cannabisnews.com: Drug Tests Backed for Broader Pool of Students 





Drug Tests Backed for Broader Pool of Students 
Posted by CN Staff on June 27, 2002 at 21:34:23 PT
By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post 
The Supreme Court gave its approval yesterday to the random drug testing of public high school students in extracurricular activities, a ruling that increases the tools available to some 14,700 public school systems to fight illegal drug use.By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that local school officials' responsibility for the health and safety of their students can outweigh those students' concerns about privacy. Therefore, mandatory drug testing of students in activities such as band, Future Farmers of America and chess does not violate the constitutional prohibition on "unreasonable" searches, the court said.
The court had already authorized mandatory random drug testing for student-athletes in a 1995 case that noted the special safety risks and lower expectation of privacy inherent in sports, as well as the fact that athletes are role models for other students.But, writing for the majority yesterday, Justice Clarence Thomas made clear the court had a much broader rationale in mind -- the schools' quasi-parental role with regard to their young charges."A student's privacy interest is limited in a public school environment where the state is responsible for maintaining discipline, health and safety," Thomas wrote. "Schoolchildren are routinely required to submit to physical examinations and vaccinations against disease. Securing order in the school environment sometimes requires that students be subjected to greater controls than those appropriate for adults."Given that, under the Tecumseh, Okla., policy at issue yesterday, students can neither be prosecuted nor expelled from school, Thomas wrote, the privacy invasion is "not significant," whereas "the nationwide drug epidemic makes the war against drugs a pressing concern in every school."Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer.The decision could encourage more school districts to try policies similar to the one in rural Tecumseh, which school authorities instituted in 1998. Under that policy, students who refuse to take the test, or test positive more than twice, face banishment from extracurricular activities for the rest of the school year.Lindsey Earls, a former student at Tecumseh High School who is now an undergraduate at Dartmouth College, had challenged the policy in federal court, saying that her constitutional rights were violated when, as a condition of participating in a competitive singing group, teachers required her to urinate into a cup while they listened nearby to prevent cheating.A federal judge in Oklahoma sided with the school authorities, but the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed with Earls, who was aided in the case by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union.Testing students for drug use is popular among parents in many school districts, and, under legislation signed by President Bush last year, $472 million in federal funding is available to pay for it.A leading congressional proponent of school drug testing predicted that school districts will see the court's ruling as a "green light.""Until today, the ACLU has been able to hold out the threat of a lawsuit and scare school boards out of implementing drug testing," Rep. John E. Peterson (R-Pa.) said. "With this Supreme Court decision, and with funding now available to schools, . . . school boards across the country can begin to make our schools safer for every child.""We need to see positive results from increased testing and then move forward on it," he added.But others suggested the impact could be limited, noting that only a few school districts have taken advantage of the authority they already have to test athletes and that federal support can only partially offset the high cost of testing."The authority is now there to go beyond simply athletes and extend testing to all students in extracurriculars," said Edwin Darden, senior staff attorney for the National School Boards Association, which supported the Tecumseh school board. "The likelihood is that some will use it. But it's not going to be a huge shift."In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter, wrote that "the particular testing program upheld today is not reasonable, it is capricious, even perverse: It targets for testing a student population least likely to be at risk for illicit drugs and their damaging effects."Ginsburg had joined the court's 1995 decision allowing drug testing of athletes, but she wrote yesterday that she viewed the earlier case as premised on its special circumstances, such as the danger of playing sports under the influence of drugs and the pervasiveness of the drug problem in a specific school.In the Tecumseh school, by contrast, Ginsburg wrote, officials had reported to the federal government that their drug problem was "not . . . major" and the extracurricular activities were not especially risky, "notwithstanding nightmarish images of out-of-control flatware, livestock run amok, and colliding tubas."Indeed, she wrote, wholesome extracurricular activities help keep students off drugs, yet the testing policy could deter students from participating in them. That observation echoed a point made in a friend-of-the-court brief by the American Academy of Pediatrics.The case is Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, No. 01-332.Note: Court Approves Monitoring Participants in All Extracurricular Activities, Even Band and Chess. Source: Washington Post (DC)Author: Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff WriterPublished: Friday, June 28, 2002; Page A01 Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com Related Articles & Web Site:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Court Expands School Drug Tests http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13243.shtmlSupreme Court Okays Random Drug Testing http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13239.shtmlUS Pupils Face Random Drug Testing http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13030.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #16 posted by BGreen on June 28, 2002 at 15:18:22 PT
I Wonder?
To quote The GCW: "Bush is a bad ass."I wonder if they'll find either his head or his heart when they do the colonoscopy tomorrow?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by John Tyler on June 28, 2002 at 10:21:32 PT
What next?
Drug testing will not be enough! How about strip searches of the children by the DARE officers in the school gym, or cameras in the showers and locker rooms. We need this to protect the children and keep them as safe as possible. 
(I'm being sarcastic. These are not suggestions.) 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Patrick on June 28, 2002 at 07:03:30 PT
GCW you asked...
But what is a picture of Bush next to Christ?In my home a picture of bush is a dartboard! And don't you federal intelligence monitors go thinking that statement is a threat on the office of the P. GCW, I have actually walked the Via Della Rosa in my own sandals, bathed in the Sea of Galilee, stood on the Temple mount and traversed as much of the same paths that Jesus did. Those experiences enriched my life n soul. The years spent in Texas however gave me a strong distaste for bush and his CIA minions who thought screwing with my life was good intelligence training. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by The GCW on June 28, 2002 at 06:42:33 PT
Patrick
Patrick, quoted: “The system has no problem dishing out death”.  Remember currently the system is being steered by the countries most successful killer and His brother the 2nd most successful killer in America. It is the bad genealogy of the Bush family. From the halls of the CIA, to the rape of their benefit. (Bush = head of the CIA, has many implications)Killing is a clear bad seed, bad fruit, bad bad bad.Bush is a bad ass.GCWGCWAsk & You shall receive... pertaining to post #11...I think God is content with Us (the world) disregarding Him, if we do not forget Christ.We can drop the God, in the pledge...We can still also, clutch Christ, since He was physical and like Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln, etc. He is a historical fact and benefactor for humans everywhere.He spoke for all.GCW GCW GCW GCWSo get rid of the mention of God, pick up Christ, love Your neighbor, and hold ‘er steady.And through Christ, You will always have access to God.As We are told there are many rooms... I testify, there is at least 1 for Christ and His family of lovers.A picture of Washington next to Christ is in order.But what is a picture of Bush next to Christ?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Patrick on June 28, 2002 at 06:12:06 PT
You're right BGreen!
It's been along time since anyone has really defended the country. As a veteran, my time in the service was my small contribution to said defense of the country and hats off to any and all who have served or are serving now in the military. It really is a thankless job. Our system has become so corrupted and beyond repair that when a man makes a stand for individual liberty on his very own land he gets assassinated in the manner Tom did last year. They say change the system from within? Yeah right. The only way to change the current system is to fight. Give me liberty or give me death? The system has no problem dishing out death.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by The GCW on June 28, 2002 at 06:05:58 PT
Dan B
Good poem.Langston Hughes diserves a bigger come back than what is occuring.GCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWShow Me a man who wishes to be above the law,
I'll show You a man getting under Your skin.GCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCRedeem the plants.If We are all sinners,
Is the white man the worst of all?Is the unjustly persecuted in the Heart of Christ God Our Father (as it says in the manual)?Where does that put the unjustly persecuter?Is it a color thing?GCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWGCWIf You can block out all reference to God, You can more succesfully block out Christ.With out Christ, what can the persecuter do? (think spiraling, parralelling full circling eternal discomfort)Remember, God is a big wide open deal.Christ brought it to a simpler, specific, more narrow path.It focuses on simply love.In everything You do, adding Christ is adding love.Now, still it is the war monger and the love monger, at it again.Can't kill with Christ. Can You?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by BGreen on June 28, 2002 at 05:50:48 PT
How about this?
I think the idea of a pledge of allegiance to a flag, symbol, or country is wrong, whether or not "under God" is mentioned. Those plastic piece of crap flags people are flying and sticking all over their cars are tacky.I respect those who've fought for freedom, but lets face it, the majority of those brave men and women have been screwed over as payment for the job they did, so they basically did it for themselves. Once again, I don't mean any offense, but it's been an awful long time since we were really fighting to defend our country.These jerks in all three branches of gov't adamantly protect symbols and pledges, while locking up cannabis users, and piss testing and pissing away our rights.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Patrick on June 28, 2002 at 05:41:29 PT
Ding dong...
…the witch is dead. Oops, I meant ding dong democracy is dead. The new pledge of allegiance follows…We trampled few are forced to pledge allegiance to the supreme idiotic court of the United States of America and to the twisted rulings for which they spew forth, one police state under God oops I mean Bush, divisible by lawyers, without liberty or justice for anyone who cannot afford $10,000 political fund raising diners.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Dark Star on June 28, 2002 at 05:32:37 PT
One Right, One Wrong
The Supreme Court decision is perverse, and cannot be supported whatsoever on the basis of Constitutional precepts.I happen to be in the 1% of estimated Americans that agree with the 9th Circuit decision on "The Pledge." I have infinite respect for anyone's religion, but expect them to shut up about it in public school. There are countless available bully pulpits elsewhere. The Founding Fathers were extremely clear about this, and the dangers that would arise should it not be observed. Those who dissent, whether atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew or other, are marked for mob retribution with collaboration of the state.Things are simply and inexorably deteriorating in the US of A. Should this trend continue, Old Dark Star may be the first celestial object to seek Canadian citizenship. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Lehder on June 28, 2002 at 05:13:32 PT
fab five strike again
**"Schoolchildren
   are routinely required to submit to physical examinations and vaccinations against
   disease. Securing order in the school environment sometimes requires that students be
   subjected to greater controls than those appropriate for adults."**In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra
   Day O'Connor and David H. Souter, wrote that "the particular testing program upheld
   today is not reasonable, it is capricious, even perverse: It targets for testing a student
   population least likely to be at risk for illicit drugs and their damaging effects."**Indeed, she wrote, wholesome extracurricular activities help keep students off drugs, yet
   the testing policy could deter students from participating in them.**"Schoolchildren
   are routinely required to submit to physical examinations and vaccinations against
   disease. Securing order in the school environment sometimes requires that students be
   subjected to greater controls than those appropriate for adults."** Ginsburg wrote, officials had reported to the
   federal government that their drug problem was "not . . . major" and the extracurricular
   activities were not especially risky, "notwithstanding nightmarish images of out-of-control
   flatware, livestock run amok, and colliding tubas."I collected the quotes of SC Justices that appear in this article. At least Ginsburg has a bit of humor and imagination, but none of the quoted remarks makes reference to the Constitution or arises from legal scholarship. All are remarks could have been made by the school's teachers, the students' parents or even the town's clergy. All of the justices' quoted opinions are Constitutionally vacuous and are merely unsophisticated sermonettes on morality or child rearing; they do not even rise to the level of discussion that I would expect to hear on a school bus among the children themselves. It's no surprise who provided advice to the Court, even if it was disregaded by the majority:That observation
   echoed a point made in a friend-of-the-court brief by the American Academy of
   Pediatrics.Baby Doctors! I think that "Nurse" or "Parson" would be more appropriate titles for these "Justices."Finally,"A student's privacy interest is limited in a public school environment where the state is
   responsible for maintaining discipline, health and safety," Thomas wrote. I'd like to know where the present state does NOT presume responsibility for people's private behavior. Where? Not in your home, not in a cave in the woods, not in your car locked in the garage, not in your very thoughts. And certainly not in Colombia, Canada or anywhere else in the world. You could live in a thick-walled titanium drum, deep beneath the ice cap on the ocean's cold floor and there would come a pounding, not a tapping, but a hammering and a battering, and who would be there? Why, The United States with its moralizing BS, an armed platoon and a piss test.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on June 28, 2002 at 04:49:25 PT
1 more thing
This ruling came out a day aftyer the RIDICULOUS uproar about the 9th Circut Court ruling the "under God" was unconstitutional in the "pledge of allegience".I feel this was totally staged as one more bit of Circus-mayhem that Team Bush relies on so heavily.">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56471,00.html"> FOXNEWSPresident Bush dismissed a court ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance as "out of step" with AmericaLawmakers filled both houses Thursday morning to recite the oath, right hands over hearts, some shouting as they reached the phrase "one nation under God." Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department also was requesting a rehearing by the full 9th Circuit as part of its effort to "defend the ability of our nation's children to pledge allegiance to the American flag." This is outrageous. These people have real work to do but al they are concerned about is emotionally manipulating everybody.Sort of a hysterical whiney, nettlesome, irritable, wussy-boy Police state or something.I wish I could be so useless and ridiculous and get paid the big bucks - but even then I would have to distance myself from the cultural trash that has taken over my country.trembling with disgust....xxdr_zombiexx
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on June 28, 2002 at 04:32:58 PT
<b> Minority Report?</b>
Everybody gets testedIn dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter, wrote that "the particular testing program upheld today is not reasonable, it is capricious, even perverse: It targets for testing a student population least likely to be at risk for illicit drugs and their damaging effects."Notice the Republicans step forward to say:
"Until today, the ACLU has been able to hold out the threat of a lawsuit and scare school boards out of implementing drug testing," Rep. John E. Peterson (R-Pa.) said. "With this Supreme Court decision, and with funding now available to schools, . . . school boards across the country can begin to make our schools safer for every child."1 more brick in the wall around our Civil Liberties. 1 more generation of "Americans" that will grow up unaware they have all sorts of rights. Schools wont be ANY safer, only a complete MORON would think such a thing.idiots idiots idiots idiots idiots idiots idiots idiots "People who surrender their Liberties for an illusion of Security deserve neither" - Ben "Freakin" Franklin
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Lehder on June 28, 2002 at 02:40:00 PT
Child Justice
>>Thomas wrote, the privacy invasion is "not
   significant," whereas "the nationwide drug epidemic makes the war against drugs a
   pressing concern in every school."Aren't sc judges supposed to have a little sophistication? This one sounds like a high schooler himself. Maybe he's there to represent the children, concerned children.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Industrial Strength on June 28, 2002 at 00:27:27 PT
tobacco
I saw on tv that some places in the states are starting to treat minors with cigarettes the way they do people with pot. Kind of unrelated to what you said, p4me, but I think it's intresting.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by p4me on June 28, 2002 at 00:19:09 PT
Oh,come on
How can they even pretend to call it a drug test when they do not test for tobacco use? It is a sad state of affairs when the media does not mention tobacco use is not being tested when 28.5% of all high school students use this nasty and deadly product and it is illegal because they are underage.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on June 27, 2002 at 23:49:52 PT:
Langston Hughes
Here's a link to a great poem by Langston Hughes, "Let America Be America Again":http://www.poets.org/poems/poems.cfm?prmID=1473Read it through entirely. I has some important things to say. It was written for those who have been disenfranchised by the American machine, and I think many public school students will now, thanks to this idiotic ruling, be able to identify more readily with its message.Dan B
"Let America Be America Again"
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment