To Pee or Not to Pee
By Evan Bolling
September 17, 2009
Aside from the extreme unconstitutionality of the current drug
testing system, the proposal for a "selective drug testing
policy" offered by Chris Elliot is much MUCH worse.
Implementing a "selective drug testing policy" is about
as respectful to the American Justice System as curb stomping
the nine members of the Supreme Court and then proceeding to
wipe up the mess with the original draft of the U.S. Constitution.
I apologize for the graphic image.
Here are some major problems with this proposal, which I sincerely
hope is never brought in front of our school board. Ok One:
The landmark Supreme Court Case Acton vs. Vernonia School District,
(which was decided by a vote 6-3, if I remember correctly)ruled
that the fourth amendment's right to privacy does not outweigh
the school's need to practice drug prevention policies. Now
the other key point to this ruling was that school's can ONLY
drug test athletes, but it has now been expanded to include any
student participating in an activity whereby they represent the
school. The reason being, playing a sport or being involved
in an activity is voluntary, therefore the child is technically
submitting to being tested and not being forced.
However, in the plan devised by Chris Elliot, students do not
get the choice to submit to a test, instead they are forced.
Literally forced. While it is a choice to join a school activity
it is not a choice to attend school. It is illegal for a child
to quit school before the age of 16. Therefore the student has
no choice, whether he or she is involved in an activity or not,
they are subject to drug tests.
Selective Drug Testing SCREAMS discrimination. And I can hardly
believe that teachers are being suggested as the ones who offer
consult on who gets tested!! Did I miss the punchline or was
that it? This absurdity would be almost laughable if it wasn't
so unconstitutional and violating. Good lord! Based on what
science will these decisions be made? What criteria is there?
Any? The reality is probably none, because the only evidence
teachers could supply is what the pick up in the hall ways.
And since when did hearsay become evidence of reasonable suspicion?
Did Mrs. Elliot confuse reasonable suspicion with UNreasonable
suspicion? The courts are bound by proving beyond a reasonable
doubt, but schools have been given the authority to invade privacy
based on reasonable suspicion. And HEARSAY is not grounds for
suspicion, unless you mean of an unreasonable kind. I simply
cannot see how this could be conducted efficiently and fairly,
unless of course the intent is to be inefficient and unfair,
then I would say this plan passes with flying colors!
Why this is a total disgrace to the American idea of justice.
Most judicial systems in the world, including the United States'
are based on the premsis that people are innocent until proven
guilty, opting for a selective drug testing program which should
be aptly named "the discrimination policy" is to view
students as guilty until they prove their innocence. Nothing
justifies the sacrifice of human rights for innocent people.
This plan shows a complete lack of awareness and understanding
of judicial philosophy and a complete awareness and understanding
Soooo...what'll it be ladies and gentlemen?
Opposing this plan does not mean you are against drug testing,
just against a policy that drags American ideals of justice through
About: "Resident of Ketchikan
for 20 years."
Received September 17, 2009
- Published September 17, 2009
Testing By Chris Elliott
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Your Opinion Letter to the Editor
Note: Comments published
on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
E-mail your letters
& opinions to firstname.lastname@example.org
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.
Stories In The News