The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 12, 2011, 03:56 PM   #151
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Okay, so you wouldn't hold the school accountable if GOD forbid your child left an after school function with another child which was drinking and got in a wreck?
***As the OP concerned a breathalyzer BEFORE entry not after, this doesn’t help your case.

Also, your thoughts on metal detectors in schools along with locker searchs?
***Lockers are generally permitted by case law. Metal detectors are generally permitted by caselaw. Children are forced to attend school. They are not forced to go to the dance. Metal detectors are also typically manned by security personnel no?
zincwarrior is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 04:04 PM   #152
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
Quote:
If it gets to be a pain for the school just don't have the events.
Well...thats my thoughts also but aren't you punishing the good kids by doing that also.

Guess that would be better than stepping on peoples rights.

Here's the thing, we have rules here on TFL for reasons that have been proven to justify those rules. TFL is a voluntary site inwhich we ask to become a member in agreeance that we follow said rules.

School dances are no difference as they aren't mandatory to attend and I'm sure the schools would rather not feel the need to even have to chaperone the kids let alone do the breathalyzer. Apparently, there was a reason for them taking that action.
shortwave is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 04:13 PM   #153
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
There may be a reason, but I think we're arguing not over the reason by the action taken.

***If the school is worried about liability I don't think a breathalyzer is going to cut it for the reason cited (before vs. after).

***If the school is worried about a fracas, then the need for a breathalyzer is not there. Keep the bad seeds out in the first place.

***A breathalyzer requires some ability to administer. The school staff are not trained (nor should they be) for such and doing so would be deleterious to retaining good teachers.

***A breathalyzer raised this to the level of a legal search akin to a police search. The legality of police performing such are problematic, much less teachers.

Ok, Zincwarrior, can you help out at the dance?
Free food? I'm in.
Ok we need you to help administer breathalyzer tests.
Er, sure...immediately starts looking for a job somewhere else.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 04:19 PM   #154
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
Quote:
Metal detectors are also typically manned by security personnel no?
I would say yes to the above.

Also, every one of our high school extra-curricular events, our Truant Officer attended. Which was an LEO. Most of our city schools have truant officers as well but I couldn't say if they still show up for events. If they do, they are more than capable of administering at the very least a field sobriety test.
shortwave is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 04:23 PM   #155
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Regardless, this discussion has made me think about the dance scenario more. My boy's a bander so they have their own events, but the daughter is turning 13. I already have a hard time with the concept of suffering future boyfriends to live. This only makes it worse for them.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 04:30 PM   #156
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
Quote:
This only makes it worse for them
I strongly feel your pain. Thankfully, my only daughter out of the four kids was the youngest(now 25). She had three older brothers to help look after her which made things a bit easier for yours truely.

She had a few episodes in high school in which big brothers took care of that I wasn't even aware of till just a few years ago.

Probably best though.

Gotta run and get the grass cut.

Good discussion!
shortwave is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 04:32 PM   #157
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Indeed. You had heavy backup.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 04:59 PM   #158
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
Why are we placing our government in the position of having to administer breathalizers to our kids? This is beyond absurd. How about we take responsibility for our own kids male-female socialization instead of off-loading this on government workers?

I can understand the need to have a government run institution for the sole purpose of making sure that all American children have a chance at being educated on the fundamental skills needed to survive. But, what the heck are we doing entrusting government workers with things like organizing sporting activities, organizing dances, providing clubs for kids to belong to, teaching kids how to play music and march in formation while playing music?

Frankly, I just don't give a crud if single-parent households can't provide what the government is being required to provide their kids. Once, people begin to recognize all of the benefits that a man-woman /father-mother household provides (after you snatch away all of these absurd government substitutes for parents), our society will go back to being normal. And, our government can shrink to something that isn't a substitute for absentee parents.
Skans is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 06:22 PM   #159
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
Quote:
How about we take responsibity for our own kids male-female socialization instead of off -loading this on government officials.
That would be a dream come true and I'm sure a wish from all decent parents raising their kids properly.

Fact is, seems more and 'more supposed to be' parents are not taking that responsibility seriously and the mear fact the government officials are having to take some of the steps they're taking to keep kids safe at school, proves that point.

Oneounceload said it well a few post back. More and more will gladly relinquish the responsibilty of raising their kids to anyone else as long as the checks coming in (and I'll add) as long as the parent doesn't have to spend any more time parenting than they have to. After all, taking the time to parent may interupt the tee time, happy hour or the favorite progam on TV.

IMO,till more parents start parenting, you'll see more and more things like this breathalyzer/drug testing testing, metal detecting happening.

Hmmm...Just think, after all, breathalyzer testing in high school is getting them in practice for the adult world of mandatory drug/alcohol testing for employment. Again, which I did for 25yrs., don't agree with and feel it's an infringement on my rights.
But somewhere along the line, due to on the job accidents involving alcohol/drugs on the job, we're tested.
shortwave is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 08:22 AM   #160
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
Quote:
IMO,till more parents start parenting, you'll see more and more things like this breathalyzer/drug testing testing, metal detecting happening.
You will never see lazy parents start parenting (or stop creating babies they won't take care of) until our government eliminates all of the "Pseudo-parenting" functions it has taken on. The best thing that could happen to our nation is a budget crisis that forces government to relinquish these responsibilities back to its citizens. It wouldn't hurt some of or citizens to actually see what happens to babies of drug-addicted parents when government refuses to step in and do anything. "Social Stigma" would once again have its place in society.
Skans is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 09:36 AM   #161
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
Unless "social stigma" is a lot stronger than it was 50 years ago, I wouldn't hold out for much. Or did you grow up in a place that only had perfect parents?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 10:26 AM   #162
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
Let me put it this way - as I described it "Social Stigma" would be linked to a drug-addicted parent's babies dying of neglect - not hidden behind closed doors, or stuffed into classrooms where they can bully and disrupt productive students, but out in public view for people to get sick and disgusted over.

The stigma of a reckless drug abuser has little to do with him or her, but with the carnage that's left behind, which the government is no longer responsible for mopping up. Extreme? Perhaps, but that's the way I feel.
Skans is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 10:33 AM   #163
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
Can anyone say "mandatory drug testing before getting government assistance"?

There is something very wrong with our society when we have mandatory drug testing for people actually having enough moxy about themselves to actually go out and look for a job, then continue random drug screenings during that persons employment. This is the same person that works every day to pay for people on gov't assistance.

Yet the government, extending its almighty assistance in creating an ever more dependent society, continues to make it sooo easy for young, healthy people to lay on their backs, not lift a finger to support themselves, pop babies out at the rate of a well oiled puppy mill and if they choose , stay high or drunk all day long.... getting free government assistance and never get drug tested before or during recieving said assistance.
Again, all while you and I get up every morning, put a smile on our face and go to work everyday to pay for this lifestyle...and yes, get dope/breathalyzer tested while doing it....

...and we're worried about the message being sent to our kids(there rights being violated) in giving breathalyzer tests to go to a school dance. Me thinks there's bigger fish to fry.

Here's a thought, these same societal destroying government programs that are sucking the tax dollars by the billions, that every working individual pays today , are stomping on the rights of not only that working individual but his/her kids as well, as the tax money taken out of his/her paycheck affects his/her childrens way of life.
Just maybe if we did a little butchering of these wasteful, tax sponging programs, one of the parents could afford to spend a bit more time at home parenting as there'd be more spendable income staying in the household.

Then we have illegal immigrants over here working, doing jobs that many government officials are on record as saying, "these immigrants are only over here doing jobs that we won't do".
Where's the puke icon when ya need it.

Here's a new gov't program for ya.

Dope test people before they get on gov't assistance and random test while on assistance. Also give them a physical to find out their limitations. Put these people to work earning this assistance. Doing these menial jobs illegal immigrants are doing, picking trash up along the roads, doing menial labor/clerical jobs currently done by government employees(which will reduce government thereby saving tax dollars) etc.
Send illegal immigrants where they came from....

...but we can't do this as I'm sure somewhere along the line, someones rights would be violated, they would file a civil rights lawsuit, win and we would be right back to the free hand outs paid for by the working once again.




I gotta go take some blood pressure medicine in which I had to pay for cause the gov't won't give me any.

Last edited by shortwave; September 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 10:37 AM   #164
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Can anyone say "mandatory drug testing before getting government assistance"?
When it starts with the WH and its staff and then the Congress and Senate, yes
oneounceload is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 12:45 PM   #165
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
Agree Oneounce.

After all, shouldn't we(citizens) already be demanding testing of those that are demanding the same of the people?

On another note, I worked for a city for many years. I found it strange that in my position, we were drug/alcohol tested on a very regular basis. My job didn't entail emergency runs. Therefore less dangerous to hurting the public.

Police and Fire was exempt from this testing.

Didn't/doesn't make to much sense to me that the driver and tiller of a hook- n-ladder could run through town while running a call, busting traffic lights and somehow be exempt from testing. Same with LEO's on calls...and I've partied with many of both.

Strengths of unions are something.

Last edited by shortwave; September 13, 2011 at 01:01 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 02:46 PM   #166
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 801
1. I don't drink and drive, I've always gotten by a checkpoint in seconds with no hassle. So, bring on all the DUI checkpoints they can afford to staff.

2. My kids should not be drinking, so what's the harm in a breathalyzer test that everyone else is also required to take for gaining entry? So, bring them on. If my kids don't like it, they can stay at home. Same as flying. You don't have to be searched....no one can make you be searched...unless you want to fly.....thats still choice.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 02:57 PM   #167
TheGoldenState
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
If you're not pouring out a flask into the jumbo punch bowl, it's simply not a highschool dance.


Breathalyzer to enter the dance??

Good god.


Check to see if the Districts head isn't a Strickland jr.
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless...
TheGoldenState is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 04:00 AM   #168
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 801
Thats another beautiful thing about America; your kids are your kids.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 09:20 AM   #169
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Thats another beautiful thing about America; your kids are your kids.
Not according to the government - you act n a manner that THEY find offensive and you can go to jail, even if your are disciplining your kids

The Nanny state is here, and the topic just adds more proof to that
oneounceload is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 09:27 AM   #170
booker_t
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2009
Posts: 797
Sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, kids who want to drink will either:

1) Not go to the dance and drink elsewhere,

2) Just drink after the dance, or

3) Save the booze for another night.

I'd like to see the school district's cost-benefit analysis for the breathalyzer program, to include all associated costs (equipment, contracting, training, legal, and every hour spent in meetings to create the program) and all measured benefits (did it actually stop anybody from drinking, driving, etc?).

If they can't show tangible benefit, then it is by default a waste of taxpayer money.

Last edited by booker_t; September 14, 2011 at 09:58 AM.
booker_t is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 09:32 AM   #171
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
The kids are property of the system...

The rules are made as they wish...

One incident was with Junior having an issue with a boy who was pickin' on Junior's little buddy.

Junior knows this kid also liked to see him in trouble for protecting the small kids this boy liked to bully.

So this time junior tells him "Wait 'til after school, I will handle this off school grounds..."

Well junior waited until he actually crossed an intersection before spinnin' this kids noggin'...

I got called in the next day to speak with the most racist school employee I ever seen in my life... Their Principal went on to berade me and junior he accused me of raising a "BULLY". I informed him that junior settles scores he don't start them... Me and my son were addressed with derogatory terms aimed towards white folks and he then tells me the reason he was in authority to punish my child for offenses off school property...

AND I QUOTE... "IF IZ CAN SEE IT FROM MY SKOO IT IS ON SKOO PROPERTY..."

So I snatched him out right then and did my best teaching him the 3 R's... The only excuse I have in my favor for doing less than a stellar job is that Junior was several grade levels below expected in ability yet they passed him on to the next grade... (That whole no child left behind BS)...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 10:32 AM   #172
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
On the one hand, I understand that the schools want to protect themselves from liability.

On the other hand, I've met an awful lot of functionaries, over the years, who - if given the slightest increase in power - kept looking to acquire more and more of it. I don't like to give them the proverbial inch, because it all too easily turns into miles.

As far as drug testing in order to receive benefits goes - it makes a great sound bite. I used to favor that position, and many of my friends still do. The thing is, since Governor Rick Scott instituted exactly that program in Florida, only 2% of those tested have failed. Seems like a waste of money, to get a 2% return.

In fact, what I think we need to do is streamline welfare programs. This is one of the few areas where I thought Michael Dukakis had some good ideas, back in the '80s. One of the main problems with welfare, in most places, is that the system effectively encourages people not to work - because if they get a job, they lose all benefits.

I have a cousin who has not been able to go back to work, because each time she tries, she is in the red. Her kids lose medical benefits from the state, and her kids have some chronic issues. She can't make enough money to pay the bills and have her kids treated at an entry level, minimally skilled job.

The state would save money, in the long term, by a) continuing benefits when people find employment, but cutting them by a percentage of the person's new income; as the person made more money, the benefits would decrease, but not as quickly as the person's earnings would rise. In other words, achievement would be desirable and rewarded; b) putting more emphasis on skills training programs, so people on welfare would have a better shot at the jobs that are actually available in the current market; and c) putting realistic requirements in place as far as recipients' job searches.

I bring up c) because a guy I work with, who is from Oregon, has a sister who drives him nuts. Her scam, and it works under Oregon's system, is that she applies for the required number of jobs every period. She applies for the CEO positions at CitiBank, Bank of America, AT&T, etc. Oregon lets her get away with it, and has been doing so for years. My co-worker is no longer on speaking terms with his sister.

In either case, my cousin's in Florida, or the guy's sister's in Oregon, the state's policies are causing the state to maintain people on welfare that shouldn't have to be maintained. In one case, because policies virtually force the person to remain on the system's teat; in the other, because policies don't punish malfeasance.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 11:27 AM   #173
Hitthespot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 227
Interesting and thought provoking post Mleake.

I used to look down my nose at those very people. I was working 6 days a week providing a living for my family (and had done it since I was 19) while it appeared too many were sponging off me and every other hard working American. However, as you point out, it just isn't that simple. While many take advantage and actually think it's our job to take care of them, there are many more who can't do the right thing no matter how hard they try. I know people who are working two jobs and still cannot afford rent and medical for their kids. They have no choice but to swallow their pride and ask for goverment help. Let alone those like you mention who cannot afford to go to work and lose their food stamps, medical, and usually free rent.

I do know that my mom and dad raised 4 sons, all on my dads factory job. Mom took care of the house and us kids and I don't ever remember wanting for anything. We were not rich, but we ate well and had our own home over our heads. Now people struggle with both parents working. It just doesn't make since.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do believe that this great nation can solve these problems somehow.
Hitthespot is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 01:21 PM   #174
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
2) Just drink after the dance, or

3) Save the booze for another night.

I'd like to see the school district's cost-benefit analysis for the breathalyzer program, to include all associated costs (equipment, contracting, training, legal, and every hour spent in meetings to create the program) and all measured benefits (did it actually stop anybody from drinking, driving, etc?).

If they can't show tangible benefit, then it is by default a waste of taxpayer money.
If the kids did 2 or 3, then the machine did its job - NOT having them drink (and possibly drive) during the dance at thew school, thus helping the school avoid a lawsuit
oneounceload is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 04:24 PM   #175
booker_t
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2009
Posts: 797
oneounce, maybe... the thing is, they were testing the kids before they were admitted to the dance, not as they were leaving.

So those who want to drink before the dance will just not go. They'll drink elsewhere. In fact, it may push kids away from going to the dance, who otherwise would, because their friends who want to drink won't go to the dance. So the overall dance numbers go down, the overall other/drinking numbers go up.

Now they're out possibly drinking for longer (and in turn more) than they would have if they just had a few before the dance.

Furthermore, I doubt it's that tough to sneak in a flask or a few minis or probably even a few cans of beer. So they could be putting that down quickly in the bathroom stall at the dance, and leaving intoxicated anyway.

All I'm saying is, people will always find a way around the rules, and the lawsuits will come anyway.
booker_t is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.14208 seconds with 8 queries