Chicago High School To Require All Students Get Drug Tested

[w4rma]

Wednesday, December 03, 2003, 5:21 p.m.

By Bob Roberts
WBBM Newsradio 780

(Chicago) -- Beginning next fall, St. Patrick's High School, on the northwest side, will become the first in Illinois to require drug tests of ALL its students.

A number of public schools require students who participate in extra-curricular activities to undergo drug testing, but are barred by Supreme Court ruling from extending such tests to all students. Principal Joseph Schmidt said he considers the all-boys school, at 5900 W. Belmont Av., the "catalyst" in Illinois for universal testing.

Schmidt is quick to note that this will NOT be a "zero-tolerance" program. He said any student who tests positive will be asked to find a counseling or treatment option.

"The whole program has an emphasis of, 'Don't do drugs. If you do drugs, stop. If you can't stop, get some help,'" Schmidt said.

But he said St. Patrick's will expect improvement quickly.

"They have really 100 days, because that kid's going to get tested again," Schmidt said. "We'd better see some improvement, if not a total stop, in terms of what happens with that drug use."

Schmidt said parents of St. Patrick's 1,000 students are almost universally supportive. A task force of parents and school staff worked on the plan for several months, although he said talk first began at St. Patrick's in 1999, after DeLaSalle High School in New Orleans began similar testing. The Christian Brothers religious order operates both schools. Another Christian Brothers school, in Memphis, began drug testing in 2001. Schmidt said the St. Patrick's task force used the testing programs at both schools as models.

The firm employed by St. Patrick's to conduct the testing, Psychomedics, does drug testing at 2,600 businesses and 175 schools across the country.

All students will be required to undergo testing each fall, at a rate of 10-20 a day. About one-quarter of the student body will be tested at random at other times during the year, to assure enforcement, Schmidt said. The cost for the testing will be $60 per family each school year.

Schmidt said students who undergo retesting because of a positive result will pay individually for the retesting. The school is attempting to find donors who will underwrite the cost of the testing.

"We're really doing it to help our kids," Schmidt said. "We want to take a little peer pressure off of them and be able to have a good reason to say no to drugs."
http://www.wbbm780.com/asp/ViewMoreDetails.asp?ID=31267

 

[foghornl]

Hmmmphh! Snort!


Another "It is for the chill'run" incident

 

[tyme]

I think it's a terrible idea, but it is a private school. There's nothing preventing parents from having their kids take drug tests directly, so there should be no problem with them doing the same thing by proxy through a private school. They don't like it, they can take their children out.

 

[El Tejon]

It's Chicago. The test will be multiple choice!

At least this is one test where Chicago kids will score very high (pun intended, dude).

 

[erikm]

:banghead: It's for the Children! :banghead:

Memo to myself:
If ever I live in the US and have children, seriously consider homeschooling!

IMO voluntary drug use is a social problem, not a criminal one.

Flame On!
ErikM

 

[HankB]

IN MY DAY (geez, I'm starting to sound like my father) there is NO WAY we, as students, would have put up with this garbage. One of two things would have happened:

1. All - or virtually all - students would have simply REFUSED to comply. No violence, no rioting, just a simple "No." Peer pressure would have made those who knuckled under rather unpopular.
2. The students would have loudly - and in public - demanded that ALL school employees, from the principal to the janitor, be tested just as frequently as the students. The refrain would have been "What are THEY trying to hide?"

Granted, this is a private school, but what kind of sheeple are we raising that they'll meekly go along with this?

 

[Jonesy9]

sucks for them. it is a private school though. they can give them daily body cavity searches if the parents approve.


plus from my experience with private school, there's no drugs in private schools. BAAAHAAAA


wait till the parents get the results back and see all their prescriptions and the weed and blow that Jr. has been pinching out of their stash show up on the reports LOL!

 

[NukemJim]

Atually if I was high shool student and they did this I would research, find out how many legal drugs, over the counter drugs, and common foods can cause a false positive, or a false negative, If I took drugs I would take the material to cause a false negative, If I did not take drugs I would take the material to cause a false positve and when hit by the false positive demand gas chromatography ( last time I check around $500.00 per test )

Unless you do gas chromatography for confirmation of positive results the urine tests for drugs are just about useless. Some studies ( when the labs did NOT know they were being tested ) had an accuracy rate of about 50%, plus remember the cheap ( non gas-chromatography ) tests do NOT test for the presence of a drug, they check for the breakdown products, plus some drugs ( do not remember offhand except for cocaine ) leave the body so fast that if you party on Friday or Saturday the test will be negative on Monday. Plus there are some ( LSD, Peyote, Mushrooms ) that they do not test for at all.

Overall much like gun control: useless except for a 30 second sound byte that sounds good.

Drug abuse is a problem this is not the way to fight it. IMHO

NukemJim

 

[KC]

How about setting up a stand selling bagles covered with poppy seeds out front of this institute of degenerate administration?

 

[geekWithA.45]

Don't Pee in The Cup....

Poop in it.

So, it's come to this....

My blogrant on the topic from earlier today.

 

[Moparmike]

Yep, I was just about to say "poppy seeds". Mythbusters proved that a small amount will cause a false positive. So eat up!


However, this is a private school. If this were to happen at a public school, my words would be "over my dead body" and then I would move. I would not stand for this horse crap.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

They tried to implement random drug testing of the entire student body in my high school my senior year, about 4 years ago. Students unanimously refused to take the tests when they were first initiated. (What else would you expect? Half of the students were using, and the other half were righteously pissed...) The administration chose to back down rather than allow their authority to be undermined.

I went back to visit my old school a few weeks ago. I was dismayed to learn that the current student body had caved. Not only was mandatory random drug testing tolerated, it was generally considered "acceptable" for the administration to require it.

It's sorta like gun control. If at first you don't succed, try brainwash the following genreation.

 

[Pendragon]

Oh my.

Where are all the libertarians that believe private people and institutions have a right to do as they wish.

Could someone please explain what is wrong with a PRIVATE school deciding they wanted to get on top of the drug situation and require testing of all kids?

Your choices are:

1. Comply
2. Leave

Or, for those who think outside of the box:

3. Cheat


It is so incredibly simple - you can dislike drug tests all you want - this school has simply decided that it is a pre-requisite to go there. Free association, property rights, etc.

Please - I humbly beg your erudition...

 

[geekWithA.45]

Where are all the libertarians that believe private people and institutions have a right to do as they wish.

A private school can decide whatever in hell it wants. True.

And so can a private person.

It's a free market, and it's plain that people won't buy, or that there are complications, the seller is wise to alter his position.

Ok, so we have, comply, leave or cheat. What about DEFY? That's a valid individual or collective bargaining tactic.

DEFIANCE WORKS, when done with thought, skill, and a little bit of prep work.

As the headless thompson gunner points out, whenever you try a bald power play, you're putting the credibility of your authority on the line, and not all power plays have full support behind them, not all administrations are prepared to go all the way.

Sure, they'll be prepared to make an example of the isolated trouble maker, but beyond that, you'll never know for sure. I've personally found that a subtle, but credible threat of spreading trouble can work wonders. (It helps when you've got 90% of the student body's sigs on your petition...that's a long story, and a good one, but this isnt' the time/place for it)

Sure, the school (or any organization) can go ahead and "Lay down the law", and they'll bluster about it, but that doesn't mean they'll actually do it, especially if you can show them how that's not in their own best interest. And if they actually make good on their threats, well, that happens during haggling as well. Sometimes, the dealer sweeps his merchandise off the table, and refuses the shoppers coin. From the shopper's perspective, it's no biggy, you move on to the next stall.

So, from a libertarian perspective, the free market isn't always a simple retail take it or leave it proposition. Very few deals of any significance are so cut and dried, especially with messy/complex/dynamic or human laden ventures.

 

[c_yeager]

While it IS possible that a lot of kids will "refuse" the test and *MAYBE* be asked to leave. I knew a LOT of kids in highschool that would really like to be able to attend classes without a bunch of junkies for a change not to mention the parents. I SERIOUSLY doubt that any high school that can give any assurance at all that it has a "clean" student population will have a hard time filling the classrooms.

 

[Drjones]

I'd support this idea if they'd implement my idea to test for communism among teachers.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

A private school certainly should be free to implement such a policy, if it likes, but only if everyone agrees with it.

What about the people who don't want to see such a policy spring to life in their school? Sure, they have the choice to find another school (no small matter), but why should they have to? I fully support anyone who doesn't want their school administrators to have that degree of control over matters that are obviously not related to education.

It sounds more like a dictatorial regime than a school when the "peasents" are required by the "government" to submit to deeply personal and undignified medical examinations "or else!"

Just my own opinion, having been there personally...

P.S. As for free choice, why don't those parents/students who support mandatory drug testing form their own new school, and leave everyone else alone?

 

[tyme]

On second thought, I think there's a good rationale behind forbidding these kinds of rights violations. If students are disrupting class or are so high they can't function, they should be kicked out of class and, if there's no improvement, kicked out of the school. They should be treated just as any non-druggie student would be in the same situation.

Drug testing violates basic procedural 4th and 5th amendment liberties. Nobody should be permitted to do that to a child except his or her legal guardian. Granted, those liberties have already been eroded in public and private schools, but drug testing is a huge additional step.

Ability to violate liberties should not be grantable to a third party by contract. Only the recipient of rights should be able to give them up, and only in an uncoerced manner. No contract presented for an individual to sign should be able to specify that the individual give up rights. The individual should have to volunteer to do so if a right is going to be violated.

 

[Pendragon]

What planet do you guys live on?

If you get a job in anything like a corporation, your condition of employment will be contingent on your surrender of your free speech (while at work) rights and your "right" to do drugs.

If you don't want to take a drug test, fine, no job for you.

If you want to dress like John the Baptist and eat locust and scream for people to repent - fine, but you can't work where I work.

The BOR is about preventing GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSTION into our lives. Private entities can and do make the supression and surrender of certain rights a condition of certain contracts.

Want to eat dinner in my restaurant? Ever see the sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Guess what - that can mean YOU for exercising your rights - if they are annoying or I dont like your tone or whatever.

Sure - you can resist - that is option 4 - but when they hand your kid the cup, he has to pee or walk - or just stand there - it is up to them to enforce tresspassing complaints against those who will not pee or walk.

Oh, we love our private property rights - unless someone is using them in a way that we do not like.


Maybe a bunch of us at the school are concerned and dont want our kids around other kids on drugs. Maybe we are misguided, maybe it is not effective - no matter, if we have a controlling interest in the school - lets say we flat own it, then we can dictate the policy and you can resist - but you better do it from the sidewalk, because I will have you tossed for tresspass if I want.

I really do not care if people do drugs - as long as it does not actively affect me. But I still would not want my kids around kids who do - I also think people who do it are morally suspect at the minimum. You can't come to my house or ride in my car - but don't think you necessarily need to be incarcerated - just segregated.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

People can moan all they want that the students rights are being violated, but:

1. this is a private school and can do what it wants.
2. the parents have implicitly given their consent by sending their child to a school with such a policy.
3. attendance at this school is voluntary; if someone would prefer to attend a school with drug addicts, government schools are still an option.

 

[Bill Hook]

One little point, which is children are required to be educated. Thus I don't think any institution fulfilling a government mandate should have the power to violate its students 4th amendment rights, be it private or public.

 

[Pendragon]

One little point, which is children are required to be educated.

They are not required to attend a private school

Thus I don't think any institution fulfilling a government mandate should have the power to violate its students 4th amendment rights, be it private or public.

Private school does not fulfill a government mandate any more than any given restaurant fulfills the "government mandate" that parents feed their children.

Afterall, children have a right to eat right? So if you take your kids to a sushi bar and they refuse to eat anything - should you not compel the restaurant to serve something your kids will eat?

Of course it is not a perfect analogy - but the private school is not the sole fulfiller of the law that requires children to be in school.

Your rights are most definately not violated when:

1. You can remove your kid from the school at any time.
2. Your child is not physically forced to submit to the drug test.
3. The people making drug testing a condition of attendence are not government officials

You can dislike it all you want - it is SO easy to avoid - just yank your kid out of the school and show them how important their right to be free from unreasonable search and siezure is.

You have to decide what is more important - going to THAT school, or preventing your kid from peeing in a cup. As parents, this is a good opportunity to show our kids that we have to prioritize our wants and needs.

Guess what - I love staying home with my wife and kid - but I also love being able to pay my bills. Hmm, I should find a way to both not work and get a steady income. Hmm. Oh crap - one or the other?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Bill Hook,

A private school doesn't violate anyones rights, those rights are voluntarily surrendered.

By your logic, a private school could not be religiously based or have bible study or prayer in class, as that would violate someone's rights as well.