Klarinet Archive - Posting 001068.txt from 2002/06

From: "David B. Niethamer" <dnietham@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Music vs. drug testing
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:07:21 -0400

on 6/28/2002 9:27 AM, Neil Leupold wrote:

>Parent education. Kids' attitudes toward everything in their world are
>reflective of the messages they receive at home.

Well, maybe. Once a child starts school, think about how much time they
spend with their peers compared to how much time they spend with parents.
And as they get older, they spend ever more time with peers, and less
with parents.

There's a fascinating (if controversial) book called "The Nurture
Assumption" (author not in memory, but I'll bet the web search I'm too
lazy to make at the moment would find it) which outlines how this works.
Very interesting.

On the positive side of Neil's statement, kids do see everything their
parents do. So if drugs or alcohol are part of the culture at home, it
will seem OK to the child. If the attitude that "the rules only apply to
others, and to those who get caught" is prevalent at home, the child will
accept that attitude.

on 6/28/2002 12:14 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote:

>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.

I think the idea of *random* testing is that it is not announced, so you
can't "get clean" in time for an announced test. In my understanding,
random testing is not about saving money.

on 6/28/2002 2:44 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote:

>You give up rights for better safety, and you give up
>safety for more rights.

Benjamin Franklin wrote "Those who give up liberty for safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety." I'm with him.

David

David Niethamer
dnietham@-----.edu
http://members.aol.com/dbnclar1/

---------------------------------------------------------------------