Klarinet Archive - Posting 001040.txt from 2002/06
From: "Kevin Callahan" <kionon@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Music vs. drug testing
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:14:34 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Natilius Theresius Visagius" <brazilian_penguins@-----.com>
Subject: Re: [kl] Music vs. drug testing
> As a teenager in band, I'd like to share my perspective on this.
I for one am glad to hear it. Discussion is another of those rights we have.
> First of
> all, I live in a small town, so I highly doubt that this will take place
> around me anytime soon (we're always behind the times).
> But to be perfectly
> honest, I think we need the drug testing. The randomness, I could do
> (if you're going to do it for one, do it for all), but I think it is
> something that needs to be done.
Explain to me just how a school can afford to test every single student? It
has to be random, otherwise the costs would be too great. Not that I'm a fan
of random drug testing either. Still, the idea is that, statistically, you
may catch someone by testing a small part of the population. If only a very
small minority of students are drug users, then the cost to test all
students (regardless of whether they want it or not) would be extreme. Far
more than any school board would want to appropriate. Because then you have
to cut from somewhere else? And where would you cut from? Certainly not the
core curriculum. Oh no, first you'd cut the arts programs - like Band.
> Just because someone is in an organization
> such as band (and let's include academic clubs as well, since they were
> brought up), it does not mean that they aren't doing drugs.
I never said they weren't when I brought up the academic clubs. But just
because someone *isn't* in an extracurricular activity doesn't mean they
aren't doing drugs, and most of us, if not you personally, have expressed
our distaste at testing the entire student population.
> I know of many
> people (some are band members, some are not) who are druggies - or at
> use them just at friday night parties and such - (I prefer to stay away
> such people, mind you) who somehow get away with it all the time.
There will always be people like this. Always. Someone who can get away with
what you would be punished for no matter how hard you concealed it. It isn't
fair, it isn't right. It is life, however.
> And many
> of the kids who do drugs come from some of the best families. I'm not a
> family therapist, so I can't explain this, but most adults would never
> expect it from these "role-model students".
I think that attitude is changing, hence why we're having this discussion.
It's gone from "only delinquents use drugs" to mass paranoia that "anyone
and everyone could be a user." True, drug use has no socio-economic
boundaries, but there are other signs, other evidence of drug use without
resorting to the violation of privacy of innocent students.
> So while the drug testing should
> not just be for these certain activities as mentioned, they should pertain
> to everyone in the school.
Why stop there? How about testing for all teenagers? How about drug testing
for the entire American population? Where do you draw the line?
> As for invading privacy, if you're not doing
> drugs, you should have nothing to hide, so why should it bother you?
I think Mark, our glorious List Grand Poobah, said it better than I can, but
basically I have to ask, why shouldn't it bother you? You're talking about
rights countless numbers of people have died to protect. The right to
privacy, while not explicitly stated, has been one of our most cherished
rights. You're allowing what amounts to a fishing expedition. You're looking
for evidence a crime is being committed that you have no probable cause
before hand for. It's like following some guy around and waiting for him to
mess up before you arrest him (which is very, very illegal. Only time it is
legal is if you appear to be drunk or there is other evidence you've
committed a crime.) Much like Mark and the trunk, I had this happen to me. A
cop followed me for 20 minutes before pulling me over. I was not drunk, I
was not driving irregularly, and when I was pulled over, the cop refused to
tell me what I had done and instead cited me for insurance I couldn't find
(which was in the back and I found five minutes later.)
> If you
> are on drugs...well, you should have thought of that ahead of time, so I
> have no pity for you.
Even criminals have rights. That's one of the things that sets America