digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at time.com

Should School Districts Start Drug-Testing Teachers?

time.com — One could argue that some jobs — painting, writing, being a rock star — are better performed under the influence. But other jobs should clearly be given only to the perpetually sober. But what about people who work in less perilous environments — say, with children in public schools? Should teachers be randomly drug tested too?

Who dugg this? Made popular Feb 6, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

237 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rwallen, on 02/05/2009, -1/+136If my job involved high school kids I would be stoned out of my mind the second I got home.
  • Hetman, on 02/05/2009, -3/+108If you show up to work and you are acting like you are not in control of your body, I can see justifying a drug test. If you show up to work fine everyday and do your job well, then there is no justification for drug tests. Random drug tests are ridicilous. This is kind of off topic but it is from the article. "This assumption is usually incorrect — most drug tests capture everything from heroin to Valium — although certain lesser-used drugs like the anesthetic ketamine aren't detected by the usual tests.) The defference is that Marijuana is stored in your fat. I could snort herion all night and I only have to worry about it being in my system 72 hours. This is why people switch from marijuana to harder drugs when they know they are going to be tested.
  • ddetina, on 02/05/2009, -0/+64Don't school administrators have something better to do with their time and money?

    Errr ... probably.
  • cupanoodles, on 02/05/2009, -1/+56I think teachers should be afforded the same privacy everyday citizens enjoy. The point at the end of the article is the take-home message: let teachers do what they will unless it begins to affect their job performance. If a teacher is able to maintain some illicit drug habit outside of school while continuing to provide a stable and quality learning environment in the classroom, more power to them
  • DarkerMaster, on 02/06/2009, -0/+42Don't eat the Poppy seed bagel!
  • pagit, on 02/06/2009, -1/+40start with the politicians, the school board, the principals then the teachers
  • ThatNeilDude, on 02/05/2009, -1/+40What the teacher puts into his/her body when they get home should probably not be anybody else's business. I don't think reefer should be anything to get in a twist over; however, coming to work stoned would probably be a bad decision. Coming to work coked up or on meth or something...they should probably start looking for a new job.
  • silentboom, on 02/06/2009, -0/+34I agree completely. I don't think someone should ever be tested for anything, if you are not doing your job well, you get fired. End of story, very simple.
  • Suzilla, on 02/06/2009, -0/+34I would rather test teachers to see if they can read, write, do math, ...
  • inactive, on 02/06/2009, -3/+32Not like we have a massive shortage of teachers as it is....
  • scorchedearth, on 02/06/2009, -2/+27The school systems don't have enough money as it is. Why should they waste resources on this nonsense?
  • RetepNamenots, on 02/06/2009, -0/+22Thanks for NOT filling up the entire page with ascii... =)
  • WasabiBomb, on 02/06/2009, -0/+19I am, and I agree with pagit. If drug use among teachers was a legitimate problem, we'd have heard of it before now. As it is, it's just a Republican grandstanding to get votes- if her opponent disagrees with the call to drug test teachers, she can point at it as evidence of her opponent being "soft on drugs". I imagine we'll also hear something along the lines of, "Won't someone think of the CHILDREN?!?!"

    Drugs are not the evil that politicians make them out to be, and children are not special little flowers which need to be sheltered from the world.
  • TheAeneid, on 02/06/2009, -6/+25Should digg power users be tested?
  • Nick217, on 02/05/2009, -1/+19no. looking back on it, my art teacher -- hell probably the principal -- at my high school smoked pot recreationally.
  • athinnes, on 10/01/2009, -4/+21We already violate students civil rights with drug testing, why not teachers as well?
  • inactive, on 02/06/2009, -1/+18no, prohibition and wasteful spending on the war on drugs is what is screwing this country up. That, and dumbasses like you that have rocks for brains.
  • dygel, on 02/06/2009, -1/+17I think the Michael Phelps case proves demonstrably that the long-standing public fear of marijuana is misplaced. Sure, he's being suspended for months and is losing an endorsement deal with Kellog's, but he's also a once-in-a-generation athlete. It's more than a little naïve to think that this is his first time around marijuana; it's likely the first time he's been caught (and anyone cared).

    Obviously, it's a mind-altering substance. So is alcohol, and last I was aware, there wasn't any prohibition on teachers being able to drink. Of course, this is all referring to their own personal time. Anyone coming to work in an altered state is soon to become unemployed.

    Mandatory drug testing for teachers seems entirely unnecessary. If an individual begins exhibiting signs of some manner of drug addition, this becomes evident to their co-workers and extraordinary drug testing may be reasonable. But if it is not affecting their job performance, I don't believe John Q. Public has any business in what's in teachers' pee.
  • doctechnical, on 02/06/2009, -1/+16No, they should clue-test teachers to make sure they actually know the subject they're teaching. If they're competent and educating the kids I for one don't give a damn what they're smoking/sniffing/inject/jabbing in their eyeballs.

    Of course, good luck getting THAT past the union.
  • SpeshulEd, on 02/05/2009, -0/+15NO...they shouldn't!
  • inactive, on 02/06/2009, -0/+15Your wife needs to teach you how to properly construct an argument.
  • iammzac, on 02/06/2009, -2/+16One of my coolest teachers in high school smoked, at least we were pretty sure of it. He was also the coach of the school Frisbee Golf club.
  • inactive, on 02/06/2009, -0/+14Ultimately, I think the point is, though, that if a teacher is doing his or her job, and there's no question about behavior while on the job, drug testing shouldn't even be considered.
  • Jsmuli2, on 02/06/2009, -1/+14There goes the english department.
  • Ascus, on 02/06/2009, -0/+13Problem is there is no performance based firings. In general most of my children's teachers were great and motivated, all but one was adequate, then the one that I think my kid would have been better off staying at home that year. 14 years later, after a constant stream of complaints to Principals at multiple schools over the years, she still teaches just gets transferred to a different school every couple years.

    Drop the drug testing, just be able to fire teachers base on poor performance, get rid of tenure.
  • inactive, on 02/06/2009, -0/+12WTF are you smoking???
  • Couchy, on 02/06/2009, -1/+13My art teacher was a hippie lady who didnt wear deoderant. But man, could she teach art.

  • Teh1337Pirate, on 02/06/2009, -5/+17No they should bring beatings back in school, kids are becoming less respectful and not as attentive.
  • Loffer, on 02/06/2009, -3/+14There would be no more teachers left.
  • ATL, on 06/20/2009, -1/+12I remember the days my science teacher came in wearing sunglasses throughout the whole class time and all we did was watch a movie in the dark.

    YEAH, he was stoned...
  • MattB123, on 02/06/2009, -0/+11I'm pretty sure art teachers are required to.
  • raublekick, on 02/06/2009, -1/+12Some of the best teachers I've had are no doubt former, and possibly current pot smokers. It's none of my business what anyone else does recreationally. What IS my business is how well they perform at their job. If their job performance sucks, it doesn't matter what the reason.
    Hell, I don't like the fact that an underage or other drinking violations basically prevents you from being a teacher. I would prefer someone with real world social experience teaching my kids rather than someone who isolated themselves in a badness-reflecting box.
    To me, firing someone solely for drug use is on the same logical level as firing someone for wearing Dockers or eating potatoes. If your rules ignore actual job performance, it's just discrimination against something you don't like.
  • FLarsen, on 02/06/2009, -1/+11That's not "obvious" at all. How would a teacher running a XXX web cam after hours affect that teachers ability to do his or her job properly? I think you're guilty of exactly what you're saying there's too much of. Your post starts fine, but then you try to impose your own morality on people, calling it common sense.

    Since this is digg, here's a simple explanation:
    bool shouldPeopleCare = person.DoesActionNegativelyAffectJob(action);
  • Greengoo, on 02/06/2009, -0/+10My second favorite teacher in high school and his wife (another teacher) were both fired for being caught with weed. Biggest shame in the world, the guy was a passionate, informed, talented teacher who loved his subject and was well liked by his students.
  • Murdats, on 02/06/2009, -0/+10yes start drug testing politicians and then they will want to make it legal to avoid jail time.
  • inactive, on 02/06/2009, -0/+9Exactly.

    I'd prefer my children be taught by someone who has experience with drugs. Children deserve to get honest answers--and not propaganda--in response to questions they have about drugs. Most kids are going to try drugs; why not let them get a little guidance on the subject?
  • xenuxenuts, on 02/06/2009, -1/+10I do have some anecdotal evidence. I have talked to people who did a variety of drugs to begin with and dropped pot when they got a job that did drug testing.

    You could also argue that alcohol is a harder drug since it has many more side effects than pot: hang overs, liver damage, brain damage, etc.
  • jsdieorksw, on 02/06/2009, -1/+10As a teacher in training who smokes A LOT of weed, yes...god yes
  • BenTheTank, on 02/06/2009, -4/+12Why do people read anything published by TIME? What ***** standards of journalism.
  • thcobbs, on 02/06/2009, -0/+8They do... they just won't actually DO it.
  • Greengoo, on 02/06/2009, -0/+8It's actually creepier because you can't see his hands...
  • WasabiBomb, on 02/06/2009, -1/+9Did it affect your education in ANY way? Did one of them try to get you hooked on crack? No? Then what's the big deal?
  • wardsac, on 02/06/2009, -2/+10Buried for trying to insinuate that teaching in a public school is less perilous than painting....
  • UberNick, on 02/06/2009, -0/+7Just like in the Olympics, there are good swimmers and there are bad swimmers. Guess which ones are likely to be doing drugs?
  • kaidovak, on 02/06/2009, -2/+9We already have periodic background checks and have to take university courses to maintain certification. Isn't that enough already??
  • Chompy, on 02/06/2009, -0/+7Agreed. It's not like people are clamoring for teacher jobs, anyway. Those poor people get screwed enough as it is, putting up with kids, parents, budget cuts, and the ridiculous PC rules they have to work under. If someone is doing their job well under those conditions, that's good enough for me. What they do on their own time is their own business.
  • Hetman, on 02/06/2009, -0/+7Yea. I have read articles about people with low blood sugar. They usually act kind of like a drunk would. So you would want to look at each situation to see if there may be some other causes for these symptoms.
  • LonesomeFighter, on 02/06/2009, -0/+7and the art and music departments.
    eh, those would go anyway if the school ran low on money
  • inactive, on 02/06/2009, -5/+12Yes. This is a great use of resources in the bloated education budget that's already producing the most highly educated children in the world.

    Also... states aren't in a massive deficit of teachers already. So why not?

    /s
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 242 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.