Drug testing 6th graders


A proposal to conduct random drug tests of young students in one New Jersey town is raising some eyebrows.
Students at Belvidere Elementary School could be adding drug testing to their list of lessons when they move into middle school.
The Board of Education will vote Wednesday on a plan to randomly test sixth, seventh and eighth graders to see if they are under the influence of drugs. School administrators said they were confident the proposal would pass.
Elementary School Principal Sandra Szabocsik said school officials want to use the testing “as a deterrent.”

New Jersey Town’s Education Board To Vote On Middle School Drug Tests CBS New York – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of NY

Next we drug test the animals-----


I don’t know what the drug situation is in that school. However, As far as I’m concerned, It’s my choice whether or not my son gets tested for anything.


Personally, I find this to be a good thing.

If the schools have a zero tolerance policy on drugs, knowing that you will get caught is a deterrant.

This would have made me at least think twice. Part of the reason I did much of what I did is because I was smart enough to not get caught. I wasn’t drug tested as a kid. If I was, things may have been different.


The only way that I would support it is if it is 100% and the parents allowed it. It like this, anytime I hear that “random” testing is being implemented, I cringe. This is because, it is NEVER random. It ends up being used as a way to target certain people while ignoring others.


I am of mixed opinion about this.


What about the teachers? They’re the ones that I’d be most worried about, and they’re there on the public dime.


Conservatives should be outraged. Violation of rights to privacy, to say the least. If one is not under investigation for a crime, what reason do they have to test them?
If they thought he was under the influence, then fine. But “random” testing assumes the guilt of everyone.


[quote=“Fantasy_Chaser, post:6, topic:28822”]
What about the teachers? They’re the ones that I’d be most worried about, and they’re there on the public dime.
[/quote]In the past I recall businesses wanted to drug test the employees except for the upper echelon who could end up doing more damage to the business than someone driving the forklift.


My last two employers did drug testing of new hires - but in case of the first one, it was initiated several years after I started, and was not retroactive. The last job (actually working for 3 diff. employers) - the one who originally hired me was a Mom & Pop business, who sold out (a piece at a time) to another company, and we were all exempt; then “we” were sold to another company, and were exempt for the same reason.


A case can be made that tests made pre-hire, are OK, and I may be inclined to agree. But once employed, if nothing associates the employee with drugs, a random test is un-Constitutional.


In a ‘right to work’ state, especially, a private business has every right to test its employees for drugs any time it so chooses. It’s not unConstitutional because they don’t put you in jail if found to have drugs in your system, they simply fire you. (Or not.) And, of course, an employee has every right to refuse. You might not keep your job, but if thems the rules, thems the rules.
The reason I don’t like them is because I seriously question their accuracy.

As far as testing students goes, whatever happened to the crowd that screams, ‘everybody has a right to an education’? Yep, even the dopers.
FWIW, as a parent, I don’t think I would allow it. Even though I imagine they’d have someone from the cop shop come in to do the testing, schools are not a law enforcement agency, and I don’t want them turning into one. If they have strong enough suspicions that someone may be on drugs, well then they can call the cops, and let them handle it.
And, as Cons. Lib said, random testing is never random.


Absolutely they should be required to submit to the same testing.

I feel the same about law enforcement.

I think if you are expected to enforce a standard, then you should be the example.


Maybe unconstitutional is the wrong word. It is, none the less, an invasion of privacy.
It doesn’t reveal anything. If you smoked a joint 4 weeks ago, you are busted now, regardless of the fact that you haven’t been high in 27 days.
One friend of mine was fired for using Cocaine. He never used any drugs not prescribed by a Doctor. Another was fired when Advil caused a “false positive” for marijuana use.
If they want to test, they should have to show “just cause”, IMHO.


I hope I didn’t give the impression that I’m in favor of it 'cuz I’m not, and wouldn’t work for a company too stupid to figure out if their employees are high as a kite or not.


No ma’am. All you did was correct my error and help me with perspective. Much appreciated.
Well said. I can spot a druggie a mile away. Who needs drug testing?
I guess we do, since the litigious society we live in would probably crucify any company official who fired someone without concrete evidence of drug abuse. Forget that they are lousy workers and miss work, frequently.


On this or another site, i mentioned this:

June Education Reporter – School’s Physical Exam Enrages Parents, Scares Girls

and believe me it was difficult to find. Some doubted my veracity in re-telling this incident. Where do you want school testing to go? or end?


Ah, thank you. Please pardon me for being remiss at getting back to you.
I, too, can spot a druggie from a mile away, and see it the same as you. Who needs a test? The only test, in my mind, is if the employee can do the job he promised in the promised amount of time. I could not care less if he drinks beer or smokes a joint or whatever. So long as he does the job, and does it well.
Let said employee fall down and get hurt, AND make a claim on my Worker’s Comp. insurrance, THEN we might have a problem. But as it hasn’t happened in the 20+ years we’ve owned this business, I highly doubt it’ll ever be an issue.
Then again, like you said, we can spot a druggie from a mile away, and he wouldn’t get hired in the first place.


From that article:

“Even a parent doesn’t have the right to say what’s appropriate for a physician to do when they’re doing an exam.”

Excuse ME???

Despite some girls’ requests to opt out or to call a parent, the 6th graders were denied both.

In short, just how furious do think THIS momma would be? :wink:


I forgot to date the article…it was in 1996 and the article either fails to give the date or hides it. This doctor, Varhanvaty is still practicing. why?


That date coincides with the last major power grab by Hitlery’s Village. The ‘Child Abuse Industry’ was in full swing and they had Hillary backing them up with what eventually became the SAFE Adoption Act of 1997 which was signed into law by Bill Klinton. This legislation is still in place and allows CPS to terminate parental rights without ever having to prove parents to be unfit. It gave CPS the gestapo-like power with which they still enjoy abusing families.

The work of people like the doctor mentioned in the article was used to justify this anti-family power grab.