Show Me Your Papers And Piss In This Cup

I agree (0.00 / 0)

   

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 16:55:22 PM UTC

This is "Perrenial Fascism" (0.00 / 0)

I remember seeing "made for tv" movies on this phenomena back in the 80's.    This ploy is nothing new.

The proponents would have us believe that it's about "the war on drugs" and insuring the "health and safety" of "'our children".  

If really competent teachers and loving parents are actually paying attention to the kids you don't need universal randomized drug testing (which  is the proponents real agenda/aim) to "catch" the few who use/abuse.

This is actually about control and intimidation and creating an atmosphere of repressive spirit killing conformist subservience in the young.   It's form of mind/spirit rape that is offensive to all that is decent and truly holy in human nature.

This Perennial Fascist impulse get's beaten back by the ACLU now and then; but it always creeps back when no one is looking.

I would bet that the Hillsboro school board is infiltrated by right wing fundamentalist types who have all manner of similar agendas.  

If these people have their way American becomes a kind of Singaporian hell hole.   All "order" and no freedom.

Then again, "the trains run on time" in Singapore.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 17:32:23 PM UTC

I am quite willing to wear color coded symbols on my shirt (4.00 / 2)

Like the NY Giants or Obama for President.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 18:35:27 PM UTC

I agree with the policy as long as (4.00 / 1)

The  members of the Hillsborough School Board are subject to the same policy as well. What is "good for the goose is good for the gander"!

I also think mandatory drug testing should extend to all public officials, including  all the way up to the White House!

Babs (A long time member of the Edison Twp Municipal Alliance against Drug and Alcohol Abuse whose opinions are my own)

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 19:13:18 PM UTC

If preventing drug use is a good enough reason... (0.00 / 0)

...for forcing students to undergo drug tests, then why isn't stopping a possible terrorist attack a good enough reason for letting the state eavesdrop on our telephone conversations without a warrant? (I'm assuming you oppose warrantless wiretapping...correct me if I'm wrong)

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 20:28:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not exactly the same (0.00 / 0)

I don't support either random drug testing (except for amateur athletics and only for performance-enhancing drugs) or warrantless wiretapping, but I think that warrantless wiretapping represents a far greater threat to our civil liberties than random drug testing.

The worst case scenario of warrantless wiretapping is that the taps are used for reasons other than counter-terrorism, including but not limited to spying on individuals and groups who are involved in peaceful political opposition to the powers that be.

The worst case scenario of random drug testing in schools is innocent students are inconvenienced.  Neither are good, but represent significantly different problems.

The problem with a slippery slope argument is that it often is a slippery slope argument as well.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 23:42:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The worst that can happen... (0.00 / 0)

...is good kids who make one mistake get kicked off the track team/school play/chess club, and must explain why they got kicked off to colleges they're applying to.

Libertarians and utilitarians alike should reject random drug testing in schools.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 00:10:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

once again (0.00 / 0)

I am not saying that I support random drug testing.

My only point is that it is not nearly as bad as warrantless wiretapping and comparing them for the purpose of making a point is as ridiculous as comparing an elected official whose policies you don't like to Hitler.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 00:49:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

slipperly slope (0.00 / 0)

After we start to allow our blood or piss to be taken and inspected without any basis for suspicion, what's wrong with letting people listen to us talking with Aunt Sophie in Belgrade?  After all, we didn't do anything wrong!

And after they listen to our phone calls, what's wrong with them scanning all our e-mails for suspicious words?  After all, we did nothing wrong!

And after that, what's wrong with letting them into our homes with no reason other than they want to come in?  After all, we have nothing to hide.

---

by: huntsu @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:37:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gee, And I Though Bab's Was Being Sarcasticly Satirical... (4.00 / 2)

Seriously.....the only time random drug testing makes sense is when consenting adults agree to it for professional/safety reasons.  Pilots, cops, judges, athletes, nuclear power plant operators etc etc etc.

There's all manner of hard data to show that it's not effective with children.  

The answer there is for parents/teachers/coaches/health care providers/family members to pay close and loving attention to the children; then the signs of a problem will be evident long before a random drug test would show usage.

http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail....

In the fall of 1999 the Wahkiakum School Board in southwest Washington adopted a policy providing that all students who take part in extracurricular athletic activities be subjected to urine testing without suspicion. The policy was adopted without any convincing evidence that there is a significant problem among students with use of illegal drugs or that disciplinary problems have increased as a result of student drug use.

The urine collection procedure substantially invades personal privacy. Students are required to shed all extraneous clothing and to urinate in close proximity to an official. A student who is unable to urinate without a medical reason will be deemed to be a drug user and will be barred from all extracurricular athletics.

further...

A March 2007 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Abuse and Council of School Health likewise concluded that random drug testing of secondary school students does not deter drug use. The committee said drug testing policies may actually encourage teens to switch to substances not monitored by tests, such as alcohol and inhalants.

People of all ages who don't value their sobriety and/or need to "medicate" away unpleasant mental/emotional life circumstances should not be further traumatized by a system that criminalizes their self destructive coping methods.

It's not just stupid and ineffectual; there's something downright sadistic and nasty about it....dare I say, evil.  Of course it's all done in the name of "saving" the children.

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry is more than ready willing and able to give children and adults all manner of mood altering chemicals under the guise of "medical treatment" as it profits to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:30:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly , Nick (4.00 / 1)

I was being very sarcastic!

Imagine ALL public officials, legislators, administrators being subject to random drug testing. No hypocrisy!

Yes, I was being sarcastic since this would never happen ... but as a taxpayer, I'd like to know my public officials were drug free and their decisions were not affected by mind altering illegal drugs.

A truly transparent government we'd have!

Hmmm what about right wing radio "poisonalities"?

Babs

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:16:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

sounds like the domino theory (0.00 / 0)

Isn't this the same kind of logic that caused a lot of problems during the Cold War?

Once again, I do not support random drug testing, but there is still a very big difference between people taking an irrational and simplistic approach to trying to keep children from experimenting with drugs and the crucial societal balance of freedom and security being thrown dangerously out of whack because our leaders want to prey on the fears of their constituents.

Once again, slippery slope arguments are a slippery slope argument unto themselves.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:46:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no, it's the kind of logic that keeps our civil liberties (4.00 / 1)

---

by: huntsu @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:00:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's suppose. (0.00 / 0)

That I invent a drug tester as innocuous as a metal detector. Certainly, schools use metal detectors all the time in the interest of safety of our chiildren. I don't anyone here would argue against there utility.
If we agree that having children in school whacked out of their minds on drugs is a dangerous situation as well, the only difference is the test method.
Would you support the drug testing if it could be done as easily as walking through a metal detector?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 14:59:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still object (4.00 / 2)

They're not looking for kids "whacked out of their minds on drugs" but for kids who smoked some pot a month ago at a party.  If a kid was whacked out of her mind, a functioning school could figure it out pretty easily.

This is not about protecting Hillsborough High School from the dangers of a Columbine style shooting, but an extension of the Reagan War on Drugs where any small violation is framed as "whacked out of their minds."

Barack Obama would have gone to jail instead of Harvard in Hillsborough.  

---

by: huntsu @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:04:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's No Rational Defense of Random Testing Of Children... (0.00 / 0)

.....it's based on attitude and ideology...and the political power to "make it so".

The SCOTUS is dominated by right wing fanatics who routinely rewrite the Constitution to suit their own prejudices.

The only way to change this, in the long run, is to elect presidents and congresses that will, in time, take back the SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, it would really be great if there was a progressive movement in NJ that had the "antennae" to have sniffed out this tragic nonsense in Hillsborough at the budding stage of the original school board elections.  

Can we form such a movement?  What would it take?  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:25:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I get that. (0.00 / 0)

Then the difference is that metal detectors are used to prevent harm to the other students, where its not clear that drug testing prevents that harm.
I'm not sure I agree or disagree, but I understand your argument.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 21:41:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thinking about this more... (0.00 / 0)

I think this is more a debate about profiling. By that I mean, if you knew a student was going to school to distribute drugs, then we would have every right to remove that student in the interest of protecting the other children.
I think an argument could be made that those students most likely to distribute drugs, have most likely used them. If you make that leap, then you might make an argument for testing based on the safety of the other students.
That said, it really comes down to whether you feel profiling is moral/ethical.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:13:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not profiling ... (4.00 / 1)

They're going after EVERY student, not just the ones who fit a profile or are suspected of using drugs.  

This has nothing to do with SELLING or DISTRIBUTING drugs, but any use even if there is no risk to anyone else.

---

by: huntsu @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 19:34:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huntsu is right; their agenda is universal testing..... (0.00 / 0)

.......it's the same "mentality" that would legitimize the complete and total elimination of all privacy.

They would say, "after all if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of".

Meanwhile, the quality of life lived in such a police state would be hellish for those who objected.......and even more (coldly/unconsciously) Hellish for the poor soul deadend fools who acquiesced.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 21:25:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Drugs: Potential for lifefelong and multigenertional problems (0.00 / 0)

Drug testing: risk vs. reward?
The reward for drug testing would be to discover and resove drug issues befor they manifest into lifelong consequences for the user, extended family and future progeny.  Sound theoretical? No. It's personal.
     I am attending a funeral this week for a  person who began their courtship with drugs in high school, decades ago.  Years of drug related entanglements engaged family, friends, and progeny. Drugs often take over the whole family.   And the parents /extended family have been savy legal, social and educational professionals. No deficits, here.  Problems had been both elusive and transparent.  There were years of trouble for the whole family.
  The biggest hearbreak is the surviving innocent progeny w/ no parent.  What is to be of their future?  
   I can only wonder whether high school drug testing might diminish the human sacrifices that accompany drug problems.  What's the risk?  What's the reward?

---

by: regnig @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 21:00:48 PM UTC

That's very sad... (4.00 / 3)

I feel bad for your friend but I don't see how that would make a difference on drug testing.

From what you say, everyone already knew this person was ill and destroying their and other lives.  Since it was already known, a drug test would have done nothing.

In their case, since people were aware of the drug use from as far back as high school, there was probably cause for testing them back then.

But what this program is doing is insisting on testing people for whom there is no evidence of drug use.  We are invading their privacy because of other people's actions.

It's not that hard to determine who is doing drugs in high school.  Everyone knows who is having problems with it even without a test.  All the test does is create actionable reports that could be used to punish people when what you say they need is help.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 21:22:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Watchful adults in teenagers' lives (4.00 / 1)

In addition to the ethical outrage huntsu expresses, which I agree with, is the practical evidence that this kind of approach just doesn't work.

Research shows that kids who have interested and responsible adults in their lives are less at risk, for all kinds of things, including drug use.

Interested and responsible = coaches, school play teacher/directors, choir directors, band leaders and chess team advisors.  

School boards and some community members are still under the influence of the Just Say No!, zero-tolerance kind of thinking which is one of the many, many bad tastes left over from the Reagan era.

But it's not rocket science. Targeting only the kids who are involved in after-school activities makes little sense. Most of them already have extra adults who care about them. The ones more at risk are the ones who drift along without too much attention.

The best thing Hillary Clinton ever said, quoting a Zimbabwean saying (and probably the last thing she inspired me with) was:

It takes a village to raise a child.

And the village owes the kid a lot; its best teaching, good food, attention to their health, and deep respect for their young lives. And the village ought to stay the hell out of their lockers and their urinary function.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 21:56:11 PM UTC

As it turns out the reason they target the kids involved in... (4.00 / 1)

...extracurricular activities is because that's all their allowed to target according to a Supreme Court ruling from 2002.

Their ultimate agenda is to be testing all the kids regularly.

I shouldn't say "ultimate", eh?   I assure you, the Singapore model (with a "Christian" slant is what they truly crave).

And without opposition/resistance it will go a lot further.    

Democracy and freedom are not automatically maintained  "steady state" phenomena.....they need to be maintained by a conscious watchful committed citizenry.

It's a shame that the first we've heard about this is after the local Board of Ed already approved it.    

Now the only chance of reversing it is to elect a new governing Board in Hillsborough.

One thing the radical right wing fanatics do well is get elected at the local level......truly "sad" when you figure that they are in the minority.....but it's a motivated minority that turns out to vote in schoolboard elections.

These people will get federal funds and this program will bury itself into the school system there like a parasite in a host.

All in the name of "the war on drugs" the whole spirit of this community's school system will be turned into a gestapo.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 22:41:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the problem of false positives (4.00 / 1)

The other problem is that the reality is that many innocent people -- who had no reason to be suspected of a crime -- will fail this test.  

The drug test may simply sometimes give the wrong result:  a 99% accuracy means that for every 100 innocent people tested, 1 will fail.  Think about the size of a high school.

The test may work properly, but be failed due to a legal substance:  prescription medication, poppy bagels, or whatever.

The test may work properly, but the samples or results may be accidentally mislabeled.  The wrong person is accused of drug use.

The test may work properly, but due to corruption or ill will somewhere in the procedure, an innocent person is said to have failed.

I have seen ALL of these in various news stories (especially involving DNA testing of accused criminals), and simply reflect human nature and the statistics of imperfect tests.  


Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:46:09 AM UTC

Science, scimience (0.00 / 0)

This is an area that I have knowledge of because of our business.  Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry is (pardon the pun) the gold standard for testing.  You aren't going to get false positives with it.  Doing additional tests like the 6-MAM will tell you if it is poppy seeds or an opiate like heroin.

Rush Limbaugh got in trouble for using someone else's Viagra.  It is illegal to use someone else's prescription meds.

Following proper chain of custody procedures such as those required in the transportation industry makes contaminated samples or mislabeling impossible.

The problems come with the failure to take the time or spend the money to do it right in the first place.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:18:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, The Laws of Physics/Chemistry Aren't Going To Change... (0.00 / 0)

...unfortunately there is no process that human beings can't screw up.  

To imply that it's "impossible" for a testing regime to give false results is, at best, hubristic.

It's not the science that's the problem; it's the people.  No amount of money or time will yield perfection.....maybe you can get closer, but that's about it.  You can't eliminate the possibility of a screwup, no one can.

In any event, the relatively small amount of false positives/negatives that may or may not occur aren't the primary issues (unless it "occurs" to you or your child).

Another element of this is the fact that testing has become a multi-million dollar industry that then becomes a "political" constituency that can (and I'm sure does) make/bundle all manner of campaign "contributions" and hire all manner of lobbyists and PR firms to make sure the "demand" for these services continues to grow.   Follow the money...

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:46:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reading Is Fundamental. Try it sometime. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 13:08:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Science, scimience" Redux... (0.00 / 0)

 Emphases added...

This is an area that I have knowledge of because of our business.  Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry is (pardon the pun) the gold standard for testing.  You aren't going to get false positives with it.  Doing additional tests like the 6-MAM will tell you if it is poppy seeds or an opiate like heroin.

Rush Limbaugh got in trouble for using someone else's Viagra.  It is illegal to use someone else's prescription meds.

Following proper chain of custody procedures such as those required in the transportation industry makes contaminated samples or mislabeling impossible.

The problems come with the failure to take the time or spend the money to do it right in the first place.
by: Creed Pogue Blue Jersey Star. Click for more information. @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 22:18:24 PM CST

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:33:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And you went on to attack the human element which I had already said was the problem and that shortcuts can invalidate testing. (0.00 / 0)

But, you seem unable to move off your set of talking points no matter what the facts are.

I have my own doubts about school testing or at-home testing.  But, this whole "there is no rational basis" business is just an attempt to squelch the debate and prove how righteous you are.  Again, you need to move out of Mount Olympus and come live with the rest of us flawed humans.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 20:18:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure... (4.00 / 1)

the policy on an 'instant test' positive is to send the sample out to a lab for confirmation.
I manufacture urine cups for JC Penny that separate the sample so that in the event of a positive result on the spot, they have an untainted sample they can send out for verfication.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 15:03:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's Put It This Way.... (0.00 / 0)

There are all manner of "rationals" for the death penalty.   There's no shortage of intelligent, articulate people who will, enthusiastically "make the case" for death....and they will bring all manner of "facts" to the table.

Yet, the overwhelming preponderance of the actual evidence shows that the death penalty doesn't work (on many levels).

I see this random drug testing of children as being driven by ideology/fixed ideas in much the same manner as the pro death penalty "rationales/arguments".   The analogy isn't perfect; but it works for me.

The opposition, in this case, owns the US Supreme Court...but we still have the right to organize at the local and state levels and to take back what has been lost town by town.

Meanwhile, the children of Hillsborough will have to be observed/supervised "peeing in a cup" by/for school officials.

Perhaps one of the victims (who can afford to be expelled from school and go somewhere else) will make a "federal case" of it.  

Let's compel the judiciary to enforce it's own "constitutional" perversion.  The more light brought to this issue the better.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 21:08:19 PM UTC

A few thoughts... (0.00 / 0)

1. Neither in the newspaper article nor huntsu's diary was there any indication that Hillsborough HS had a significant drug problem that warranted such a response.  It seemed to be a "good thing" to do, because a lot of folks approved of it.

2. Targeting drug testing to 2 classes of students, i.e., drivers and those engaging in extracurricular activities is not "random."   To be random, it must include every student. It doesn't pass the constitutional "smell' test.

3. I certainly am no expert, but from what I've read, random testing does little to discourage drug abuse.  There are more effective (and more expensive) ways to deal with the issue.  All of the latter involve more effort on the part of the school and parents.

4. Such testing encourages more creativity on the part of drug users than the school curriculum.  Mark my words, they will figure out a way to evade you or do their thing in a manner you or their parents won't discover for a very long time.

5. (For WjcW) Those intent on distributing drugs do not do them while engaged in business activites.  Dulls the mind, risks losing profits.  Trust me on this one.  Using the creativity model suggested above, if drug sellers are limited in the deals they can make on school grounds, there is always another place and means to peddle their stuff.  Has the school board heard of the intertubes?

So yes, there are constitutional (especially "big brother") issues of paramount concern.  But on a far more narrow plane, the Board's decision seems to be uninformed, CYA, pandering to frightened parents, lazy and just plain stupid.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:36:29 AM UTC