Drug-Test Case Pitting Ideology Against Law

Drug-Test Case Pitting Ideology Against Law
Posted by FoM on March 27, 2002 at 11:16:11 PT
By Debra J. Saunders 
Source: Arizona Daily Star 
Be very afraid of what was said during this week's U.S. Supreme Court hearing on a case in which three Tecumseh, Okla., students challenged a mandatory drug testing program for high-school students participating in extracurricular activities. Be afraid because statements made by some of the justices suggest that they are prepared to make the sort of results-oriented ruling - based on ideology, not case law - that conservatives used to lambaste when liberals made them. 
Enter the war on drugs. Exit the U.S. Constitution. Here's one example quoted in The New York Times: Justice Antonin Scalia asked ACLU attorney Graham Boyd, who opposed the testing program, "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, that's right, justice. In America, there's this little thing called probable cause. Right now, teachers can ask for drug tests when they suspect a student of drug use. But for the moment, the law has not allowed schools to test all students for no cause. Be afraid because precedent doesn't matter. In 1995, the Big Bench ruled that it was legal for an Oregon school to require athletes to submit to urine tests because the school had a big drug problem. The reasoning: Athletes were the main offenders, football players were role models, and there were safety issues with football players in heavy gear charging other players while high on drugs. That was a narrow ruling. Now, some justices want to make members of Future Farmers of America and the band tuba player into role models. And they don't care if a school district doesn't have much of a drug problem. (Of 505 Tecumseh students tested, three were positive.) Worse, as The Washington Times reported, Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement suggested that public schools could test entire student bodies. Forget the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Be afraid because most justices apparently support drug testing for students who are less likely to be drug users than, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "students who don't do anything after school." Students who refuse to take the test or flunk it twice would be banned from interscholastic clubs. Be afraid because the Bush administration and some justices want the government to be Big Father, and pre-empt parental choice. Parents can give their kids drug tests if they suspect their kids are using drugs. There are parents who have argued that they want the school to test their kids. They shouldn't expect schools to do their dirty work for them. And they should want to keep the government out of the bathroom. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested that he was helping parents when he gave an analogy of two schools, one with drug testing and one without. He then told the ACLU's Boyd that no parents would send their children to "the druggie school" - "except perhaps your client." I've received letters from readers who support 20-year sentences for low-level, first-time nonviolent drug offenders because they think those sentences will protect their kids. It doesn't occur to these folks that their kids could be drug offenders. According to the Bush administration's own brief, 54 percent of high-school seniors have used illegal drugs. Be afraid because when schools give students a choice between clubs or drugs, marginal kids will choose drugs. "It's those kids who need those activities the most who are going to be the easiest to deter," said Daniel Abrahamson of the Drug Policy Alliance, who wrote a brief against the Tecumseh School Board for the American Academy of Pediatrics. The brief noted, "A strong record of extracurricular involvement is all but essential to securing admission to a competitive undergraduate college." Because the justices weren't focusing overly on precedent, let me pose a moral question: Would the justices support a policy labeled, "Smoke a joint in high school, work at McDonald's for the rest of your life?" * Debra J. Saunders is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ)Author: Debra J. Saunders Published: Sunday, March 24, 2002Copyright: 2001 Pulitzer Publishing Co.Contact: letters azstarnet.comWebsite: Articles & Web Site:ACLU Privacy vs. Safety Student Rights Indignities - Drug Testing for Everybody Drug Testing Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #15 posted by Patrick on March 29, 2002 at 18:32:23 PT
dddd I must confess
I am but a humble crackpot wanna be.I bow in respect to you masterful grasp of Crackpodian Humor!I had no idea that 'Liberace was Jay Lenos' brother!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by dddd on March 29, 2002 at 08:51:18 PT
...your gonna have to do better than that if ya wanna be a crackpot....everyone knows that weed is the cause of all bad stuff in the world...a real crackpot,,who knew his shit would say stuff like..;"Bob Marley was Bob Doles illegitamate love child"...or...."Liberace is Jay Lenos' brother"...or perhaps..."Don Knotts was 'ballin' Aunt Bea during the Maybery RFD days"......."Jack Lord,,you know,,,McGarrett on Hawaii Five-0,,,he was involved in a secret relationship with Gerald Ford.".............C'mon Pat,,,I dont mean to downplay your crackpotness,,or discourage you from becoming a world class crackpot,,,but I'm thinkin' that you might be too polite to make it as a hardcore crackpot.....Believe me,,I know!..I've seen many a green crackpot rookie get crushed in national,and world crackpot competitions,,it aint pretty!......My cousin,,Virgil,won the Mountain Dew Crackpot Challenge in New Jersey last year,by claiming that Jerry Garcia was Bin Ladens father,,and that Yassur Arafat died 6 years ago,and Willie Nelson was hired to look like him.Nelson backed out of the deal when the shit hit the fan,and Isreal started bombin' the crap out of anything that moved,,so now most crackpots agree that Burl Ives is now posing as Arafat.............there is no pride in being an expert crackpot,,,,it's the type of career one might pursue after being fired by Burger King...alot of people think they can break into the Crackpot game really easily,,but this is not the case!......I hope that others wont be shy,,and think that taking up the hobby of crackpotting is too challenging!It's really quite fun and rewarding.........quadra-d
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by Patrick on March 29, 2002 at 07:37:29 PT
Ingestion and Excretion
If I were from another planet I would find it odd that individuals here have no free choice over what things they ingest. I would ask? Do your leaders really need excretion samples to study what you have ingested or inhaled? Who puts these things into categories, schedules, or classes for profit? I would question who kills other humans on this planet and what motivates them to do so? Nations kill? Your society kills? Your juries of justice kill? Suicidal terrorists kill? Deranged killers in town halls kill? Who is doing all the killing on this planet and why? That's what my fantasy alien from another planet would ask. And also ask who is being required to piss in a cup? Personally, I like to think that I can make personal choices for myself. Seems a bit odd to me that cannabis is even an issue on this fucked up planet. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Patrick on March 29, 2002 at 07:14:48 PT
thanks.Another crackpot theory might be...That most of the killing that is going in the world today is significantly not the result of say anyone using cannabis medically, recreationally or for whatever reason. The violence in the world today stems from something in humanity itself. It is not about any one person's personal consumption needs or habits. Markets exist. Statistically, zero tolerance taken to its extreme is like extinguishing life itself for the sake of itself. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by dddd on March 29, 2002 at 07:07:45 PT
.."goofed"...I just read it and I didnt notice...I enjoyed all the paragraphs...if you're gonna "goof",,you're gonna have to make it a bit more obvious for me to recognize.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Patrick on March 29, 2002 at 07:01:02 PT
i goofed
up that first paragraph
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Patrick on March 29, 2002 at 06:54:34 PT
Pee pee for me! Pee pee for me!
With all the talk of executions, death penalties, terrorists, and martyrs in the other media today it is nice to discuss something as simple as piss. I find it so hilarious that the subject of urine is even discussed beyond the normal excuse me, "I have to take a leak" or "hey, don't eat the yellow snow." What with all the talk of executions, death penalties, terrorists, and martyrs in the other media today it is refreshing to know that the supreme court has more important matters to discuss. What the heck, piss is one of those words they forbid you to say on television right? So hey George, was it piss or tits that was so friendly sounding? Anyway, its nice to discuss something as simple and natural as pissing. I find it so hilarious that the subject of urine is even discussed today beyond the normal excuse me, "I have to take a leak, " or "hey, don't eat the yellow snow."The National Pee Program? TNPP! Perhaps we can pee for profit? Capitalism? Why not ol chap! First, before you can pee, you will need to wear the armband of the Potential Druggie. The color of the band will be decided by the Office of Homeland Security. Health Inspectors Theorize that without properly identified urinators in armbands they couldn't protect the public from someone who eats a candy bar or grease laden fries and later gets sick. They may decide that they can sue Hershey or whoever for failure of whatever lawyerly excuse they can pulled from their ass at the time. Anyway, the point is this folks…Your freshly analyzed, and forcibly removed Cup-Of-Piss won't serve as a receipt in your defense so you that can win your day in court!!! Oh no, students of life, it will be used against you in the court. It has no other purpose. Piss-On-ThisAdditionally, it won't be too hard in the current environment, to find any under qualified, underpaid, and overly worked certified shit test supervisors. The income tax makes anyone that has it deducted from their paycheck one. Me included. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by dddd on March 29, 2002 at 03:10:57 PT
....P.S..... simple fun,,,,untasteful and apologies to those who may have been offended..after all,,there is nothing funny about humor that doesn't make one laugh,and it's not easy to have fun when offensive language is used....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by dddd on March 29, 2002 at 02:58:06 PT pee tests clean 4Q.....
...I take a blend of Ginko Biloba,Eye of Newt,Dong Quai,Yellow Dock,DMSO, with Red Bull,three weeks prior to the test,and it works every time....however,,dont tell anyone,,but a shit test is much harder to get around!..A seasoned shit tester can tell from the smell if you've used drugs in the last year! cant hide from a shit test....but the good part is that there are less than a dozen certified shit testers in the US...Most of them are greedy proctologists who are trying to make an extra buck through the shit testing game...On top of all this,,,a supervised pee test is one thing,,,,the person who is peeing is humiliated,and the person who is supervising is hopefully embarassed,and reluctant....,but supervising a shit test would not be pretty!...the dreadful smell of shit would make it difficult to hire ,and train certified shit test supervisors.It is not something that even the most hard up person would do for minimum wage........d..d...d....d
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by qqqq on March 29, 2002 at 02:18:13 PT
...probable cause....
....OK.....let's see,,,,I wonder if there's enough probable cause to bust any of the Enron scoundrels?...I would like to see the financial version of a "pee test",,that we could give to anyone who "earns"a half a million or more in a year.....silly idea...corporations dont pee................,and if they did,,they would buy pee from Deepak Chopra,,or Robert Downey junior,,,or maybe get some cheaper,,"no guarantee" pee from Daryl Strawberry,or dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by boppy on March 28, 2002 at 06:57:57 PT
p4me is right!!
I would love to see that! A surprise urine test for all of Congress, House of Representitives and the Senate. I'd love to see the color drop from their faces upon an announcement like that.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by freddybigbee on March 28, 2002 at 06:41:15 PT:
Drug War Logic
I was working for a company whose bigge$t client was Exxon when the Exxon Valdez ran aground, its' captain apparently drunk, causing a huge oil spill off the coast of Alaska.As a result of this, apparently for PR reasons, Exxon subsequently required all its' contractors (including our company) to drug-test all employees working on its' projects.I refused to be drug tested, and needless to say I am no longer employed with the company. But the logic is beautiful, isn't it? A tanker with a drunken captain causes an oil spill, therefore test people for cannabis.I suspect the Feds cut a deal with Exxon, something like "OK, we'll let you get away with the oil spill as long as you help us with this drug-testing scam we're planning."Your tax dollars at work.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Tigress58 on March 27, 2002 at 16:32:19 PT
Dan B and p4me, I Agree
Everyone one that is in the State Legislatures, U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, Senate, and even our nearsighted imperfect President Bush (admitted Cocaine user) should pee for us exclusively on National T.V. It is our tax dollars that pay their overly high salaries. "WE THE PEOPLE" have the absolute right to expect our public servents to be and remain drug and alcohol free. They should be exacted to higher standards than we are. After all, they are an example of what the perfect citizen should be.However, for the type of perfection I see in our public servants - with all of the lies, dishonesty, and criminal coverups, I prefer to remain poor, die with an honest tongue, and live a life that I won't have to answer to at the judgment when Jesus ask "Why did you condemn my people ..., and the plant that I made to heal their afflictions. You evil, lying, sinful politician, I condemn you to eternal fire and damnation."Bush is loco and should be removed from office. The way he is running this country and has the U.S. involved in World events is going to get a lot of nations pissed off at us and we are going to be incinerated. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by p4me on March 27, 2002 at 15:46:21 PT
Hey Supreme Court
Would you p4me? Hey Congress and all public officials and all public employees.? Will you p4me?Test cost money and many people would like to be tested for free. Those people would prefer mammograms and cancer test and such. Maybe if you gave those kind of test for free, people would line up to give you pee. All the polls say that health care is the number one political issue. The MMJ issue cannot go away as long as health care is the big issue. Wait until the AARP comes out for medical marijuana. It will be all over then.VAAI
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Dan B on March 27, 2002 at 14:29:09 PT:
Deliberate Demoralization
Because the justices weren't focusing overly on precedent, let me pose a moral question: Would the justices support a policy labeled, "Smoke a joint in high school, work at McDonald's for the rest of your life?" In a word, yes. The federal government has already enacted, and the Bush administration has already strongly enforced, legislation that removes eligibility for college loans to anyone who has been convicted of a drug offense--even if that person has already fulfilled the sentence for that offense! In essence, this means that if you have ever used illegal drugs, you will now be barred from higher education, unless one's parents are filthy rich and can afford the already prohibitive and constantly escalating cost of higher education.No, these people (are they really people?) actually want your sons and daughters to pay for their "youthful indiscretions" (as Bush describes his own alleged cocaine use) for the rest of their lives. It is only natural that they want to kick your children (but not theirs) out of school for doing what 54% of the high school seniors in America have already admitted to doing. They need laborers, and the best way they know to get their laborers is to pin down the poor until they beg for jobs working at minimum wage (or worse). George Bush is a murderer, and so are all members of his cabinet, at least five of the Supreme Court "justices," the majority of Congresspersons and Senators. The best thing we can do is kick them all out of office. And the only way to get some of them out is to stage a coup de'etat (you know, like the one Bush staged in order to illegitimately claim the presidency in the first place). Please, read Michael Moore's Stupid White Men for an excellent review of this topic.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment