NationStates Jolt Archive

What a load of crap. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16891713/)
In New Jersey, high school students are forced to take alcohol tests to see if they've been drinking over the weekend. If the tests are positive, then the student's parents are notified.

It's still a load of crap. If my high school started that BS, I'd feel like I have no rights at all. Do kids even have rights? I don't think so. It's not the school's business whether a kid has been drinking. Schools are meant to educate, not interefere, and this holds true for alcohol.

This isn't teaching kids not to drink, it's teaching kids that they have no rights at all.

Why is it the schools business if the students are drinking over the weekend? They're not the child police or something equally ridiculous.

Why is it the schools business if the students are drinking over the weekend? They're not the child police or something equally ridiculous.

I am so putting this in "Think of the Children". It's far too dystopian not to mention it.

New JErsey can go to hell. :mad:

Instead, they will receive counseling
Um, what the hell?

I can't wait to see the staff's expressions when 80% of parents get a confused look on their face and say 'Yes, sometimes I buy them alcohol... what's your point?' At least that's how it usually goes here, it seems.

just more poof to me your going down hill fast to be ending up being told just what to do and not thinking for yourself

I don't see why it concerns the school if teens drink on the weekends. They should be thinking about Education, not the behavior its pupils outside of what actually constitutes its purpose.

Um, what the hell?

I can't wait to see the staff's expressions when 80% of parents get a confused look on their face and say 'Yes, sometimes I buy them alcohol... what's your point?' At least that's how it usually goes here, it seems.

Everyone in my school (all 1200 students) has tried alchol.

I'm one of the few that hasn't been drunk.

I'm sensing that if this crap comes to my school, then 80% of the school's parents will be notified...

..every Monday.

I don't see why it concerns the school if teens drink on the weekends. They should be thinking about Education, not the behavior its pupils outside of what actually constitutes its purpose.

I know. Next thing you know, American schools will search for people's Myspaces and notify their parents too.

Apparently it's perfectly okay for schools to stick their noses into people's business... it's as if we have no rights at all.

you should throw a fit Pancake, don't let them test you, tell them you have a constitutional right that prohibits you from being unreasonably searched. When they call the police, ask for a warrant, if they have none tell them that they know they don't have probable cause and they can't search you either.

You will probably still have to submit to the test, and you will probably get suspended/arrested, but when you do get your attorney to call the press for you.

;)

Everyone in my school (all 1200 students) has tried alchol.

I'm one of the few that hasn't been drunk.

I'm sensing that if this crap comes to my school, then 80% of the school's parents will be notified...

..every Monday.
What's really frightening is that if that happened, the school would probably be all the more motivated to continue the program to save the poor alcoholic irresponsible teenagers. Even the principal of my school says it's fine to let us drink as long as we don't get drunk.

you should throw a fit Pancake, don't let them test you, tell them you have a constitutional right that prohibits you from being unreasonably searched. When they call the police, ask for a warrant, if they have none tell them that they know they don't have probable cause and they can't search you either.

You will probably still have to submit to the test, and you will probably get suspended/arrested, but when you do get your attorney to call the press for you.

;)

The good news is, this is going on in New Jersey and hasn't hit North Carolina yet. Once it does, I am so takign your advice. :)

Tell them that submitting to such testing violates the core tenets of your religion.

The good news is, this is going on in New Jersey and hasn't hit North Carolina yet. Once it does, I am so takign your advice. :)

I did it when my school started searching everyone's book bag. Up until then I didn't have a problem with the searches because the teachers always needed "reasonable suspicion" or they asked the on campus cop (who needed probable cause) to search them. The fact that they would dump my belongings on a table and pilfer through them every morning for no other reason but "you came to school" pissed me off.

I did get suspended and arrested though, I want you to know that they will not screw around with that, but in the end nothing really happened to me, other than the suspension.

How is this anything new? The SCOTUS ruled in 1992 that the schools had the right to check children for drug usage if they were in extracurricular activities. Assuming that that is the statute that NJ is operating off of, it is fully constitutional.

I still think it's unlawful search and seisure, but the constitutional argument isn't gonna get you out of it.

I'm not too worried about this myself, as I don't drink or do drugs. I've never been asked to take a test (and if I was, I would refuse), but if I did, all that would happen is the school would look stupid, and I would get to be indignant about it.

The good news is, this is going on in New Jersey and hasn't hit North Carolina yet. Once it does, I am so takign your advice. :)

Research the law surrounding it first. Otherwise you end up just looking like an idiot. If you find anything, let us know.

I don't actually think it's unconstitutional, otherwise said laws allowing this to happen would have been challenged in the supreme court a long ago.

In New Jersey, high school students are forced to take alcohol tests to see if they've been drinking over the weekend. If the tests are positive, then the student's parents are notified.Meh, just tell them beforehand you've been drinking. Even if you haven't.
In either case they won't need to test you. And of course, if every student was that recalcitrant the whole testing scheme goes to hell.

How is this anything new? The SCOTUS ruled in 1992 that the schools had the right to check children for drug usage if they were in extracurricular activities. Assuming that that is the statute that NJ is operating off of, it is fully constitutional.

I still think it's unlawful search and seisure, but the constitutional argument isn't gonna get you out of it.

I'm not too worried about this myself, as I don't drink or do drugs. I've never been asked to take a test (and if I was, I would refuse), but if I did, all that would happen is the school would look stupid, and I would get to be indignant about it.

I don't have much of a problem with sports-related drug testing, but the testing isn't for sports. It's random, which is why it breaks a bunch of privacy laws.

Then again, kids don't have any rights whatsoever in the US, so meh...

Then again, kids don't have any rights whatsoever in the US, so meh...

You keep saying that, but have you actually looked into the law about that one? I'm sure the laws and constitution that make up your great nation tend to cover both adults and children equally as good.

I don't have much of a problem with sports-related drug testing, but the testing isn't for sports. It's random, which is why it breaks a bunch of privacy laws.

Then again, kids don't have any rights whatsoever in the US, so meh...

I'd double check before you assumed that it was totally random, because afaik, "random" means random amongst people taking part in extracurricular activities, but I could be wrong. Obviously, if they are random, they are completely unconstitutional.

Children do have right in the U.S., and amongst them are the right to avoid unreasonable search and seisure, the right to political speech on school grounds, assuming that they do not interfere, and the right to a fair and speedy trial. To claim that they have no rights is unfair. We have less rights, but not so many less and you might think.

You keep saying that, but have you actually looked into the law about that one? I'm sure the laws and constitution that make up your great nation tend to cover both adults and children equally as good.

Actually, no.

Kids actually don't have many rights at all, except not to get beaten by adults, and to get an education.

The right to privacy is exclusive to adults.

I'd double check before you assumed that it was totally random, because afaik, "random" means random amongst people taking part in extracurricular activities, but I could be wrong. Obviously, if they are random, they are completely unconstitutional.

Children do have right in the U.S., and amongst them are the right to avoid unreasonable search and seisure, the right to political speech on school grounds, assuming that they do not interfere, and the right to a fair and speedy trial. To claim that they have no rights is unfair. We have less rights, but not so many less and you might think.
No, it's random among everyone, not just people in sports.

However, schools apparently think that kids don't deserve the right to privacy...

I have mystic powers which allow me to see across the gulf of time and space: In the not so distant future, american schools will check all female students for their hymen, once a week.

http://static.flickr.com/2/1837011_377dbb8bce_m.jpg
pic: your local hymen inspector

You keep saying that, but have you actually looked into the law about that one? I'm sure the laws and constitution that make up your great nation tend to cover both adults and children equally as good.I have the feeling theory and practice might not be completely in balance in these issues. At the very least they can try to cheat you out of your rights by BSing till you give in; threatening e.g. suspension and what not, even if they don't actually have a right to do that.

Actually, no.

Kids actually don't have many rights at all, except not to get beaten by adults, and to get an education.

The right to privacy is exclusive to adults.

Care to quote the Constitution on that one? Because having looked over a much simpler version, I must have missed the Amendment where it specifically says 'Oh, and these rights only apply to people over the age of 18/21'. :rolleyes:

Anyhow, if you do happen to be protected against these random searches somewhere, I would argue it worthwhile to stand your ground.

How is this anything new? The SCOTUS ruled in 1992 that the schools had the right to check children for drug usage if they were in extracurricular activities. Assuming that that is the statute that NJ is operating off of, it is fully constitutional.

I still think it's unlawful search and seisure, but the constitutional argument isn't gonna get you out of it.

I'm not too worried about this myself, as I don't drink or do drugs. I've never been asked to take a test (and if I was, I would refuse), but if I did, all that would happen is the school would look stupid, and I would get to be indignant about it.

The article doesn't say they're randomly testing students involved in extracirricular activities, it just says they'er randomly testing students. That implies all of them.

I have the feeling theory and practice might not be completely in balance in these issues. At the very least they can try to cheat you out of your rights by BSing till you give in; threatening e.g. suspension and what not, even if they don't actually have a right to do that.

I can conceed that point.

This is a really stupid law. I believe it is designed to scare kids from drinking before they ever want to try it. Especially the younger ones who's parents they will call if anything is detected. It violates privacy when there is no need. Also, certain things like gum could put the test out of wack. It is unreliable. All the things that shcools are doing nowadays is making me VERY happy that I am out and did attend when I did.

The article doesn't say they're randomly testing students involved in extracirricular activities, it just says they'er randomly testing students. That implies all of them.

If that's the case it's entirely unconstitutional, and the moment a child challenges the rules, they will be overturned.

Tell them that submitting to such testing violates the core tenets of your religion.

meh, I tried once to use my religion as an excuse: "sorry, Mr. Ratvalley*, I have not made this text in Word but in LaTeX since using word violates the rules Saint Ignucius of the church of Emacs gave us." Ratvalley till now refused to correct the assignment.

I think alcohol test are just mindless delegating away of responsibility of the parents to the state... what comes next? All children raised by the government?

*He's not really named Ratvalley, I used the real term IRLly

meh, I tried once to use my religion as an excuse: "sorry, Mr. Ratvalley, I have not made this text in Word but in LaTeX since using word violates the rules Saint Ignucius of the church of Emacs gave us." Ratvalley till now refused to correct the assignment.

Saying LaTeX is teh win and Word is teh ghey would have been a much better plan.

Best way to deal with this is overload the system. Organise a protest where everyone goes and has a drink over the weekend. Keep doing this until you overload the system with buerucracy.

In loco parentis only applies during school hours. The only responsibility of school outside of school hours is to notify social services if they think that a child is being neglected or abused by their parents some how.

Besides, at least in the UK, it is legal to drink at home whatever your age so long as you have permission from your legal guardians. Pointless waste of funds these tests.

I know. Next thing you know, American schools will search for people's Myspaces and notify their parents too.

At my high school you were able to get in trouble for stuff on your myspace page. At my friend's high school, you could get in trouble for having a myspace page. Thankfully they never discovered facebook.

Saying LaTeX is teh win and Word is teh ghey would have been a much better plan.
that's like saying water is wet...

that sucks. if they tried that here there would be a lot of positive tests, but why would they, we can legally drink from 16 years i think. and nobody really minds.

meh, I tried once to use my religion as an excuse: "sorry, Mr. Ratvalley*, I have not made this text in Word but in LaTeX since using word violates the rules Saint Ignucius of the church of Emacs gave us." Ratvalley till now refused to correct the assignment.Did you give him the plain .tex file, rather than a .pdf version or something? Or was the man simply mad?

At my high school you were able to get in trouble for stuff on your myspace page. At my friend's high school, you could get in trouble for having a myspace page. Thankfully they never discovered facebook.

Oh...my...god...

What a load of crap.

If even 10% of the kid's homelives are like what mine were as a highschooler, the school's gonna be up to their necks in drama and therapy.

"Sir we have your son here, he tested positive for having alcohol over the weekend."

"What!? Put him on the phone! - Jim, you fuckin' drinking now!?"

"Fuck you! Where the fuck do you think I got the shit!?"

"Fuck you, go to class!"

"... Um... I ... suppose you can go to class, Jim."



Course I was smart and didn't drink, so that never happened - but it was damned possible.

If even 10% of the kid's homelives are like what mine were as a highschooler, the school's gonna be up to their necks in drama and therapy.

"Sir we have your son here, he tested positive for having alcohol over the weekend."

"What!? Put him on the phone! - Jim, you fuckin' drinking now!?"

"Fuck you! Where the fuck do you think I got the shit!?"

"Fuck you, go to class!"

"... Um... I ... suppose you can go to class, Jim."



Course I was smart and didn't drink, so that never happened - but it was damned possible.

Yeah... as I said, mostly everyone in my area has been drunk at one point (teens, I mean) so testing is going to cause more trouble for the school.

Oh...my...god...

What a load of crap.

as long as you have stories like this..http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060421-6650.html

it will be only logical to monitor these sites

Did you give him the plain .tex file, rather than a .pdf version or something? Or was the man simply mad?
both... he claimed the programming assignments worked under Windows, Unix and Mac OS provided there is a C compiler and an openGL-implementation. It always took ~30 mins to make his frameworks compile under Linux. Therefore I reacted by naming all my variables and functions in Esperanto, then, when I forgot to compile the tex-file to pdf (only had a dvi and a ps-file), he claimed it was okay - more than one month later, no correction...

At my high school you were able to get in trouble for stuff on your myspace page. At my friend's high school, you could get in trouble for having a myspace page. Thankfully they never discovered facebook.

I've heard of high schools where students have gotten in trouble for writing and putting articles in the school newspaper the principal disagrees with. (Even on topics like politics or movies.) Myspace is nothing.

I've heard of high schools where students have gotten in trouble for writing and putting articles in the school newspaper the principal disagrees with. (Even on topics like politics or movies.) Myspace is nothing.

That's stupid. Talk about restricting free speech.

Why are schools allowed to infirnge upon students' rights like this?

Has anyone pointed out that the alcohol testing is happening at one high school only in New Jersey?

Has anyone pointed out that the alcohol testing is happening at one high school only in New Jersey?

It's actually happening elsewhere too, but the article only talks about the school in New JErsey.

Thankfully, this BS hasn't coe to my high school in NC yet.

It's actually happening elsewhere too, but the article only talks about the school in New JErsey.

Thankfully, this BS hasn't coe to my high school in NC yet.

If I were still in high school, Pancake, I'd probably be just as outraged as you are. Is drinking on the weekends such a major social event in NC? I mean, it is actually illegal for anyone under the age of 18, at a minimum, to drink in pretty much the entire US of A (actually, the federal minimum age is 21). I'll admit that testing everyone seems a bit excessive, but so's seeing articles in the paper about a carload of kids wiped out on the highway because one of them was drinking. On the MySpace stuff, I'm more inclined to agree.

What a load of crap. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16891713/) Do kids even have rights?
No. ;)

Besides, at least in the UK, it is legal to drink at home whatever your age so long as you have permission from your legal guardians. Pointless waste of funds these tests.
Depends on the state, we have that here, but some asshole in the legislature is trying to get it repealed. There was a bit of a fuss over it, because it intialy called for suspension of the religous waiver as well.

Mandatory alcohol testing...?
Shame, I thought this would be more in the lines of 'wine tasting'.
In New Jersey, high school students are forced to take alcohol tests to see if they've been drinking over the weekend. If the tests are positive, then the student's parents are notified.
It's just an excuse to demand bodily fluids, I think.

I understand why the school would want to restrict alcohol consumption on school premises, or pupils coming to school under the influence, but alcohol is not illegal and people are welcome to drown themselves in it in their own time as much as they like, as far as I am concerned. Certainly if the parents permit it.

I would quite like to see how many students say right out that they have been drinking before the tests are carried out. It is quite a redundant test, really... "You, boy, have been drinking alcohol!"

"Yes, I know, I was there..."

This isn't teaching kids not to drink, it's teaching kids that they have no rights at all.

And it's not a schools place to say "don't drink", it's their place to say "drink responsibly".

If I were still in high school, Pancake, I'd probably be just as outraged as you are. Is drinking on the weekends such a major social event in NC? I mean, it is actually illegal for anyone under the age of 18, at a minimum, to drink in pretty much the entire US of A (actually, the federal minimum age is 21). I'll admit that testing everyone seems a bit excessive, but so's seeing articles in the paper about a carload of kids wiped out on the highway because one of them was drinking. On the MySpace stuff, I'm more inclined to agree.

Actually, drinking on the weekends is common in my county. Most of my school probably drinks on the weekends.

Of course, I'm all for schools educating kids on the effects of drinking and drunk driving, but not testing randomly. That's way harsh.

And Myspace should be taken off the web anyway in my opinion, though mainly because it sucks balls and hurts my eyes.

Actually, drinking on the weekends is common in my county. Most of my school probably drinks on the weekends.

Of course, I'm all for schools educating kids on the effects of drinking and drunk driving, but not testing randomly. That's way harsh.

And Myspace should be taken off the web anyway in my opinion, though mainly because it sucks balls and hurts my eyes.

Well, okay, but when some of your classmates wrap themselves around a tree some Saturday night, come talk to me.

Well, okay, but when some of your classmates wrap themselves around a tree some Saturday night, come talk to me.

The tests are taken on Mondays, in which case it would be too late for the people who warapped themselves around a tree two days earlier.

And education about drunk driving can be taught, kids just shouldn't be tested randomly. It's not the school's business whether the kid drinks over the weekend.

Well, okay, but when some of your classmates wrap themselves around a tree some Saturday night, come talk to me.

Since drunk driving is illegal period why is it necesry to focus only on youth cases? WHy not take measures that target it directly like harsher penealties for being cought doing it? Maybe a six months licences suspension for the first offence and a permanent suspension for the second, perhapse you could also throw in a fine of some sort maybe $200 base with another $100 for every individual in the car with you, with jail time being given for driving with out a license. That way your discuraging drunk driveing directly instead of discriminating based on age.

Since drunk driving is illegal period why is it necesry to focus only on youth cases? WHy not take measures that target it directly like harsher penealties for being cought doing it? Maybe a six months licences suspension for the first offence and a permanent suspension for the second, perhapse you could also throw in a fine of some sort maybe $200 base with another $100 for every individual in the car with you, with jail time being given for driving with out a license. That way your discuraging drunk driveing directly instead of discriminating based on age.

I honestly don't think that we'll ever get people to stop driving drunk. Several times a year, at least, I read a story about some clown who killed himself and some carload of innocents, and not only was he drunk, but his license had been suspended four times, five times. Fines, sure, probably stops some people, but not all. Hell, I drove when my license was suspended on a DUI.

I suppose the rationale behind the random testing is this: if a couple of kids get suspended for it, maybe the rest will think twice about it, because they don;t know if they'll be randomly invited to take the test next Monday. I know you don't want to hear this, but it really is for your own good. Now I have to go hide because that's exactly what my parents would have said to me.

Since drunk driving is illegal period why is it necesry to focus only on youth cases? WHy not take measures that target it directly like harsher penealties for being cought doing it? Maybe a six months licences suspension for the first offence and a permanent suspension for the second, perhapse you could also throw in a fine of some sort maybe $200 base with another $100 for every individual in the car with you, with jail time being given for driving with out a license. That way your discuraging drunk driveing directly instead of discriminating based on age.

no, higher punishments don't work, you should make the chances that people are caught higher. i also find it strange that people can drive with a car earlier than they are allowed to drink (althought it probably has something to do with the larger distances). you have to be 18 here to get your drivers licence, but only 16 to buy a drink. that way most people have been drunk before they hit the road, and most people i know don't drink (to much) when they drive.

I honestly don't think that we'll ever get people to stop driving drunk. Several times a year, at least, I read a story about some clown who killed himself and some carload of innocents, and not only was he drunk, but his license had been suspended four times, five times. Fines, sure, probably stops some people, but not all. Hell, I drove when my license was suspended on a DUI.

I suppose the rationale behind the random testing is this: if a couple of kids get suspended for it, maybe the rest will think twice about it, because they don;t know if they'll be randomly invited to take the test next Monday. I know you don't want to hear this, but it really is for your own good. Now I have to go hide because that's exactly what my parents would have said to me.

If the driver's liscense had been suspended numerous times for drunk driving charges, then something is wrong with the state for that crappy policy.

And like my OP said, the kids aren't getting suspended, their parents are being notified. The testing is confidential (supposedly) so the rest won't know who got tested or who's next. To be honest, it's not going to deter anyone.

I honestly don't think that we'll ever get people to stop driving drunk. Several times a year, at least, I read a story about some clown who killed himself and some carload of innocents, and not only was he drunk, but his license had been suspended four times, five times. Fines, sure, probably stops some people, but not all. Hell, I drove when my license was suspended on a DUI.

I suppose the rationale behind the random testing is this: if a couple of kids get suspended for it, maybe the rest will think twice about it, because they don;t know if they'll be randomly invited to take the test next Monday. I know you don't want to hear this, but it really is for your own good. Now I have to go hide because that's exactly what my parents would have said to me.I'm about four day's from turning 21 so it really doesn't affect me ;), I just find it anoying the way the atitude seems to be youth+drinking=drunk driving, but adult+drnking= no problems at all. If the problem is drunk driving we should adress the problem as a whole not just focus on some minors and adults, or at least implement it evenly after all if outlawing drinking means less drunk driving for minors and some adults, maybe we should apply it to the rest of the population as well?

If the driver's liscense had been suspended numerous times for drunk driving charges, then something is wrong with the state for that crappy policy.

And like my OP said, the kids aren't getting suspended, their parents are being notified. The testing is confidential (supposedly) so the rest won't know who got tested or who's next. To be honest, it's not going to deter anyone.
That's why I said anyone cought doing that should get a nice little stay in jail.

If the driver's liscense had been suspended numerous times for drunk driving charges, then something is wrong with the state for that crappy policy.

And like my OP said, the kids aren't getting suspended, their parents are being notified. The testing is confidential (supposedly) so the rest won't know who got tested or who's next. To be honest, it's not going to deter anyone.
Okay, if the results aren't made public, then I agree, it's probably not going to be effective as a deterrent. Still, I imagine a few parents would take some sort of action if they got a note from the school saying their teenager had tested positive.

I'm about four day's from turning 21 so it really doesn't affect me ;), I just find it anoying the way the atitude seems to be youth+drinking=drunk driving, but adult+drnking= no problems at all. If the problem is drunk driving we should adress the problem as a whole not just focus on some minors and adults, or at least implement it evenly after all if outlawing drinking means less drunk driving for minors and some adults, maybe we should apply it to the rest of the population as well?
Did I say it was only kids? I did not. I agree, perhaps we ought to have testing for everyone. Maybe build alcohol detectors into automobiles as standard equipment.

I'm about four day's from turning 21 so it really doesn't affect me ;), I just find it anoying the way the atitude seems to be youth+drinking=drunk driving, but adult+drnking= no problems at all. If the problem is drunk driving we should adress the problem as a whole not just focus on some minors and adults, or at least implement it evenly after all if outlawing drinking means less drunk driving for minors and some adults, maybe we should apply it to the rest of the population as well?

Yeah, it's always like that. Kids + drinking always = sex, drugs, and drunk driving. Adults + drinking, however, = okay. It's as if turning 21 automatically makes you a responsible drinker.

Okay, if the results aren't made public, then I agree, it's probably not going to be effective as a deterrent. Still, I imagine a few parents would take some sort of action if they got a note from the school saying their teenager had tested positive.


Did I say it was only kids? I did not. I agree, perhaps we ought to have testing for everyone. Maybe build alcohol detectors into automobiles as standard equipment.
You didn't, but too many of the people doing things like this act like it is.

Yeah, it's always like that. Kids + drinking always = sex, drugs, and drunk driving. Adults + drinking, however, = okay. It's as if turning 21 automatically makes you a responsible drinker.

And it's a completly unavoidable formula, letting the parents start teaching them how to drink responsibly at a younger age would in no way effect this unavoidable outcome, just look at how much more of a problem drinking is in Europe with its lower drinking ages.;)

And it's a completly unavoidable formula, letting the parents start teaching them how to drink responsibly at a younger age would in no way effect this unavoidable outcome, just look at how much more of a problem drinking is in Europe with its lower drinking ages.

Are you being sarcastic, or are you contradicting yourself? :confused:

Are you being sarcastic, or are you contradicting yourself? :confused:

Sarcastic, should probably have thrown in a smilie, but I figured that since it was in direct oposition to the position I have taken so far most would guess it is sarcasm.
edit:sweet 1800 post its only taken me three years to get there :)

Sarcastic, should probably have thrown in a smilie, but I figured that since it was in direct oposition to the position I have taken so far most would guess it is sarcasm.

Yes, I think it would be better if you threw in a smiley. :)

(though not a gun/finger/gundge smiley). :fluffle:

Whar happens if the student refuses to take the test?

I'd refuse it no matter if I've been drinking or not. Fuck them.

The Students do not have the Right to break the Law. Just be glad only the parents are being called and not the cops.

Wow. Relations with my parents and probably my grades would have shot down the tubes if this happened when I was in high school. I needed to get my drink on to be able to stomach that period of my life.

If my school tried this, there would be some form of revolution, even if it was passive. Half the teachers would downright refuse* and the headmistress would be hated even more so than she already is.


*Some of our teachers are downright communists, including my Critical Thinking teacher. Ah, I love my school.

The Students do not have the Right to break the Law. Just be glad only the parents are being called and not the cops.
Well, that depends on the locality, there are a number of places where the law doesn't say it is illegal for minors to consume alcohol, only to either purchase it or have it in their possesion. So it would come down to if having something in your blood stream qualifies as having it in your possesion or not.

The Students do not have the Right to break the Law. Just be glad only the parents are being called and not the cops.

The school's don't have the right to meddle around in the kid's business. It's none of the school's business if the children went out and got hammered. So long as they're in school the next monday, they shouldn't give a damn.

Well, that depends on the locality, there are a number of places where the law doesn't say it is illegal for minors to consume alcohol, only to either purchase it or have it in their possesion. So it would come down to if having something in your blood stream qualifies as having it in your possesion or not.

if it's in their bloodstream, then they possessed it long enough to get it into their bloodstream.

also the Legal DRINKING age was raised to 21 in 1983, I couldn't find anything to say it was lowered to 18/19.

The school's don't have the right to meddle around in the kid's business. It's none of the school's business if the children went out and got hammered. So long as they're in school the next monday, they shouldn't give a damn.... it's against the state law. and if the schools are not private schools, then they have to uphold the laws. again, just be glad that 1) it's random and 2) they just call the parents.

and if the School is responsible for the Students' health and wellbeing, then that gives them the right to meddle in this case.

Does anyone know why the drinking age in the US is 21.I mean you can have sex legally at 18 can't you?

I'd just fail the test and deal with my parents when it came up. Thats what I did anyway. Sometimes I'd get caught and I'd deal with it. Sucks, though. Against it. But many things suck.

if it's in their bloodstream, then they possessed it long enough to get it into their bloodstream.

also the Legal DRINKING age was raised to 21 in 1983, I couldn't find anything to say it was lowered to 18/19.
The whole drinking age thing is a state level law, tha thte federal goverment demands by threatening to with hold federal funding for diferent things, and as such varies from state to state, in some states it is actually drinking, in others it is the way I mentioned, and in others their are certain exceptions even to the general age limit, for example people drinking with their parents or with in their own home.
As for the need for posession to get in the blood stream, thats how those places that don't ouright outlaw drinking get around it all.

Gerald Ford once said, "A government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take from us everything we have."

Perhaps this New Jersey school is merely a symptom of what will happen because we are giving far too much power to the government.

The more services one expects from the government, the more intrusive the government will become.

If one demands healthcare from the government, expect mandated testing to ensure that the citizen is behaving in a pro-health manner.

For example, on Sunday, the Discovery Channel ran a show called 2057. The first hour dealt with the Body and the advances in medicine that might be reasonable expected. Howver, to instill the program with a sense of drama, a bit of conflict was tossed in; in the form of an insurance agency. This agency paid for all sorts of care for its insured. But, they also tested the insured continually for compliance. One such was a man who had alcohol the night before. As he approached the toilet, an alarm went off concerning that level. To insure that his rates wouldn't change, he went to a cabinet and dumped a jar of urine previously taken down the toilet, thus satisfying the insurance agency's scanners.

Later, they found out about the scam and cut his coverage, but that's beside the point.

The point is, if you want the government to do things for you, then there will be an equal or greater level of government intrusion as a result.

and if the School is responsible for the Students' health and wellbeing, then that gives them the right to meddle in this case.

It's the school's responsibility for their wellbeing and health while they are in school. I'm failing to see how they can look after children outside their school grounds, nor can I see why it should be their responsibility. Once they leave the school gates, they are the responsibility of the parents and themselves. Schools can't be expected to look after children outside school hours.

The whole drinking age thing is a state level law, tha thte federal goverment demands by threatening to with hold federal funding for diferent things, and as such varies from state to state, in some states it is actually drinking, in others it is the way I mentioned, and in others their are certain exceptions even to the general age limit, for example people drinking with their parents or with in their own home.
As for the need for posession to get in the blood stream, thats how those places that don't ouright outlaw drinking get around it all.

which makes it a bitch because you involve Lawyers. and some are slick enough to get a Sodomy charge lowered to "Following to closely."

It's the school's responsibility for their wellbeing and health while they are in school. I'm failing to see how they can look after children outside their school grounds, nor can I see why it should be their responsibility. Once they leave the school gates, they are the responsibility of the parents and themselves. Schools can't be expected to look after children outside school hours.

because some kids are violent when suffereing from headaches... can you imagine one suffereing from a Hangover?

Also some schools allow students off campus during Lunch and recess, so even tho they are off campus, they are still the responsibility of the school.

this also includes functions, like sports events that are held off campus but sponsored by the school.

again, the testing is random, so not everyone is subject to it. and all they do is call their parents.

In New Jersey, high school students are forced to take alcohol tests to see if they've been drinking over the weekend. If the tests are positive, then the student's parents are notified.

It's still a load of crap. If my high school started that BS, I'd feel like I have no rights at all. Do kids even have rights? I don't think so. It's not the school's business whether a kid has been drinking. Schools are meant to educate, not interefere, and this holds true for alcohol.

This isn't teaching kids not to drink, it's teaching kids that they have no rights at all.
I don't see how this is the school's job. The school's job is to educate the kids, and equip them to educate themselves going forward (because post-secondary education is mostly about you teaching yourself things with minimal direction - gods how I wish someone had told me that when I was 15), not impose a moral or behaviorial code. That's the parents' job - not the school's.

because some kids are violent when suffereing from headaches... can you imagine one suffereing from a Hangover?

Most guys I know suffering from hangovers tend to be pretty docile. If they move too fast they fall over, moaning about the night before. But it's the child's responsibility not to get so absolutely wankered on a school night.

Also some schools allow students off campus during Lunch and recess, so even tho they are off campus, they are still the responsibility of the school.

That's different. What I'm saying is children aren't the responsibility of schools outside school grounds and hours. Sorry, should have made that clear. If a child gets drunk at school time, then obviously it's the school's business. If at a weekend, it's none of their business. Imagine a child gets drunk at a party at the weekend. "Garrr, it was the school's fault!" Imagine the backlash?

again, the testing is random, so not everyone is subject to it. and all they do is call their parents.

Granted, they don't call the cops, but some overzealous parents may do. Also, the parents could get quite pissy about it. Because the teenager wanted some fun. And I'm betting many of the parents or teachers could honestly hold their right hand up and swear they had never gotten drunk as a kid, or experimented with anything. Which also makes this hypocritical, to an extent.

What a load of crap. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16891713/)
In New Jersey, high school students are forced to take alcohol tests to see if they've been drinking over the weekend. If the tests are positive, then the student's parents are notified.

It's still a load of crap. If my high school started that BS, I'd feel like I have no rights at all. Do kids even have rights? I don't think so. It's not the school's business whether a kid has been drinking. Schools are meant to educate, not interefere, and this holds true for alcohol.

This isn't teaching kids not to drink, it's teaching kids that they have no rights at all.

A student has fewer rights than an adult. If you've been drinking in HS you have broken the law. If you are breaking the law, your parents are responsible for your actions. Therefore the person responsible should know.

Sound like a good law to me.

Out of curiosity and for Smunkee's benefit, you weren't spanked between one and six were you?

New JErsey can go to hell. :mad:

Thats silly. A place can't go to itself.

If you look, this thing is so sensitive even people who have been using cleaning solutions can test positive. I would just refuse to take the test, no matter what the consequences were.

A student has fewer rights than an adult. If you've been drinking in HS you have broken the law. If you are breaking the law, your parents are responsible for your actions. Therefore the person responsible should know.
criminal or not, you still have your 4th amendment rights, I refuse to be searched without probable cause or a warrant. I am within my rights to refuse that, and so is she. I don't tend to get along very well with the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about" types.

Sound like a good law to me.
I am sure it does.

Out of curiosity and for Smunkee's benefit, you weren't spanked between one and six were you?
that's neither of our business and it doesn't really factor into this debate anyway.

If you look, this thing is so sensitive even people who have been using cleaning solutions can test positive. I would just refuse to take the test, no matter what the consequences were. If they really are that sensitive there could be alot of other problems as well. Most places have exemptions for alcohol used in religous rituals so participation in said rituals could possibly mess it up.

If they really are that sensitive there could be alot of other problems as well. Most places have exemptions for alcohol used in religous rituals so participation in said rituals could possibly mess it up.

And it's also legal if your parents consent, I believe.

Seriously, I'd make a pretty clear message. Possibly bringing beer to school and actually using it as a urine sample.

And it's also legal if your parents consent, I believe.

Seriously, I'd make a pretty clear message. Possibly bringing beer to school and actually using it as a urine sample.

That depends on the state, the religon one though is pretty much universal.

criminal or not, you still have your 4th amendment rights, I refuse to be searched without probable cause or a warrant. I am within my rights to refuse that, and so is she. I don't tend to get along very well with the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about" types.


So, you are responsible for your children who are underage. They are breaking the law. You as a parent don't want to know they are breaking the law because a child should have all of the rights of an adult.

So, you are responsible for your children who are underage. They are breaking the law. You as a parent don't want to know they are breaking the law because a child should have all of the rights of an adult.

I don't want the government encroaching on my children's rights. I am the parent, I am responsible, the government is not my kid's babysitter. I don't want them regulating what games they can buy, what movies they can watch, or searching them without a warrant.

Yeah, I was outraged. If this shit ever starts, I'm just refusing.

That's different. What I'm saying is children aren't the responsibility of schools outside school grounds and hours. Sorry, should have made that clear. If a child gets drunk at school time, then obviously it's the school's business. If at a weekend, it's none of their business. Imagine a child gets drunk at a party at the weekend. "Garrr, it was the school's fault!" Imagine the backlash?if some parent does that, then the parent has to prove it's the schools fault. BUT if that happens at a school sponsored event, then responsiblity does fall on the school. that even includes Graduation.

Granted, they don't call the cops, but some overzealous parents may do. Also, the parents could get quite pissy about it. Because the teenager wanted some fun. And I'm betting many of the parents or teachers could honestly hold their right hand up and swear they had never gotten drunk as a kid, or experimented with anything. Which also makes this hypocritical, to an extent.and at that point, it's the parents responsiblity. if the parents want to call the cops on each other, that's fine.

and while I did experiment with alcohol, I never got drunk. and I never experimented with illegal drugs.

I don't want the government encroaching on my children's rights. I am the parent, I am responsible, the government is not my kid's babysitter. I don't want them regulating what games they can buy, what movies they can watch, or searching them without a warrant.

As I read the beginning of this, they weren't going to arrest them. They were going to tell the parents that their children had possibly broken the law. The parents would know if the child had attended a religious ceremony that called for a shot of wine, or if they had been to a "friend's" party, just listening to tunes and "hanging out".

As I read the beginning of this, they weren't going to arrest them. They were going to tell the parents that their children had possibly broken the law. The parents would know if the child had attended a religious ceremony that called for a shot of wine, or if they had been to a "friend's" party, just listening to tunes and "hanging out".

it doesn't matter who they call, what matters is that they are searching people at random for no reason. My kids have rights that protect them from such nonsense.

it doesn't matter who they call, what matters is that they are searching people at random for no reason. My kids have rights that protect them from such nonsense.

except it doesn't sound like the Goverment (at any level) but the school instituting this policy.

except it doesn't sound like the Goverment (at any level) but the school instituting this policy.

I think the government's funding this, though.

except it doesn't sound like the Goverment (at any level) but the school instituting this policy.

public school? government funded.

The test costs will be paid with federal grants, Reynolds said.

also, the test is way too sensitive to be accurate for anything

School officials acknowledge the test is sensitive, and false positive readings can be the result of using products containing ethanol, including mouthwash and Balsamic vinegar.

I think we should start testing teachers for alcohol.

except it doesn't sound like the Goverment (at any level) but the school instituting this policy.
If the church-state thing applies to them then so should the sixth amendment.

However, the search and seizure restrictions nly stop them from using the evidence in court. No one gets punished for collecting it in the first place.

I know. Next thing you know, American schools will search for people's Myspaces and notify their parents too.


My school's done that.

My school's done that.

Did you tell the school to go fuck itself?

If the church-state thing applies to them then so should the sixth amendment.
QFT.

However, the search and seizure restrictions nly stop them from using the evidence in court. No one gets punished for collecting it in the first place.

with crap like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Stewart) going on, my kids better not submit to any search by anyone without me present.

The fact is once you enter school grounds you are a ward of the state. (Unless it's a private school) Schools have the responsiblity to maintain a safe enviroment for everyone.

It's the same with lockers, they can be searched at any time with our with out a search warrent, because the lockers are the property of the state. (Just like a Jail cell) How this is news to any of you, I really don't know, seeing as a good ammount of school require drug testing for after school activites.

It's no diffrent than the schools with metal detectors at the door.

I think we should start testing teachers for alcohol.

Teachers are adults and have more protections than children. Are you going to call their parents?

However; I imagine they can be tested. After all the guy that passes out carts at Wal-Mart has to take a drug test. On this I agree with Smunkee. For adults this whole testing thing has really gone way to far.

Well no, because it wasn't me, and the kid in question was pretending to be a terrorist--albeit one so ridiculously satired that no one should have been concerned. And they didn't look for it, someone reported it.

The school just basically told him to be a little more careful about what he says on the internet. It was the parents that punished him.

The fact is once you enter school grounds you are a ward of the state. (Unless it's a private school) Schools have the responsiblity to maintain a safe enviroment for everyone.

It's the same with lockers, they can be searched at any time with our with out a search warrent, because the lockers are the property of the state. (Just like a Jail cell) How this is news to any of you, I really don't know, seeing as a good ammount of school require drug testing for after school activites.

It's no diffrent than the schools with metal detectors at the door.

there is a difference between them searching the locker (that they own) and my backpack (that I own) and my person.

I assume though you would be okay with your teacher doing a strip search on you to see if you were hiding crib notes?

Well no, because it wasn't me, and the kid in question was pretending to be a terrorist--albeit one so ridiculously satired that no one should have been concerned. And they didn't look for it, someone reported it.

The school just basically told him to be a little more careful about what he says on the internet. It was the parents that punished him.

Exactly as it should be. And as proposed by this thread.

I think the government's funding this, though.

public school? government funded.

Funding specificly for the test, or is the money for the tests being taken out of a general all-purpose fund/grant?

the Government makes the funds available, but how the school uses the funds is up to them as long as it falls within the guidelines. Probably one of the reasons why it's between parents and student and no police involved.


as for the sensitivity of the program, that's for the parents to bitch to the school board about. something that is within the rights of the parents to do.

I think we should start testing teachers for alcohol.what makes you think they aren't? ;)

there is a difference between them searching the locker (that they own) and my backpack (that I own) and my person.

I assume though you would be okay with your teacher doing a strip search on you to see if you were hiding crib notes?

actually, wasn't there a case where evidence found in a student's locker was thrown out because it was obtained illegally?

need to do research.

I am so putting this in "Think of the Children". It's far too dystopian not to mention it.

New JErsey can go to hell. :mad:

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!! *viciously eats pancakes and freshmanburgers while inconspicuously poking MSN Messenger* ;)

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!! *viciously eats pancakes and freshmanburgers while inconspicuously poking MSN Messenger* ;)

MSN is broken. :(

And you stole my thread, biatch! :mad:

But :fluffle::fluffle:

MSN is broken. :(

And you stole my thread, biatch! :mad:

But :fluffle::fluffle:

Fine AIM. :)

Convicted Thread-jacker! z0mgz! :O

Congrats on 3k posts?

Fine AIM. :)

Convicted Thread-jacker! z0mgz! :O

Congrats on 3k posts?

AIM is broken too.

Either that or it sucks... same difference. :(

AIM is broken too.

Either that or it sucks... same difference. :(

Grrr...IRC?

What do you mean broken...

Grrr...IRC?

What do you mean broken...

It won't open and when it does it won't shut down unless it's with a "send error report" thing. :mad:

It won't open and when it does it won't shut down unless it's with a "send error report" thing. :mad:

FIX IT OR I GO EMO! :mad: lol...er...:( Hmmz...maybe uninstall it and reinstall it. If you've lost the old file and don't want that new crap MSN messenger they have, go here (http://www.old-versions.net/). :) Mayb your mom put some anti-IM program...*pokes Add/Remove Programs in Control Panel*

What a load of crap. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16891713/)
In New Jersey, high school students are forced to take alcohol tests to see if they've been drinking over the weekend. If the tests are positive, then the student's parents are notified.

It's still a load of crap. If my high school started that BS, I'd feel like I have no rights at all. Do kids even have rights? I don't think so. It's not the school's business whether a kid has been drinking. Schools are meant to educate, not interefere, and this holds true for alcohol.

This isn't teaching kids not to drink, it's teaching kids that they have no rights at all.

It's wrong. It's WRONG!

it's... WRONG.



This is why I don't like America.

But it seems just yesterday everything was fine. Gas was $.99, schools had sanity... What happened to The Us?

It's wrong. It's WRONG!

it's... WRONG.



This is why I don't like America.

But it seems just yesterday everything was fine. Gas was $.99, schools had sanity... What happened to The Us?

42 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life%2C_the_Universe%2C_and_Everything)

42 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life%2C_the_Universe%2C_and_Everything)

43 ftw. :rolleyes:

43 ftw. :rolleyes:

Syrup!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

Where have you been? :mad:

Teachers are adults and have more protections than children. Are you going to call their parents?

No, we give them one day of unpayed suspension for each .01 of blood alcohol.

I imagine the amount of teachers suggesting that students get tested would drop like a brick.

Really, this isn't any of the schools damn business.

If kids coming in intoxicated were a serious problem, I could see this as justified.

Otherwise, it's a massive waste of resources that will not only do nothing to combat underage drinking, but will also represent an appropriate use of the school's in loco parentis jurisdiction. I mean, any kid dumb enough to come to school with a significant BAC level is probably a monumental fucktard to begin with...we're not exactly losing our best and brightest.

If kids coming in intoxicated were a serious problem, I could see this as justified.

Otherwise, it's a massive waste of resources that will not only do nothing to combat underage drinking, but will also represent an appropriate use of the school's in loco parentis jurisdiction. I mean, any kid dumb enough to come to school with a significant BAC level is probably a monumental fucktard to begin with...we're not exactly losing our best and brightest.

If a kid is noticeably drunk at school I have no problem with the administrator calling the police, but this test picks up mouthwash as a positive result, it says that they are "looking for alcohol use in the last 80 hours" if you drank 80 hours ago, you probably aren't drunk now, and if you are they should probably call a doctor for you......

I wouldn't want a note on my kids' records that said "drinking" when they weren't, nor do I want them searched unnecessarily.

If a kid is noticeably drunk at school I have no problem with the administrator calling the police, but this test picks up mouthwash as a positive result, it says that they are "looking for alcohol use in the last 80 hours" if you drank 80 hours ago, you probably aren't drunk now, and if you are they should probably call a doctor for you......

I wouldn't want a note on my kids' records that said "drinking" when they weren't, nor do I want them searched unnecessarily.
I don't think mouthwash would show up unless
1) she's drinking it.
2) she's using enough of it to have her skin absorb a glass's worth of alcohol.

now if she has an Alcohol heater in her room... that would prove difficult since over a period of several hours, the skin will absorb enough alcohol to give a reading on blood analysis... don't know about urine tho.

The fact is once you enter school grounds you are a ward of the state. (Unless it's a private school) Schools have the responsiblity to maintain a safe enviroment for everyone.

It's the same with lockers, they can be searched at any time with our with out a search warrent, because the lockers are the property of the state. (Just like a Jail cell) How this is news to any of you, I really don't know, seeing as a good ammount of school require drug testing for after school activites.

It's no diffrent than the schools with metal detectors at the door.

Why the fuck does a school need metal detectors? IT isn;t a prison...well actually it is, but still...

Research the law surrounding it first. Otherwise you end up just looking like an idiot. If you find anything, let us know.

I don't actually think it's unconstitutional, otherwise said laws allowing this to happen would have been challenged in the supreme court a long ago.

Actually there is a valid constitutional argument here. Most state's constitutions give school systems "extraordinary powers" over students for the sake of providing education (the school is more-or-less the student’s parent while the student is at school).

For example a student can be expelled for making death threats at a teacher, (actually happed to some kid at my school) because teachers cannot reasonably be expected to provide the education they are mandated by law to deliver when they are fearing for their own lives.

HOWEVER, it is the school district must prove that the behavior in question is pertinent to, and a detriment to the education process.

So, in this case, if students were coming to school drunk and hung-over and creating disturbances in class, then the school would be justified in testing the students.

If they just pulled this out of the blue however, then this would be a violation of the fourth amendment.

After all school districts have been known to pull stunts like this before, because they do not act under the auspices of any law passed by a legislature, but merely on the state’s mandate to deliver public education.

And also, if this is the first case of its kind, there would not have been any chance for anyone to challenge these actions in any court of law. Only if lower courts had dismissed this case, and the case was extensively appealed would it even make it to the Supreme Court.

*goes to Catholic school in NJ*

*raspberries*

If we did that at my school, class sizes go down by at least half.

Why the fuck does a school need metal detectors? IT isn;t a prison...well actually it is, but still...

because some kids can't get it in their skulls that Guns and Knives don't belong in school.

because some kids can't get it in their skulls that Guns and Knives don't belong in school.

Yes they do.

The question is if this would be classified as a civil rights violation.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District states students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse gates.

I'm opposed to any company (or school) dictating your behavior on your own time.