|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 5, 2011, 01:29 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 227
|
Breathalyzer test required for Homecoming Dance
My 17 year old son and I was talking last night and he said that everyone entering the high school for the homecoming dance was required to take a Breathalyer test. Well I laughed and said, "we'll get you high school kids straightened out yet." Obviously I thought he was kidding. Soon into our conversation I realized he was telling the truth, they really did have to take a breath test to enter the highschool dance.
Now I'm no lawyer or law expert by any means but this sounds like a civil rights violation to me. What next, urine sample for drugs? Blood Test for the Aids virus or hepititis? I would love to hear your guys take on this? |
September 5, 2011, 01:50 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Since it is a school function involving students, there is a much diminished right of privacy than in other places involving other people. Frankly, as a parent of two fairly recent HS grads, I would be in favor of testing. Now, when you start getting into drug screens for participation in athletics and other school activities, that crosses a personal line I have (yes, I have read of some schools doing this and it being upheld).
|
September 5, 2011, 04:05 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
It could be worse. Check out the link below.
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2122102.shtml Alcohol searches have been going on for a while: http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2...4048848902.txt
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
September 5, 2011, 05:08 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,889
|
I think it is an excellent idea.
Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. |
September 5, 2011, 05:17 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
|
Yeah sure, what do HS kids want to do with with "dignity", anyway? teach e'm young to accept the fact that authority wants them to do things 'for their own good'. Control has nothing to do with it, I'll bet, right? Right. What a good way to ingrain the thought that presumed innocence is an outdated idea, so when they get to voting age, we can sponge away that blight
And before the 'rents get all fussy with me: want to make your kid REAL safe? Don't let them go to a dance or school activity at all. Even if THEY aren't drinking, a drunk driver could still kill them But, two things do spring to mind: 1) Private school or public? 2) What does this have to do with firearms? |
September 5, 2011, 05:24 PM | #6 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
September 5, 2011, 05:25 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 2,016
|
Any student can exercise his/her right to not attend.
__________________
NRA Life Member USN Retired |
September 5, 2011, 05:29 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
|
Quote:
" " Thanks for being so helpful though Don (that " " means I'm being sarcastic but I'm just poking fun) |
|
September 5, 2011, 06:15 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
|
September 5, 2011, 07:19 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,882
|
What part of "child" have we seemed to have forgotten?
The kind of shenanigans/behavior now accepted as kids-will-be-kids would never have been dreamed of/much tolerated during my own (and many others on this forum) HS days. Given the kids have apparently demonstrated no self-control, it must necessarily be imposed externally. Respect is earned, not given away in Cracker Jack boxes to make someone "feel good" Xin Loi. |
September 5, 2011, 07:35 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,951
|
Does anyone realize how many "kids" are killed each year by being with a drunk driver.
I applaude the school for their actions. Drunks don't belong at a school function and the Breathalyzer test is non intrusive not like a blood or urine test.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/ Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S. |
September 5, 2011, 07:44 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 283
|
As a student in many schools,you give up some rights to go there.You may be issued a locker,but the school does not need a search warrant to look into it.If you don't like that,go somewhere else.
Unfortunately this isn't the 1950's in Mayberry.There are many kids out of control and the school must take certain precautions to keep the majority safe. |
September 5, 2011, 07:57 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
So, armsmaster270, do you feel that non-critical employees and non-emergency service employees should all have to consent to breathalyzers when they arrive for a shift at work?
(Random screens have been applied to pilots for some years now; same for military; I'd imagine same for LE and EMS. However, we agree to those terms of employment, and don't have to go to work there. Also, the unions for all those organizations tended to have fought tooth and nail...) Edit: military don't have unions. I realize that. Military also are subject to UCMJ, and give up some rights when they take the oath. Since breathalyers are non-intrusive, perhaps you feel you should be able to administer them to drivers at impromptu roadblocks? Driving is a privilege, after all, and people could opt not to drive. I'm pretty appalled at all the strident 2nd Amendment supporters in here, who routinely decry the government pulling its Big Brother routine and wanting to regulate away our guns "for the good of the children," and yet these same folks seem to think breathalzying every kid that goes to a school function is not only acceptable but laudable. Actually, I'm past appalled. I'm disgusted. |
September 5, 2011, 07:59 PM | #14 |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
|
Some people commit crimes; therefore, we're going to treat everyone as a suspect. That worked just fine in the Soviet Union and China today.
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes. |
September 5, 2011, 08:11 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 3, 2011
Location: Poteet, Texas
Posts: 959
|
Going to the dance is a privilege not a right. That's like driving is not a right it's a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. Voting is a right. Its easier to infringe on a privilege than a right. The government can require a test to use a privilege. Like you have to pass a test to drive but not to vote. As is becoming clearer every day you don’t need to pass a test to own a gun, it’s a right. Going to the dance can require you to pass a test of some kind, like a breathalyzer because it’s not a right..
|
September 5, 2011, 08:16 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
So, shotgun693, you'd be ok with random roadblocks and breathalyers for all drivers?
As you pointed out, driving is considered a privilege, not a right, and is subject to more regulation. And, before people go into the adults vs minors thing, note that the OP is the parent of one of the kids. He was caught unaware by this, which would suggest the school DID NOT CONSULT WITH NOR INFORM THE PARENTS. Are we all cool with that concept? Really? |
September 5, 2011, 08:30 PM | #17 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
|
Quote:
In HS, some of 'em are 18. And almost any of 'em would be tried as an adult. A fair number of them drive. A few states in the US will let a 17 year old vote under the right circumstances. If there was a draft on an 18 year old would be in the Army, so an 18 year old as a child- depends on things like when their birthdays fall and if they got held back once, but some kids in HS are 18....but let me reply to some of your questions: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But logically, these kids are not distilling their own whisky in the backyard or brewing beer in the tub- it comes from somewhere. Sounds like a band-aid on a sucking chest wound to me. |
||||
September 5, 2011, 08:43 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
I have a big problem with schools using their loco parentis status to search lockers etc, and then prosecute if they find something illegal. Or when they consent on the kids' behalf for the cops to perform a search that should require a search warrant, etc. Loco parentis is supposed to protect the kid's interest, not the school's.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
September 5, 2011, 09:09 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
September 5, 2011, 09:30 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
So, basically a lot of people are in fact saying they want government to treat people as needing to prove themselves innocent in order to enjoy privileges, but want government to remember it works the other way when it comes to a right... even though SCOTUS has allowed, thus far, that some regulation of rights is ok...
|
September 5, 2011, 09:57 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
The State of Ohio puts on DUI check-points quite often. Matters of fact, in the last week through next week, with the holiday, we're going to have a total of somewhere between 120-125. There's no law against it and has been proven to be effective.
I too pee'd in a cup so much at work, I had to pee in a cup at home or it was hard to go. I could heat the house with the drug/alcohol screening paperwork I've gathered over the years.... ...but I choose to work there. As a parent of four, I wouldn't like the breathalyzer business unless parents were informed pryor to the dance. Also, as a parent, I would not object to the breathalyzer with prior notice as a school dance is not a requirement and we choose to let our kids go there. All my kids have long graduated, youngest is 25. They went to a country school that had more of a dope problem then the parents in the area wanted to believe. The PD wanted to bring a dog in to sniff the lockers and when the parents heard, they STORMED city council chambers demanding that this not happen. I sit and listened to many parents getting up in front of council saying how much of an abuse of privacy this would be, that there just wasn't that big of a drug problem in the high school. They blamed what amount of drugs that was there on people bringing them in town from Columbus,Ohio. Wasn't any of THEIR kids doing the dealing. It was almost comical as I watched three parents of kids that were known big-time dealers at the school making the most noise. So the police Chief caved in and said instead of bringing the dogs in to sniff the lockers, he suggested the principal along with the truant officer do a scheduled locker inspection. On the day of the pre-scheduled, announced locker inspection no drugs were found in any lockers....BUT, while the locker inspections were going on inside, the dope dogs had a field day in the parking lot. The busts they made that day was incredible. They were also able to bust a theft ring consisting of about a half dozen high school kids which they in turn ratted out several adults involved. Some of the cars that contained dope also had many $1000's of stuff stolen from neighboring homes.... ...and yes two of the three known drug dealers that their parents were at the city council meeting objecting the most were busted. Go figure! When we were in high school, locker searchs happened often. If I remember correctly, if you chose to drive to school and park on the school parking lot, you signed a waiver that your car was subject to a search. The buses drove everyday, it was law you had to go to school but not law you had to drive there. We had truant officers that if they heard you had something illegal in your locker/car, would come get you out of class and search till their heart was content. Since the truant officer was an LEO, he could arrest you. Course, it was the truant officers job to make as big a deal out of a bust as he/she could to try to intimidate the kids to think twice about bringing something illegal to school. By the way, this was a public school. |
September 5, 2011, 10:23 PM | #22 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 1,176
|
Duh, all of you in favor.....how many of you would have passed? I can think of a lot of occasions when I was in high school (especially at football games, etc) that if they had done "spot checks", I wouldn't have made it. Todays kids have lost a lot of freedoms that we used to have. In that, I often feel sorry for them. But given the nice "early" warning, a student has the right to not attend, and hold their own dance somewhere else (imagine students independently renting a hall, inviting the whole school, and no one attending the school sponsored breathalyzer function). If a school wants to be like a prison, some students are just going to have to make for freedom.....................PS: How about surprise drug test for teachers, or surprise alcohol test for politicians and cops? I don't think Ted Kennedy would have lasted so long.
|
September 5, 2011, 10:28 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I was one of the "good kids" in my high school days, but I'd have passed on the mandatory breathalyzer function on principle.
I also don't think kids today are all that different than they were in the 80's, for the most part... although I do think parenting is not as good as it had been. |
September 5, 2011, 10:55 PM | #24 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Location: dixie
Posts: 477
|
I wouldn't want my son wrestling or doing any other close contact sport with somene with HIV. Including that test as part of te physical they already take seems reasonable. My only objection would be the cost.
I had a friend that rolled his ranger after a end of the school year party when he was driving drunk the spring of my Junior year. He came back to school a paraplegic his senior rear. The breathalyzer costs nothing, and if a 17 year old kid wants to attend a dance how can anyone have a problem making sure they're not drinking there? I think that making them go through a metal detector seems reasonable too, especially if there has been a history or threats that heighten the risk. Last edited by chack; September 5, 2011 at 11:00 PM. |
September 6, 2011, 12:28 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
For everyone who thinks this is ok:
Why not a mandatory blood test, as well? How about a mandatory lie-detector test to see who's having underage sex? Strip searches for weapons and drugs? If not, WHY NOT, and what would be the difference and where do you draw the line? I agree that conditioning kids to think unwarranted, intrusive searches are normal and acceptable is dangerous business for the future of our Republic. Every single kid should take a big swig of mouthwash before the test in protest. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|