Comments on: Escambia Student Drug Testing Plan Advances

By: Heforthekids

Heforthekids — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:52:42 +0000

I seeeeee a lot of people ignoring rights and ignoring our court system. I understand kids need guidance . But ignoring them their rights is a form of segregation. Does “innocent until proven guilty” ring a bell? I think this is kind of in nessecary I think it shouldn’t be on random , with sucpission I would understand. And with parental consent, without these the consequences are inevitable

By: K-dizzle

K-dizzle — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:13:18 +0000

Man you people needs to just chill and roll a J jeez haha

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:38:55 +0000

REGARDING:
“If the urine is close to your body, it will read a high enough temp to pass the test, David.”

Close enough, yes, but close enough would have to be closer than just one side on outside skin. Internal body temperature is quite a bit above external skin temperature, and again, the only way to even hope to do that would be to walk around with some spare urine strapped to you because they don’t tell folks, “Okay you have three hours to prepare for the drug test.” They do it right then with no warning, no time to go grab a clean sample.

People stupid enough to drugs are unlikely to keep clean samples of urine on them all the time. Besides that urine degrades over time, so I imagine they could tell if it were a fresh sample or one from two days ago.

I could be wrong, but just don’t see where witnesses would really be needed. For that matter I don’t see where universal testing is appropriate since it definitely assumes guilt. I think it’s a silly waste to require the Anime Club to be drug tested or the FFA or the chess club to join but even sillier to test all students.

That’s why I say if you’re going to work from the assumption of guilt, you need to test everybody every day. Make them prove their innocence every day.

David for stock in drug testing companies

By: Just An Old Soldier

Just An Old Soldier — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:10:36 +0000

Drugs (including Tobacco and Alcohol) and Children do not mix. Period.

But Schools that attempt to take on a Parental Role usually fail miserably. And waste a lot of Taxpayer money in the process.

I am in favor of random testing of our Armed Forces, our LEO’s, and Firemen – they have a great responsibility and trust. They need to be free of drugs.

I am in favor of allowing Employers to randomly test their employees. It’s their business, so it’s their right to hire and employ a drug free workforce.

I am in favor of allowing Parents to randomly test their children. They have a right to ensure that their children are drug free.

I am in favor of allowing the School System to randomly test their employees, all of them from the top down. (See para on Employers above)

I am NOT in favor of our School System replacing the Parental role and in the process wasting tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Taxpayer dollars in the process.

By: Been there

Been there — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:59:37 +0000

I’m right there with you, Cashcow. Since I have three kids still in school in Escambia County, that should be sufficient income to fund their educations AND cover my retirement! I owe them a debt of gratitude for such generous actions.

I wonder why Mike doesn’t see the idiocy of such an idea.

By: cashcow

cashcow — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:26:07 +0000

Thank you Escambia County school board, before this I wasn’t sure how I was going to fund my children’s college education. But after a couple lawsuits, I should have enough money for college, plus a little left over for momma to take a vacation.

By: Cottage Hill Girl

Cottage Hill Girl — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:59:12 +0000

If the urine is close to your body, it will read a high enough temp to pass the test, David.

Kids probably know more about these tests than the adults. They’re going to ace these tests and then laugh their butts off at the naive grownups who thought they were gonna bust them for a little weed. The only kids who are gonna get “busted” are the ones who get busted for taking prescription meds, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s NONE OF THE SCHOOL’S BUSINESS what my kids or anyone else’s kids have been prescribed. That is personal business and protected by HIPAA laws. This idiotic plan that so many are supporting is going to cost the school board MILLIONS in lawsuits because it will reveal information that is clearly covered by the HIPAA regulations. What dimwit is going to take the credit for this idea once the lawsuits start rolling in and the payouts start adding up? My guess: not a single one of them.

If you wanna catch the kids, you’re gonna have to be a heck of a lot more inventive with your methods cause a simple pee test ain’t gonna get it! That’s one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a long time.

By: T

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:30:27 +0000

Am I the only one who see’s this as fundamentally wrong. I understand drug testing in the work place as a safety measure. I take two or three a year and as a grown person It is very akward(a witness is required in our case). I can imagine what a kid would be thinking. Not saying I’ve got all the answers but in my opinion they’re fighting this thing from the wrong side.Step up the drug programs that are already in place with before and after pics of meth users, bring in former or current drug addicts to tell kids the horrible toll drugs have taken on their lives. Make sure they understand that if they choose to do drugs that it can and will have a negative impact on their lives. Make no mistake if we force kids into drug testing it’s going to backfire. Kids are rebellious at this age anyway. It doesn’t take much to turn them against authority as it is and assuming they are guilty until proven innocent is a sure fire way to do that very thing thus defeating the whole purpose.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:17:49 +0000

REGARDING:
“If they don’t, then chances are that they will simply carry someone else’s urine in there with them and circumvent their “foolproof” way of finding out who does and who doesn’t. Again, what’s the point? These kids aren’t stupid! They can easily buy some urine from another kid who doesn’t do any drugs”

Now as to the mechanics of the system, that’s simple enough. You pick someone and say NOW. You don’t have to watch them urinate for fear they would have someone else’s urine hidden on them. It wouldn’t work unless all potential subjects carried around a clean urine sample all the time. This is unlikely enough to reduce the need of a watcher.

Further, they have a thermometer built in the side of the sample cups. Externally stored urine would be the wrong temperature. I can imagine how the male students could carry around their fake sample at an internal body temperature, but I can’t imagine them being comfortable doing it every day.

David imagining how they would be walking

By: Cottage Hill Girl

Cottage Hill Girl — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:04:33 +0000

The problem with that school of thought is that our Constitution grants us certain rights and our entire legal system is based on the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. So, you can’t presume their guilt and then test them to prove it.

And, in order for the test to be legal, the person administering it has to actually see you go in the cup to make sure that you didn’t bring someone else’s in with you, so…..WHO is going to go in there with your child and watch? Are you giving them permission to go in the bathroom with your child? If they don’t, then chances are that they will simply carry someone else’s urine in there with them and circumvent their “foolproof” way of finding out who does and who doesn’t. Again, what’s the point? These kids aren’t stupid! They can easily buy some urine from another kid who doesn’t do any drugs. Wow, we just created quite a racket for some kids. They’ll make a fortune.