Hair-testing private school kids for booze

[tod evans]

It was coming as soon as the technology was developed...:mad:

You can bet that any infractions will be memorialized indefinitely thanks to the data collection and retention that's "for our own good"....



School To Use Hair Test To Screen For Student Alcohol Use

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/08/05/school-to-use-hair-test-to-screen-to-student-alcohol-use/

CHICAGO (CBS) — Students will face mandatory testing for drugs and also alcohol this school year, at one northwest suburban high school.

Concerns about underage drinking prompted St. Viator High School in Arlington Heights to add alcohol to its random drug test policy.

The test will use hair samples to determine whether a student has used alcohol in the past 90 days.

St. Viator administrators say random drug testing of students has been ongoing since 2007, and less than 1 percent have come back positive.

“We’re adding this test because we care about our kids and we want them to be the that best God created them to be,” said Corey Brost, St. Viator President.

“It’s a great vehicle for them to understand that if you’re not going to be accountable to your parents, you’re going to be accountable to somebody,” said Joe Farwell, a parent of a student at St. Viator.

And students say, it may do the job.

“Kids fear getting suspensions from school or detentions even and maybe what their parents will do, if they find out they’re getting caught, so I think it actually will make a difference,” said St. Viator student Miguel Aguilar.

The private school believes it is among the first in Illinois to have a mandatory alcohol testing policy.

A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union questions the decision, but concedes in this case that because the school is private, only parents can object to the testing.

School officials said the tests won’t pick up trace levels of alcohol from Communion wine. Two positive tests would result in disciplinary action.

[eduardo89]

It's a private school, they can do it if they want. Don't like it, don't send your kids there.

[tod evans]

It's a private school, they can do it if they want. Don't like it, don't send your kids there.

Could be that's why the thread title says "private school"...

My child won't go there.

I've just gotta wonder about the kids whos parents send them there to get marked for life..

There's no doubt plenty of parents that relish the thought...

[eduardo89]

Could be that's why the thread title says "private school"...

My child won't go there.

I've just gotta wonder about the kids whos parents send them there to get marked for life..

There's no doubt plenty of parents that relish the thought...

Parents can object to the testing.


A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union questions the decision, but concedes in this case that because the school is private, only parents can object to the testing.

There's also no evidence there that there will be anything but internal discipline. Nowhere does it say the school will report it to civil authorities.

[tod evans]

There's also no evidence there that there will be anything but internal discipline. Nowhere does it say the school will report it to civil authorities.

I don't believe it.

I trust school "officials" as far as I do government officials.

Whatever serves the agenda at the time.

[eduardo89]

I don't believe it.

I trust school "officials" as far as I do government officials.

Whatever serves the agenda at the time.

All three private schools I attended drug tested. None of them ever reported drug use to the police.

[69360]

So? It's a PRIVATE school. Don't like it, don't send your kids.

[tod evans]

All three private schools I attended drug tested. None of them ever reported drug use to the police.

Let me guess, none of them were in socialist meca Arlington Heights ILL...?

[tod evans]

So? It's a PRIVATE school. Don't like it, don't send your kids.


Could be that's why the thread title says "private school"...



:rolleyes:

[bunklocoempire]

I wonder if that private school accepts ANY public money.

My church school refused any state money (ZERO) when I attended and still doesn't.:)

Get in bed with government.. :(

Underage drinking went on during my school years and wouldn't ya know it -the teachers and my/other's parents never caught us. If caught in a school capacity I am 100% convinced it would have not left my school.

I was caught (home) by my parents once and they dealt with me. School-wise, things that might be considered worse than underage drinking had occurred and was dealt with between children, parents, and teachers in a manner not involving the state.

EDIT: I see Saint Viator is a high school. I was speaking of my grade school. True story bro. :p:o

Incidentally my church high school didn't/doesn't accept money from the state either. :cool: Same deal. Nothing was fished out to the state that school, parents, and children couldn't deal with in a private manner. Not a single cop ever.

[dannno]

I wonder how many of them are thinking about how they can't wait to go to college so they can binge drink and will now choose a college that is more friendly toward binge drinking.

[eduardo89]

Let me guess, none of them were in socialist meca Arlington Heights ILL...?

They were in even more socialist Canada, Scotland, and Germany.

[tod evans]

They were in even more socialist Canada, Scotland, and Germany.

I'm not familiar with those countries, I am familiar with AH and I pity some of the headstrong kids...

It's none of my business, being private and all, if parents want to subject their kids to hair testing at school..

[bunklocoempire]

*snip*
It was coming as soon as the technology was developed...:mad:

You can bet that any infractions will be memorialized indefinitely thanks to the data collection and retention that's "for our own good"....
As touched on...

I totally get it Tod.

What I don't dig about it is the relationship part really takes a hit.:(

Doesn't make much sense in a church school.:(:mad: As I posted we were no angels -but the blessings of a good chance of mutual trust and learned/earned responsibility was always there.

I've got absolutely no use for anything that encourages side stepping any part (good times or bad times) of a personal relationship with fellow humans.

You will get caught vs. you might get caught... Which one actually builds a young person's character? Which one treats a young person like non-thinking livestock with no freewill? :mad:

[tod evans]

Absolutely!

This is a powerplay by parents and teachers that's not going to have any positive outcome..

Not to mention the digital/forever age...

[DamianTV]

Its a Lesson for Students: Submit and Obey Authority. After all, that is the REAL purpose of Education.

[XNavyNuke]

There's also no evidence there that there will be anything but internal discipline. Nowhere does it say the school will report it to civil authorities.

Wake up and smell the shoe polish on the jack boots, Eduardo. The school will be able to tell the parent(s) that little Johnny is engaging in the use of contraband. The testing service will be sending the results to the school electronically with identifying data. The NSA will be skimming that and putting it into a searchable database. Fifteen years later now-big Johnny fails to get a security clearance because he is an integrity risk with a verifiable propensity to break laws.

XNN

[tod evans]

Wake up and smell the shoe polish on the jack boots, Eduardo. The school will be able to tell the parent(s) that little Johnny is engaging in the use of contraband. The testing service will be sending the results to the school electronically with identifying data. The NSA will be skimming that and putting it into a searchable database. Fifteen years later now-big Johnny fails to get a security clearance because he is an integrity risk with a verifiable propensity to break laws.

XNN

Conspiracy theories..:rolleyes:

[DamianTV]

Conspiracy theories..:rolleyes:

/agree

Reported! :p

[BenIsForRon]

Its a Lesson for Students: Submit and Obey Authority. After all, that is the REAL purpose of Education.

This. Teaching them their privacy is meaningless.

[DamianTV]

Whats next? The schools will demand to know if students hide dirty magazines between their matresses? If it doesnt happen at School, they have NO right to know, Public or Private is immaterial and only used as an excuse for more Surveillance. It would be like me getting to give you a Prostate Exam for delivering my Mail to find out if you have buttsecks or not. If someone does something on MY property, then it IS my business, but if it is NOT done on MY property, I have NO RIGHT TO KNOW.

[ObiRandKenobi]

civil rights are for nerds. it's cool to have your rights violated.

[DamianTV]

civil rights are for nerds. it's cool to have your rights violated.

That would imply that people actually have Rights. Govt wants people to believe they have Govt Permissions that they interpret as Rights. Govt distorts the definition of Rights in the minds of the people so they are fooled into thinking Rights are as useless as fake tits on a zombie chimpanzee.

[eduardo89]

civil rights are for nerds. it's cool to have your rights violated.

No rights are violated by this. It is a private school doing it and parents can say no.

[ObiRandKenobi]

No rights are violated by this. It is a private school doing it and parents can say no.

exactly. civil rights don't exist in private institutions.

it would be like working at a private institution and expecting the bill of rights to apply!

[DamianTV]

No rights are violated by this. It is a private school doing it and parents can say no.

I have to disagree and say that the school may have a right to know if the kids are drinking on school property, but what they do anywhere outside of school is beyond the scope of the schools authority. And isnt really what this is all about? Schools having Unlimited Unaccountable Authority?

Freedom. Yeah, free to pull your kids out of this school and put them in public school. That is like saying you are free because you can choose between Coke and Pepsi. The Illusion of Choice is the Illusion of Freedom. And the Illusion of Authority is the foundation of Misplaced Power.

[eduardo89]

I have to disagree and say that the school may have a right to know if the kids are drinking on school property, but what they do anywhere outside of school is beyond the scope of the schools authority. And isnt really what this is all about? Schools having Unlimited Unaccountable Authority?

Freedom. Yeah, free to pull your kids out of this school and put them in public school. That is like saying you are free because you can choose between Coke and Pepsi. The Illusion of Choice is the Illusion of Freedom. And the Illusion of Authority is the foundation of Misplaced Power.

Private schools are usually run by board appointed by parents. If the parents don't want this they can change the school's board. They can also opt-out of the testing. They can also send their children to a different private school. They can also homeschool.

[DamianTV]

Private schools are usually run by board appointed by parents. If the parents don't want this they can change the school's board. They can also opt-out of the testing. They can also send their children to a different private school. They can also homeschool.

Slightly off topic, but in general the whole idea of Opt Out I find to be completely offensive (nothing against you). Problem is Silence = Concent. People should not have to Opt Out of anything, ever. Automagically enrolling in anything without a persons Explicit Concent is Implied Concent, and we all know how much abuse comes from Implied Concent.

Back on topic, the problem is the Power was never granted to the Schoolboard to begin with. They are assuming powers they do not have. The Right to Monitor someone outside of school is a Right that NO ONE has.

[purplechoe]

Let me guess, none of them were in socialist meca Arlington Heights ILL...?

Hey I live here, at least it's not as bad as Chicago...

and I know someone who works at the school... :)

[specsaregood]

I wonder how many of them are thinking about how they can't wait to go to college so they can binge drink and will now choose a college that is more friendly toward binge drinking.

At the private catholic university I attended for a bit; if the R.A.'s caught you with beer/booze you'd get fined and they'd tell your parents. If the priest who lived in the dorm caught you, he'd make you watch as he drank your beer/booze for a bit and took the rest home with him; but you wouldn't get fined or tell your parents. When sneaking the stuff in we'd always take the fire escape on the side the priest lived instead of the side the R.A.s lived on.

[CPUd]

Private schools are usually run by board appointed by parents. If the parents don't want this they can change the school's board. They can also opt-out of the testing. They can also send their children to a different private school. They can also homeschool.

The kids could also shave their heads.

[eduardo89]

The kids could also shave their heads.

Wouldn't they have to get rid of all body hair? Or does this test just work on head hair?

[kcchiefs6465]

The kids could also shave their heads.
Arm hair, leg hair, pubic hair etc.

These tests are random as well. If you were told of an upcoming test and shaved your head, you'd probably be failed on suspicion of trying to alter the results.

I've been reading a little bit into the process as this is the first time I've ever heard of the procedure and am sure this will be coming to a job near you but I haven't been able to find the threshold. I wonder if Nyquil would show up. It very well would depending on the amount they are testing for. I've read about this test being able to detect picograms. (one one-thousandth of a nanogram) That seems like the far end of the spectrum.

Is anyone aware of what threshold they use? (for these kids or in general for parolees or whoever)

It's troublesome. I don't care. Nicotine tests. Alcohol tests etc. It's hard enough to find a job and when companies begin implementing a policy similar (or their insurance demands as much) nothing good will come from it.

[LibForestPaul]

School-wise, things that might be considered worse than underage drinking had occurred and was dealt with between children,

How quaint. I was driving with counsin through Germany at age 15 from relative to relative being given brandy shots and wine from uncles and aunts.

[specsaregood]

Wouldn't they have to get rid of all body hair? Or does this test just work on head hair?

indeed. I don't know about this specific test or how far the school would be willing to go; but if you shave your head for an employment drug test they'll take armpit hair, crotch hair, ass or body hair to do the test.

[shane77m]

LOL at the people arguing against a private institutions rules.

The kids don't have to go there.

[The Free Hornet]

No rights are violated by this. It is a private school doing it and parents can say no.

Like hell it is private. Schools sell a state-mandated product (between ages 7 & 16 (http://statelaws.findlaw.com/illinois-law/illinois-compulsory-education-laws.html)). More so, these hoops are mandated to work in many fields.

If the school in question has a policy page or mission statement opposing compulsory education and state licensing, then I'll withdraw my comment.

And shame on them for supporting state-sponsored wars on this or that. If they were recruiting Nazis to the party, a few of the "LOL" (^^^) dumbasses here would attribute that as actions of a private party.

[kcchiefs6465]

LOL at the people arguing against a private institutions rules.

The kids don't have to go there.
Aren't public schools drug testing as well?

I'd more argue against the notion that it is in the school's responsibility to play nanny to the kids. They are there to educate, not to indoctrinate into a certain frame of mind.

I haven't spoke on this, skimmed some comments but I think people understand the point you are making. (others have made it as well) When all schools drug test or test for alcohol...... America just doesn't have the same ring as it did. Might as well pledge allegiance to a camera and cross their heart to be healthy. To me it's a school overstepping its bounds. Sure it's a private school and they can do so if they choose. I still feel bad for the kids being raised by probable Gestapo-esque parents. Being "caged" and then set "free" may have more harmful consequences than increasing the freedom of choice for your child little by little as they mature. Of course the parent has the right to put a foot down to behavior they see as unacceptable.

Just my two cents.

[DamianTV]

We've militarizied the Police. Now we are militarizing all education.

[Victor Grey]

They have the right to do this.

That changes absolutely nothing on the topic of how stupid the idea happens to be.



The kids could also shave their heads.

And the school could make it a rule students couldn't completely shave their head.

If they're going this far, they certainly aren't going to let someone get by on such an easy loophole.

Compared to enacting mandatory hair-based substance testing, one more rule is hardly beyond their will.

[oyarde]

If I recall , they used to have a pretty good basketball team there :)

[NIU Students for Liberty]

For those of you who are repeating the "If you don't like it, you can get out" argument, no one is calling for government intervention. What is being attacked is the fact that the school is intruding on the privacy of its students, a trait that it shares with many public schools.

So when a public school does it, why are they the sole bad guys? Whether it's done within a private or public institution, this surveillance mentality that follows people into their homes and private lives should be attacked as a whole.

[pcosmar]

We've militarizied the Police. Now we are militarizing all education.

Now??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPnDZ1Txlo

[DamianTV]

For those of you who are repeating the "If you don't like it, you can get out" argument, no one is calling for government intervention. What is being attacked is the fact that the school is intruding on the privacy of its students, a trait that it shares with many public schools.

So when a public school does it, why are they the sole bad guys? Whether it's done within a private or public institution, this surveillance mentality that follows people into their homes and private lives should be attacked as a whole.

This.

The difference between Public and Private is a mute point. No School or any Schoolboard Officials have the Right to monitor students while not on Campus. I should probably add in Teachers as well for the ones that got fired for posting pics on Fedbook of them drinking a beer at a bar and were terminated for a completely legal activity.

Authority needs to be made that it has LIMITS that it can not just arbitrarily ignore at will.

[pcosmar]

LOL at the people arguing against a private institutions rules.

The kids don't have to go there.

Arguing against institutionalization myself.

And yes, most kids have to,, public or private is irrelevant. They are still being institutionalized.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Now??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPnDZ1Txlo



Well, that was good, until the conclusion.

[DamianTV]

Well, that was good, until the conclusion.

Explain how the conclusion was off please.

[jbauer]

Could be that's why the thread title says "private school"...

My child won't go there.

I've just gotta wonder about the kids whos parents send them there to get marked for life..

There's no doubt plenty of parents that relish the thought...

Right but you're the one getting their panties in a knot. Its a private school, the age for drinking is 21. The age of a high school student better be below 21. Drugs are also illegal they should have the right to test for it if they want.

Frankly the private school is a business and its reputation is on the line when it comes to the results its students put forth.

[tod evans]

Right but you're the one getting their panties in a knot. Its a private school, the age for drinking is 21. The age of a high school student better be below 21. Drugs are also illegal they should have the right to test for it if they want.

Frankly the private school is a business and its reputation is on the line when it comes to the results its students put forth.


No my "panties aren't in a knot" at all, I simply raised the issue of this type of oppressive behavior being a bad thing for strong-willed children.

Sure it's a wonderful tool for overbearing parents and the school if that's the type of reputation they choose to foster.

I also raised the very real threat of digital records following students around for life..

You, the school and anyone else may do as you see fit, but like I said, "My child won't be going there..

[DamianTV]

Right but you're the one getting their panties in a knot. Its a private school, the age for drinking is 21. The age of a high school student better be below 21. Drugs are also illegal they should have the right to test for it if they want.

Frankly the private school is a business and its reputation is on the line when it comes to the results its students put forth.

The drinking age of 21 used to be different from State to State. There was a time that drinking age in some states was 18, and even 16 years old in some places.

Drugs: The War on Drugs has failed. It started with Prohibition, but did not end when Prohibition was repealed. Drugs used to be Legal.

Doing Drugs being Illegal: Crime requires a Victim. When a person does drugs, who is the Victim?

Private School as a Business. Yes, its reputation is certainly on the line. But having a bad rap does not necessarily mean that parents will pull their kids out of their schools because the only alternative is Public Schools. Given the choice, many parents will probably still choose to keep their kids enrolled in said schools because given the choice of a school that gets a C- (private) as opposed to F (public school), most parents will likely choose the school that gets the C-.

How does being a Private School authorize the Schoolboard to do ANYTHING that is not within the Scope of its Authority? Say I run a Private School. And as a Policy for MY School, I authorize myself to observe everything about a that a Student in Pakistan that not only doesnt go to my school, but does not even reside in the same country. Is that within the scope of my authority? To just arbitrarily decree that I have Authority that I do not?

That is what this is really all about. Does ANY school have the Authority to monitor ANY student not on its Campus? Drug Testing period, not just students, is claiming authority that ANY facility does not have. Alcohol Testing is no different. Monitoring ANY activity is also to Usurp Power.

I recall a few years ago that some school (dont remember if public or private, but again, mute point) got busted for giving students Laptops with cameras in them, then turning on those cameras while the students were at home. The laptops were school property, but that being the case did NOT justify the remote monitoring of Students while NOT on campus.

If there are NO LIMITS ON AUTHORITY, expect NO LIMITS to be respected. The difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE AUTHORITY is NONE.

[pcosmar]

Frankly the private school is a business and its reputation is on the line when it comes to the results its students put forth.

I was in a public school.. And drinking was both common and irrelevant.
Some of the heaviest Partyers are now successful businessmen. Leaders in the community, and one I know,, a Cop.

I learned nearly nothing in classes ((except shop classes) in High School,, and learned more skipping class and reading in the library.

I also dropped out 3 weeks before Graduating and got my GED, because of one asshole teacher refused a 1/2 credit required (I had more than enough otherwise)

I own my land today. (no mortgage)

Oh,,and drinking age was 18 then, Though I was getting served in bars at sixteen.
Still irrelevant.

[eduardo89]

Frankly the private school is a business and its reputation is on the line when it comes to the results its students put forth.

Pretty much. One school I went to warned us we could get expelled for doing crap if we were in school uniform, even if it was off campus and outside of school hours.

[DamianTV]

Pretty much. One school I went to warned us we could get expelled for doing crap if we were in school uniform, even if it was off campus and outside of school hours.

Again that is a Power that the Authority can not claim to have. Allowing them to think that they have such Power can only lead to the Abuse of that Power.

[eduardo89]

Private School as a Business. Yes, its reputation is certainly on the line. But having a bad rap does not necessarily mean that parents will pull their kids out of their schools because the only alternative is Public Schools. Given the choice, many parents will probably still choose to keep their kids enrolled in said schools because given the choice of a school that gets a C- (private) as opposed to F (public school), most parents will likely choose the school that gets the C-.

There are other choices apart from public school. Parents can choose a different private school,start their own private school, homeschool...


How does being a Private School authorize the Schoolboard to do ANYTHING that is not within the Scope of its Authority? Say I run a Private School. And as a Policy for MY School, I authorize myself to observe everything about a that a Student in Pakistan that not only doesnt go to my school, but does not even reside in the same country. Is that within the scope of my authority? To just arbitrarily decree that I have Authority that I do not?

That is what this is really all about. Does ANY school have the Authority to monitor ANY student not on its Campus? Drug Testing period, not just students, is claiming authority that ANY facility does not have. Alcohol Testing is no different. Monitoring ANY activity is also to Usurp Power.

I recall a few years ago that some school (dont remember if public or private, but again, mute point) got busted for giving students Laptops with cameras in them, then turning on those cameras while the students were at home. The laptops were school property, but that being the case did NOT justify the remote monitoring of Students while NOT on campus.

If there are NO LIMITS ON AUTHORITY, expect NO LIMITS to be respected. The difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE AUTHORITY is NONE.

I have no idea what you're going on about. If a private school sets a rule that students who drink and/or do drugs are not welcome that is their right. They get to set their admissions criteria. If you want to drink and do drugs you can, but the private school isn't forced to accept you as a student. The school, as a private organization, certainly has that right.

It's the same with a business. If I don't want to hire anyone who smokes pot that is my right, and if an employee of mine smokes pot, even off the job, I don't have to keep employing him if I do not want.

[eduardo89]

Again that is a Power that the Authority can not claim to have. Allowing them to think that they have such Power can only lead to the Abuse of that Power.

They certainly do have that authority. I (or my parents) agreed to their rules when they enrolled me and they have every right to set their admissions policy and rules for continued membership.

[DamianTV]

There are other choices apart from public school. Parents can choose a different private school,start their own private school, homeschool...



I have no idea what you're going on about. If a private school sets a rule that students who drink and/or do drugs are not welcome that is their right. They get to set their admissions criteria. If you want to drink and do drugs you can, but the private school isn't forced to accept you as a student. The school, as a private organization, certainly has that right.

It's the same with a business. If I don't want to hire anyone who smokes pot that is my right, and if an employee of mine smokes pot, even off the job, I don't have to keep employing him if I do not want.

No it isnt their Right. It would be the same as you and me agreeing to buy something off of each other. The exchange does not enable either of us the Right to violate the others Right in any way shape or form. I sell you a can of soup does not give me the Right to know what you were doing at ANY time outside of stepping into my store.

[eduardo89]

No it isnt their Right. It would be the same as you and me agreeing to buy something off of each other. The exchange does not enable either of us the Right to violate the others Right in any way shape or form. I sell you a can of soup does not give me the Right to know what you were doing at ANY time outside of stepping into my store.

There is no violation of any rights. Students and parents agree to this when they enroll in the school. If you do not like the rules of admission you are free to not go there. This is all voluntary association. The school has every right to establish its admissions criteria and rules for continued membership.

[ObiRandKenobi]

No it isnt their Right. It would be the same as you and me agreeing to buy something off of each other. The exchange does not enable either of us the Right to violate the others Right in any way shape or form. I sell you a can of soup does not give me the Right to know what you were doing at ANY time outside of stepping into my store.

eduardo is right. if you walk into a private institution like 7/11 the cashier has the right to strip search you.

if you don't want an invasive cavity search, don't go into private businesses.

[tod evans]

if you walk into a private institution like 7/11 the cashier has the right to strip search you.


They're welcome to have a go at it, one of us will be on the floor not getting up.

[eduardo89]

They're welcome to have a go at it, one of us will be on the floor not getting up.

If 7-11 has a policy that all customers must undergo a cavity check, if you don't like it then don't buy there. By going in you give consent to a cavity search.

[pcosmar]

They're welcome to have a go at it, one of us will be on the floor not getting up.

I am not sure any private business has a right to violate your 4th amendment,, any more than a local, state of federal government does.

And they DO NOT have that right.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

I find it disgusting that it is assumed to be negotiable.

[eduardo89]

I am not sure any private business has a right to violate your 4th amendment,, any more than a local, state of federal government does.

And they DO NOT have that right.

I find it disgusting that it is assumed to be negotiable.

It is not a violation of any rights if you voluntarily agree to their rules. When you agree to be admitted you agree to their admission requirements and rules on continued membership. If you do not want to be drug tested, don't apply to go there. Simple as that.

[mad cow]

No it isnt their Right. It would be the same as you and me agreeing to buy something off of each other. The exchange does not enable either of us the Right to violate the others Right in any way shape or form. I sell you a can of soup does not give me the Right to know what you were doing at ANY time outside of stepping into my store.

A soup store can demand that you get their Logo tattooed on your forehead if you want to buy their soup.

Don't like the terms,don't buy the soup.

[pcosmar]

It is not a violation of any rights if you voluntarily agree to their rules. When you agree to be admitted you agree to their admission requirements and rules on continued membership. If you do not want to be drug tested, don't apply to go there. Simple as that.

And this kind of thinking will lead to this,,


And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.

NO.

[eduardo89]

And this kind of thinking will lead to this,,

So what you're saying is private organizations have no right to set their membership requirements?

[Carson]

All three private schools I attended drug tested. None of them ever reported drug use to the police.


With the NSA monitors would they have to?

[Carson]

"St. Viator administrators say random drug testing of students has been ongoing since 2007, and less than 1 percent have come back positive."

It troubles me knowing that of that 1% coming back positive some of those are false positives. I would think something like that could be devastating for some of the children at that age.

[pcosmar]

So what you're saying is private organizations have no right to set their membership requirements?

Not to the point of violating a persons rights.

But don't worry,,you won't have any soon. :(

[Seraphim]

The 4th Amendment, and the Constitution are restrictive rules on GOVERNMENT action.

Private affairs are outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

If a private enterprise wants to search you before you enter THEIR property - it is up to you whether or not you will go through that. NO ONE forces you either way.


I am not sure any private business has a right to violate your 4th amendment,, any more than a local, state of federal government does.

And they DO NOT have that right.


I find it disgusting that it is assumed to be negotiable.

[tod evans]

I am not sure any private business has a right to violate your 4th amendment,, any more than a local, state of federal government does.

And they DO NOT have that right.


I find it disgusting that it is assumed to be negotiable.


I don't require theorizing and speculating about what I'll tolerate, store clerk or fed they'll have to knock me out and restrain me if they want to stick their fingers up my ass.

And then if I'm still alive they'd best be looking over their shoulder 'cause I'm coming....

[pcosmar]

The 4th Amendment, and the Constitution are restrictive rules on GOVERNMENT action.
.

Those rules on Government are based on basic fundamental rights.
Principles. What used to be called "common decency".

They apply everywhere all the time.

[mad cow]

Those rules on Government are based on basic fundamental rights.
Principles. What used to be called "common decency".

They apply everywhere all the time.

A private Military School can demand that you wear a uniform,march everywhere in formation,pray 10 or more times a day,shine your shoes until they are mirrors,march around with guns,be in formation at sunrise and sunset to raise and lower the flag at attention accompanied by drums and bugles,march into meals and be seated when ordered and eat in total silence and on and on and on.

Obviously, the government can't demand any of this from citizens,yet people voluntarily send their kids to private military schools.

Are these schools violating the Constitution?

[pcosmar]

A private Military School can demand that you wear a uniform,march everywhere in formation,pray 10 or more times a day,shine your shoes until they are mirrors,march around with guns,be in formation at sunrise and sunset to raise and lower the flag at attention accompanied by drums and bugles,march into meals and be seated when ordered and eat in total silence and on and on and on.

Obviously, the government can't demand any of this from citizens,yet people voluntarily send their kids to private military schools.

Are these schools violating the Constitution?

They are violating common decency. Kids should be allowed to be kids.. Not Cannon fodder.

[pcosmar]

,yet people voluntarily send their kids to private military schools.


Parents do a lot of stupid stuff,
The fact that people do stupid stuff is not a good argument for doing stupid stuff.

[AFPVet]

The private sector is private sector. As Dr. Paul noted, the private sector can even be more regulatory that the public sector! However, the private sector doesn't lock people up in rape cages or shoot dogs as a method of 'enforcement'.

I never would've thought that I would have evolved to be this Libertarian in a thousand years lol. It took me a long time to snap out of the indoctrination... it's worse for people who are retired military and/or police.

[pcosmar]

The private sector is private sector. As Dr. Paul noted, the private sector can even be more regulatory that the public sector! However, the private sector doesn't lock people up in rape cages or shoot dogs as a method of 'enforcement'.
No,, but they do keep records that will be turned over to those agencies. Or potential Employers.

I never would've thought that I would have evolved to be this Libertarian in a thousand years lol. It took me a long time to snap out of the indoctrination... it's worse for people who are retired military and/or police.

I was the first of the Voluntary Army,
I am also an ex-con. I have had to reevaluate a few things. ;)

Living in a cage gave me a new respect for Freedom.

[mad cow]

They are violating common decency. Kids should be allowed to be kids.. Not Cannon fodder.

Well,I certainly hope that you aren't in favor of the State punishing someone or sending someone to prison for violating common decency.
If someone wants to send their kids to a private military school or religious school with whatever rules and regulations whose business is it?Yours,the States or the parents?

[pcosmar]

Well,I certainly hope that you aren't in favor of the State punishing someone or sending someone to prison for violating common decency.
If someone wants to send their kids to a private military school or religious school with whatever rules and regulations whose business is it?Yours,the States or the parents?

Nope,, people have choices. And I am not in favor of more laws.
I do try to educate those within my sphere of influence.

And I have no children,,, but I sure would not let them be treated like this if I did.

[AFPVet]

No,, but they do keep records that will be turned over to those agencies. Or potential Employers.


I was the first of the Voluntary Army,
I am also an ex-con. I have had to reevaluate a few things. ;)

Living in a cage gave me a new respect for Freedom.

Yeah... the U.S. mob can seize whatever records they like without due process. Sorry that you went through that even after serving your country. It's a fucked up world we live in. You never should've been in the system... that's a huge slap in the face.

For what it's worth, thank you for your service brother!

[pcosmar]

Yeah... the U.S. mob can seize whatever records they like without due process. Sorry that you went through that even after serving your country. It's a fucked up world we live in. You never should've been in the system... that's a huge slap in the face.

For what it's worth, thank you for your service brother!

My crime was my own. I plead guilty voluntarily,,(though I did not have a trial) and did my time.
It was a learning experience..

Though I have been screwed a few times since,, that is another thing.