, lifting, biking, school, etc.) to show them that they dont need false highs (i know that might sound corny) but that you can have just as much fun doing something else and feel good about yourself.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
Sideways isnt just trying to give you lame thoughts, maybe they are as seen by you but what i think hes trying to say is that people do degenerating things to their bodies and environment everyday, is one more on the list going to hurt. Im not a drug user i have before tried pot but since people dont see consquences right away (on their bodies not getting caught) they are going to do it for whatever reason. Unless hopefully they have found other activites (e.x. sports, lifting, biking, school, etc.) to show them that they dont need false highs (i know that might sound corny) but that you can have just as much fun doing something else and feel good about yourself.

Thanks. That's about what I was getting at.
The thing I don't like is that marijuana is illigal.
Based on the number of people who use pot, vs. the minor harm it causes the body...there just isn't any reason to criminalize users.

Imagine if NORBA randomly tested mountain bikers!

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
Sideways isnt just trying to give you lame thoughts, maybe they are as seen by you but what i think hes trying to say is that people do degenerating things to their bodies and environment everyday, is one more on the list going to hurt.

Yes.

If we allow one more thing, then why not the next thing, then the next thing. My point is all people say is "its not that bad" or "it doesnt hurt that much" but never has anyone given a coherent reason of something good that POT can add to society.

It is yet another detriment, we've to many already.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Yes.

If we allow one more thing, then why not the next thing, then the next thing. My point is all people say is "its not that bad" or "it doesnt hurt that much" but never has anyone given a coherent reason of something good that POT can add to society.

It is yet another detriment, we've to many already.

I can’t believe you aren’t aware of how useful the cannabis plant is.
Paper, fabric and engineering textiles (composites), food (oh yes, those seeds contain some of the healthiest fatty acids you can so easily digest), etc….the list goes on.

There are also all sorts of medicinal benefits of smoking pot.
Thousands of folks who suffer from MS, Glaucoma, HIV, and cancer find serious relief in marijuana.
But who cares about the extreme cases when there are millions of responsible Americans who really enjoy smoking pot?
Nothings wrong with enjoying a little reefer. Making it a criminal offence is ridiculous.

[johnny33fb]

BurlySurly wrote:
"If we allow one more thing, then why not the next thing, then the next thing. My point is all people say is "its not that bad" or "it doesnt hurt that much" but never has anyone given a coherent reason of something good that POT can add to society."

We are in a democracy though and if pot can be scientificly proven to be just as harmful as legal drugs, and other bad things that are in our society then why can't pot be legal. Not that i think it should, because its not my job to say whether something is good or not its societies and voters. If society wants something that can be proven to be around the same level of harm to the body as legal drugs way not make it legal, if they dont make it illegal but i think in some ways making pot legal would be benefical. Do you know how much taxpayer money is being spent on keeping drugs out of the us? Its ridiculous, if we legalized it you could then regulate it and i believe lots of the drug related crime would fall because much of that violence revolves around drugs deals and whatnot. So by making it legal you take them out of the picture and free up lots of taxpayer money. Now i know your gonna say well what about all the people that might become burnouts put say around 1/3 (hypothetically) to treatment & rehab. The rest of the money could be used put into reserves so we have money in the economy is in a slump like it is now, or in to education, or into other things.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
We are in a democracy though and if pot can be scientificly proven to be just as harmful as legal drugs, and other bad things that are in our society then why can't pot be legal. Not that i think it should, because its not my job to say whether something is good or not its societies and voters. If society wants something that can be proven to be around the same level of harm to the body as legal drugs way not make it legal, if they dont make it illegal but i think in some ways making pot legal would be benefical. Do you know how much taxpayer money is being spent on keeping drugs out of the us? Its ridiculous, if we legalized it you could then regulate it and i believe lots of the drug related crime would fall because much of that violence revolves around drugs deals and whatnot. So by making it legal you take them out of the picture and free up lots of taxpayer money. Now i know your gonna say well what about all the people that might become burnouts put say around 1/3 (hypothetically) to treatment & rehab. The rest of the money could be used put into reserves so we have money in the economy is in a slump like it is now, or in to education, or into other things.


Here's the problem!
Do you know where that taxpayer money goes?

[johnny33fb]

well since i dont pay taxes i dont care, your money not mine. I don't have a say anyway, thats your problem where it goes, i don't have to worry until i have to start paying them.

[Sideways]

If folks were allowed to grow industrial hemp,
we might not be months away from war as we are now.
:confused: :eek:

Do some damn research and see what the mess is really all about.
Here's some keywords:

hemp
hearst
dupont
nixon

[Eddie420]

Originally posted by johnny33fb

We are in a democracy though and if pot can be scientificly proven to be just as harmful as legal drugs, and other bad things that are in our society then why can't pot be legal. Not that i think it should, because its not my job to say whether something is good or not its societies and voters. If society wants something that can be proven to be around the same level of harm to the body as legal drugs way not make it legal, if they dont make it illegal but i think in some ways making pot legal would be benefical. Do you know how much taxpayer money is being spent on keeping drugs out of the us? Its ridiculous, if we legalized it you could then regulate it and i believe lots of the drug related crime would fall because much of that violence revolves around drugs deals and whatnot. So by making it legal you take them out of the picture and free up lots of taxpayer money. . [/B]



I doubt the government really cares whether or not it's good for you. It's a money thing, government makes big bucks on taxes from beer and ciggrettes. If they could make money out of weed I think it would be legal by now. Though they can't so it's not an issue for them.
:think:

[Eddie420]

Actually the government here allows small places of industrial hemp. Which is definately a step in the right direction, though it's not enough it should be more widespread, it really is very versatile. By the way you would have to smoke a truckload to get high from it.....
hehe hasn't stop desperate people stealing it..:stupid:

[LoboDelFuego]

All your arguments are good, but the original issue here was testing in school. And since drugs are illegal now, then we have to base our legislation on that.

But now we've moved on to the topic of legalisation. I'm pretty split on this issue, because I can see benefits on both sides, but also drawbacks.

However, the main point is: drugs are bad for you.(I feel i'm repeating myself here) There is no positive effect to making yourself stupid. So let's just keep them illegal and rack up some cash in fines. Saying "oh well riding a motorcycle on a highway is a million times more dangerous and deadly" isn't a valid argument. Yes, it is probably true. But just because something isn't as bad as another thing doesn;t mean it should be permitted. Imagine if that was your excuse for everything:
"Yeah officer I know I was speeding and I ran 3 red lights and a stop sign, but there are murders going on in the world. And nobody's stopping them."

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
All your arguments are good, but the original issue here was testing in school. And since drugs are illegal now, then we have to base our legislation on that.

But now we've moved on to the topic of legalisation. I'm pretty split on this issue, because I can see benefits on both sides, but also drawbacks.

However, the main point is: drugs are bad for you.(I feel i'm repeating myself here) There is no positive effect to making yourself stupid. So let's just keep them illegal and rack up some cash in fines. Saying "oh well riding a motorcycle on a highway is a million times more dangerous and deadly" isn't a valid argument. Yes, it is probably true. But just because something isn't as bad as another thing doesn;t mean it should be permitted. Imagine if that was your excuse for everything:
"Yeah officer I know I was speeding and I ran 3 red lights and a stop sign, but there are murders going on in the world. And nobody's stopping them."

Why should this unjust law be enforced by such extreme measures?

In North Carolina, sex in any position other than missionary is illegal.
This law should be enforced to its highest degree by installing video surveillance cameras in everyone's bedroom.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by Sideways
Why should this unjust law be enforced by such extreme measures?

In North Carolina, sex in any position other than missionary is illegal.
This law should be enforced to its highest degree by installing video surveillance cameras in everyone's bedroom.

LOL :devil: i can hear the hillbillies in boone now "WHAT he raped in the ass?!?! i've done had it now GET 'EM BOIS"

[ohio]

You really want to keep kids off drugs, stop teaching them from history books that teach more then 50% of the population to hate themselves. Then give the other 50% (who are relatively privileged and wealthy) something to actually care about. Kids start using drugs abusively in middle and high-school either because they think they've got nothing better to do (the latter 50%), or they've been taught for their whole lives that they come from nothing and are worth nothing (the former 50%).

We've got to stop trying to cure symptoms with tyranical laws, and start curing the cause.

Do you really think busting a kid at school and suspending or expelling him/her is going solve his/her problem? "Okay, Billy has a problem, so let's stop educating him."

[indieboy]

Originally posted by ohio
You really want to keep kids off drugs, stop teaching them from history books that teach more then 50% of the population to hate themselves. Then give the other 50% (who are relatively privileged and wealthy) something to actually care about. Kids start using drugs abusively in middle and high-school either because they think they've got nothing better to do (the latter 50%), or they've been taught for their whole lives that they come from nothing and are worth nothing (the former 50%).

We've got to stop trying to cure symptoms with tyranical laws, and start curing the cause.

Do you really think busting a kid at school and suspending or expelling him/her is going solve his/her problem? "Okay, Billy has a problem, so let's stop educating him."

thank you........

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
You really want to keep kids off drugs, stop teaching them from history books that teach more then 50% of the population to hate themselves. Then give the other 50% (who are relatively privileged and wealthy) something to actually care about. Kids start using drugs abusively in middle and high-school either because they think they've got nothing better to do (the latter 50%), or they've been taught for their whole lives that they come from nothing and are worth nothing (the former 50%).

We've got to stop trying to cure symptoms with tyranical laws, and start curing the cause.

Do you really think busting a kid at school and suspending or expelling him/her is going solve his/her problem? "Okay, Billy has a problem, so let's stop educating him."

Man, you come up with some really neat figures sometimes.

I totally agree that we need to start curing the cause. That would simplify everything, but i think that the fact of the matter is, we have been trying with programs like DARE and others, we only seem to be losing ground.

I like that you adress drug use as a problem, because no one else here seems to recognize that. I just think that if fear of getting busted in one kid, causes him to not use drugs and fu$# up his life, then a silly law that wont affect most of us is totally worth it.

I dont know exactly what you mean when you say 50% of kids are taught that they are worth nothing. I dont know where you went to school, but all i remember hearing is "you can do anything if you apply yourself"

I think some people are worthless though. Like junkies and loafing hippies. And people i work with sometimes.:)

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont know exactly what you mean when you say 50% of kids are taught that they are worth nothing. I dont know where you went to school, but all i remember hearing is "you can do anything if you apply yourself"

If you get a chance, pick up the book "Lies Your Teacher Told You."

The history we teach our children, along with the textbooks we use to enforce our "facts," are pretty much a load of nationalistic crap that paints a false history of perfect white men bringing superior European/British technology, culture and religion to savages. I'm not a PC freak, but we're teaching blatant lies in an attempt to prop up our self-worth, at the expense of any color, religion,and culture that is not white christian and western European. Since folks from that background now only constitute roughly half the nation, we end up teaching the other half that they came from nothing, and would be nothing, if they hadn't been saved by the white man. What a great way to teach our children that they can "do anything if they apply themselves [and are saved/helped by the almighty hand of white folk]." A real self-esteem builder.

[johnny33fb]

Yeah, i agree programs like DARE don't work, because telling a child or young adult that "drugs are bad" and just simply listing things that could happen to your body (cancer) don't work. I think showing what actually happens to people that abuse drugs and how hard it can be to quit/stay off a drug habit would work much better. They could also show how being involved in drugs can turn a persons life upside down and that these are reasons why you dont want/need drugs in your life. Telling someone just says no will not help them if they don't understand what could happen to them if they get seriously involved in drugs. I also don't think suspension from school is right if a student was to get busted for using drugs, because for many of theses students school is a much better environment then their homes, due to parents drug uses, just bad parentings, or whatever. Getting these kids more involved in the school and community will lead to less kids on drugs but there will always be people doing drugs recreationally just for kicks i dont think that will ever change.

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Man, you come up with some really neat figures sometimes.


he he. I retain numbers like women I date retain water...


anyways, I just reminded myself to ask you as a follow-up to my last post, what sort of state history is taught in Hawaii, considering the multicultural population. I read Mitchner's "Hawaii" (historical account of the entire history of Hawaii, with fictional characters) a couple of months ago, and it totally blew my mind since I knew nothing of Hawaiian history.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
he he. I retain numbers like women I date retain water...


anyways, I just reminded myself to ask you as a follow-up to my last post, what sort of state history is taught in Hawaii, considering the multicultural population. I read Mitchner's "Hawaii" (historical account of the entire history of Hawaii, with fictional characters) a couple of months ago, and it totally blew my mind since I knew nothing of Hawaiian history.

As Im sure you can imagine, its very America friendly, but they still get a good grasp of their history. There really is alot of animosity that ive seen from locals here toward white people in general who live or visit here. And rightfully so, we did just come and take over, but it was either us or Japan, and it probably saved San Diego from what had eventually happened to Pearl Harbor.

Anyway, I think schools across the country are becoming alot more liberal in their teaching of other cultures and whatnot. I think there was quite a bit of it back just a couple years ago when i was still in school. Anyone who progresses to college will eventually know "the lies their teachers told them" or they should anyway.

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Anyone who progresses to college will eventually know "the lies their teachers told them" or they should anyway.

That's the problem. The kids that progress to college are usually the ones that don't NEED to know the truth. If they made it that far they have their heads on relatively straight. Think of all the kids that DON'T continue with school because it only teaches them to hate themselves.

And think of all the kids with little or no interest in History because it was taught to them as something completely static, just memorization of facts, rather than an exciting dynamic evolving argument...

I for one was never interested in History, and never had to take a History course in college. I would never know any of this if I hadn't picked up "Lies My Teacher Told Me" or Zinn's "People's History..."

[indieboy]

Originally posted by ohio
That's the problem. The kids that progress to college are usually the ones that don't NEED to know the truth. If they made it that far they have their heads on relatively straight. Think of all the kids that DON'T continue with school because it only teaches them to hate themselves.

And think of all the kids with little or no interest in History because it was taught to them as something completely static, just memorization of facts, rather than an exciting dynamic evolving argument...

I for one was never interested in History, and never had to take a History course in college. I would never know any of this if I hadn't picked up "Lies My Teacher Told Me" or Zinn's "People's History..."

our AP US history teacher last year was telling us about that book. i've been meaning pick it up and read it. yes the elementary-high school text books that they make us use are a total waste. they hide and beat around the truth. the college text book that we used for that class wasn't to bad but still didn't entirely tell everything. our teacher used to tell us all sorts of wacked out shiet about many of the U.S. presidents. some of it was quite entertaining. she was the conspericy (sp?) theory type lady, and if the school knew what she was telling us and teaching us i don't htink that she would have been there to much longer lol.

[patconnole]

Here are some cool quotes from the first chapter of "A people's history of the United States 1492-present".


Relating to 9/11 and a pre-emptive strike on Iraq (page 16). "The English found their exuse, a murder which they attributed to Metacom, and they began a war of conquest against the Wampanoags, a war to take their land. They were clearly the aggressors, but claimed they attacked for preventive purposes. As Roger Williams, more friendly to the Indians than most, put it: "All men of conscience or prudence ply to windward, to maintain their wars to be defensive.""


One of the main conclusions of chapter one: "Was all this bloodshed and deceit--from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans--a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? Was Morison [a historian] right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasivie argument can be made--as it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgment be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quickly?

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
we have been trying with programs like DARE and others, we only seem to be losing ground.

I like that you adress drug use as a problem, because no one else here seems to recognize that.
Drug use by anybody is a problem, especially kids. But regardless of laws there are going to be people that use and there are going to be people that abuse drugs. If you accept the notion that some people are genetically predisposed to have addictive personalities, maybe you'd less apt to focus your attention on the drug and more on the persons.
We've got a broad sweeping solution like DARE run by police as a tool to educate but also with the alterior motive to prosecute people and run them through the system.
I would say send that federal money to social worker's, drug counselers, family counseler's. People that could work with parents and schools for problem kids on a one on one basis. Create more funding for schools that cater to "problem kids" with realistic avenues for success, along with implications that if they don't take education seriously they choose serious repurcussions. Allow and encourage schools to have freedom to run programs or policies that focus on their own special needs(local,cultural).
I dont agree with the current system of attacking drug abuse. It groups casual user's with addicts. It has created a machine that perpetuates itself on the creation of criminals through addiction. A system that is now dependant upon chemical dependency if you will. I don't agree drugs are good for anybody, they limit the potential of people on a physical, emotional, spiritual level, and not to mention your eating holes in your brain. Your correct BurlySurly in stating that nothing good can come from it. I just disagree with your tactics on how to fight it.

[Silver]

Why oh why do people care what I put INTO MY OWN ****ING BODY?

It's not your business. I don't care what goes into your body either. If you want to walk around stoned or drunk all day, no worries. Why should I care if getting high is what you do for fun?

Amazing that a kid in high school can smoke a joint and get hit with a criminal record, while his mother can run around with anti-depressants and tranquilizers in her system all day and society doesn't care about that, but insteads advertises and endorses it.

Don't even get me started on DARE. If anything, DARE leads kids onto harder stuff. Kids try pot and realize that they aren't dying, and they wonder what else DARE lies about.

And well we are at it, lets drop the strawman about pot causing cancer. If you can bring up one documented case, I'd love to see it. I've never heard of one. Plus, you don't need to smoke pot, so unless eating pot gives you cancer too, this is really a moot point.

This really isn't a drug issue. It's an issue of personal freedom.

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Silver
Why oh why do people care what I put INTO MY OWN ****ING BODY?

This really isn't a drug issue. It's an issue of personal freedom.

Why do we care? Lots of reasons:

If you are Driving while intoxicated (with anything) or performing any other activity for that matter, you put other people in potential danger because of you own stupidity.

If you hurt yourself, you waste valuable resources in a hospital or other scenario that could be better used for people who really need it and don't harm their bodies.

Your rights are not absolute. Here's an example we use in debate: you are only free to swing your fist as long as it does not hit someone in the face. You can;t scream "fire" in a crowded theater, even though you have freedom of speech. Your individual rights do not extend to the point where they are infringing up the rights of another.

Moral codes and the hippocratic oath force us to care for everyone. But why should we be helping @$$holes who don't take care of themselves?

Inhaling any sort of smoke is bad for you. Inhaling smoke from smoldering plants such as cannabis and tobacco is a proven carcinogen. Most people smoke pot, supposedly you get much less effect if it is eaten and you wouldn't want to waste your illicit supply, would you?

Why don't you just shut about you individual rights if you don't understand them.

[Silver]

Where to start....

Moral codes and the hippocratic oath force us to care for everyone. But why should we be helping @$$holes who don't take care of themselves?

I never took the hippocratic oath, but's that's an aside. And I don't think that people should be absolved for thier actions while intoxicated. And hey, if you want to bitch about people taking care of themselves, stake out a MacDonalds sometime. Cardiac disease kills a LOT more people than illicit drugs do.

If you are Driving while intoxicated (with anything) or performing any other activity for that matter, you put other people in potential danger because of you own stupidity.

Agreed. I don't believe that people should drive drunk or high or sleep deprived. I'd agree with you there. However, if someone wants to smoke a joint before they turn in for