|
|
| Supreme Court Seems Ready to Extend Drug Testing |
|
Posted by FoM on March 19, 2002 at 20:33:23 PT By Linda Greenhouse Source: New York Times 
The Supreme Court appeared ready today to authorize a substantial expansion in drug testing of public school students beyond the category of student athletes, for whom the court has already found random drug testing to be constitutional.In an hour of spirited, intense and sometimes downright nasty argument, the justices examined the implications of upholding a program in a rural Oklahoma school district that requires middle school and high school students to pass drug tests as a condition for participating in any extracurricular activity that involves interscholastic competition, including the chorus, the band and the Future Homemakers of America. "If your argument is good for this case, then your argument is a fortiori good for testing everyone in school," Justice David H. Souter told Linda M. Meoli, the lawyer representing Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, Okla. "Every child in every school district in the United States" would fall within the district's rationale of the need to deter drug use, he said. Ms. Meoli said that was not necessarily so, and that a distinction could be drawn between testing all students and just those who want to take part in extracurricular activities. Students have to be in school, she said, while they could choose not to take part in activities. Paul D. Clement, a deputy solicitor general presenting the Bush administration's view of the case, was more categorical. A schoolwide drug testing program would be constitutional, Mr. Clement said in answer to a question from Justice John Paul Stevens. But limiting the testing to students who participate in activities was easier to defend, Mr. Clement said, because students know the rules and implicitly agree to be tested when they sign up for the activities. "These are avoidable programs," he said. Justice Souter disagreed that students could be said to be accepting the drug testing condition voluntarily. "They are under tremendous pressure to agree to it," he said. "They know perfectly well that they won't get into a competitive college" if they do not participate in extracurricular activities. By the end of the argument, the debate over tying drug testing to extracurricular activities seemed almost beside the point, because a majority of the court appeared untroubled by the prospect of a broader testing policy. "What I miss in your argument is any recognition that you're dealing with minors," Justice Antonin Scalia said to Graham A. Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the family who challenged the Oklahoma district's policy. The school district was "trying to train and raise these young people to be responsible adults," Justice Scalia said. When Mr. Boyd said that the Pottawatomie district adopted the policy in the absence of any demonstrable disciplinary problem, Justice Scalia said: "So long as you have a bunch of druggies who are orderly in class, the school can take no action. That's what you want us to rule?" To Mr. Boyd's assertion that the district had no serious drug problem, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told him: "It seems to me that if a school district is better than other districts, with less drug use, they're entitled to keep it that way. You seem to be saying that there has to be a great crisis, where we lose a few years to drugs." In a previous ruling, a 1995 decision that upheld the testing of athletes in the small town of Vernonia, Ore., the 6-to-3 majority put great weight on two factors: that there was a substantial drug problem and that athletes were evidently at the center of it. Earlier Supreme Court decisions had established that in constitutional terms a drug test conducted by a government agency is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. The question is whether any particular drug-testing program is reasonable. The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, ruled last year that the broader program the Oklahoma district adopted in 1998 was not reasonable because unlike Vernonia, Pottawatomie had not shown that there was a specific problem for which drug testing was a solution. It was that ruling that the Pottawatomie district was challenging today and that Mr. Boyd, director of the civil liberties union's drug policy litigation project, was defending on behalf of the Earls family. Lindsay Earls graduated from the district's Tecumseh High School last June and her sister Lacey is still a student there. By the time the Earlses brought their lawsuit, the policy had been in place for nearly two years; of more than 500 students tested, three or four showed evidence of drug use. The dissenters in the Vernonia case were Justices Souter, Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor. To prevail in the new case, Board of Education v. Earls, No. 01-332, Mr. Boyd therefore had to peel two other justices away from the Vernonia majority. The only two likely candidates were Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote a qualified concurring opinion in the Vernonia case, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Ginsburg appeared possibly amenable. She told Ms. Meoli, the school district's lawyer, that she found it illogical to tie drug testing to extracurricular activities because testimony in the lower court indicated that students involved in activities posed less of a drug problem "than students who don't do anything after school." Justice Breyer seemed favorably disposed to the Pottawatomie program. "No one is arrested," he told Mr. Boyd. "It's counseling. It's an effort to deal with the demand side of drugs." Referring to the Vernonia case, he told the lawyer: "You might be able to drive a millimeter of light" between the two cases. "Go ahead and try," he added. But before Mr. Boyd could get very far, Justice Breyer said: "Undoubtedly, you're right. This is a slight expansion of Vernonia. But it's hard for me to see how if I came out one way in Vernonia, I should come out differently here." The justices appeared unusually snappish. When Justice Souter was invoking the small number of positive drug tests to question the district's need for drug testing, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist offered a helping hand to Ms. Meoli. "The existence of the policy might be expected to deter drug use, wouldn't it?" he asked the district's lawyer. "Then we'll never know, will we," Justice Souter said with some asperity. "Let her answer the question," the chief justice said sharply. But most surprising was Justice Kennedy's implied slur on the plaintiffs in the case. He had posed to Mr. Boyd the hypothetical question of whether a district could have two schools, one a "druggie school" and one with drug testing. As for the first, Justice Kennedy said, "no parent would send a child to that school, except maybe your client." In fact, Lindsay Earls passed her drug test, which she challenged as an invasion of her right to privacy. She is now a freshman at Dartmouth College and was in the audience today. Linda Greenhouse, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for beat reporting, answers readers' questions on Supreme Court rules and procedure in this column, available exclusively on NYTimes.com. Complete Title: Supreme Court Seems Ready to Extend School Drug Tests Source: New York Times (NY) Related Articles & Web Site: Drug Testing Policy Debated Before Court High Court Reviews Student Drug Tests Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #13 posted by Ethan Russo MD on March 22, 2002 at 06:56:21 PT:
|
| I am really sorry that you have been ill, but you have definitely come back better than ever! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by qqqq on March 22, 2002 at 05:31:49 PT |
| ,,,surely most have heard of the plural terms for things,,,like a 'herd' of cattle,,,,or a 'flock' of seagulls,,,,,well,,justice Scalia is incorrect in referring to a gatering of Druggies as a "bunch"..the proper way to refer to multiple Druggies,,is,,of course;A Stone,of druggies,,,and if a Stone of Druggies has gather in a house,or shelter,,they are referred to as a 'Quarry' of Druggies...........FYI....a group of people who have been involved in hammering excessive amounts of liquor,,,well,,that is a 'Stagger' of drunks...........Old,disillusioned mentally unstable recluses are known as 'justices',individually,my favorite ,,is;"The school district was "trying to train and raise these young people to be responsible adults," Justice Scalia said."...."train and raise",,that is probably the main problem with kids nowdays,,,they have not been properly trained! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by Jose Melendez on March 22, 2002 at 04:19:17 PT |
| The justices appeared unusually snappish. ...sounds like somebody needs a cigarette and a drink... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by monvor on March 20, 2002 at 18:19:34 PT |
| Justice Scalia said: "So long as you have a bunch of druggies who are orderly in class, the school can take no action. That's what you want us to rule?" YES, you pompas ASS! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by mayan on March 20, 2002 at 16:23:14 PT |
| The kids are being stripped of all expectations of privacy & liberties so that when they become adults they will be used to it. But the kids these days aren't stupid. They know all about hemp & why it is forbidden. They see the hypocrisy in it all. These kids have very little respect for authority as it is because they see how crooked the establishment is. The youth will take over because they have the most to lose. Wheels can take you around Wheels can cut you down We can go from boom to bust From dreams to a bowl of dust We can fall from rockets' red glare Down to "Brother can you spare..." Another war Another wasteland And another lost generation... - Rush "Between the Wheels" [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by goneposthole on March 20, 2002 at 07:40:25 PT |
| As long as it pays, it will be there. "Supply And Demand"- by Guy Clark What is that sound, what is that noise I cannot figure it out for the life of me boys Is it the coast guard or is it the wind Is it the mothership comin' in Convicted on charges of supply and demand He was unloadin' the American dream Caught in the middle of a bigger plan It was a South American scheme He is no smuggler he is a fisherman All of his debts they are owed to the sea Some call it justice but it just ain't right This ain't live and let live and let be (chorus) Layin' in his cell and thinkin' bout Ulysses How he picked up his oar and walked away from the sea Until someone said you ain't from around here are you And that's how far away that he feels He thinks of his wife and he thinks of his children He thinks about 'em takin' his boat He thinks about the killer in the bunk below him And he's tryin' to keep his hopes afloat He's singin' What is that sound what is that noise I cannot figure it out for the life of me boys Is it the coast guard or is it the wind Is it the mother ship coming' again ----------------------------------------------------------- As long as there is demand , there will be supply. Make it legal so it is safe. End the drug war, enough of this oppression. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #7 posted by freddybigbee on March 20, 2002 at 06:53:10 PT:
|
| Justice David H. Souter told Linda M. Meoli, the lawyer representing Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, Okla. "Every child in every school district in the United States" would fall within the district's rationale of the need to deter drug use, he said. Ms. Meoli said that was not necessarily so, and that a distinction could be drawn between testing all students and just those who want to take part in extracurricular activities. So there you have it. As long as you agree to be a second-class citizen, not participating in extra-curricular activities, you may cling to rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If you hope to be a first-class citizen, however, you'd better toe this and every other line the oligarchs draw in the sand. Kaptinemo hit the nail on the head: "all of society's proscriptions against certain forms of social conduct are little more than window dressing to barely conceal naked power." [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on March 20, 2002 at 05:43:07 PT:
|
| "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6 Yes...and what are people like Mr. Scalia teaching our children? Namely, that rights exist only for the powerful, that they can be removed at a whim, that there is no such thing as Constitutional protections for children. In short, it is the minions of The State that are the final arbiter of rights...and the granters thereof. So...what happens when these children grow up, knowing that it is not rights but power they should be laboring towards? That the caprice of the moment is excuse for abrogating the rights of others...because you have the power to do so? Might they not provide their teachers, sometime in the not so distant future (the Supremes are almost all well into their middle age) with a 'lesson' of their own? Their seemingly Olympian attitudes towards their own actions lead me to believe that they deem themselves untouchable from the actions they propose. Such as the kind of 'social triage' the Republicans are so fond of perpetrating against groups not politically or monetarily connected? If you teach a child that they have no rights, and that the persons of the powerful are protected by only force, not a piece of hemp parchment that says 'Constitution', you teach them more than you know. You teach them that all of society's proscriptions against certain forms of social conduct are little more than window dressing to barely conceal naked power. A child that learns that lesson is a danger to the democratic process...because that child has been excluded from it. Exclude that child, exclude those tens of millions of children, and you can't expect them to have any stake in that democratic process. Don't expect them to pay any attention to your protestations of abrogated rights...as they cart you off to some camp designed to remove society's 'surplus'. People like Scalia have no idea at all that they are living in a fool's paradise, thinking that their rulings won't have disastrous consequences for future generations. And they had better pray that today's crop of students don't forcibly remind them in their enfeeblement of the lesson they taught the younger generation. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on March 20, 2002 at 04:18:53 PT:
|
| Alcohol, Nicotine and pharmaceutical drugs will not be included in "druggie" testing, even though they cause the most damage.
From: Dr. Ira Chasnoff, whose 1985 study in the New England Journal of Medicine kicked off the crack-baby craze, has effectively recanted. Chasnoff had to admit after three more years of studying the infants that a large majority turned out quite normal, with absolutely no detectable behavioral or learning disabilities. A Canadian meta-analysis of the 20 most reliable studies on drug use during pregnancy found that if a broad range of drugs, including alcohol, is considered, crack as an outstanding factor in birth problems disappears completely. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #4 posted by Dan B on March 20, 2002 at 00:40:09 PT:
|
| The school district was "trying to train and raise these young people to be responsible adults," Justice Scalia said.
There you have it, folks--the real reason why you are required to send your children to school: so the state can raise them for you! The angle nobody is bringing up is the fact that mandatory drug testing in schools removes all rights from the parents to teach their children about drugs in a manner which is consistent with their own family's values. You remember "family values," right? Well, guess what? Those same conservatives who stressed the importance of "family values" yesterday are dead set on entirely destroying parental rights today. Nope, parents are now considered irrelevant by the state, thanks in large part to conservatives who believe that the best way to run this country is to destroy the Constitution. They're running the country, alright--running it into the ground! Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by Zero_G on March 20, 2002 at 00:15:25 PT |
| The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The text of the amendment defines reasonable; probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. "What I miss in your argument is any recognition that you're dealing with minors," Justice Antonin Scalia said to Graham A. Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the family who challenged the Oklahoma district's policy. The school district was "trying to train and raise these young people to be responsible adults," Justice Scalia said. When Mr. Boyd said that the Pottawatomie district adopted the policy in the absence of any demonstrable disciplinary problem, Justice Scalia said: "So long as you have a bunch of druggies who are orderly in class, the school can take no action. That's what you want us to rule?" I would imagine that Mr. Scalia has a problem with the probable cause limitation on searches. Well behaved "druggies" do not present any cause for search now, do they. Of course, it also seems he is arguing that minors are not included in the set of "the people"; therefore, not being accorded Constitutional protections. Who says conservative justices don't make law... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by MikeEEEEE on March 19, 2002 at 21:28:31 PT |
| If these judges rule in favor of drug testing they will be violating the Constitution, that in itself is an injustice, they should now be declared injustices. It's no coincidence that Bush has been appointing conservative judges with his moral and ideological ideas. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by Dark Star on March 19, 2002 at 20:54:36 PT |
| The Supremes are demonstrating that the Constitution is dead. Given that Congress favors every possible repression, that would leave the people with no legal method of demonstrating their freedom. The Revolutionary War was fought for much less than this. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |