Their State May Be Dirty, but Their Urine Is Pure

Kerry Howley | February 1, 2007

On Monday, administrators at New Jersey's Pequannock Township High will greet lucky students with urine tests "capable of detecting whether alcohol was consumed up to 80 hours earlier." School Superintendent Larrie Reynolds manages to compare the unchecked consumption of wine coolers to the war in Iraq. He's got a point, actually. The same government is handling both problems:

The EtG test costs about $20, Reynolds said. The school's overall testing program is funded by a three-year, $120,000 federal grant.

Whole thing here.

Comments

thoreau|2.1.07 @ 2:42PM|#

You don't want students polluting their precious bodily fluids, do you?

|2.1.07 @ 2:49PM|#

I had a cold, I took Nyquil. That's why the test is positive.

Does a school have jurisdiction over things that happen away from school property?

|2.1.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Lamar- Schools represent governmental authority, therefore they have jurisdiction wherever they want it.

|2.1.07 @ 3:17PM|#

Is there an exemption for Catholics who attend mass?

|2.1.07 @ 3:21PM|#

Does a school have jurisdiction over things that happen away from school property?

They think they do, and at least some of the public agrees with them.

Who wants to bet how long the punishment is only "parental notification and counseling? I say less than two years.

|2.1.07 @ 3:26PM|#

Two words: home school.

lunchstealer|2.1.07 @ 3:45PM|#

thoreau | February 1, 2007, 2:42pm | #
You don't want students polluting their precious bodily fluids, do you?

But does the new test distinguish between vodka, a commie drink, and pure grain alcohol? And does it detect students who are abusing fluoridated water?

I do not avoid drug testers, but I do deny them my essence.

|2.1.07 @ 3:46PM|#

""Does a school have jurisdiction over things that happen away from school property?""

That's the way it works for kids. When you become an adult, it's your job that has jurisdiction over things that happen away from work.

Neither should be acting as agents of the state.

|2.1.07 @ 3:53PM|#

I swear to Christ if Tampa schools are doing this when my children are in high school I am personally going to serve them a glass of wine on Sunday nights. I would love to have one of these nanny staters come to my door to rat out my kids after they test positive. There is simply no intelligent way to respond to something this idiotic.

Students who test positive for alcohol…will receive counseling and their parents will be notified

Counseling will go something like this: With the exception of it being arbitrarily illegal and it offers the state yet another opportunity to demonstrate for you once and for all the myth of self-determination, I can offer you no rational reason why it is wrong for you to consume alcohol moderately with your parent's consent.

What a colossal waste of resources. Where is the $120,000 coming from?

Warren|2.1.07 @ 3:55PM|#

WTF!?!?!?
What happens if a kid tests positive. So what? What does the school do about it. The kid doesn't even need lame excuses like Nyquil or Comunion. I learned to drink responsibly at the family dinner table years before I could buy my own booze. My father taught by example.

This goes to the heart of our culture's double-think on drugs and alcohol. An adult that provides any teen with an ounce of liquor is some sort of monster. And by never touching a drop until their twenty-first birthday, that's how they become responsible adults.

AAARRGGGGG! God I need a drink.

|2.1.07 @ 4:04PM|#

Leaving aside everything else, is it not legal for a minor to drink with parental permission, e.g. at a family dinner? And doesn't testing in that situation mean that not only the student's privacy rights but the parents' privacy rights may be implicated?

Not to mention, as a previous poster noted, Catholics (or other Christian or other religious demoninations) in which Communion may be taken in the form of wine (though generally not the equivalent of the 1-2 drinks mentioned in the article!).

|2.1.07 @ 4:23PM|#

Leaving aside everything else, is it not legal for a minor to drink with parental permission, e.g. at a family dinner?

As far as I know, in Florida a parent who allows his or her child to consume any amount of alcohol is guilty of a crime.

I'd really like to wrong about that so if anyone can contradict me I'd welcome it.

At one time it was legal in Louisianna for a child to have a glass of wine or beer with a meal as long as he or she was with a parent. The State would not get involved unless the child actually drank too much. Or at least that's what I read in a guidebook in the '80s.

Mat|2.1.07 @ 5:02PM|#

I believe it is illegal in most of the US for children under 21 to drink even one drop of alcohol. On the childs 21st birthday, at midnight, but not a picaseccond before, they will magically obtain the ability to use alcohol resposibly.

|2.1.07 @ 5:23PM|#

I gave my boy friend a blow job on Friday. He was drunk at the time. That's the only explanation I have for testing positive. Are you going to tell my parents now?

|2.1.07 @ 5:30PM|#

What the hell do Europeans reading this blog think of Americans' uptight attitudes toward alcoholic drinks? On a tour of Eton College, we were told that 16 year olds, with acceptable grades, had the privilege of drinking beer in the student lounge. In Germany, my 12 year old was served a small glass of beer, with my permission, at a restaurant. Not that there aren't alot of Brits or Euros that abuse alcohol, but the witch-hunt against "kids" drinking booze is non-existant.

Robert|2.1.07 @ 5:42PM|#

"Leaving aside everything else, is it not legal for a minor to drink with parental permission, e.g. at a family dinner?"

In NJ, the state involved here, yes it is. I understand that a few states have just in recent years made possession of liquor by minors illegal, but in general "under-age drinking" is not illegal. However, it is illegal in many circumstances to sell or give liquor to minors, although if they do obtain it (such as by making it or finding some which has been discarded), legally or otherwise, they are allowed to possess and consume it.

NJ recently made it illegal to give liquor to a minor who is not a member of your household or family, which still allows parents to give liquor to their own children. There is also an exception for religious observances, and it's not too hard to set up a home church, which can host parties for your children's friends.

Even in states which have made possession of liquor by minors a felony, children can consume liquor without legally possessing it. Basically all of a minor child's things kept at home are legally possessions of their parents.

Exceptions can also be made for medical purposes. My father (who was a physician) put whisky on our gums while we were teething, and rum is still in the National Formulary.

edna|2.1.07 @ 5:46PM|#

I believe it is illegal in most of the US for children under 21 to drink even one drop of alcohol.

that is certainly not true here in california; i can let my kid drink wine under my supervision, but i can't give any to his friends. that's certainly going to be different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

|2.1.07 @ 6:10PM|#

Thank you, edna. That makes me feel a little better.

|2.1.07 @ 6:20PM|#

What happens if a kid tests positive. So what? What does the school do about it.

Unfortunately, they can bar the kid from extracurricular activities.

(As James suggested, yet another reason to home school.)

|2.1.07 @ 6:28PM|#

90% of the drunk "celebrities" at bars and night clubs are minors. Not that I have a problem with it. just obviously in some places no one cares.

I think I had my first sip of beer when I was 5 and had wine with dinner when I was 6. Now in my lates 20s I don't drink.

I have a 5 year old and a 0 year old. ( My wife got really pissed when I made fun of the "Not One Drop" ads, BTW). If there is any kind of testing when they are in high school, I will either encourage them to drink or change schools. This applies to any public school with uniforms, searches, cops,etc as well.

|2.1.07 @ 6:41PM|#

Isaac,
You may want to check out this site for various laws concerning minors and alcohol. I have verified the information that they give for Florida in the Florida Statutes, and you are correct, in Florida it is illegal for you to give and your child to possess alcohol.

|2.1.07 @ 7:01PM|#

Which faculty member gets to watch the boys urinate? Gotta keep a close eye, make sure they don't use a whizzinator. Maybe they can get volunteer observers.

Gotta go take a shower now.

|2.1.07 @ 7:04PM|#

Thanks, Kwix.

bill|2.1.07 @ 7:46PM|#

The article doesn't say. What is the penalty for refusing the test?

liberaltarian4kucinich|2.1.07 @ 8:21PM|#

WTF? NJ is a blue state?

Michael|2.1.07 @ 10:15PM|#

what if a kid goes out for a boat ride in the Atlantic, past US jurisdiction, and proceeds to get hammered. Would the school still suspend/punish him?

|2.1.07 @ 11:27PM|#

"what if a kid goes out for a boat ride in the Atlantic, past US jurisdiction, and proceeds to get hammered. Would the school still suspend/punish him?"

Hell yeah. Didn't some American high school kids get in trouble for drinking alcohol on a trip to Germany (and maybe overindulging a little) even though they were over the German drinking age?

But this test could find uses outside of high school. In prison, for instance, or for parolees or people on probation for drunk driving. In colleges for students aged 18-20. And what about organizations who object to their employees consuming any alcohol at all, such as the Salvation Army or possibly the (real) army?

And here's the relevant quote from Dr Strangelove: "I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

dhex|2.2.07 @ 12:56AM|#

"WTF? NJ is a blue state?"

yup. malls closed on sunday, etc.

|2.2.07 @ 8:12AM|#

"What the hell do Europeans reading this blog think of Americans' uptight attitudes toward alcoholic drinks?"

As a 19 year old british person, it seems barmey, i used to go to a british public school (opposed to state) which had a bar, where students older than 16 could drink legally, whilst some students over indulged, becuase they were always surrounded by there peer group (who got in the shitter if people ended up getting sick) and the occasional teacher (who didnt mind a person getting sloshed, as long as they didnt over do it), what you found was, when students reached 16, there first time drinking they whad a tendancy to over do it, however as they were surrounded by likewise peers and responsible adults, it never went any further than that, when they got to being 18 (the last year of school) hardley any one over did it, becuase they had learned to drink in such a responsilbe enviroment.

its my contention, that if there was no lower limit on the age of drinking, even fewer students would ever of over done it.

I. Self. Divine.|2.2.07 @ 11:00AM|#

As for underage drinking, here in Michigan it is unlawful for anyone under 21 to possess any alcohol. If a minor is given a breathalizer and blows anything but 0's, they are given a ticket for "minor in possession of alcohol with their body as a container."

|2.2.07 @ 11:07AM|#

The trap in "parental notification and counseling" is the word counseling. This means that the parents will be forced to put the kid into "treatment" under threat of a neglect charge. This "need" for treatment will continue until the family is forced to declare bankruptcy. BTW, if the family has health insurance the claim will likely be denied as the insurance industry recognizes the predatory treatment industry as the insurance scam that it is.

|2.2.07 @ 1:29PM|#

The Wall Street Journal put an article on the genesis of the testing method on one of their free pages.

How can picking a student randomly, who isn't driving a car onto the campus, didn't join any extracurricular activities, or otherwise give consent, be anything but a impermissable warrantless search? Will the district get consent from minors' parents or guardians first? Remember, most of the children attend that school because the state compels them to. If one's family situation precludes private or home schooling, the child has to attend one or another of the publik skools made available. If the state doesn't arrange for charter schools or allow out-of-district enrollment, your get Hobson's choice.

This case is pure ACLU bait.

Kevin

Robert|2.2.07 @ 10:49PM|#

I meant violation, not felony. Also, the point in question is a school rule, not a law, so it wouldn't matter whether the student drank at home or in Germany.