But doing drugs is?
You're going to have a hard time finding sympathy on GAF.
"There's an unwarranted witch hunt being organized, to punish students by disrupting their education and potentially ruining their professional lives, over something that's of questionable criminality in the first place. These students aren't actually causing any trouble, so they have to test their blood for signs that they aren't upholding proper puritan morality in their personal lives."Don't do drugs if you're gonna be all scary when people might find out you do drugs. Simple.
Ban all caffeine and advil I say.But doing drugs is?
Hard to argue with this sentiment
"There's an unwarranted witch hunt being organized, to punish students by disrupting their education and potentially ruining their professional lives, over something that's of questionable criminality in the first place. These students aren't actually causing any trouble, so they have to test their blood for signs that they aren't upholding proper puritan morality in their personal lives."
"Yeah well, it's your fault for doing drugs."
You're a genius!
But if you haven't done anything wrong then you should have nothing to hide, right?I really, really, really don't understand why people think testing for drugs is just plain okay to do. I am a big gubment liberal and I am horrified by the invasion of privacy. People just do not have the right to examine your urine. That's really not what in loco parentis means.
Just don't do drugs until you have the test duuuh.
If you can't it means that you are addicted to that stuff so it's good for you to drop that crap for some times.
What would the school do to students who test positive? What could they legally do?
He never said he was a student.
He never said he was a student.
I really, really, really don't understand why people think testing for drugs is just plain okay to do. I am a big gubment liberal and I am horrified by the invasion of privacy. People just do not have the right to examine your urine. That's really not what in loco parentis means.
Then deal with it then, not by screening people. Especially for marijuana use. Yes, it's illegal. It's also probably going to affect performance far less than being drunk would... yet you can't fire people just by screening for that.
What would the school do to students who test positive? What could they legally do?
I think it's assumed, since he said he got an email saying All Students will be drug tested
Yeah, this sounds pretty bullshit to me. I know my old high school did random drug testing for students in extra curriculars and for parking passes though. OP, is this a high school or college?
False. You cant get addicted to weed. You can be a moron and do it before the test, big difference.
There was an article in the New York Times a couple days ago about how even middle schools are starting drug testing for athletes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/s...chools-now-test-for-drugs.html?pagewanted=all
Mess with them have a poppy seed bakesale
from that article:
In the 2004-5 school year, an estimated 14 percent of public school districts conducted some form of random drug testing, according to a Department of Education report. But middle school testing is not thoroughly tracked by officials.
What the hell? Isn't this a violation of the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Drug testing for high school athletes, which has been around for years, was deemed constitutional in a 1995 United States Supreme Court ruling. Some districts have expanded their drug-testing programs in recent years to include middle school students.
1. If they were trying to deal with a tangible problem with students' performance, it wouldn't require a school-wide urine test.But what if your choices outside of work/school directly effect your performance.
Even if he was faculty, we know it's marijuana use he's being screened for. Now, if I was a teacher, I'd be staying away from it for the sake of being smart about it, but I don't morally think there is a single thing okay with punishing an employee for smoking a joint when having a beer is just fine.
Unless you came into work and fucked up, it just shouldn't be a part of the conversation. If they need to put a needle through your skin and extract your blood to get the information they need, then it probably isn't something worth looking into in the first place.
Do your research. Only way you can get addicted to weed is psychically and you really gotta be a dumbass/have an extremely addictive personality to let that happen.The fact that gives less dependence than tobacco doesn't mean that does't give it at all
I remember back when I was in high school they did random sweeps for drugs periodically, but they didn't test anyone. Just searches with dogs.
Cannabis Infrequent users: 3-4 Days; Heavy users: 10 days; Chronic users and/or users with high body fat: 30 days or more.[7][8]
You will pass it in a few days if your not smoking an ounce a day.
The fact that gives less dependence than tobacco doesn't mean that does't give it at all.
Employee conduct means their conduct as an employee, which still makes it none of their business unless the person is coming to work stoned or drunk.I agree with this BUT personally for me I think that should be up to an employer to set their own standards of employee conduct. As stupid as the policy would be I'd personally have less sympathy.
Ok!I am in nursing school!
Not according to two paragraphs above that: