Urinalysis Analysis

The Drug Policy Alliance's Marsha Rosenbaum has a good piece in the Fresno Bee about student drug testing, which drug czar John Walters is traveling the country to promote.

Comments

[Jennifer]

Sick of it-
I agree, but I have discovered to my peril that flippancy doesn't go over well on these postings. Had I not included my parenthetical comment, I guarantee someone would have posted as follows:

You moron! Do you really think we've got it as badly as the colonists did? DO you really not see the difference between George Dubya and George 3? Do you really think that if Dubya were out of office we'd be living in Utopia now? Imbecile! Paranoid! Communist!

Et cetera.

[Gadfly]

The humiliation of a juvenile having someone watch them pee is sad and disgusting. Equally, though, is the damage it does to the worker, oftentimes college educated teachers, social workers, probation officers, etc. who have to administer the tests to keep their job.

The best term I can think of for this totally intrusive, stupid practice is "uncivilized". That just doesn't wash nowadays, though, when there's evil lurking under the bed.

[kmw]

Homeschooling, anyone?

It's not just for Fundamentalist separatists anymore.

[Jennifer]

The school where I used to teach hasn't started drug testing yet (poverty has some benefits, I guess) but, in an effort to stop cigarette smoking in the bathrooms, they took the doors off the stalls. This was a small-town school with a conservative, mostly Catholic student body, and these adolescents-who had the innate self-consciousness of their age, plus the additional bodily self-hatred that often comes from religious conservatism-- had to undergo the daily, agonizing humiliation of going to the bathroom in front of their peers. As I said to the Dean when he took off the doors, "Are you TRYING to make these kids hate school and despise authority?"

The Dean helpfully pointed out that he'd been teaching longer than I'd been alive, which I suppose answers my question.

[rst]

How is this practice of forcing people, kids or adults, to pee in a cup constitutional?

Children aren't as protected by the Constitution as adults. And besides, the Constitution has had many exceptions made to its tenets, with many more weak excuses as to those exceptions' merits, especially w.r.t. to the war on drizugs.

Unfortunately the Constitution is a piece of paper in Philly with less practical value than used toiled paper. You have no explicit privacy rights in the Constitution, and that the Patriot Act still stands I think says a great deal about the non-existent desire of the SC to protect us against unreasonable searches. So whether pissing in a cup "violates" it doesn't really matter. If the gov't/SC can conjure an overriding health or state interest, you might as well clean up the dribble with that vaunted Constitution.

[trainwreck]

rst:

thanks for reminding me; my anger over the young man's situation I mentioned got the best of me, and for a moment there I actually sincerely believed in the crap they teach in civics class.

[codebang]

I think that kids should be introduced the wonders of poppy seed bagels and rolls. Make sure the things are handed out once a week to any kid that will take one.

Then have those positive-testing kids insist on the more expensive verification tests to "clear their good name"...at school expense.

work the system.

[Ruthless]

rst,
Thanks for reminding us the Founders placed kids even lower down-(the yellow)-stream from property-owning males than five thirds of wimmin.

Oh, Hi, Jennifer!

Okay, Tommy Jefferson, whip out your violin for a little "Turkey in the Straw."

[Randy Ayn]

The only voluntary urine sample they'll get from me is for a TASTE TEST!

[Jennifer]

Hi, Ruthless! Who were the other two-thirds of the women to whom you referred?

[SteveInClearwater]

Jennifer, you moron!

Do you really think you've got is as bad as posters at other Blogs?

We've got as stiff and an unhumorous group as other places you had discussions prior to the web?

DO you really not see the difference between Hit&Run and SeanHannity.com?

Do you really think that if Dubya were out of office we'd be typing in cyber-Utopia now? Imbecile! Paranoid! Communist!

Et cetera.

[Jennifer]

Well, that's one way to reduce class sizes. . . .

[rst]

It seems odd that educated people who presumably were once teens would think such a trivial exercise deters children from the use of drugs.

[Ruthless]

Let's see... we have a drug czar, a homeland security czar, a censorship czar, a terrorism czar (Rummy), and on and on.
Is it any wonder why this administration is so chummy with Putin?

Should we go back to 1918, and run this cycle all over again?

[trainwreck]

How is this practice of forcing people, kids or adults, to pee in a cup constitutional?

All people have the right to remain silent to avoid self incrimination.

Isn't peeing in a cup simply forced incrimination?

Who twisted the constitution to allow this foul behavior?

My friend was busted for DUI--but in this case it was for marijuana. On probation he had to pee every month. He failed a pee test, so a judge sent him to jail for a month. In jail, they made him take another pee test, which he failed.

Now he's facing a year incarceration for failing pee tests for marijuana.

How did we get here?

[Ruthless]

Jennifer,
I was trying to refer to those of the darker persuasion, the three fifths. Nevermind.

Speaking of which, SteveInClearwater is not exactly drinking clear water either.

Have a rapturous weekend with that strapping significant other!

[Ruthless]

You either plead the Fifth or pee the Fifth.

[Jennifer]

As I've said before: the only reason the Founding Fathers did not specify that bathroom activities were to remain people's private business is because it never occurred to them that anyone would be perverted enough to try otherwise. Compared to George Dubya, George III is looking pretty good right now.

(Yes, I know Dubya is not directly responsible for this current state of affairs. I just like the parallelism of the statement.)

[Sick Of It!]

(Yes, I know Dubya is not directly responsible for this current state of affairs. I just like the parallelism of the statement.)

Since Dubya brought it up in his SOTU speech, I'd say he is just as responsible. Furthermore, it is Dubya's admin that is pushing the full random drug testing of all students besides those involved in after school activities. And exactly how much financial stake does the Bush family have in the pharmaceutical/drug testing industry? That $23 million will sure look good on them quarterly statements.

[Brendan Perez]

I know some people THINK that "children" aren't protected by the constitution the way adults are, but where is that specified? I don't see any addendums, footnotes, or asterisks on any of the amendments that specify age limits.

If "children" can be denied rights solely because they're "children", and "children" is only defined in the law (not the constitution), what's to stop lawmakers from redefining children?

A teenager suspected of using drugs outside of school is told by the school that he MUST pee in a cup and that he has no consitutional right to oppose it because he's a "child". Yet, If this teenager decides to pee on the person holding the cup, he can be tried as an ADULT for assaulting a school official, ditto if he (more appropriately) decides to just the knock the person out for making such a demand.

Why is it that public schools can get away with banning all sorts of harmless things like modes of dress and literature in the name of keeping students from being uncomfortable, yet that same school can demand that that student pee in a cup in front of someone? Supervised drug testing seems like it would make a person far more uncomfortable than someone flaunting the most expensive designer clothes in front of the poorest student.

Schools also claim that rigid dress codes and/or uniforms are necessary because of "racy clothing" and "too much skin". A girl showing too much skin will get in trouble, unless she happens to be pulling her pants down to pee in a cup for the school.

I also have to wonder why Bush forgot to mention drug testing of teachers and school officials. These people are responsible for educating the future of our country, yet they aren't tested for drug usage?

If the students have to pee in cups in front of school officials, then the students should be the ones to administer the tests for school officials.
Students should also be able test at random based on the same level of suspicion that would trigger a student drug test.

[Jennifer]

Steve-
Actually, this is the only place I've ever posted, mainly because I spend a lot of time online these days, selling crap--I mean fine-quality antiques at bargain prices--on eBay, and when I think I'll kill someone if I have to type out one more superlative description of a Franklin Mint collectible, I read the postings on Reason and remind myself that things could be a lot worse. Heh heh heh.

Ruthless-Oh. Got it. I thought that might be what you referred to. My significant other is on the couch watching HBO right now, but I guess he's doing so in a strapping fashion.

If anybody out there wants to buy a four-foot brass ornament tree, a genuine Lourdes candle with souvenir Virgin Mary statue, or a dozen different NASCAR-themed pewter keychains, I can TOTALLY hook you up. Cheap.

[Chuck]

I work in a profession that my life is in the hands of clear thinking team members. I think it is MY constitutional right to know if druggies, potheads, and drunks hold my safety in their hands. Pee in the bottle or work at a fast food place!

[Jean]

If you have nothing to hide, pee in the bottle and laugh. If you have something to hide, whine, complain, yell that it's unconstitutional and write something stupid on this site. Drugs are against the law at any age, live with it, take your pee test. You made an adult decision now take the consequences...Chuck, you have My vote.