Friday, August 11, 2006

Teens are OK with drug tests

this will be interspirced with some of my commentary.

The News-Leader says that student drug testing is misguided and disturbing. So are the reasons it gave for opposing it. It cites the so-called failure of the DARE program as a reason not to test. That doesn’t mean this also will fail. If that educational program failed, then why insist on more? Why not attempt to curb drug use in a different way? Why not try a way that puts students in a position where taking a drug test will affect their extracurricular activities?

Since there are many ways to teach a student from private schools to home schooling I have no problem with this. After all going to government schools is voluntary not FORCED upon the citizenry.

If one student turns down drugs for fear of failing a drug test, then it does work. The purpose of student drug testing isn’t necessarily to catch students doing drugs. The purpose is to be a deterrent from doing drugs in the first place. It gives teens a solid reason to turn down the lure and pressure of drug use.

Once more government schooling is voluntary not FORCED!!

The News-Leader also cites personal freedoms as a reason not to test students. It’s not a disturbing trend, as it says. It’s a way to respond to drug problems in our schools. A good reason to test students is safety. It protects the student and those around them. But shouldn’t our society be used to measures that limit our personal freedom all in the name of safety? Speed limits, DUIs and underage driving laws restrict personal freedom all in the name of safety. Laws and decisions are made for our good. This decision isn’t out of the ordinary and isn’t misguided.

I'm not to complaint on the way the writer has decided to use safety as a means to limit personal freedoms. The Autobahn in Germany clearly shows that speed limits have nothing to do with safety. Many people die in auto accidents when they are complaint to the speed limit, obeying the law didn't save their lives.
DUI's don't tend to offer any safety either. Should I choose to go get drunk and drive it would be a RARE instance if I were to be stopped by the police.
I was driving at the age of 12, I still haven't been involved in an accident that has been my fault, hense the underage driving law protected NO ONE.

Drug testing isn’t intrusive or against the Constitution, as some say. The Supreme Court says this. It isn’t discriminatory either. Educators will say that participating in extracurricular activities isn’t a right, but a privilege. Those who want to participate need to submit to random drug tests. Drug testing isn’t punishment or discrimination. We shouldn’t view this as something negative, but helpful based on the current drug use by teens.

BAD argument!!! The SCOTUS also says that stealing ones property to give to a developer for economic gain to a community is constitutional as well.
I wonder if Mr Loomis would mind if Wal-Mart or any other retailor absconded with his property???? I would wager he would be complaining loudly.
However I still agree with random drug testing in the government school system since attendance is voluntary.

I offer my viewpoints based on personal experience. I am employed by the company who performed the drug tests on the Branson students and on the board members who approved it. I have given hundreds of drug tests to students.

Countless times a teen will tell me they don’t do drugs because they have so much to lose. More teens tell me they think it’s a good idea than those who complain about it. If they are the ones taking the tests and don’t mind, then why should the News-Leader mind?

Bill Loomis resides in Springfield and is a drug technician.

No comments: