Breathalyzer test required for Homecoming Dance

[shortwave]

Overall, like the OVI checkpoints, this type of behavior chips away at our individual rights

...yea, just like federally mandated drug testing of CDL truck drivers. Which this practice has been adopted by seemingly every employer in the US. Whether its a juvenile applying for a job or an adult...if the employer is McDonalds or Wall Street. Talk about chipping away at our individual rights.

What I find disgusting is that we will through a fit about any kind of drug/alcohol testing for our kids going to school functions, whether it be random or scheduled but its become socially acceptable to have forced testing for employment not only for our teenage children but for grown adults that are supposed to be more responsible.
Why do we accept the pre-employment drug screening our teenge child has to go through when they go to McDonalds,Krogers or Walmart to get a part-time job while still in school?
Isn't this the same good child that is supposed to be presumed innocent going to the school function on Friday night? That is if he/she can get off work at the job he/she had to drug test to get....and we as parents let our child go to work at this job subjecting them to drug/alcohol screening without saying a word. Again, confused.

Some say, "well if you don't like the the drug testing policy where you work, quit". I'm sure some have heard this said or maybe even said/thought it themselves.
Just as easy to say, "if you don't want testing done to your children, don't send them to the school function". Thats also been said....but both these comments aren't really an answer to the problem. The problem being, my child or I have never been convicted of DUI or any drug related charges but yet you test me as if I have. Aren't we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? But its become acceptable.


I'm sure if these schools were/are questioned about why the testing is done, the response would be the same one would get if he/she questioned an employer...."its for the safety of everyone".

Again, its just confusing to me how drug/alcohol testing has been let to become so socialbly(sp) acceptable as a way of life in many areas but we take great offense to it in others....and alot of the testing is mandated by the fed. government.

[BlueTrain]

Every now and then my appreciation of the contributors here goes up a notch or two from some of the comments. Saying something is kubuki theatre is one of them.

I am no fan of random searches, having to show your papers and things like that either (what do you have to hide?) but many of the comments on this forum strike me as showing that it is no mystery where this sort of thing originates. Generally speaking, people everywhere will take rigid government over lawlessness any day but at some point you run into the problem of where to draw the line. One forgets how many grudges people can have against one another, either as individuals or as members of some group and such things are a way of carrying out a kind of revenge or demonstrating power. All of these things are in response to something in particular, be it someone with explosives in his shoe or someone who thinks killing a democratically elected office holder is justifiable. After all, in a democracy you can vote to have someone put to death but you just can't go out and shoot them.

[MLeake]

It's funny how gun owners excoriate the Press for defending 1st Amendment rights while tossing the 2nd Amendment under the bus... and yet we think In Loco Parentis should let schools completely end-run the 4th Amendment.

Well, "we" don't. Some of you, do.

If an arbitrary breathalyzer for all, based on nothing other than attendance, no cause whatever - let alone Probable Cause - doesn't qualify as an unreasonable search, I'm not sure what does. Saying the schools are in loco parentis does not negate the fact that they are agents of the government, in that capacity.

As far as the "safety" benefits go, and the utilitarian argument, I wonder what Ben Franklin would have had to say.... Oh, wait, I know exactly what he said:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[zxcvbob]

If an arbitrary breathalyzer for all, based on nothing other than attendance, no cause whatever - let alone Probable Cause - doesn't qualify as an unreasonable search, I'm not sure what does. Saying the schools are in loco parentis does not negate the fact that they are agents of the government, in that capacity.

IMHO, they can wear the in loco parentis hat, or they can wear their agent of the state hat, but not both, and not switch back and forth. ILP should be to protect the kids' right, not an end run around their 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc Amendment rights. The breathalyzer thing could go either way, depending on what they do with it.

[chack]

Do the people that object to the breathalyzer also object to:

1) a faculty member greeting each student as they arrive and not allowing kids that smell like alcohol or pot in.

2)a faculty member greeting each student as they arrive and verifying that they are an actual student at the school

3)security/chaperones waliking through the parking lot to prevent drug use, fighting, and kids screwing on school property.

What's the difference?

[MLeake]

The difference is the faculty member responding to the smell of alcohol now has some semblance of specific cause; the security personnel are checking for specific behaviors in a public setting; and the verification of guest identity is normal at many social functions.

[zukiphile]

I think it might be illuminating for people who object to the breath test for minors entering a school function to set forth a specific analysis

Originally Posted by MLeake

It's funny how gun owners excoriate the Press for defending 1st Amendment rights while tossing the 2nd Amendment under the bus... and yet we think In Loco Parentis should let schools completely end-run the 4th Amendment.

How are a student's 4th Am. rights violated by a breath test?

The 4th prohibits unreasonable searches. What is reasonable is largely defined by the expectations of the parties. Does a 16 year old have a reasonable expectation that he can attend a school function without have his breath tested?

Given his other diminished expectations of privacy, is a breath test of a minor really unreasonable?

Originally Posted by MLeake

If an arbitrary breathalyzer for all, based on nothing other than attendance, no cause whatever - let alone Probable Cause - doesn't qualify as an unreasonable search, I'm not sure what does. Saying the schools are in loco parentis does not negate the fact that they are agents of the government, in that capacity.

I know my distinction between what publicly funded entities are actually government and which aren't didn't catch on in this thread, but the assertion that an employee of a publicly funded school is an agent of government isn't obviously true.

My village has tree trimmers who roam around cutting branches on treelawns. That looks more like a service one could get from any treetrimmer, not a governmental function. If part of the educational service involves alcohol free dances for minors, monitoring isn't an obvious constitutional violation.

Originally Posted by MLeake

I wonder what Ben Franklin would have had to say.... Oh, wait, I know exactly what he said:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I think it's tough to argue persuasively that the right to attend a dance as a drunk teen is an essential liberty.

Originally Posted by chack

Do the people that object to the breathalyzer also object to:

1) a faculty member greeting each student as they arrive and not allowing kids that smell like alcohol or pot in.

Originally Posted by MLeake

The difference is the faculty member responding to the smell of alcohol now has some semblance of specific cause...

Emphasis added.

Which the faculty member must test to have. The pivotal part of chack's question is underlined, the greeting at which intoxication or use is detected. You responded to the action taken after testing occurs.

[shortwave]

MLeake,

I see what your saying about the schools and the In Loco Parentis, also the fact that some gun owners excoriating the Press for defending the 1st Amend. rts. while tossing the 2nd. under the bus....what I fail to see is the difference between what the school is doing, the drug/testing, under the guise of In Loco Parentis and a place of employment stomping on the same rights of the same child when he/she goes to get a part-time job and has to test. And this seems to be more accepted in our society. Why?

We are supposed to have basic individual rights. Does it matter what format is used to trample them if we've not first given a reason for our rights to be taken away ?

As far as what Ben Franklin would have said, I'm sure he's been looking down on us for a long time.....Speechless!

[overkill0084]

My village has tree trimmers who roam around cutting branches on treelawns. That looks more like a service one could get from any treetrimmer, not a governmental function.

Those tree trimmers aren't in a position of authority over your child. Neither is the sewage guy or the trash collector.
Without probable cause of some sort it's too much, IMHO. Elevate it a notch, should full body searches be permitted to simply attend? Perhaps medical exams to ensure that none of the attendees have a communicable disease? After all, "It's for the children."

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by overkilloo84

Without probable cause of some sort it's too much, IMHO.

Of all the restrictions the law puts on police, is probable cause the only one you would also impose upon teachers, or would you impose all the others as well?

Should a teacher mirandise a child before inquiring about misbehavior? (That is very much tongue in cheek)

[warrior poet]

This kind of stuff should ALWAYS have to pass a "probable cause" test. If you want teachers to act like police, they should follow police procedure. Times change, and not always for the better. Things have occurred that opened my eyes to this.
The scariest realization for me was that my high school- where I had 'open carried' a 5" fixed blade knife and a Pocket Tool in a sheath on my belt, which teachers and other staff often borrowed for various tasks- now has metal detectors at every door, backpacks aren't allowed (you could hide something), and it has a FULL TIME NARCOTICS OFFICER. What happened to "MY SCHOOL?" How did things get from what I remember to 'a junior version of state prison' in less than 20 years?

[MLeake]

And here we have some perfect examples of what Blue Train called the dichotomy between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" approaches.

I favor the libertarian approach. He governs best who governs least; when in doubt, side with the rights of the individual; innocence, not guilt, is presumed; burden is on the authorities to prove a need for any encroachment upon basic rights and dignity; punish those who commit offenses, don't regulate the law-abiding in the hopes of making offenses impossible - it can't be done, and can't even be approximated without serious encroachments against the individual.

Oddly, lots of people on the forum howl about many of those points, as they pertain to gun rights. Gun Free Zones only disarm the law abiding; right to carry should be constitutional, and not require a permit; permits should be "shall issue."

So you say that's a Constitutionally protected right? Until recently, it wasn't recognized as such for the individual, so be careful with that argument - unless you mean arguments prior to Heller and MacDonald were based on hope.

But even if we concede that point, nobody in here seemed to like the idea of an automated system of speed governors on cars... I'm betting that breathalyzer ignition systems for all cars wouldn't wash, either. I'm pretty sure nobody wants the insurance companies to be able to periodically check their car computers, nor the police to be able to do the same, without warrant or cause.

So now you say, "but these are only kids!" Well, first off, some of those kids are 18. I have a huge problem with a drinking age that criminalizes an act because somebody is under 21, then puts them in jeopardy in adult court because they are 18. It's utter BS, as far as I am concerned. Either they are kids, and should be handled as juveniles, or they are adults, and should have the privileges that go with the burdens. I don't care about the utilitarian/safety argument on this one, it's just wrong on its face.

Or maybe we should ban handguns?

But now you say, most of those kids are under 18! And the school is acting in loco parentis. I have a hard time with that argument, if there isn't agreement among the actual parents as to whether this policy is appropriate. If the school is enforcing a policy not favored by the parents, they aren't acting as representatives of the parents on scene, but instead are enforcing their own viewpoints under governmental fiat.

I'd also say that court rulings that deny minors the rights accorded to adults are not always correct. And I see no reason why any school staffer should be allowed to ever waive a student's rights with the law when acting in loco parentis.

Then again, I see no value in zero tolerance policies, nor many of the other approaches that lazy administrators, teachers, police officers, and yes, parents have taken in dealing with kids. The system has dumbed itself down.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by MLeake

I favor the libertarian approach. He governs best who governs least

Is that a good pedagogic model?

[shortwave]

This kind of stuff should ALWAYS have to pass a 'probable cause' test.

If you could get everyone to agree to that, you could never get everyone to agree what 'probable cause' would be....

...Is probable cause actually smelling alcohol on a child...

...Is it having to actually catch a child with alcohol/drugs on them during the school function...

...Would probable cause consist of known alcohol/drug issues in recent past school functions? Maybe resulting in injury or death of someone maybe either at the function or as they were leaving.

To some parents, it just wouldn't matter. They wouldn't agree to a BAT at school functions for whatever the reason. I just wonder if 'GOD forbid', something happened to their child due to alcohol/drugs at a school function, would they hold the school accountable.

I don't know an answer to the OP's situation. Maybe the school should not have the BAT before the dance, don't know why they thought the need to have it in the first place. Maybe the school should just send waivers home to get signed by the parents releasing the school of any liability of the child if they attend the function. Or if the school has had enough issue's warranting BAT at school functions, just cancel all extracurricular activities.

Boy, I'm glad my kids have graduated!

[MLeake]

zukiphile, it is for non-lawyers.

Those who make their living understanding and interpreting complex and ambiguously worded laws and ordinances probably don't prefer the streamlined and minimalist approach. If the law were clear, and if laws were only passed when really needed - instead of as a means of scoring political points - then many lawyers would find themselves with a lot less work, income, and influence.

Hey, you asked for pedagogic.... What do they say about a good lawyer never asking a question to which he doesn't know the answer beforehand?

But I stand by my points.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by MLeake

Hey, you asked for pedagogic....

Are you suggesting that libertarianism is a theory of teaching?

Originally Posted by MLeake

But I stand by my points.

I wouldn't ask you to abandon your points. I am trying to explore them.

I genreally admire a live and let live approach that doesn't prefer to impose a majority will just because it can be imposed.

However, education is very much a matter of indoctrination, monitoring, control and testing. If my kindergartener's teacher let my five year old leave school to play in the street, giving an explanation that she lacked PC to "detain" my daughter, my reaction would be intemperate.

We expect different things from schools and government. Wouldn't you agree?

[MLeake]

zukiphile, going back to in loco parentis, no reasonable parent would allow their 5yo to play in the street.

However, most reasonable parents don't breathalyze their kids.

Keeping the 5yo out of traffic is not an overreach... neither would keeping the 5yo in school during normal hours, or not letting the 5yo depart the school in the company of any adult not pre-approved by the parents.

Keeping a kindergartner from stealing another's toy would be in keeping with what most reasonable parents would do. Indoctrinating them in treating others as they would like to be treated is also reasonable, as well as useful.

Indoctrinating a bunch of kids to sing a song praising a newly elected President, not so much.

Giving a kid a zero, possibly suspending him, for cheating on an exam is within societal norms for handling such a problem. Note: This is after cheating has been proven; this normally requires suspicion of cheating in the first place.

There are any number of ways in which schools can regulate behavior, that would not be out of the norm as far as parental regulation of behavior goes.

Mass breathalyzing does not meet that criterion, in my opinion.

Also, there are very few circumstances where I can see a need for a school to take any major action without notifying the parent(s) and waiting for the parent(s) to arrive on scene, to take over the situation. Or, if the parents are uncooperative, to be present while the problem is initially handled, even if they don't assist in its handling.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by MLeake

zukiphile, going back to in loco parentis, no reasonable parent would allow their 5yo to play in the street.

However, most reasonable parents don't breathalyze their kids.

I've seen to many parents check a teen's breath for alcohol before handing over the keys to accept that assertion uncritically. A teen might think that is unreasonable, but since we don't generally hold that a minor has a privacy interest in his drinking, it doesn't seem obviously or objectively unreasonable.

[MLeake]

I'm guessing the parents you've seen doing so, were prompted to do so by prior behavioral incidents with their kids.

I've never seen any of my friends do this to their high school age kids.

Then again, most of my friends are pretty involved with their kids, and those kids tend to be pretty well-behaved. Good grades, involved with school athletics and clubs, etc.

I suspect that if my friends treated their kids with the suspicion suggested by random breath tests, those kids would actually not be so well-behaved, nor such high achievers.

What is that saying about people living either up to your expectations, or else down to them?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by MLeake

I'm guessing the parents you've seen doing so, were prompted to do so by prior behavioral incidents with their kids.

I would state my guess differently. There are two kinds of highschool kids who drink; 1) those whose parents know they drink, and 2) those whose parents don't know they drink.

Even if your child has not been drinking and you test for it, you communicate an intolerance.

Originally Posted by MLeake

I suspect that if my friends treated their kids with the suspicion suggested by random breath tests, those kids would actually not be so well-behaved, nor such high achievers.

Random testing is a different topic. Wouldn't you agree?

I find it implausible that a parent's inquiry about drinking before a teen gets car keys would push a teen into drinking.

When I was that age the one whose car was conveying us typically abstained. We didn't call it a "designated driver" as they do now; it was more a matter of "my father will kick my rear if I come home drunk tonight".

[Isk]

Personally, it isn't my problem...it's my kid's problem. 13 years ago when I was in high school I never drank alcohol and I still would not have gone to a party where a breathalyzer was administered. Let the child decide if they are willing to allow the school to treat them like a guilty party. Explain to the kids the consequences of living in a police state (or Big Brother country). Let the kid figure out what the appropriate response is. This is a good learning tool.

Breathalyzers may give you an indication of how much alcohol a kid slammed before showing up...but it doesn't tip you off to the kid that snorted three lines of coke in the parking lot 5 minutes ago...Test for one but forget the rest? I don't know...the whole thing just never sits well with me. I'd rather dance alone than subject myself to overbearing authority.

[BlueTrain]

That was an excellent post.

I think there are other issues not mentioned so far (I think). For one thing, it is possible that the principall of the school is exercising more authority than he really has. I doubt that any direction was received from the school board or anyone else in the country to conduct tests like that. He could just as well decide he needed to make sure all the girls were wearing proper underwear. And while a public school, assuming that what this was, is operated by the local government, it is not government in the same sense as the police department. The school has no police functions. If, on the other hand, it was the police department there administering the tests, it would be a different story.

Now another funny thing here is that many people who might object to such a thing happening might also be the sort of parent who would be in favor of corporal punishment in school, though I could be way off base on that point. Nevertheless, I do read comments in many places that kids (not defined) are "out of control."

[Hitthespot]

While doing a little more research I came accross this article in the local news paper. Apparently other schools in the county are also considering instituting the test. We live in Mentor, Ohio where the tests apparently were instituted last year.

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/...txt?viewmode=3

[shortwave]

We didn't call it a "designated driver" as they do now; it was more of a "my father will kick my butt if I come home drunk tonight".

Yep, and coachs played a big part also.

I remember as a junior, we had our Friday evening wrestling meet in which the coach told us that those that won their matchs, didn't have Sat. morning practice. Those that lost their matchs had to be at school Sat. , 0800 for practice.

We had a very good meet with only a few guys losing a couple matchs. Coach said that since the majority of the team did so well, nobody practiced Sat. morning but the guys that lost their matchs owed the rest of the team.

Well, in the locker room, we decided to party over at a wrestlers house of which his parents owned a bar. Needless to say the house was well stocked.

We didn't know but the coach overheard us making plans but figured we'ed be supervised by one of our buddies parents.

Coach just happened to stop in the bar on his way home owned by the kids parents for a beer and both parents were working at the bar. Coach never said a word to them but when he left the bar he headed straight for our party.

We had been partying in style for about 3-4 hrs when coach showed up and busted us. He was more than just alittle upset. Made us clean up the house/yard . He then made three of us walk home as we lived close by. He ended up taking 8-9 kids home....and yes, we had to be at practice at 0800 Sat. morning.
Ever have to run laps and barf at the same time while coach ran with ya asking you if you wanted a beer and telling you, you can quit , he'd take you home and tell your parents about last night.

It was a trust thing in which coach drilled into us and reminded us throughtout the rest of that year and the next year.

Probably if the parents found all this out, some would have been mad they weren't notified. But I'll tell ya what that did for many of us on the team. Even though coach like to ran us to death that Sat., we respected him and he was a big influence throughout a few of our lives.

[hogdogs]

My parents would not only back me up in my fight for my individual rights but would assist me in developing a good way to protest such totalitarian encroachment...

So they just told the kids, "NO ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION WILL BE TOLERATED" "Instead, we ask that you consume federally forbidden narcotics..."

Brent