What is Digg?150 Comments
- slimnickyy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+139Of course, get young kids used to privacy invasions at an early age so that they're used to it when they're older. That way the gov can finally kill off any sense of civil liberties in patriot act 2.0.
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+80@datastorageguy:
So drug testing lowers drug use? That's a whopper. Especially since the current drug war, tougher laws, stiffer penalties, occupational drug testing, and millions and millions of dollars in ad campaigns and extra police have not put a dent in drug use. In fact, drug use has gone up.
And who decides which drugs are okay and which are not to begin with? Heroin is illegal yet other opiates are used in hospitals routinely. Alcohol is perfectly legal even though it accounts for thousands of deaths per year, but Marijuana, a substance that has not caused ONE SINGLE DEATH, is illegal.
The drug laws need to seriously be re-evaluated. The reason Marijuana is illegal is because back in the 30's, senators from southern states regailed congress with tales of "the black man desiring the white woman!" These stories were utterly false and still the government pushes completely erroneous information when "educating" people about drugs. The problem is, the American public isn't that stupid (yet), and when it doesn't happen the way the government says it would have, then guess who loses a ***** of credibility?
Here's a way to get rid of the drug problem once and for all. It won't stop people from using drugs, but it will utterly eliminate all violence and crime related to the drug trade, and various negative effects on society:
Legalize them, all of them. The biggest problem related to drugs is the violence related to the black market. If you legalize drugs, the black market has no reason to exist. If you legalize drugs, they'll be cheaper, and thefts by addicts will be eliminated being that it no longer takes a month's salary to buy pot for the week. Why buy pot from the guy on the street corner when you can get it cheap at the pharmacy, or corner store? The allure of doing something illegal and getting away with it will be gone, so less people will start.
Legalizing and regulating drugs will put drug dealers out of business, prisons won't be full of people serving life sentences for smoking a joint, and the country saves the millions of dollars it's flushing down the toilet on it's (dis)information campaigns and police/military forces.
There is no question that most drugs are bad for you. Certain drugs like PCP, Meth, etc. truly are dangerous in themselves and really do cause people to lose control, so keeping them illegal would be necessary. My points are not referring to those. But even though they are bad for you, what gives the government the right to step in and tell you what you can and can't do to your own body? The government exists for various reason, but taking up a parental role and treating it's grown citizens like children is not one of them.
As far as the article is concerned, random drug tests done by a public federal institution like a school are unconstitutional. According to the constitution, people are protected against search and seizure without provocation.
And for those of you who would say "I don't mind getting tested, I'm not doing anything illegal and I have nothing to hide," consider this: What happens when the government imposes overly-restrictive laws? What then? Privacy is the first line of defense against a tyrannical government. Once privacy is eroded away, freedom dies a quick death. - JiMiThInG, on 10/12/2007, -3/+61We teach kids about how the Constitution is the foundation of our country, then tell them that it doesn't apply to them in high schools. I wish I could figure out why so many young people are disillusioned with out government.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -5/+59Perfectly put, slimnickyy.
And on another note, Drug Czar Walter's is wildly generalizing when comparing a TB test to drug testing. I've done random UA testing for drugs quite a few times. It is incredibly dehumanizing on every level imaginable...putting cattle calls of adolescents through something like that on a regular basis is shameful...
...and all this for an accuracy level that is still not 100%. Some cough syrups and most allergy meds can tick positive for amphetamine use. - jhurliman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+58datastorageguy: It might also cause an increased high school drop-out rate leading to a larger class divide.
- eMuleDude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Wow, that's crazy. What's even more crazy is that this guy is trying to make people believe that these tests will seem normal.
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31"How about protecting say, 'a group of young girls' from the whack job who gets f'ed up, loses his senses, can't control his sex drive, and ends up raping 2 of your 12 year old daughters?"
I think if you're raping 12-year-old girls, drunk, high, or not, you have deeper-seated issues. Besides, that scenario sounds like something that happens most often with ALCOHOL, one of the most dangerous, yet perfectly legal drugs out there. Yeah the government is really on the ball protecting you there, great job. Besides, they have a big enough job protecting kids from their deadbeat, abusive parents.
"And when you say "All drugs should be legalized" then go on to say "Certain drugs like PCP, Meth, etc...." shouldn't, you're losing all the power of your argument of 'the appeal will be gone'"
saying all drugs should be legalized is a misnomer because there are thousands that already are. people define "drug" in the context of what they are writing and that's what I was doing. When I said all drugs should be legalized I defined the context to mean marijuana, heroin, etc. etc. where they aren't quite as "dangerous" as the harder drugs.
"Personally, I don't care. I watch friends go in and out of rehab all the time. They are adults, and I don't feel for them, however, when we tell children who aren't developed enough to make good decisions that it is ok to use cocaine on a daily basis (which we will be doing if we suddenly legalize it), I tend to get a little scared."
Frightened people make the worst decisions, and are the first to hand-over their rights. Once again I have to draw on the example of alcohol. Alcohol is legal for adults, so are you saying you automatically teach your children that it's a-okay to be an alcoholic? How irresponsible of you! I for one support education on substances (a REAL education, not government propaganda programs). I was taught in health class what the effect of alcohol is on the body, and why drinking too much is bad for you. I was also taught the effects of other drugs as well, and I know more about marijuana, cocaine, and heroin than most people.
"Have some fun with your drug of choice... in fact.. have too much fun."
Here's the real kicker in all this...I don't do drugs. I never have, and I never will. I've seen first-hand what they can do to people and based on that and my education I've decided not to use them myself. But, I also recognize that I don't have the right to force my decision on others, and everyone should have to freedom to indulge in whatever they wish, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. - grymwulf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35(Opening scene, in the background a large fire is burning, with piles of dollar bill sized pieces of paper being shoveled into the fire. Spokescitizen on stage left facing stage front. Emblazoned logo on bottom of screen: "Your Tax Dollars at work!". Enter stage right: two imposing guards in stark, night black uniforms. Emblazoned proudly on their chests "Citizen Protector". Between them they carry a teenager, purple colored hair, punk-style clothing, visible tattoos and piercings. He is bound with a gag.)
Spokescitizen: Here you can see John, or as he calls himself "Crash". Crash was caught not taking his government perscribed medication for anti-social behaviours for the third time. As you know, Citizen President for Life George Bush III recently passed the Social Integration Act of 2021, mandating that all anti-social school teenagers would be prescribed medicine to better allow their eventual Social Integration into full Citizens. "Crash" has decided by his actions that he would no longer want to be integrated into our G-d fearing society. As such he is to be marked with the AS brand, and his pre-Citizen rights revoked. Remember! Safety before Privacy! Civil Obedience before Civil Rights!
(In the background, you see a Citizen proctor grab a branding iron from the roaring fire. Fade out close up on "Crash" straining to avoid the glowing AS brand approaching his forehead.) - FunnyBuzzy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32 I wonder if we will ever be judged by the quality of our work, instead of the quality of our piss! There is a war on drugs, and people on drugs are winning it! What does that tell you?
- brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30First: Drug tests aren't exactly accurate and never totally random. Most principals figure that kids won't notice if they test 'em every 37 days or something, but after a couple times someone will figure it out then everyone else will know that come the 37th day they're going to get tested.
Second: If I'm not a criminal already treating me like one will do nothing except make me become one. - friend18, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28This is absurd, a violation of privacy. Maybe in a private institution this could be acceptable but not in a public institution.
- dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Here in the netherlands we have more or less legalized possession, use and sale of small amounts of cannabis. Police still waste massive court resourceswith the hardcore criminal cases of trade in cannabis, as the substance is still technically illegal. However, the grass roots level (haha) of tolerance has caused a strange effect.
Drug us of all narcotic susbstances is lower per capita than anywhere else in the world.
Who can argue with those statistics? - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28People who use the Constitution as toilet paper deserve to die.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22I don't have random drug tests. Nor do most jobs. Hardly any jobs in high tech have them. I would not work for a company that used such testing.
I have have fired people for poor performance. In at least two cases, these people were probably drunks. You don't need to drug-test to get rid of non-performing workers. - indicas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20@wuori: Those "Certain drugs" are the divide between hard drugs and soft drugs. Soft drugs like marijuana are harmless. Hard drugs like PCP, meth and cocaine are not. Got it? Being pro-legalization for soft drugs does not make you an ass because it makes sense.
"If the govt's current drug policy hasn't "put a dent" into drug use, and has "increased it", then really what are you complaining about anyways?"" - Wasted tax dollars? Increased privacy invasion? Certain promising drugs being off-limits for medical research? What else... - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20The war on drugs exists so politicians can get votes by saying "I'm tough on drugs!"
- Misos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Who decides which kids get tested?
I have long hair, and when I was in high school I had several people tell me they thought I smoked marijuana, which I didn't. To assert that someone may know whether or not someone else is using drugs with any sort of accuracy is ridiculous. Certain kids administration or teachers don't like may be targetted for testing making their life at school more difficult.
Secondly, drug tests aren't extremely accurate. Consuming poppy seeds for some is the difference between being hired and remaining unemployed.
Lastly, drug usage itself among students shouldn't be a concern. What _should_ be a concern is the behavior of students while at school. I've known people to use cocaine or smoke cannabis before going to work or school, and other than them seeming a bit more bright or relaxed (respectively) they were themselves. In control, not threatening.
However, if a kid comes to school on PCP, LSD, or is drunk on alcohol they pose a serious a threat to their fellow students as they may entirely lack self-control. Such cases can only effectively be dealt with on an individual basis as they occur.
Drug testing won't be of benefit to anyone. Leave the stoners be. Let them graduate so they can at least say they're a stoner with a diploma. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I have one question:
When is all this neo-fascist ***** going to end? - themilk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18if they test positive does this mean they will recieve state funded drug rehab or simply get booted out of school leaving no alternative to a life of drugs and crime? what can they possibly do if they test positive? i think school should not be mandatory after 8th grade. let the ones that want to learn stay. and let the ones that do not want to learn do their own thing and not bother the ones that want to learn.
- deadite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13All I can say is that I'll be god damned before some school randomly tests my son without my permission. Granted, he's only 2 now, but this kind of invasion of privacy is NOT cool. You can choose your job... as in, you can choose to work for a place that doesn't dig into your private life by drug/alcohol testing. Will it be as easy to choose a school if they all start doing this *****?
As if adolescents don't already feel humiliated enough on a daily basis. What's next, random body cavity searches? Random terrorist interogations in Elementary School?
They need to keep this ***** out of schools. I don't care what your views on drugs are... This is the PARENT's responsibility... not some random ***** in the school system.
Sorry for the language, but our eroding right to privacy really gets to me nowadays. Comparing drug screening to screening for communicable diseases is plain ***** ignorant. What the hell is wrong with these people? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13is it 1984 alreadY?
- growler1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13They already do. It's called the drug lobby.
"Getting your drugs from Canada is DANGEROUS!"
Yeah, right. Dangerous for Pfizer's bloated bottom line. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"brstil, I hate to argue against your comment, but you missed two incredibly important words. Marijuana has not caused ONE SINGLE DEATH BY OVERDOSE. It's different. Marijuana has most certainly caused many deaths through things like 'stoned driving.' Similar to how alcohol causes most of its deaths."
And where does your information come from? Do you actually have a source to cite or are you just parroting what you heard on a Public Service Announcement?
Even if it is true, you can still overdose on alcohol, you can overdose on any drug, except marijuana. no one has ever died from smoking too much pot. - Strangers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Hell I had degraded judgement Saturday night, one hundred percent legally. Alcohol is the number one drug, tobacco number two.
""a dead-end drug and a stepping stone to addiction"."
Alcohol and tobacco again are the number one gateway drugs. Every illegal drug user drinks alcohol or smokes. These ***** ignore the fact that alcohol is much more dangerous than cannabis for a drug that has a similar effect. - growler1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13No, it's not. We just have a bunch of boobs giving us a bad name right now. The general public won't stand for what amounts to an illegal search and seizure, especially of kids (who are apt to--gasp--make mistakes and smoke doobies in high school) and a grassroots backlash against compromised privacy and civil liberties is gaining momentum. Watch and learn.
- chaokeeper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The war on drugs is failing, that it if was ever intended to reduce the amount of drugs a person could buy. when I was in high school most everyone I knew could (if they had the inclination) go out and buy any illegal substance on the market with little or no effort. And yet those same teens can not easily get alcohol unless they know someone who is over 21. UAs will not stop drug use, they show false positives, and there are ways (sometimes very dangerous ways) of making them show a false negative. that and the only drug to stay in your system more than a week is pot.
- yensed, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17OK... I will be totally open to getting random drug tests at my school. As long as the @$$holes who are rooting for this to go through will be required to get random Prostate Exams.
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Just thought I would point out that in Canada (and the USA I believe as well). Narcotics is not a category and there are no criteria to determine what is an illigal drug and what isn't. The narcotics list is just that - a list of substances that a group of people decided should be banned.
The reason for this is that if you said "all drugs that cause side effect x should be illigal" many legal drugs would be banned. In fact, even on the most rudementary level, any sort of criteria for banning drugs would result in the loss of legality with cigarettes and beer - and no one in their right mind would try banning these "lesser" drugs. And by lesser I mean 2 drugs that cause significant deathtolls per year. - KingMoses, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16I'm not going to comment on the goodness of badness of this, but I will comment on the effectiveness; Why not focused drug tests instead of random? The teachers damn sure know which kids should be tested.
- Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Just another fascist hired by W. They are all cut from the same mold. The war on drugs is a fool's errand and an insane war against the American public.
They do not comprehend the words "unlawful search and seizure." They do not respect the Constitution.
November is coming...time to throw the bums out. - Thepirateking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Well I live in Canada, where this sort of thing hasen't been suggested (yet?) but I do have a 2 year old daughter. Let them insist of Random drug testing. I'd explain to my little girl about how I think it's wrong, and tell her to tell them no, and give 'em the finger. That's what I'd do, albeit a bit less polite.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13America is it time to edit your constitution? "We find these truths to be self evident. That all men being created equal (women and children will do what we damn well tell them)
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15fascist pigs should never rest easy
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I see the lobbyist for the drug testing industry are hard at work.
Always follow the money. If they tell you "it's for the children", you can be sure that they are absolutely and embarrassingly full of *****. - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"and besides, what do you have to hide?"
Since you clearly have nothing to hide, how about if we set up webcams throughout your house? - smartyhall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8While I agree that out educational system is much in need of an overhaul -- probably to something more like the Japanese... I think the real problem does not lie with people who would rather not be there but with the fact that the US public education system was modeled on the Prussian educational system -- a system designed solely to produce cooperative and sedate citizens and soldiers -- as a means to produce docile workers for the, then flowering, industrial revolution.
- volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Good idea... Make it even more desirable for potheads to ditch class...
- MikeRaff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9*smashes his face against his desk repeatedly*
I really can't find the words to describe how monumentally idiotic this policy is. Nobody in America has ANY long term vision anymore. Beyond the fact that drug testing has been PROVEN to be an ineffective means of waging the "War on Drugs" (see: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211429,00.html), am I the only bloody person who DOESNT want his children to think its acceptable for the government to routinely command you to do their bidding so they can check up on your "best interest." So "protecting" (I cannot express the depth of sarcasm which I use this word) our kids is more important than teaching them the basic fundamental principles of privacy and self-reliance that this country was founded on?
I'm just speechless. I'm usually more coherent on this topic, but all I can think of is how much I love what America has been and how much I hate what it is becoming. - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10If that's the case you live in a crap country. I wouldn't be wanna be governed by a bunch of Vegans who know what's good for me.
- bkocher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm dead set against this one. My high school instituted mandatory random drug testing for all sports teams, though it was really the coaches' decision as to whom got the piss test. The result of this little liberty given to the coaches was that nobody tested any of the important players on the team nor any member with the slightest chance of getting a positive on the thing. These are guys who bragged about their latest find with the coach himself. What we found was a system that had teams pushing forward their cleanest and least important players to cover themselves from any penalties. Regardless, this shouldn't even be a debate since its completely against the constitution as an invasion of privacy and an illegal search or seizure.
- ksadya, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16While I completely agree with slimnicky, I have to say that without drugs in high school, my 4 years would have been a bit safer... and my principal friend wouldn't receive so many death threats.
- NoozeHound, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Drug czar wants school testing. "Wait! No! Hell, I want random testing for everyone - anytime!"
What utter nonsense. As if that will have any impact on drug use or aid his 'war' on drugs.
When senior policeman are counselling legalization why on earth can't the various administrations listen to people from the front line?
In the 1930's US alcohol prohibition made the mafia, in the latter part of the 20th and early 21st century US drug prohibition is making South American gangsters very rich.
If only the 'American way' could be applied to currently illegal drugs, real progress could be made. - sapo916, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Where do I sign up as Citizen Protector?
- griptheweasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Looks like another good reason (among many) to start homeschooling!
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Why with the random? Wouldn't it be obvious if some one was on drugs? Oh wait that's right, another control thing. It's boring at school, I remember only havin 2 good classes because the teacher was awesome. You don't need random tests, maybe what they need is to make it fun to learn perhaps.
- dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9A-ha
So if I don't like someone I give him a milkshake with some cannabis sprinkled on. Man, I can make dozens of people fail their drugs tests in this manner. That would be cool, making that overachieving little mormon ginger kid fail his crack and acid test. I bet it'll make him cry, hahahaha. - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hmmm how much do I need to sprinle in someone's food to make sure he fails for HIS or HER tests? ... maybe I should get in the school cafeteria and throw a handfull in the chili? That is some mighty powerful weapon they are giving me. Imagine a failure rate of 100%.
- JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Sure lets make sure the kids aren't using harmless mind-expanding substances or else they might realize the truth of the horrible indoctrination they are being put through.
- ksponge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yet ANOTHER reason to homeschool my kids. I'll spare them the fresh brainwashing, and the inadvertant religious pressure they receive from being 1 in a million atheist kids in a sea of ***** zealots.
- dopyoman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Or how about Zefrank's idea:
"If we preformed cavity searches on every person crossing our borders I'm sure we would find a lot more drugs." -
Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is