random drug tests OK'ed by supreme court

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: LH

i dont know anybody that gets randomly drug tested by a company after they pass the initial drug screening. and yes i am in the real world and when i decide to stop smoking, i will still not submit to any random drug testing let alone random drug testing where someone watches you let alone work for a company that randomly tests

Hah, good luck getting a job if you arent willing to submit drug test, as well 95%+ of companies small, medium, large, and global, all do drug tests. Alot of them do random drug testing after the initial test as well.

you must not have read all the threads, I have a good job and I had to take a drug test which I cheated on. My boss loves me and i am good at what i do.

And you wonder why I'm skeptical trusting your word when you clearly admitted that you cheated ?

dont believe me, either way 95% of companies drug test however i'd say only 5% submit there employees to random testing after they are employed so for me Its still jsut a minor bump in the road or in my case a vile of piss taped to my thigh and in the worst case scenerio i can quit smoking for a month pass the test and light up a phatty to celebrate. Drug testing is pointless and will not be a reason for me to stop smoking since i have no intention of going to the military I pretty much dont need your luck for getting a job.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Doesn't this mean we're just going to see a huge drop in students taking extracurricular activities in public school? Way to go Supreme Court.

I seriously doubt it. As the parent of school age children I would support and pay for random drug testing of all students. Random drug testing is not accusatory nor does it infringe on anyones privacy. The key word is random. Personally I would like to see them extend this to the faculty. JMO

Dave

I know that you could give a rat's ass, but all respect I ever had for you (and ever will have for you), Dave, just went out the window. How is this different from random home searches? How would this be different to random car searches? How does this NOT violate the 4th amendment? Wait... you're probably for random searches of all those things (drugs are the great anti-society, I know, without them we would live in a perfect society without crime

:disgust: ) and hate the 4th amendment.
I know, I know, anyone who is against the War on Drugs must be a druggie

:disgust: :disgust:
Well, guess what? I'm not. I never do drugs, ever. I hate f'ing hate un-American idiots like yourself who would sacrifice every freedom in our once great country to fight your pathetic "war" on ourselves.
When we all live in a police state with no freedoms whatsoever, we will still have crime and we will still have drugs.
The key word here is fascism.

So I'm an un-American fascist huh? I've done more to support this country today than you've done your entire fsking life. So STFU about that. As far as the drug testing goes your right, I could give a rat's ass about your opinion or that of any other drug using child on this board. I am concerned about what I think is best for my minor children. No one is talking about coming into your home or car. Are metal detectors at schools invading your privacy? No. Are uniforms infringing on your free speech? No. The adults in this country will decide how to best raise our children. The other children will not have any say so, no matter how smart you might think you are.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Doesn't this mean we're just going to see a huge drop in students taking extracurricular activities in public school? Way to go Supreme Court.

I seriously doubt it. As the parent of school age children I would support and pay for random drug testing of all students. Random drug testing is not accusatory nor does it infringe on anyones privacy. The key word is random. Personally I would like to see them extend this to the faculty. JMO

Dave

I know that you could give a rat's ass, but all respect I ever had for you (and ever will have for you), Dave, just went out the window. How is this different from random home searches? How would this be different to random car searches? How does this NOT violate the 4th amendment? Wait... you're probably for random searches of all those things (drugs are the great anti-society, I know, without them we would live in a perfect society without crime

:disgust: ) and hate the 4th amendment.
I know, I know, anyone who is against the War on Drugs must be a druggie

:disgust: :disgust:
Well, guess what? I'm not. I never do drugs, ever. I hate f'ing hate un-American idiots like yourself who would sacrifice every freedom in our once great country to fight your pathetic "war" on ourselves.
When we all live in a police state with no freedoms whatsoever, we will still have crime and we will still have drugs.
The key word here is fascism.

So I'm an un-American fascist huh? I've done more to support this country today than you've done your entire fsking life. So STFU about that. As far as the drug testing goes your right, I could give a rat's ass about your opinion or that of any other drug using child on this board. I am concerned about what I think is best for my minor children. No one is talking about coming into your home or car. Are metal detectors at schools invading your privacy? No. Are uniforms infringing on your free speech? No. The adults in this country will decide how to best raise our children. The other children will not have any say so, no matter how smart you might think you are.

You know nothing about my life, so don't speculate or make broad statements. You can say whatever you want about yours, but you know what they say about what you read on the internet...
Random drug testing will do absolutely nothing to protect our children from drugs. Those who use drugs are losers anyway who are unlikely to even go to school and graduate, much less actually participate in extra-curricular activies. What random drug testing will teach our children is that random searches of an individual's person without probable cause is an acceptable norm, and that will lead eventually to random seaches of all persons, cars, and homes. Count on it (hell, you probably want it if you thought it could win your War on Drugs).
I am not against metal detectors or school uniforms (as long as they're required on school property ONLY), I have never said otherwise, but I think schools should use their money actually teaching children instead of just being babysitters.
One thing I just love about your ilk: you always justify your fascist agenda by saying that anyone who is against your policies must be guilty. Be aware: this is the beginning of your un-Americanism, you insist that others must prove their innocence or you will assume them guilty first. Your hypocracy only just begins there.
But I am what you fear and deny exists. I am no "drug using child." I am a 30 year-old college-educated professional with a high-paying job, who pays taxes, who never, ever uses drugs, conservative, who thinks that the War on Drugs is a front for an un-American pseudo-moralistic fascist agenda as scary as the "liberal authoritarians."
Hey, why don't you just throw back a couple of beers and rant against the potheads, ok?

That's the freakin' problem with this country.... we're beseiged by two opposing groups, one of which wants to tax our freedoms away and the other wants a police state, two sides of the same coin and they're both winning... :|

 

[JellyBaby]

The adults in this country will decide how to best raise our children.

I would correct that to say parents in this country will decide how to best raise their kids. Not Rosie O'Donald, not Uncle Sam, not Pat Roberson but parents.

And when parents realize the cost burden associated with drug testing, counseling and adminstration in their school takes away from what that school really ought to be doing (educating), they'll bitchslap it so hard any remaining traces of a fascist agenda will be vaporized.

FIXED ITALIC HELL

 

[HellRaiserandBeerDrinker]

Golly gee Mr. a$$croft and the supreme idiots just give me a warm fuzzy feeling
ALL OVER!!

I just can't wait till bush league stuffs it with a couple more right wing nuts

It'll be the 50's all over again.

How nostalgic sigh..........











:Q

 

[Aceman]

And when parents realize the cost burden associated with drug testing, counseling and adminstration in their school takes away from what that school really ought to be doing (educating), they'll bitchslap it so hard any remaining traces of a fascist agenda will be vaporized.

Naw, I'd say more parents are more upset with the costs of the "administrations" in the school than they would be over the costs of drug tests. I've argued with the schools up here lately over the waste of money on administrative positions. They have a Diector of Time Out at the neighborhood school. WTF? Drug tests will probably be nicely concealed in those administrative fees parents pay for their kids to play football or play in the band.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

The adults in this country will decide how to best raise our children.

I would correct that to say parents in this country will decide how to best raise their kids. Not Rosie O'Donald, not Uncle Sam, not Pat Roberson but parents.

And when parents realize the cost burden associated with drug testing, counseling and adminstration in their school takes away from what that school really ought to be doing (educating), they'll bitchslap it so hard any remaining traces of a fascist agenda will be vaporized.

Unfortunately, don't count it. Schools are always a "go-to" source of funding for governments, to the point that general fund monies earmarked for schools are often raided to pay for other, less-popular programs, so that government officials can rally the cause to raise taxes "for the schools." Police and parks are other popular programs where this phenomenom happens. Time and again, government officials (with free media advertising) pull this wool over the taxpayers' eyes.

As for Dave's statement of "The adults in this country will decide how to best raise our children," you are correct, he should have meant the parents in this country will decide how to best raise their own children, not other peoples' children. Unfortunately, as clarified by the second part of his statement "The other children will not have any say so," he definitely meant the other peoples' children. This is something that was referred to by our Founding Fathers as "the Tyranny of the Majority," and was a great fear to them.

 

[JellyBaby]

They have a Diector of Time Out at the neighborhood school. WTF? Drug tests will probably be nicely concealed in those administrative fees parents pay for their kids to play football or play in the band.

Enter the teacher's unions. The NEA fights to create costly administrative positions and sell that BS as success. But I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir.

Extra curriculator activity fees are already being increased as state education budgets are crunched. And btw I have no problem at all with crunching because I realize only a portion of taxpayer money goes to where it ought to go -- teaching kids. And it's not like our children are earning excellent academic credentials anyway. Scores still tanked even after the feddies created a full cabinet level Department of Education 2-3 decades ago.

Unfortunately, don't count it.

PSYWVic, Yeah I know and it's a shame. The only way out of the pickle we're in is to realize government schooling, if we want to keep it in the realm of government at all, must stay at the state/local levels. No more feddies dipping into the register, taking a few percent off the top, and sending what's left back to the states with strings attached.

 

[F117NightHawk]

Since it is now law by the "Supreme" Court's dictum and cannot be challenged in court, I say we libertarians and young ppl must take our challenge into real life. Whenever the educrats call you for a random drug test, refuse to go. If they try to force you, beat them black and blue. Drop out of school and unschool yourself. You learn nothing of value in high school anyway.

 

[HellRaiserandBeerDrinker]

How about giving them the sample without the beaker?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Doesn't this mean we're just going to see a huge drop in students taking extracurricular activities in public school? Way to go Supreme Court.

I seriously doubt it. As the parent of school age children I would support and pay for random drug testing of all students. Random drug testing is not accusatory nor does it infringe on anyones privacy. The key word is random. Personally I would like to see them extend this to the faculty. JMO

Dave

I know that you could give a rat's ass, but all respect I ever had for you (and ever will have for you), Dave, just went out the window. How is this different from random home searches? How would this be different to random car searches? How does this NOT violate the 4th amendment? Wait... you're probably for random searches of all those things (drugs are the great anti-society, I know, without them we would live in a perfect society without crime

:disgust: ) and hate the 4th amendment.
I know, I know, anyone who is against the War on Drugs must be a druggie

:disgust: :disgust:
Well, guess what? I'm not. I never do drugs, ever. I hate f'ing hate un-American idiots like yourself who would sacrifice every freedom in our once great country to fight your pathetic "war" on ourselves.
When we all live in a police state with no freedoms whatsoever, we will still have crime and we will still have drugs.
The key word here is fascism.

So I'm an un-American fascist huh? I've done more to support this country today than you've done your entire fsking life. So STFU about that. As far as the drug testing goes your right, I could give a rat's ass about your opinion or that of any other drug using child on this board. I am concerned about what I think is best for my minor children. No one is talking about coming into your home or car. Are metal detectors at schools invading your privacy? No. Are uniforms infringing on your free speech? No. The adults in this country will decide how to best raise our children. The other children will not have any say so, no matter how smart you might think you are.

You know nothing about my life, so don't speculate or make broad statements. You can say whatever you want about yours, but you know what they say about what you read on the internet...

**--Why shouldn't I. You've done the same to me. Don't be a hypocrite

Random drug testing will do absolutely nothing to protect our children from drugs. Those who use drugs are losers anyway who are unlikely to even go to school and graduate, much less actually participate in extra-curricular activies. What random drug testing will teach our children is that random searches of an individual's person without probable cause is an acceptable norm, and that will lead eventually to random seaches of all persons, cars, and homes. Count on it (hell, you probably want it if you thought it could win your War on Drugs).

**--Again you have no clue what you are talking about. Who said anything about the war on drugs? What random drug testing will teach our children is that illegal drug use will not be tolerated and if you do so you will be caught. Again no one is advocating a search of homes or cars.

I am not against metal detectors or school uniforms (as long as they're required on school property ONLY), I have never said otherwise, but I think schools should use their money actually teaching children instead of just being babysitters.

**--What do you mean your not against them? Won't that lead to everyone having to wear a uniform and every building having a metal detector? Make up your mind. We are forcing our children to do this. Won't they be confused and always want to wear a uniform?

One thing I just love about your ilk: you always justify your fascist agenda by saying that anyone who is against your policies must be guilty. Be aware: this is the beginning of your un-Americanism, you insist that others must prove their innocence or you will assume them guilty first. Your hypocracy only just begins there.

**-- What ilk is that? Are you presuming to know something about me you pet molesting hypocrite. Read the first sentence of your own post ,moron.

But I am what you fear and deny exists. I am no "drug using child." I am a 30 year-old college-educated professional with a high-paying job, who pays taxes, who never, ever uses drugs, conservative, who thinks that the War on Drugs is a front for an un-American pseudo-moralistic fascist agenda as scary as the "liberal authoritarians."

**-- Yeah well I'm a 37 year old college educated professional with a high paying job, who pays taxes, who has never used drugs, conservative, married with two kids. Whip de fuckin' do. Who cares. The war on drugs is a failure. It's time to try something else. This may be it. Prevention with education at an earlier age may be the answer. Drug testing is a deterrent to drug use. Even you should be smart enough to realize that.


Hey, why don't you just throw back a couple of beers and rant against the potheads, ok?

**-- Why. I got nothin against potheads unless they happen to be on active duty. Then they need to go away.

That's the freakin' problem with this country.... we're beseiged by two opposing groups, one of which wants to tax our freedoms away and the other wants a police state, two sides of the same coin and they're both winning... :|

**--No, the problem with this country is that there is 250 million people just like you who do nothing but run their cake hole.

 

[F117NightHawk]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer



No, the problem with this country is that there is 250 million people just like you who do nothing but run their cake hole.

Actually the problem is too many people like you who think everyone has to be just like them are running this country. Haven't you ever heard of individuality and freedom? Those 2 things are more important to me than safety, prosperity and yes even morality. In the end we can't have safety, prosperity and morality w/o individuality and freedom. If we live in a nation where the govt is our nanny, people are not motivated to do good things or to think for themselves. We become a nation of brainless sheep going where ever our govt shepherd wishes us to, including over a cliff.

 

[C'DaleRider]

War on drugs....I have heard that phrase for almost 30 years and still it continues unabated. No change in drug usage by the population overall..........just more "War on Drugs."

Let's face it, the "War on Drugs" is now institutionalized in our society. It's become an industry, not a war. There is no real want or need to win this war, just chip at the periphery of it for show and let it continue on. The forfeiture laws alone are one reason this will never be won. Also, police depts. love the war on drugs..........gives them a major excuse for equipment, personnel, etc., expenditures.

You'd think after the hundreds of billions of dollars we have invested in this war would have produced some solutions to this, but nothing changes.

 

[BatmanNate]

rgwalt-- You seem to have a well thought out stance on this subject, I find that respectable.

The fact that this law was passed by the Supreme Court strikes me uncomfortably; not because I am/was/would be a drug user, but because of the can of worms it opens. To erode individual liberties under the guise of protecting society from the 'evils of substance abuse' is irrational.

If we give them an inch down this path, they'll take a mile. Like was mentioned before, where will it stop? There are so many laws protecting us from ourselves, why not start implementing health concerned legislature concerning obesity? That condition is definately more detrimental to one's health than smoking marijuana. Obviously these are our individual choices, which do not affect the liberties of anyone else, therefore do not need government regulation.

On drugs: like many other aspects of life, even legal ones (tobacco, alcohol, food, medincation, lifestyle choice, etc.) these things themselves are not the problem. People are the problem. Moderation is key here, and if you cannot exercise this in areas such as these, then it would be wiser for you to abstain, however this is YOUR choice and should be yours alone, not Uncle Sam's. Obviously some drugs are blatently harmful, but our funded war on them no doubt brings about more harm than the drugs themselves. (ie crime, taxes, laws like this)


In the work place, particularly that involving large machinery, transportation, or armed services, testing is likely to be a good idea for the company, as many forms of drug use would negatively impact employee performance. But again, this is the company's choice, and is at their discretion. NOT the government's business unless it is their employees. My company drugs tests, and I support it. After all, it was MY choice to work here.

 

[BatmanNate]

Was it Thomas Jeffereson that said those who sacrifice their individual liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety?

 

[F117NightHawk]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
My company drugs tests, and I support it. After all, it was MY choice to work here.

As does mine. I'm against public schools drug testing kids for 2 reasons: 1. Public schools are funded and run by the govt and therefore must obey the Constitution, as any govt agency is supposed to. 2. Kids don't go to school by choice, but by govt fiat. Why make school any worse an experience than it already is by adding drug testing to the ever expanding list of restrictions on their liberty?

 

[HellRaiserandBeerDrinker]

Kudos

F117NightHawk

 

[F117NightHawk]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Was it Thomas Jeffereson that said those who sacrifice their individual liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety?

It was Ben Franklin.

 

[UltraQuiet]

As for Dave's statement of "The adults in this country will decide how to best raise our children," you are correct, he should have meant the parents in this country will decide how to best raise their own children, not other peoples' children. Unfortunately, as clarified by the second part of his statement "The other children will not have any say so," he definitely meant the other peoples' children. This is something that was referred to by our Founding Fathers as "the Tyranny of the Majority," and was a great fear to them.

Actually, your corrections, not surprisingly, are wrong. The adults here could in fact decide by voting in or out a tax levy designed to fund this program. As for your comments about parents raising their own children, well using the same majority method that got the "no homework, no activities, no meetings, it's church night (wed)" enacted here in Shelby County, I think it is more than possible to influence how other peoples children are educated/raised. BTW, just for the record, I was/am very much opposed to the Wednesday rule.

 

[F117NightHawk]

Originally posted by: HellRaiserandBeerDrinker
Kudos

F117NightHawk

Thx for vote of confidence!

 

[Zebo]

Dave

The forth Amendent states:
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.

Notice the language about secure in thier persons unless probable cause exists. Random drug testing fails the probable cause test and the other test oath or affirmation since by it's nature it's random and standard protocol w/o any proof. I really can't see how you can support this decision if you believe in this amendment. It seems very clear language to me at least unlike the 2nd which some find more open to interpretation. Of course since drugs are illegal I do support drug testing but only if it meets the fourth amendment standard of probable cause and supported by Oath or affirmation. Sure this war on drugs is'nt working 100% but it's not worth it IMO to kill the consitution in order to win it. I don't have a clue if it can be won but drug use was much less when they were totally legal pre 1930's. It ws social stigma the did it, where everone called you a looser if you used. Today though it's different. Our subculture, hiphop bands etc, and kids think it's cool because it's illegal and thier parents tell them how bad it is.

If we bend on this language to achive a political goal in one area expect the same again. Next time though it will be something you cherish. For example my friends on the left love to dismantle gun ownership which is proteted by the 2nd. And the right has destroyed the fourth yet again with automatic property siezure without judical oversight in IRS matters. What's next? No bail for the accused?No trail by jury? Double jeapordy/....oh that happend in the Rodney King case already...See what I mean. Your rights need to be protected and so does gigapits. Lets catch him consitutionally then bag his ass.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

WRONG military drug tests are completely different than the tests they will use for the students. Military tests are very thorough and on the same token are very expensive.

Where does it say that it will use a different test? My understanding is, after touring the drug lab in Jacksonville,FL last year, is that it is a "standard" drug lab. Nothing special about it. The only thing the Navy drug lab doesn't test for is steroids. Those get sent to the Olympic drug lab in CA. Yes, some drugs do not stay in your system very long. There are no illegal drugs that cannot be tested by urinalysis, including LSD and X. Random drug testing obviously works as a deterrent because the Navy's positive urinalysis results have dropped from ~33% in 1982 to 0.67% this year. I say lets give it a try. Nothing else in this war on drugs is working. JMO

Dave

That's because the war is fatally flawed.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Aceman

They are going through puberty and are very self conscious about there bodies as it is do they need some body staring at them while they do ther business feeling like a criminal no they do not and I certainly would never make my children do anything of the sort unless like i said before they were abusing drugs.

LOL, they'll only feel criminal if the ARE criminal. No different than a boy's lockerrooom.

i'm glad you know how and why every teenager being subjected to this ridiculous will feel, so if you got randomly strip searched at an airport you wouldnt feel like you were being treated like a criminal?

you cant argue that it is not humiliating and degrading perhaps for you it isnt but i'd be willing to say the majority of the teenagers having to do this would be humiliated

*edit

Also public schools at least in my state no longer require you to take communal showers so it is indeed very different than a boys locker room. no one ever got more naked than boxers and a tshirt in highscool

Yeah, didn't that end in the 60's? I never had to take communal showers in high-school either, thank god.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: LH

i dont know anybody that gets randomly drug tested by a company after they pass the initial drug screening. and yes i am in the real world and when i decide to stop smoking, i will still not submit to any random drug testing let alone random drug testing where someone watches you let alone work for a company that randomly tests

Hah, good luck getting a job if you arent willing to submit drug test, as well 95%+ of companies small, medium, large, and global, all do drug tests. Alot of them do random drug testing after the initial test as well.

maybe in the states (the land of the "free" - lmao).
I have worked for many different companies for summer jobs and have never, ever been drug tested.

 

[BatmanNate]

F117NightHawk-- I was agreeing with you. I view this as a restriction of individual liberty opening the door to further allowing this country to become what we all stood against, at least in Ben Franklin's day. (thanks for the clarification)