Hi people! I wanted to get an opinion on what y'all think is right in this situation. My brother's high school is a random drug testing program in which they pull the student out of a class during the year (at random) and test for drugs - but parent's permission is required for enrollment in the program with the school packet turned in at the beginning of the year. Would you all enroll your children in this?
At one end - the drug test is done at random and it has its benefits. On the other hand, I would think that the child might feel the parents don't trust him/her and it might entice the child to do drugs that he/she might not or cause other psychological rifts. On one hand - the child would either know he/she is enrolled in the program or the parent can keep it a secret from the child by going to the school after the packet is turned in and enrolling them in the program this way so the child wouldn't know until he/she is pulled from the classroom and *if since it is based on "random" - but I don't know what is the right decision in this situation and wanted some of your advice...thanks in advance. :)
Your question essentially boils down to this(I think): Should we randomly drug-test a certain part of our population?
My answer is: what happened to innocent until proven guilty? There is no reason to invade another person's privacy like this. If they had been caught with drugs in their bag, or something like that, THEN you might have some reason to drug test. As an analogy: it's liking taking DNA evidence for a murder without ANY link between the person involved and the murder victim... do it to enough people and you will eventually find the murderer, doesn't make it ok to take DNA from all those innocent people.
So more specifically in answer to your question: is your brother connected in any was with drugs? Has he had drugs in his school bag/room/wherever? Has he ever appeared to be under the influence of the drugs being tested for? If the answer is no to all of these then I would say no to random drug tests.
Hope this helps :)
There is a reason: they are minors and do not have all of the rights (or duties) of full citizens. You may agree or disagree with drug testing, but there is no doubt minors are not in the same legal category as adults.
It's my understanding that this only applies in schools where the actions may pose a threat to the school. Guns in trunk of car, privacy rights play second fiddle. 1st Amendment Rights don't apply in class if it's disruptive.
I don't know of any case law that says that says bodily fluids can be taken at any time. It's not as if I know all of the case law, but the school would have to show how the school is impacted by the drugs being in their urine.
Good point unseen, that should taken into consideration too.
But to be fair - minors don't have the same rights as adults. And no, he hasn't been connected with drugs etc. but my dad bought him a really nice car this past summer and there is a chance that a lot of kids are going to start hanging out with him that didn't before...
Minors have exactly the same rights as adults when it comes to illegal drugs- NONE. The main difference is that they won't be tried as an adult (usually) if caught
"He has NOT been connected (caught) with drugs."
So better start testing him for NO reason. Talk about Unreasonable Search.
Is that what hapened to you when your dad got you a car? Or did your dad not buy you a nice car? Now your jealous?
Maybe they want to "hang out" with him because he's a nice kid and fun to be around- no car needed- although it helps.
Maybe you like giving up personal freedom for NO reason- I do not.
He got me a nice car too when I was 16-17, it has nothing to do with me. It has to do with my brother's personality and psychology which I know a little bit about. I never felt the need to do something due to peer pressure.
Your brother will see this your father doesn't trust him, pure and simple.
If I were you I'd stay out of it, if you side with your father it will hurt your relationship with your brother for a long time. He certainly won't confide in you.
I am being asked for my advice from one of my parents. I am not "involved" with it directly like that. I don't sign the forms.
I don't buy the argument that kids can't learn to be responsible without being allowed to make every single choice. Kids receive a lot of exemptions (a separate legal system in all but the most extreme cases, for example). This seems a minor and possibly useful intrusion on their dignity. I don't see rights as an issue here. It's their parents who have the relevant rights here. The parents have the right to drug test their kids at home. I don't see the legal issue in transferring these rights to the school
By denying that kids should be allowed to make every single choice, I was saying that some choices yes, some no. What is wrong with denying them the choice to use, oh, heroin or cocaine, along with bringing guns to school, and defacing the halls with graffiti? To me, asking for a urine sample isn't "invasive." "Invasive," to me, means literally going inside their body as with taking a blood sample. Urine is like trash left on the curb. Once it exits your body, it doesn't belong to you anymore.
Unseen, may I ask: how old are you? And are you a father?