PDA

View Full Version : The US Supreme has gone stark raving mad!!


RogueTrader
06-27-2002, 07:55 PM
I have jumped into this one with both feet over at Synergy.....

------------

I must admit that I too am apalled....Of course, the ruling does not specify what an appropriate extra curricular activity is. Would you be able to extend it to riding on school busses?

If students choose to dissent they may not participate in extra curricular activities which would otherwise impede their chances of getitng into a good college and thus impede them achieving their full potential.

The message is clear....If you have nothing to hide why not submit? Our judgement sux so we have to test your urine....you might be thinking the wrong things....

Ex smokers are always the most unreasonable and irrational when it comes to enforcing anti-smoking laws, and ex-drug addicts like President Bush are always the most rabid when it comes to enforcing things like this.....all you can hope for is a couple of deaths on the supreme court in about 6 years....

M

The link

U.S. High Court Upholds School Drug Tests
Thu Jun 27, 2:22 PM ET
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) ruled on Thursday that public middle and high schools can require drug tests for students in extracurricular activities like choir or band without violating their privacy rights.


By a 5-4 vote, the high court said the program in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, that required students who want to take part in after-school activities to submit to random urinalysis was a "reasonable means" to prevent and detect drug use.

The tests, required without any suspicion of drug use, covered students in grades 7 to 12 who sign up for such activities as cheerleading, choir, band, the academic team, the Future Farmers of America and Future Homemakers of America.

Critics said the ruling opened the door for drug testing of the 23 million students in public high schools across the country.

The four dissenters said students who take part in extracurricular activities were far less likely to have drug problems than their less-involved peers.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( news - web sites) ridiculed the "nightmarish images of out-of-control flatware, livestock run amok and colliding tubas disturbing the peace and quiet in Tecumseh."

She said most students the school wanted to test were not even involved in "safety-sensitive" activities.

On the last day of their term, the court majority ruled the drug-testing policy did not violate constitutional privacy protections against unreasonable searches.

"The nationwide drug epidemic makes the war against drugs a pressing concern in every school," Justice Clarence Thomas ( news - web sites) said for the majority. "We conclude that the invasion of students' privacy is not significant."

A student who refuses to take the test or who tests positive more than twice cannot take part in competition for the rest of the school year. Students are tested at the start of the school year and then randomly throughout the year, with names drawn every month.

RULING COULD BOOST SCHOOL DRUG TESTS

The ruling could boost school drug testing. Over the past three years, about 5 percent of schools nationwide have required drug tests for student athletes while about 2 percent have tested students in other extracurricular activities.

The Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1995, when it ruled that public high schools and middle schools may force student athletes to submit to drug tests. The Oklahoma case covered extracurricular activities other than athletics.

Thomas rejected the argument that the students involved in nonathletic extracurricular activities have a greater expectation of privacy because they were not subject to regular physicals and communal undress.

"Some of these clubs and activities require occasional off-campus travel and communal undress," he said.

Thomas described as minimally intrusive the way the urine sample was collected.

"A faculty monitor waits outside the closed restroom stall for the student to produce a sample and must 'listen for the normal sounds of urination in order to guard against tampered specimens'," Thomas said.

In Tecumseh, a rural town about 40 miles (64 km) from Oklahoma City, two students challenged the policy after its adoption in 1998, claiming the school failed to show it had a problem with illegal drugs.

Of the more than 500 students tested while the program was in effect during part of two school years, only three students, all athletes, tested positive. Two of the athletes also participated in other extracurricular activities.

In addition to Ginsburg, Justices John Paul Stevens ( news - web sites), Sandra Day O'Connor ( news - web sites) and David Souter ( news - web sites) dissented.

The Drug Policy Alliance, a drug policy organization, criticized the ruling.

"The court's decision is both foolhardy and dangerous in sending exactly the wrong message to America's children -- that they have no right to privacy, and that schools can prioritize the cleanliness of one's urine over academic achievement and participation in student life," Judy Appel, the group's deputy legal director, said.

Joseph Califano of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York, applauded the decision, but said drug testing alone won't solve the problem.


----------------------------------------------
Howard Roark laughed......

13throwcenter
06-27-2002, 08:42 PM
i have so many mixed thoughts on this issue, working where i do.

The "War on Drugs" is just about the stupidest thing this country's government wastes its time on. Anyone, any age will ALWAYS be able to get ANY drug they want within less (usually *much* less) than 24 hours. It will never be stopped... and there's a part of me that highly suspects it is the government who won't let it be stopped. There's too much money in illegal drugs for me *not* to suspect the US government is playing some role in the game.

Is there such thing as right to privacy anymore? I guess the mentality is that if you are doing illegal drugs you give up your right to privacy, but to test everyone? without suspicion or reason for concern? That's stepping over the line, methinks.

Interestingly, this comes alongside the finding of a circuit appeals court that requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school is unconstitutional because it violates the notion of separation of church & state. Guess who defiantly refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day in high school for the very same reason?

*points to self*

I was so ahead of my time. hehe /images/cool.gif







"she is rising above"

ProfessorFrink
06-27-2002, 08:51 PM
if you have mixed thoughts, post the other ones as well. since you work where you do.

13throwcenter
06-27-2002, 08:59 PM
maybe i will if/when i feel like it. *since* i work where i do.







"she is rising above"

RogueTrader
06-27-2002, 09:14 PM
...everyone has a right to privacy, it says so in the Fourth Ammendment to your constitution.

If you allow it to be abridged at all, it will never stop getting pegged back.

M

----------------------------------------------
Howard Roark laughed......

ProfessorFrink
06-27-2002, 09:41 PM
oh c'mon. mix it up a little bit.

RogueTrader
06-27-2002, 11:02 PM
....hockey season's over for 5 minutes and already he's lookin' ta 'mix it up' over here.....

M

----------------------------------------------
Howard Roark laughed......

ProfessorFrink
06-27-2002, 11:03 PM
fucking cricket-lover.

RogueTrader
06-27-2002, 11:13 PM
Ahhhhh.....cricket.....a game for gentlemen.....probably why it never caught on in Canada.....

What was that line Patrick Swayze says in 'Youngblood'? "Here's to Hockey....thank god there's still a game for middle sized white boys!!'

Has there EVER been a black hockey player?

M

----------------------------------------------
Howard Roark laughed......

ProfessorFrink
06-27-2002, 11:18 PM
has there ever been a black hockey player? off the top of my head (all NHL'ers of course):

Georges Laraque
Mike Grier
Freddie Braithwaite
Donald Brashear
Jarome Iginla (half and half, but he counts)
Sandy McCarthy
Kevin Weekes
Anson Carter
Willie O'Ree (NHL debut in 1958. yes 1958)

I'm sure I'm missing more.

ProfessorFrink
06-27-2002, 11:22 PM
a couple more that I just remembered:

Peter Worrell
Jean Luc Grande-Pierre

RogueTrader
06-27-2002, 11:22 PM
How did they do? Were they dominant players? Did they play all over everyone else? Were they bigger or faster?

M

----------------------------------------------
Howard Roark laughed......

ProfessorFrink
06-27-2002, 11:27 PM
alot of those guys can chuck the knucks. Iginla won the Pearson Award this year, which is presented annually to the most outstanding player during the regular season as voted on by the players. he was also a Hart trophy nominee, which is the award for MVP as voted by the writers. he lead the NHL in scoring.

Weekes won the cup with Carolina as the backup to Arturs Irbe.

RogueTrader
06-27-2002, 11:30 PM
...what's his back ground? I can't imagine hockey is a cheap game to play (what with all the equipment) so I am betting his parents had money.....is he Canadian?

M

----------------------------------------------
Howard Roark laughed......

ProfessorFrink
06-27-2002, 11:34 PM
he's from Edmonton, Alberta. that's in Canada btw. apparently his father was Nigerian and his mother was American. they divorced when he was really young and he lived with his grandparents.

RogueTrader
06-27-2002, 11:41 PM
...The one on the left is from Edmonton as well.....I think I'd like to visit there one day....

Is it odd to see black guys playing hockey? I always kinda do a double take everytime I see someone of asian decent playing cricket....

M

----------------------------------------------
Howard Roark laughed......

13throwcenter
06-27-2002, 11:44 PM
what happened to the discussion about the supreme court?
oh yeah.... frink joined the conversation.






"she is rising above"

RogueTrader
06-27-2002, 11:45 PM
...on a hockey based analogy here.....I thik it's the only way I can get him to listen...that or 'Ridalyn'....good thing he aint at school no more....

M

----------------------------------------------
Howard Roark laughed......

TmasH
06-28-2002, 12:09 AM
screw hockey for a few...I think it sucks that this has been ruled unconstitutional...athiests can finally be happy about something...bring back the pleadge of allegance...whats next? the re-writing of the constitution? assholes...stupid assholes.

"We got hosed Tommy, we got hosed" - Mountain Dew commercial

Tiger the Lion
06-28-2002, 12:35 AM
You don't wanna leave out Grant Fuhr, either.



These are crazy days, but they make me shine...

13throwcenter
06-28-2002, 12:52 AM
they didn't take away the pledge of allegiance, sillypants. don't get your undies in a bundle. go read the news.






"she is rising above"

reallygroovN
06-28-2002, 08:40 PM
i have mixed feelings, both about the recent supreme court rulings AND hockey /images/wink.gif

drug testing highschool athletes: well, as a person who has seen way too much of the dark side of drug abuse, i wouldnt have a problem with someone drugtesting my children. and the thing is, i believe, that children under the age of 18 really dont have any rights to privacy, unless their parents say they do. i think, although i am not sure, that the parents are the legal representatives of a child's rights to privacy, especially when it comes to medical treatment. kids under 18 cant sign any medical papers for themselves, they need parental consent.

and i really dont see what is so wrong about drug testing kids, afterall, kids under the age of 18 really have no business doing drugs. grow and nurture your brains first, then when you are 21 you have the right to kill those brain cells. of course, i did drugs in highschool, but then again, i was living with 2 full blown alcoholics at the time and need to escape.

2. one nation under god....it wasnt there when they wrote the pledge, they added it in in the 60's. the entire nation doesnt belive in god so why should public school children who dont believe in god have to say that they do? although i believe in god, i also believe in the seperation between church and state.

3. hockey, dont even get me started.....


/images/laugh.gif/images/laugh.gif/images/laugh.gif


kidding.

13throwcenter
06-28-2002, 11:49 PM
interestingly, tho, at least in the land of WA, it's only kids 12 and under who need consent from parents to check into drug/alcohol treatment and if the kids 13 & over don't give consent to talk to their parents, counselors can't tell their parents (or anyone else, for that matter) a damn thing.

So yeah, at least in this arena, kids have legal rights to privacy.









"she is rising above"