Re: Re: Intoxicated Tubists Declared Dangerous


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Chuck(G) on March 25, 2002 at 17:25:40:

In Reply to: Re: Intoxicated Tubists Declared Dangerous posted by Joe Baker on March 25, 2002 at 14:09:33:

Mostly, my objections come from the viewpoint of asking the federal government to do the parents job--and they are all too happy to do it--badly. And so-called "zero tolerance" policies do nothing to improve the situation.

So your kid decides to experiment with a little marijuana, he gets busted and expelled under the zero-tolerance program. No allowance is made for the circumstances or the curious nature of children (and that's what he is, after all). You don't get the choice of disciplining your kid, the government does it for you. He kisses any hope for a decent university education bye-bye and enters a federal database of drug offenders. This benefits whom?

Or is your arguemnt that minors aren't citizens or that they're using publicly funded facilities?

If they're not entitled to the same protections as adults as citizens, then what the heck, call 'em chattel and turn their protection over to the ASPCA.

If your objection is that they're using publicly-funded facilities, why stop with schools? If you're using a federally-subsidized facility, like a highway or airport or train station or post office, why not institute drug testing on the public at large? After all, you don't HAVE to drive a car on interstate or federal highways, or use the US mail, do you? How about random body-cavity searches at airports?

By setting aside the constitutional doctrine of "reasonable cause", we're on a very slippery slope.

My opinion only.




Follow Ups: