Drug testing teens always raises trust questions
Lewis DiuguidRockhurst High School in the fall of this year will start testing all of its students for drug and alcohol use.
Some area public schools have drug-testing policies, but they are either random or limited to students in extracurricular activities. The Fourth Amendment restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures provides some constitutional shields. But private schools operate under a different standard.
Rockhurst is an exclusive, private, Jesuit, all-male, south Kansas City high school. School officials told The Kansas City Star there was no unusual drug or alcohol abuse problem that triggered the decision.
It came after two years of research and discussion. The policy certainly will cause students to think twice before indulging in substance abuse — a second positive test could lead to possible discipline.
But it also signals an eroding amount of trust that adults have for young people — even in one of the area’s best schools. Obviously conversations about such health and wellness concerns just aren’t enough anymore.
Robert Copher
4 months, 3 weeks agoIf it had been possible, do you think that testing for alchohol use during its prohibition era would have been tolerated? I doubt it. But this time the feds made the offer to good to refuse by paying companies and organizations to follow their requests to abandon “innocent until proven guilty” so that they can continue this prohibition. (I’m sure they justified it differently to the corporation) But you know “money” trumps “rights” every time. In keeping with one of your other editor’s comments, “can” they do it has already been wrongly allowed to be established. And apparently the question of “should” we do it took them 2 years of study to come up with justifications they could live with. Any time I have to think about something that hard in order to come up with enough justification for it, has taught me that the answer should have been NO right from the get go. Unfortunately in our society people with money are seldom told to sit down and be quiet or that their concerns will not be addressed.
Kent Mueller
4 months, 3 weeks agoRobert, what on earth are you talking about? What does prohibition have to do with this? Are you criticizing the current prohibition against illegal drugs? Alcohol in the hands of minors?
What offer did the feds make to what “paying” companies, and what on earth does that have to do with a private high school randomly testing its students?
I have no association with this school, but being a private school it can do this if it wants. If people don’t like it, then they don’t need to apply for admission.
Robert, you reference “people with money”. What does they have to do with this?
Robert Copher
4 months, 3 weeks agoI have to break this into two posts:
Kent, the Federal government condoned this “guilty until proven innocent” approach to the current prohibition on drugs by subsidizing large corporations for drug testing. And no, I do not agree with prohibition. But no, I am not suggesting alchohol in the hands of minors unless provided by the parent. (For my whole life and in most other countries, parents have been allowed to give their children wine and alchohol. Its only the excessive cases that IMO should be prosecuted) Instead of ostrasizing and stopping these activities before they become acceptable The rich and powerful have forced it on the nation as a whole. I figure most people know that. Detained without probable cause (DUI check points), Detain without charges filed (terrorist to Guantanamo), guilty until proven innocent (drug testing) are a couple first examples I will give for the deterioration of the American values. Generated from fear and narrow minds we are now discussing more “qualifying” or selective rights; gun ownership (mental health testing to buy a gun). And more and more the basic values we held with high regard are being broken up and our “inalienable” rights are being stripped and turned into “qualifying” rights. My comments is a testimonial to this evidence and the observation that the school’s “rights” are being placed above the individual rights to privacy, etc and are in support of a wrong policy direction for the country. You can not deny that the level of mistrust of our neighbors in this country is at an all time high and this just fans that flame. I am not blaming either side of the political aisle for this I am blaming people with money and/or power for not maintaining our values. Their influence has been abused and our society now thrives on the exploitation of others. I don’t see any of this as very hard to understand and see. So I’m not sure how much better I can explain it without drawing a picture. When people come together to pass laws and provide services thru government that benefits and supports the freedoms we own (without them being “given” to us) those are social adjustments for the benefit of the individual in support of his constitutional rights. When people come together to pass laws and implement regulations that reduce those freedoms and ignore consttutional rights, that is a move toward communism and only occurs when people with money and/or power force their views on others. I can agree with the first one. I can not agree with the second one.
Robert Copher
4 months, 3 weeks agoOver recent years my position has moved from conservative to liberal because I see the “socialist” adjustments that each party has in its platform and the Democrats seem to be in line with the first one (providing more services and support of our constitutional rights) and the Republicans seem more in line with the second one (restricting and qualifyng of rights) So my opening question in the previous comment was merely to ask if anyone thinks these types of constitutional violations would have been allowed back in the alchohol prohibition days when our country had a more cohesive agreement on American values? I doubt it. At this point in our history there is no cohesive agreement on anything, our country is structured to try and support that reality, and that is a very difficult thing to do.
Robert Copher
4 months, 3 weeks agocorrection: “suspected” terrorists being sent to guantanamo. If they are known terrorist, do whatever you want with them. But it has only been in recent years that we have created a new level of criminal category that lets law enforcement to strip us of our rights without proof of a crime, only on suspicion. I’m just amazed that more people don’t see what I see, and what much of the rest of the world is seeing happen in this country. They no longer respect our valuse because we no longer respect them.
Kent Mueller
4 months, 3 weeks agoWhoa, Robert. Here is the deal. Right here. If you don’t want a child of yours randomly checked for illicit drugs and alcohol at a private high school, then don’t pay the fee to see if your child will get offered by that school.
We can save the talk about guantanamo. We can save the talk about prohibition and even your evolution to whatever political persuasion you happen to be. But, this was about random testing at a private high school. It has nothing to do with “rich people”. If you don’t like what they do, then go to another private school or to the public school system.
Robert Copher
4 months, 2 weeks agoKent you don’t understand I believe we have taken the surrendering of rights and the request for the surrendering of rights as acceptable. IMO, the should not have the freedome to choose to do or ask for the testing and is taking the country in the wrong direction to let them think they do.
I continued this discussion and exlpanation of my position in a discussion board tonight and there were many good comments. If you woule like to look at that I will try to post a link here. Not sure it it will let me. but you can find it at boardforus
http://www.boardforus.com/topic/29641-private-school-implements-complete-student-body-drug-testing-and-the-continued-deterioration-of-american-values/#entry204515
Kent Mueller
4 months, 2 weeks agoPlease edit your first paragraph. You say “the should not have the freedom to choose…”. Who do you mean should not have the freedom to choose?
I agree that we have to be very mindful of overreaching government and the surrendering of rights. But this is not one of those situations. No rights are infringed upon if the students voluntarily stay where they are. They have the option to leave. It is more problematic if this would be a public school because in order to leave the student would have to move to a different school district or pay private school tuition. But even then, it is well established law that students leave numerous “rights” at the door when they arrive at school.
What I think could be interesting going forward is how this testing might affect students’ decision on where to attend school. Offenders, and statistics tell us there are quite a few everywhere at that age, might avoid a school with such a policy. If that is the case, the behavior won’t be decreased, but will be concentrated elsewhere.
Phil Cardarella
4 months, 2 weeks agoRockhurst is a GREAT high school— and this is a dumb idea.
The fact that Rockhurst is a private school makes this “not illegal”. It does not make it smart. Sometimes “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a better policy for such things.
Frankly, if there are kids there on drugs who are able to keep up with Rockhurst’s academic demands, I might be inclined to suggest passing out those drugs at other schools.
Phil Cardarella
4 months, 2 weeks agoRockhurst is a GREAT high school— and this is a dumb idea.
The fact that Rockhurst is a private school makes this “not illegal”. It does not make it smart. Do you really want to kick out a kid who has had a beer? Or smoked a joint? Because that is the ultimate result. Sometimes “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a better policy for such things.
Frankly, if there are kids there on drugs who are able to keep up with Rockhurst’s academic demands, I might be inclined to suggest passing out those drugs at other schools.