John F wrote on June 08, 2008 10:07 AM: Daniel,

I would, but.....no, I won't go there. This is a family blog.

Daniel wrote on June 07, 2008 05:09 PM: Tim and John F, You two should hook up for a dinner, and a movie and see where it goes from there.

0u812 wrote on June 07, 2008 05:05 PM: If you are employed by joe and he has the right for drug testing his employees, where is the Aclu on my rights. Our Government is an employer so he does have a right to make testing for everyone. If you are going to use the constitution for one and not the other, what is the point of a constitution. Where does it say that the Constitution only stands up for Goverment employees. A probable cause is using an illegal substance or alcohol abuse. I know many in government who drink and use illegal drugs and they have been reported, only to get nothing.

tim wrote on June 07, 2008 01:50 PM: john we may not always agree,but i do enjoy the verbal jabbing,so to speak.keep the fire,its what makes america great.

John F wrote on June 07, 2008 01:11 PM: Grumpy, Tim,

Howdy back at ya.

I think you're missing my point; I was being a touch sarcastic.

Forcing people to give samples of blood and urine absent probable cause - and therefore putting their liberty at risk - constitutes an unreasonable search, something the Constitution forbids.

If you don't like paying taxes for welfare that's fine; there's certainly a case to be made for that. But the solution is not to destroy the Constitution.

An employer has the right to drug test as a condition of employment; I've submitted to a few myself (passed 'em, too! I'm sure it will come as quite a surprise to many of the conservatives on these pages that I'm not on drugs. :-)). That's different than the state putting its power behind the edict, however. A school official is a representative of the state. the results of a positive drug test in such an environment could be turned over to the police or placed on a permanent scholastic record. It's very easy to say drug users should give up their Constitutional rights, but what happens when they come to take away our rights? Especially since we've been so lax in looking out for the rights of others?

Thanks for the conversation, you two. Love getting your point of view.

tim wrote on June 07, 2008 12:37 PM: grumpy,you can also add everyone on welfare.i dont like paying for a drug addicts drugs.

grumpy wrote on June 07, 2008 12:24 PM: Howdy John F,
I get regularly drug tested as a condition of employment. I think all teachers should as well, including a pre-employment screening. I would extend this to all administrators too.

In fact, anyone whose salary is paid by the taxpayer should be tested. I think the majority of taxpayers want government employees to be free of drugs and (as applied to certain jobs) alcohol.

Testing students adds an interesting twist. For instance, if a teacher tested for drugs, including alcohol revealed alcohol use, that would not necessarily indicate a problem. If a student tested for the same indicated alcohol use, then a crime will have been revealed. What then? Who is liable, besides the student for the underage use of alcohol? What does an administrator do in these cases?

John F wrote on June 07, 2008 11:36 AM: Tim,

Great idea. Then maybe the teachers and administrators would also demonstrate a little concern for the constitutional issues involved as well.

Money Trees wrote on June 07, 2008 11:27 AM: Grant "trick" leads to perpetual program. Seems like conspiracy btwn Fed and local govts! How Cute! The money will always come from "somewhere", right? ;)

tim wrote on June 07, 2008 10:28 AM: for every random child tested,there should be a random teacher and administrator tested too,then kids will learn fairness.the way our schools are heading those teachers and adim.people must be on something.

Read All Comments