Drug Test Every Student to Prepare Them for the Real World

According to the Associated Press (AP), a Missouri college has a new, legally dubious policy of drug testing every single student.

A drug-free demand greeted new students Wednesday at Linn State Technical College, a two-year school in central Missouri that has enacted what may be the most far-reaching drug testing policy at a public college or university in the country.

Federal and state courts have consistently upheld more limited drug testing of public high schools students, such as those who play sports, as well as NCAA athletes and students at private colleges. But the move by Linn State to enact widespread drug tests of the general student body appears unprecedented… 

Civil liberties fans raise an eyebrow:

"I've never heard of any other adult public educational institution that presumes to drug-test all of its students," said Columbia attorney Dan Viets, a member of the Missouri Civil Liberties Association. "They're trying to break some new ground here. I don't think the courts will uphold it."

Even though some Linn students study technical things where sobriety would surely be a plus, like working aircraft engines and nuclear reactors, the students studying math or humanities have to fall in line with the new policy as well. This lack of a narrow focus could potentially spell the policy's doom if a lawsuit happens, which Viets says will have to occur if the school goes ahead. 

School administrators plead everybody in the workplace is doing it, so this is good preparation for students. Also, it's awesome:

"It does appear that our program is unique in its scope and breadth," said Kent Brown, a Jefferson City attorney who represents the 1,200-student school, which is located about 100 miles southwest of St. Louis. "But there aren't very many colleges as unique as ours."

The Rocky Mountain Collegian editorial board makes a sensible objection:

If we have gotten in some legal trouble and by law we are required to take drug tests, so be it. If we are applying for a job and they require a drug test, they have every right to test us and not hire us for being stoners, more power to them.

But if we are paying to attend a school, we have every right to be on whatever drugs we want and ruin our own chances of graduating. We are not paying to be treated like children or criminals.

The Collegian Editorial Board in no way supports drug use. However we do support students' rights to choose what state of mind they are in when they go to class. Yes it's stupid, and it's a waste of money ,but it's a right nonetheless.

Anyways, do you really need to be completely sober to attend a two-year technical school in Missouri?

Gawker adds that the one freshman quoted in the original AP story as saying the policy is "a good idea" is "some student narc." 

Jacob Sullum on one of the ways drug tests can do worse than violate privacy. 

Comments

[Old Man With Candy]

What was the outcome of the case cited by Sullum in the link?

[Almanian]

What's the point of college, again, if you can't drink and do drugs? College is where I became a PROFESSIONAL DRINKER AND DRUGGIE. Those skills last a lifetime! Like riding a bike...

[Hank]

"But there aren't very many colleges as unique as ours."

What a douche. Also, can I be a lawyer for a college too, or is it a requirement that you not know that "unique" means one-of-a-kind and can't be qualified with "as" or "sorta".

[Almanian]

That's a very unique argument he made

[Fartriloquist]

Perhaps even . . . no, it IS "distinctly unique"!

[dunkel]

That's a critically important point.

[Kent Brown]

Sorry. I was wasted when I said that.

[dunphy]

there's a time and a place for drugs... it's called college.

i think calling this policy "legally dubious" is being verrrrrrrrrry generous.

[Almanian]

Smoke 'em if ya got 'em!

[James Watson]

LSD helped me discover the physical shape of DNA.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Not for nothing, and the SLD applies, but if you don't want to be drug tested, don't go to the school.

[Ice Nine]

Yeah, just tell your folks that you don't want to go to that school because you don't want to be drug tested.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

It's a college, guy. 99% of the students there are 18 year old adults and free.

[Ice Nine]

You got it, guy. And 99% of those are still under their parents' thumbs.

[wareagle]

and on their parents' dime. Nothing spells adult and free quite like being a ward of your parents and needing the college to wipe your nose.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

So what? You're an adult; be an adult.

[Ice Nine]

There ya go. When nothing else works, go glib.

[Colonel_Angus]

Should public money be going to schools that enact this sort of policy?

[mad libertarian guy]

Should public money be going to schools that enact this sort of policy?

FIFY

[Episiarch]

The Collegian Editorial Board in no way supports drug use.

As long as the "drugs are bad, mm'kay" has to be trotted out whenever anyone sticks up for people's rights, there will be no progress on this issue, because it's a tacit submission to "drugs are bad, mm'kay, so it makes sense that we keep them illegal". Fucking cowards.

Hey buddy, is that caffeine you had this morning bad? Because it's a drug. Or those beers you had last night? Or that cigarette you just had? This is the pervasive stupidity that accompanies the war on (some) drugs.

[MNG]

Caffeine's a drug.
00:16:52 Who's the towhead?
00:16:55 Those drugs are legal.
00:16:58 He's with me.
00:17:03 Anything you'd like to tell us...

[Episiarch]

The Twin Peaks movie...now that's some obscure quotation.

"Look, all I'm saying is if you still wanna smoke pot then be prepared to spend a lot of time laughing with your friends."

[Zuo]

Actually the Collegian is pretty damn libertarian as far as university rags are concerned. Like every public college newspaper, they have some liberal douches, but they have also advocated for the carrying of guns on campus. Multiple times.

And there is nothing wrong with saying "eh we don't really think drugs are a great idea, but its totally cool if YOU want to partake, and its nobody else's fucking business". Which is exactly what they are saying here. It quite obvious that they DO support drug use "in some way", despite their single sentence claim to the contrary.

[Episiarch]

despite their single sentence claim to the contrary

But this is exactly the point. The fact that if they do support drug use "in some way", why do they feel the need to put that idiotic disclaimer in, which immediately undermines their point? People have been trained for 30+ years that they have to say "drugs are bad, mm'kay", even if they're advocating for the right to do drugs, and it insidiously undermines their argument. It is essential that advocates for liberty stop doing this--pointedly--if they want to be taken seriously.

Otherwise, their point becomes "yeah, I think people should be able to do drugs, except they still shouldn't do them, because drugs are bad, mm'kay". Which is basically saying "well, keeping them illegal isn't horrible, because people shouldn't do drugs anyway".

It is only with the ceasing to demonize drugs that success can come. When people start to say "man, cocaine is fun, but you need to do it in moderation" rather than "you should never do cocaine even if it were legal" is when success will come.

[Lucy Steigerwald]

I'm mostly with you. It is annoying and lazy and (possibly, for some audiences) necessary rhetoric. But I like to lean towards the great Jacob Sullum and his "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use" arguments whenever possible. Drugs should stop being a moral issue when they're divorced from, say, beating your children or doing things which are actually wrong.

I suspect (and hope) there's a place for the squares (Ron Paul, my Grandma, etc.) who support legalization AND the recognition that moderate use, even for the scary stuff, is possible. And it doesn't even make you a terrible person.

[sloopyinca]

...beating your children or doing things which are actually wrong.

Lucy, I didn't know you were in the pocket of Big Child Abuse. 😛

[SugarFree]

Sloppy, she only hits you because you make her so mad.

[sloopyinca]

Sloppy...

You really know how to hurt me, don't you?

[SugarFree]

You really know how to hurt me, don't you?

I'm am the king of the causally cruel typo.

[Episiarch]

Hail to the zing, baby

[SugarFree]

Cocaine

[Episiarch]

I much prefer cocaine bear.

[Lucy Steigerwald]

Touche.

(You hope.)

[sloopyinca]

Lucy, they need to get you outta that swamp and into the LA HQ.

[rummages around for secret Koch Bros phone number]

[dunphy]

saying they in no way "support drug use" is not the same thing as saying they oppose it either. it's saying "we don;'ttake a position one way or the other" which imo is a good position to take

[Episiarch]

The problem is that even people who engage in moderate use of drugs (recreational cocaine users, people who like to pop their extra Percocet before a flight, etc.) tend to reflexively go "drugz are bad, mm'kay" too--because they have been conditioned to.

This is why it is essential that supporters of liberty stop doing this; that they make a very conscious effort to not do so, because it's so fucking pervasive that it affects everything.

[sloopyinca]

Whether or not drugs or bad hasn't even crossed my mind in years when it comes to legalization.

Now when it comes to use, I always want to determine if drugs are good or bad ahead of time. That's why I let my friends take the first hit, pill, snort, etc.

[Ice Nine]

Your point is good. The fly in your ointment however is that there are lots of people who are supporters of liberty and drug legalization and also think (some) drugs are bad.

[Billy]

There are lots of different fetishes out there that I definitely think are "bad". But I fully support the right of free individuals to pursue whatever makes their hearts beat faster.

[Ice Nine]

Me too.

[dunphy]

exactly.

saying you are for legalization/decrim of one or any drug does NOT mean you think that drug has ANY benefit whatsoever, or may only have some benefit, etc.

it is perfectly consistent for someone to believe

1) PCP is bad drug
2) people should be criminally prosecuted for using it

furthermore, though, they didn't make a statement that they were anti drug use. much like me saying "i am agnostic on whether force was excessive in that incident" they are NOT ***taking a position.

it is entirely different to say

1) we don't support drug use
2) we oppose drug use

those are NOT the same thing by any stretch

[Zeb]

My favorite (in the "I hate them and want to bash their heads in" sense) are the people who like to do a little coke or E or whatever from time to time, but still are glad that drugs are illegal because otherwise it might be too easy for them to get. Almost as awesome are the reformed drug users who think it should be illegal for everyone because they couldn't handle their shit.

[Lucy Steigerwald]

Don't forget pot heads who think the ignorant masses couldn't handle legalization! I spent half my teenage years arguing with one particular superior snot.

[MNG]

Thanks a lot to thus crew:
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup.....90.ZS.html

(Look, there's Clarence "The Most Libertarian Jutice" Thomas in there yet again...)

[WTF]

Most Libertarian Justics, Tallest Dwarf, etc.

[Libertymike]

Remember, no person or entity has the RIGHT to impose any drug testing regimen upon another without the other's express consent.

In a free society, where there is free and open competition regarding the administration of justice, an entity may choose to exclude from its association any person who does not submit to a drug test.

In a socialist society like amerika, a different result must inhere for friends of liberty. An employer which rent seeks, in amy way, cannot have the right to condition employment upon passing a drug test. In order to enforce such a "right", the employer necessarily calls upon big daddy government and its monopoly on the administration of justice - at my expense and I do not consent to such rent seeking and misallocation of economic resources.

If an employer seeks to condition employment upon passage of a drug test, it should be ruined if it seeks to enforce such a regime upon the backs of people who actually make and produce things and who engage in voluntary and consensual trade. If you go to court seeking to impose your drug war hysteria upon others, you deserve to rot in hell.

One does not have a natural right to impose drug testing regimes upon employees such that one can compel leklviathan to steal from others so that one can get his way.

Period.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

This is facile, even for you.

If you go to court seeking to impose your drug war hysteria upon others, you deserve to rot in hell.

So if you go to court to impose contractual terms to which a signatory freely and voluntarily chose to be bound, you should "rot in hell"?

Let's concretize your principle here: Employer A is sued by Employee B for drug testing. Should the first inquiry of the court be "well, how much did Employer A benefit from the State's largesse?"

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Employer drug testing will go on as long as the employer can be legally held liable for the actions of a drugged employee whom the employer knew or should have known was taking drugs.

As it applies to me, I cannot employ anyone who tests positive for drugs as a delivery driver. If an accident occurs, the presumption of guilt will go towards the company if the driver tests positive for anything at all. Whether I personally care about that driver smoking a doobie on the weekend has nothing to do with it. My insurance carriers and the legal system does care quite a bit.

So lay off the businesses who drug test and try to change the system that pretty much forces them to do so.

[sarcasmic]

So if someone runs a red light and kills one of your delivery people, and the autopsy shows that he smoked a dube two weeks ago, you'll be forced to repair or replace the vehicle that killed him.
Or something like that, right?

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

I take it you're not familiar with our current legal system and how it functions in reality.

[Libertymike]

To a large extent, we know that much of what drives drug testing is the drug war itself. To deny the foregoing is to be a genuine flat earther.

Thus, in surveying the landscape, one must recognize that an employer who seeks to impose a drug testing regime upon its employees is not an employer who does not get governmental goodies. Sure, there may be an exception but such an exception would be like the proverbial June night in December.

At bottom, the root of the drug testing regime is Leviathan. A trucking company may claim that the DOT requires it to administer drug tests if it wants to continue being licensed to continue trucking. A catholic high school may insist that it has to impose drug tests upon its teachers or else the state education department may close the doors to the school. A company doing business with Fed-Ex may be required to implement comprehensive drug testing policies in order to do business with Fed-Ex - a company which enthusiastically endorses the drug war and a company which openly coooperates with drug warriors by the unauthorized opening of customers' packages.

Of course, the lamentations of such companies should be ignored and / or ridiculed. They do not have a right to impose their totalitarian talismanic drug testing nightmares upon anybody if the same are going to be at another's expense.

Its liberty, stupid.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Shorter LM: Because everyone may, in some way, receive benefits from the State, therefore no one has any rights. I had no idea you were a "ROADZ" kinda guy, LM.

[sarcasmic]

Its liberty, stupid.

But liberty is scary.
Without authority issuing orders, nobody will be there telling people what to do!
Without authority giving permission, people might go and do anything they want!
Without authority there is no order!
You'd have anarchy!

Of course that is total bullshit, but people believe it because it's what they're fed all their lives by public schools, government, and the media.

I know. I used to feel that way.

Now I think differently.

[Libertymike]

Tulpa, are you the Rev. Blue Moon?

I did not think that you were a multiple personlity poster.

Of course, you know that your argumentation skills suffer when you deliberately distort the position of another.

Who, under any conception of liberty, has the right to participate in a totalistarian policy at the expense of those who choose not to so participate?

[sarcasmic]

No, I'm still sarcasmic having a sargasm.

You look like you're having a short circuit.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

LM, despite the fact that I think you lack the intelligence to follow the argument, I am going to throw pearls before swine and give it a shot.

Elucidate your principle in one sentence. I will construct it the best I can: "A (person/employer) who is receiving (X%) of his/its income 'from the State' does not have the right to do (X)"

Is that your argument? Because, like I said, ROADZ!

[Libertymike]

No person has the right to participate in a totalitarian scheme at the expense of another who chooses not to so participate.

Do you understand?

[sarcasmic]

The whole point of totalitarianism is that you don't have a choice.
It is forced upon you whether you like it or not.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

All you are doing is stealing the argument when you say this:

Sure, there may be an exception but such an exception would be like the proverbial June night in December.

So what of those employers that meet the definition? Of course, you have defined it so narrowly that it is impossible to meet the standards, and therefore you can impose your will on private contracts.

*raspberry*

[wareagle]

what part of liberty makes it okay for your personal behavior to infringe on the rights of others? Whether you are free to drink all you want, smoke a joint, be a cokehead, or take something else does not entitle you to endanger others.

Big difference between the nanny state making drug tests contingent for admission to a school where one's drug use is immaterial and testing car, bus, cab, train drivers involved in accidents. What the delivery driver does in his home on his time is not my business, but if the after-effects threaten my safety on the roads, it is very much my business.

[Libertymike]

No, false premise.

You do not have a right to take Tulpa's money or Epi's money or Warty's money or John's money so that the public sector transportation company can hire drug testing concerns so that you can feel safe.

[Libertymike]

That which MIGHT threaten your safety is not a pretext upon which one can, consistent with liberty, impose the costs of alleviating your safety concerns upon others without their consent.

THAT IS CLOVERISM. NOT FIT FOR A FREE PEOPLE.

[Zeb]

The problem is that drug testing isn't really good at catching people that might actually be a danger to others. Alcohol is probably the most dangerous drug in terms of users potentially hurting others, and they don't generally test for whether you had some beer last night. Drugs tests are most likely to catch pot smokers, who are the least likely to hurt someone because of their drug use and are least likely to catch drinkers, who are the most dangerous.

I think that private companies, schools, etc. have a right to require tests of employees. I just think it is a bad thing to do and more employees should say "fuck you" when asked to piss in the cup. I will not have an employer who thinks that they can run my whole life. If you like the work I do, pay me. If not, don't.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

I didn't say I agreed with the laws. I'm just telling you from a businessman's point of view, there really isn't a choice if you want to stay in business. The. Current state of liability law, employment laws and drug prohibition pretty much mandates testing for any employee that might have an outside chance of being in an accident. To do otherwise is to invite a lawsuit that you will most likely lose or have to settle out of court on.

[TrickyVic]

""Remember, no person or entity has the RIGHT to impose any drug testing regimen upon another without the other's express consent.""

That's true in almost all cases. You do not have to give consent to a drug test at work, for employment screening, or to do extracurricular activities in school. On the flipside you have no right to work, to be accepted for employment, or to participate in school activities.

The problem is not them, it's us being ok with their demand. If everyone said fuck you, then they would need to reconsider their policy.

""In order to enforce such a "right", the employer necessarily calls upon big daddy government and its monopoly on the administration of justice -""

Saying no thanks to your application, be it for work or school activities, does not require daddy government.

I loath drug testing. It's a waste of money and doesn't mean what they think. If you have an accident at work and you test positve, it doesn't mean the accident was a result of drug use. You could be smoking pot on the weekend.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Like I said, I personally don't care if you smoke pot on the weekends, but my insurance carriers and most personal injury lawyers do. Whether or not the drugs were partly responsible for the accident is almost immaterial in today's legal system.

[sloopyinca]

Ok, I'm a Steelers fan, but somebody outta kick Toothlessberger in the fucking head.

What's next! Murder 1 for killing a cop's dog?*

Unless you are the cop that killed it by leaving it in a car with the windows up. For that, you get two weeks paid administrative leave.

[sloopyinca]

BTW, the STEBEN ROESMITHBERGER name somebody threw out the other day was just brilliant.

[STEBEN ROESMITHBERGER]

STEBEN ROESMITHBERGER RAPE POLICE DOGS, DOGS NEED BULLET PROOF VEST TO SURVIVE FOR MORE RAPE!

[sloopyinca]

Instant poll: STEBEN ROESMITHBERGER vs Ray Lewis in a battle of submission. Who wins and how?

[Solanum]

Is Ray allowed to get stabby (again)?

[dunphy]

waahhhhhhh! those darn cops get away with everything (lie) waaaaahhhh!

[Coeus]

Unless you are the cop that killed it by leaving it in a car with the windows up. For that, you get two weeks paid administrative leave.

That's unpossible. I have it on good authority that cops are actually held to a higher standard.

[dunphy]

do you have evidence in THAT jurisdiction that people who are not cops who do that get punished severely?

[Coeus]

Which jurisdiction, you disingenuous fuck? I'm getting really tired of you demanding evidence for common shit that anyone without their head up their ass has known for decades.

You demand evidence that drug dogs are just doing what the cop wants in an article showing the same. You demand evidence that cops recieve special treatment when people observe it regularly with their own eyes.

I found several articles from different states for this year, with that -exact- same occurrence. Oh, wait, the one in Greenville got adminstrative duties instead of a vacation.

How about the NOPD officers? They're criminally charged, but it's not for killing the dogs (suprise), it's for trying to cover it up.

In just about every jurisdiction in the United States, you get a felony charge for just trying to keep the damn dog from eating your dick. I haven't found a single example of an officer getting a felony charge for killing his dog. You got one? No, you don't.

You just continually post these bullshit demands for evidence, knowing full well it's out there, but hoping that the original commenter won't come back by and notice.

I thought it was willful blindness. I no longer think so. I think you know full well how shit the state of affairs is with law enforcement in this country, and you're just standing up for the home team.

You want an example of that? How about when you went off on the "cop-o-crats" for enforcing a law against a cop? What happened to "blame the legislature". I'll tell you what happened, it went right out the window when someone threatened your team.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

But if we are paying to attend a school, we have every right to be on whatever drugs we want and ruin our own chances of graduating. We are not paying to be treated like children or criminals.

I like how if you are a "paying customer" you are somehow...not to be bound by the terms and conditions of the institution providing you services?

Of course we are getting into the age-old quibble of "what rights do public or semi-public institutions have to recognize and which ones do they not?"

[Zeb]

"I like how if you are a "paying customer" you are somehow...not to be bound by the terms and conditions of the institution providing you services?"

In the case of something like a school, I think that if they change the terms on you after you are enrolled and have made some financial commitment, you could make the case that they are not holding up their end of the contract.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The kids need to learn sometime that everyone wants their pee.

[R Kelly]

I've been saying this for years.

[SugarFree]

What right to medical privacy?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

You can waive your rights by agreeing to the Student Code of Conduct, but like employees do when they agree to the Employee Handbook's Terms and Conditions.

If you don't want to be drug-tested, don't go to that school. (SLD still applies, however).

[SugarFree]

OK, Tulpa. I get it. But they are still a bunch of shitbags and the ability to get away with something doesn't make it morally correct.

[Libertymike]

No, they do not have the right to impose a drug testing regime as the same necessarily impinges upon the rights of the students as well as the taxpayers who finance the sinecures of the school's administrators AS WELL AS THE DRUG TESTING COMPANY'S INVOICES.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

So, if taxpayers "finance" (to what level? LM does not say) "something" that people take advantage of, then those people do not have the right to do "X". Did I get that about right?

[Libertymike]

Let me give you some elucidation:

If a catholic school receives tution via taxpayer financed vouchers, the school's history teachers can not canonize ole Abe.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

So, one dollar is sufficient to dictate terms to private institutions? Is that your argument?

[T]

According to current case law, yes. One dollar of federal money provided to the institution, even through federal student aid, is sufficient to impose federal will on the school.

[dunphy]

this is not valid

this is how the left opposes vouchers

they say that if a student gets a voucher and uses it for a religious school that is a state sponsorship of religion

FALSE

the locus is with the recipient of the voucher.

not the state.

if somebody receives "food stamps" (whatever they call those electronic cards these days) and CHOOSES to buy special K, that is NOT a state endorsement of Kelloggs.

The consumer makes the choice, so no state sponsorship

sure, the money comes from the state. so does my paycheck. but *i* decide where it goes, so there is no state endorsement when i buy cheezy poofs.

this is a fundamental reason why vouchers do NOT violate the (so called) "seperation"of church and state or the actual establishment clause.

*if* the state pays money directly to the school for (for example) infrastructure or teacher salaries, etc. that is a different consideration

[TrickyVic]

""so there is no state endorsement when i buy cheezy poofs.""

No, but maybe a slight South Park endorsement applies.

[sloopyinca]

Every student should eat a bag of poppy seeds before the test. At least make the pricks spend a bunch of money on secondary testing.

[Lucy Steigerwald]

I second the motion.

[wareagle]

because the first round of wasted taxpayer money isn't enough?

[sarcasmic]

Who owns your body?

If you own your body, what right does anyone else have to dictate what chemicals you may or may not put into it?

[sloopyincas statist evil twin]

Well, since every action ultimately affects others, and in turn the overall economy, I'd say the state has every right under the Commerce Clause to regulate what goes into your body. Not only when it comes to illegal drugs, but also when it comes to people getting so fat that they increase the health care costs of people who take care of themselves.

And if we want to really get down to brass tacks, the same applies to what kind of car you drive since it could kill me, how much energy you use since it pollutes the environment, and how much of your disposable income you spend because hoarding it slows the economy and affects the general welfare.

[sarcasmic]

Oh yeah. I forgot.

[SugarFree]

All first-year students _ including those pursuing general education degrees while studying accounting, communications, math, and social sciences _ must comply with the requirement, which began Wednesday, two weeks into the fall semester.

So freely choosing to be drug tested is having a policy forced on you after you've given up the opportunities to go to a different school and paid at least part of your tuition?

Fully informed consent... how does it fucking work?

[sloopyinca]

Anyone who paid their tuition under the old rules should be subject to the old rules until the next payment comes due (likely next semester) or if they are in a program, once that program is completed.

[Episiarch]

Not only that, but the students have turned down acceptances from other potential schools and would have to go through the application process again to switch...next year.

[dunphy]

yes, all other factors aside, the ex post facto issue is a complete travesty.

granted, ex post facto "administrative" shit has been greenlighted over and over in the war on DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, which i repeatedly claim is worse for the average INNOCENT joe, and this is the kind of shit that illustrates why

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Linn State reserves the right to change the terms ex post. If you want to argue they cannot do that because of state funding, then do so, but you have to answer how much state funding Linn State has to take in order for them to have abrogated their right to association and to impose Terms and Conditions upon people who affirm they will follow aforementioned T&C.

[dunphy]

saying you "reserve the right to change" pretty much anything doesn't automatically make it legit. that's not valid in contract law, and it's not valid in general.

with something as radical as mandatory drug testing, it certainly is not.

i actually ran into a similar incident yesterdAy - landlord/tenant type dispute. one of the issues was the allegedly "non-refundable) security deposit that the tenant had paid. there is no such thing. when he moved in, he was told the security deposit was "nonrefundable". under the LTCode it doesn't matter. same are prima facie invalid.

regardless, if linn state is a publically funded university, then there are all sorts of 4th amendment restrictions that apply.

for example, if the school changed the terms such that "all students shall submit to room searches at the request of a school employee" that would also be invalid.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

saying you "reserve the right to change" pretty much anything doesn't automatically make it legit. that's not valid in contract law, and it's not valid in general.

Incorrect. You are bound by Terms and Conditions (shrinkwrap unilateral contracts being the foremost example) by contract with say, Apple, Windows, reason.com/blog, etc.

And you're dodging the question: how much funding does an institution have to receive to be considered an institution that has to follow the Constitution rather than the private right of association?

[dunphy]

it is NOT incorrect. south park actually riffed on this in a recent episode.

if apple changes their contract, such that 'everybody who owns an iphone must submit a sample of their blood within 2 weeks or turn in their iphone" that would not be legal OR valid despite what they "reserve"

you don't understand the law

i am not dodging the second question. i am saying ASSUMING arguendo that this college meets the "state funded" criteria, then X is true.

and here's a hint. it DOES

"Missouri's only public two-year college with a statewide mission specializing in technical education"

that's from their own fucking website...

pretty strong evidence, it is a PUBLIC college

hth
http://www.linnstate.edu/about/facts.php

[Rev. Blue Moon]

So, when you agree to the T&C of a particular service provide, you are saying that is NOT binding? What case or law are citing for that?

I'll start you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract

Just because South Park mocked it doesn't make South Park right on the law. At best, you can say that Shrinkwrap enforcement is "mixed." And regardless of that, if you cannot carry guns, and you cannot have free speech, I fail to see how your argument holds that this is a material change to the handbook. The school has been "violating" rights for years; this is no different.

i am not dodging the second question. i am saying ASSUMING arguendo that this college meets the "state funded" criteria, then X is true.

That's not what I am interested in. First, a college website typification of itself is not controlling in law. Second, I am asking you what SHOULD be the case, not asking you to regurgitate statutes and case law.

[dunphy]

that's a bunny trail i don't want to hop down as to what SHOULD be the law.

what i am saying (and i am right on the contract law btw. ) is that it is clear that LSTC is a public university.

it is clear that, for example, liberty university is wholly private.

my understanding is that overtly ideological/religious colleges go out of their way to ensure no state nexus SO they can have all sorts of rules about student behavior etc. and be free from state interference

good for them

also note that even some private schools have been spanked by FIRE since their kangaroo court PC speech code violations run counter to their professed manifestos etc about respecting free speech, etc. such that it's still a violation. lots of case law like that at FIRE. feel free to research

also, as to contract law, a lot of it has been untested, but in brief, even the actual criminal laws have been overturned or thrown out etc. when actually challenged.

the intellectual property laws are GENERALLY upheld, but the rules of conduct with the property - not so much (see: various hacking cases into personally owned computers etc. where they are allegedly prohibited from such behaviors by contracts).

wired.com and the EFF has covered this extesntively

regardless, i want to stick ON TRACK

1) this policy is blatantly illegal
2) LTSC *is* a public college.

if you deny 2 (i didn't say what they said on their website was dispositive. i said it's strong fucking evidence. given that evidence, without evidence from you TO THE CONTrARY, i'll assume it's in fact valid

hth

[Rev. Blue Moon]

that's a bunny trail i don't want to hop down as to what SHOULD be the law.

well, I do. I find the actual law terribly boring. Yes, it is obvious that this is illegal and yes it is obvious that Linn State is a public university. But that is a seriously boring conversation to have.

what i am saying (and i am right on the contract law btw. )

No, you are not. Student Handbooks are much more closely aligned to Employee Handbooks than they are to contracts. Even so, contract law says that unilateral contracts (those that lack mutuality) are valid. You can sign a contract that says "I reserve the right to change X" at any time and it will be valid (unless that "X" is an essential term of price, etc.) Mutuality is not a requirement.

[T]

It has been found in court that the student handbook in effect at the time of admission is a binding contract between you and the university with respect to degree programs, etc. If they change the requirements you can still graduate under the old reqs as long as you remain continuously enrolled. Given this fact, I can't see how a similar case about the drug testing requirements wouldn't be enforceable under existing precedent. I.e., Linn changed the rules on me, so screw them. No drug tests unless I drop out and am readmitted.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

I would like to read those cases if you have them handy.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Is there anything in the Code of Conduct that says "The University reserves the right to change these rules at any time, without notice?" Because if there is, then your point is moot. People should read their contracts.

[Episiarch]

Authority fetish troll is authoritarian and boring. Tulpa.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

"At will" employees deal with arbitrary changes to their Handbooks all the time. Why should we exempt 18 year old college students from dealing with what adults deal with in the real world (that is, changes to Terms and Conditions - I personally hate drug testing).

Just because you are constitutionally incapable of thinking things through without being a brash moron doesn't make me a troll.

[Episiarch]

Don't get butthurt, Tulpa. You're an authoritarian ass, and if I want to call you a troll because you are using a fake handle, I fucking will. Don't like it? Read the terms and conditions of this site, bitch.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Stunning and cogent rejoinder, sir! It must really inflict deep psychological trauma on you when you discover that, in fact, you are not the smartest person in the room everywhere you go.

[Episiarch]

Yes, it is very traumatic being scolded by such an intelligent authoritarian as yourself. Butthurt much?

[dunphy]

and the "at will " employment thing has no relevance to this case.

this is a PUBLIC college, and whatever one thinks of "state sponsored education" given that it is a public college, the students have expansive rights, both to speech (thank god for FIRE) and privacy.

if this was "liberty university" or etc. there would not be an issue

i fucking work for the govt. and in a sensitive position and they can't even test *ME* without "reasonable suspicion"

[Rev. Blue Moon]

I think I repeatedly said that the SLD applies. At least twice.

That said, what dollar amount or percentage does an institution have to receive to abrogate its rights of association?

[SugarFree]

The policy was added to the Student Handbook on August 8th, long after the opportunity to apply to another school or redirect loans had passed. And there is some ambiguity whether or not the updated Handbook was issued before the semester or when they announced the policy two weeks into the semester. They send out updated Code of Conduct stuff here at random times during the semester.

And there is still no provision for returning students that had already completed part of the program. Good luck transferring credits between technical colleges.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

"Linn State Technical College reserves the right to revise the following policies, regulations and schedules. Each student is responsible for the information contained in this handbook, which is located on the Linn State Technical College Website http://www.linnstate.edu/current/pdfs.....dbook.pdf. It is strongly recommended that each student print a copy for his/her own use.

Failure to read the regulations will not be considered a valid reason for non-compliance."

Linn State Handbook Page 1.

Too bad, so sad. College students should not be exempt from the kinds of stunts that employers pull every day.

[dunphy]

bullshit. PUBLIC colleges are bound by various pesky things like.. oh... the CONSTITUTION.

if this was a private school, (that did not receive federal funding), that would be a different matter.

it's not

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Ah, NOW somebody gets it. So, what percentage of revenue must an insitution receive from the public so that it rises to the level of "having to follow the Constitution"? A dollar? 50+1%?

[dunphy]

i don't know. but since LSTC clearly IS a public college, it's not relevant to the fact that they are bound by the constitution etc. in ways that a purely private university (such as Liberty) is not

[SugarFree]

You don't think saying "We reserve to abrogate any of your Constitutional rights at will" wouldn't have given people pause about attending?

Do you really not see the difference between forcing drug tests and updating attendance policy?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

They prohibit "deadly weapons" and require that the President of the Campus approve a CCW owner to carry his weapon. (2nd Amendment)

Linn State forbids students from Displaying (or using) Terms or Symbols: (Which may create a hostile learning/work environment.) This
includes; but is not limited to, statements about race, color, body type, size, citizenship, accent, mental health,
intelligence, handicap/disability and/or sexuality and/or instigation of the same." (First Amendment)

[SugarFree]

All of which was probably in the student handbook before people agreed to go there.

I'm not saying that people can't freely agree to restrict their own rights. I'm saying that "reserving the right" to change a student handbook is not sufficient to strip 4th Amendment rights after the fact, when refusing to agree with them incurs cost (aka blackmail).

I'm fine with someone freely agreeing to go to Shitbag University as long as they know what they are agreeing to and know the extent to which the rules can change out from under them.

I have a problem considering contracts that can be unilaterally changed by one party with no repercussions to be binding, though.

[dunphy]

and since this is a state college, many of those restrictions on speech are INVALID whether or not the students sign some sort of bogus contract

again, FIRE has demonstrated this extensively.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, a public university cannot "force' you to sign away civil rights as a condition of acceptance etc.

GENERALLY speaking, as to most civil rights.

fwiw, some WA public universities actually have WAC codes prohibiting carrying of weapons on campus by STUDENTS.

those, to my knowledge, have NEVER been tested in court. imo, they will fail in court. as long as the kid is 21 , the state law has precedence imnsho

fwiw, i went to a private grad school in WA that prohibited gunz. i talked to a muckety muck admin who basically said he didn't have the "authority" to make an exception for me (among other reasons, i HAD to have it on campus since i often went to class immediately before or after my shift), but really could not give a flying fuck if i did.

i chose to carry and if i got caught and got expelled - that would be my choice since as a PRIVATE university they could set such rules

[dunphy]

true dat. and also, a public university (and to SOME extent, a private one but much less so) CANNOT reserve the right to abrogate civil rights.

they simply... CANNOT

look at some of the work that FIRE has done in this regards.

my analogy is this. imagine if they changed the code of conduct such that "all students must submit to room and.or person searches at the request of a school administrator" ... that would be blatantly illegal.

and would never fly.

and IF they tried to discipline a student for refusal to submit to same, they would get bitchslapped in court... *if* it got that far

[Rev. Blue Moon]

So if a student gets a Federal Loan and uses that to go to a private school...what are the private school's obligations under the Constitution?

If a school received work-study money (Federal), does that abrogate their rights to contract with their students?

[dunphy]

in brief, iirc (and i may not) if a student receives a grant and chooses a college (public or private) that does not change the school's status as public or private.

just like if you get food stamps and choose to buy special K, the govt. is not funding or endorsing kellogg's

it's a locus issue.

again, that's what i (vaguely) remember from a scotusblog thread years ago.

now some states have extra burdens. for example, my state actually iirc prohibits certain student grants from being used at religious universities , for example. that's a bit of a different issue

[Rev. Blue Moon]

So do you think it makes a big difference if it goes:

1. Federal Loan Officer --> Student --> School and
2. Federal Budget Officer --> School

I get the analogy to food stamps, I really do. But you have two competing interests: "He who pays the piper calls the tune" (Taxpayers controlling what happens at schools/with food stamps/with vouchers) and Constitutional issues and the state's involvement with private institutions and transactions.

It is an intractable problem.

[dunphy]

it's not just a big difference.

it's ALL the difference.

if you give a student money to pay for going to college, and THEY make the choiceof college(many loans make requirements such that it be "accredited" but that's about it), there is simply ZERO state endorsement.

period.

not under the law nor under common sense.

again,WA state has a specific law prohibiting students from even using their grant money (from the state) at religious colleges, which *i* think is unconstitutional, but that's a seperate issue

[Russ 2000]

He doesn't even see the difference between "employer" and "customer"

[Libertymike]

The totalitarian toady has the right to be liquidated.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

You don't recognize it does not make a difference. Both of them are "contractor/contractee" relationships.

[Libertymike]

Rev, why such the hard-on for the rights of parasites to ifringe upon the rights of others?

[dunphy]

except when you are talking about PUBLIC colleges, generally speaking public agencies are restrained by that pesky constitutionthat a private entity would not be

[Billy]

Drug testing. Is that like how to make sure you ain't getting ripped off the dealer you just met in the john?

[ChrisO]

Anyways, do you really need to be completely sober to attend a two-year technical school in Missouri?

More to the point, would you even want to be sober for that?

[Jim Hlavac]

This drug testing thing is going down a dangerous road. It is inculcating the idea in the public and the law that we are to be considered guilty of drug use until we prove it to the government or its agents that we are innocent. It's a 4th Amendment violation search of our very bodies without a warrant. It's a 5th Amendment denial of our right to not incriminate ourselves.

Besides companies drug testing, and besides sports programs, now it's moving to people on "Public Assistance." Or receiving "public benefits." And all students, too. We live in a time when politicians are saying everything is a public benefit. We are in a time when publicly funded health care is required for all of us, and thus a public benefit, and thus perhaps we will be ordered into labs once a month to be drug tested.

And what drugs are they looking for? Well, one is marijuana of course, and well, that should be legal at this point; for it is not much different than liquor.

And as for heroin, crack, cocaine and the pills, there are so few people taking this stuff that it seems to be 1% of the population perhaps, maybe even up to 5% of the population. And to test 100% of the population to find 5% is simply spending billions on a fishing trip. My what cushy contracts will be given to political cronies and a whole new lobbying industry to make sure the drug testing is ever wider and ever more frequent and ever more intrusive.

And don't have a poppy seed bagel, for you show up positive for heroin.

Stalin would be laughing his tuckus off.

[Zeb]

"for it is not much different than liquor."

Sorry to be this guy. Pot differs significantly from liquor in that it is orders of magnitude less toxic, less dangerous, less addictive, and doesn't make you an out of control maniac if you over do it. And for experienced users, it has very little effect on driving or other motor control types of activities.

[JT Florida]

In the last few years many state and federal politicians have pushed for drug-testing.

Proposals to attach drug testing to welfare payments get almost reflexive broad public support. However, I wonder how far drug testing will creep. Will we eventually drug test every recipient of Social Security, Medicare, and MedicAid? Everyone who receives unemployment? If the government mandates that we all buy health insurance, how long before they also mandate a drug test? Once they start collecting bodily fluids and tissues from us, how long before they start using these samples for more than just drug-screening? Could they use these samples to tell us we are eating too much of the "wrong" foods and not enough of the "right" foods? I would not be surprised if more money in this country is spent on treating obesity related illnesses than the effects of illegal drugs. What about our DNA?

BTW, why do we always talk about drug testing welfare recipients, but not other people who receive money out of government coffers such as...oh,say... the politicians! What about the top executives of companies who benefit from corporate welfare?

Oh, and as some others have pointed out, who decides what are the drugs or chemicals in the body that trigger a denial of benefits, and which ones are OK?

Look, I understand that in jobs where impairment could seriously endanger public safety a drug testing policy makes sense. However, it seems like we increasingly hear of an expansion of drug-testing into other areas.

Perhaps I am just paranoid! I'm sure genuine concern for public safety and good stewardship of taxpayer money guides all these proposals.

[Libertymike]

Um, no drug testing policy makes sense. None. Never. Ever.

[dunphy]

THAT is ridiculous. i am glad i could have SOME funhouse mirror libertarian to disagree with.

for example, if you are in a military test pilot program, in control of millions of dollars of fighter plane, etc. you damn well should be drug tested.

and you can be

[Libertymike]

No, drug testing is a spectacular misallocation of resources.

The principle applies to the jet fighter as well. Besides, you know as well as I do that jet fighters need an edge and they certainly do not need to be distracted by cup holders.

[dunphy]

points or cuteness, but if you think it's a misallocation of resources, you can't do math.

[Citizen Loblaw]

Public school or private school? All the rest is blah, blah, blah.

Blah, blah, blah.
Blah? Blah blah!

[Dagny T.]

If only you had a law blog in which to discuss such matters. Alas.

[Dagny T.]

In Googling Bob Loblaw's Law Blog, I found, for your edification, Hipster Arrested Development.

[Citizen Nothing]

I laughed.

[Matrix]

School administrators plead everybody in the workplace is doing it, so this is good preparation for students.

Puhlease! I've only ever been drug tested once out of all the jobs I ever had. Hell, the job I have now requires me to have a security clearance and I have never been drug tested for it!

[dunphy]

heck, i work in law enforcement, and they can't even test *ME* without "reasonable suspicion"

[Russ 2000]

I took one drug test in my life, and it was for a job I didn't even want, just to see what the whole thing was about.

At the last shitty job interview I had that asked if I would take a drug test, I replied "How many drugs do I have to test?"

Just say NO to drug tests.

[dunphy]

btw, i have had good results trading russ ETF's.

[Russ 2000]

You're the one!

[Zeb]

"Just say NO to drug tests."

This, emphatically. If people would stop being such spineless sheep and say no to this shit, employers wouldn't do it unless there was a really strong insurance reason to do so.

[TrickyVic]

"" unless there was a really strong insurance reason to do so.""

I have a suspicion there is. Cheaper rates.

[Russ 2000]

I've told potential employers in interviews that I will happily buy my own insurance. Even before the "drug test" is mentioned. They start getting confused and acting very defensive, as if I will start rocking the boat if hired. Jesus H, these people are so fucking programmed they can't even understand how much money I will save them. I took a job with a small business to get away from the complete dullards in the large organizations. (There's a different kind of stupidity in small business, but as long as it's not bureaucratic stupidity I can handle it.)

[Libertymike]

Do tell about the different kind of stupidity in small business?

[Rhayader]

I agree with the school, this is fantastic training for the real world. Any stoner who's worth a damn should learn how to beat a piss test.

[Citizen Nothing]

I was never tested, but new hires in my office are.
We old-timers go to the bar and laugh about it and get drunk.

[New Hire]

Hey, man, can I buy some of your urine?

[Citizen Nothing]

You'd be surprised how often I get asked this question. Or maybe you wouldn't.

[dunphy]

one of the lifeguards in a town i used to police used a female lifeguard's pee for the test.

the guy administering the tests found out ... he told the lifeguard "the good news. you passed the test. the bad news. you are pregnant"

yes, it was a male lifeguard. no, she wasn't pregnant but it was funny as hell

[Libertarian2]

Nice urban legend............why do I find it hard to believe that they would conduct a pregnancy test during a urine drug test?

[Libertarian2]

Sorry! Next time I'll read the post twice before talking to it.

[Colonel_Angus]

If public institutions, or any private institution feeding off taxes, does this shit- fuck them.

[CB]

Several other universities decided to follow the precedent established by Linn State, leading to a mass exodus of students at schools like Ohio State University, SUNY Albany, and University of Florida!

http://www.campusbasement.com/.....re-bad-mmk

[toko mainan online]

yep i think this should be implemented asap

jual action figure
jual revoltech

[?????]

http://www.2l3abgame.com/2014/.....rtles.html
http://www.2l3abgame.com/2014/09/dragon-ball.html

[?????]

http://www.2l3abgame.com/2014/09/blog-post_2.html
http://www.2l3abgame.com/2014/09/motoplay.html