|are we raising a nation of sheep?||ColnagoFE|
Feb 5, 2003 7:16 AM
|I don't know why but this really bugs me. Students "volunteering" to be drug tested? http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/02/05/student.drugs.ap/index.html Train 'em young to give up their civil rights.|
|good and bad||DougSloan|
Feb 5, 2003 7:33 AM
|Problem with this is that only the "good" ones will volunteer in the first place. It seems the rationale is that it gives the students an extra excuse to tell someone "no" to drugs.
I'm generally against invasions, but here it's voluntary. If voluntary, what's the problem? Aren't we free to do what we want, even if that means not doing drugs and also proving it?
|is it really voluntary?||ColnagoFE|
Feb 5, 2003 8:02 AM
|I can see coercion being used to get the good kids to sign up. The parents and pricipals saying "why don't you want to sign up if you've got nothing to hide?" and what's preventing these good kids to say "no" without the drug tests? they could even lie and say they signed up for the drug tests when they actually hadn't. how soon would you "volunteer" for being randomly piss tested at your place of employment unless it was a condition of employment and you pretty much had to do it or lose your job? or how soon would you volunteer to let the police come and search your hose for stolen goods at random? i just think it's sad how little people protest when our civil liberties are dissapearing. and impressionable kids are being taught to submit to big brother at younger and younger ages these days. anyway...just my opinion...i can see your side too, but i hope that as a parent i'm keeping good enough track of my kids to insure they aren't doing drugs without having to resort to random testing before they are even proved guilty.|
|that's "search your house" by the way...not "hose" ;)(nm)||ColnagoFE|
Feb 5, 2003 8:03 AM
|we all do this, in a way||DougSloan|
Feb 5, 2003 8:08 AM
|Don't we agree that as a condition of driving that we submit to BAC tests, assuming probable cause for DUI? Of course, that probable cause part is significant, but the point is that we do give up certain rights in some circumstances, such as some jobs, driving, bike racing, to take advantage of an activity. That being the case, this really isn't anything radical.
If I had anything to do with the program, I would just be sure to emphasize the voluntary aspect of it.
|driving is a privilege and not a right though||ColnagoFE|
Feb 5, 2003 8:14 AM
|and don't most states allow you to refuse testing? i've heard that the worst thing you could do if you are pulled over and have any chance of blowing over the limit is to submit to testing--especially roadside testing--logic being that it's really hard to prosecute without these tests and even if you lose your lisence for a while at least you won't likely have a DUI on your record.|
Feb 5, 2003 8:51 AM
|From what I know, you can try to refuse testing, but then you automatically lose your license for 1 year. However, two problems. 1. They can get a warrant and force the testing; and 2. They can still convict you of DUI/DWI without the BAC testing. Officer testifies that you were weaving all over the road, it was 2 a.m., right after the bars close, you had a strong odor of liquor on your breath, slurred speech, and 6 empty beer cans in the floorboard of the car. You are going down.
The voluntary consent to testing merely means they don't need a warrant to get the testing. That's all. (This is based solely on my knowledge of Missouri law about 10 years ago.)
|just out of curiousity||ColnagoFE|
Feb 5, 2003 10:00 AM
|how long would it take to get a warrant? i mean if you were just BARELY over the limit would it be prudent to take the one year loss of lisence and hope that enough time goes by to test below the legal limit? And can they hold you or take you down to the station until they get a warrant or do they need to let you go at some point?|
Feb 5, 2003 10:29 AM
|In Missouri, I think they could hold you for up to 42 hours before charging. That's plenty of time to get a warrant. To get a warrant, someone types it up, then find a judge to read it, maybe ask some questions, and sign it. Judges, if not at the courthouse, are on call for those things 24 hours a day. I'd guess 2 hours, tops.
Also, the "limit" (like .10% BAC) is simply a threshold for a presumption of intoxication. You can be under the limit and still be found guilty of DUI/DWI.
Depending upon when and what you drank, time might not work in your favor. If you recently drank, the BAC could go up as it goes into your system, or if you become dehydrated (less water in blood means greater BAC).
Feb 5, 2003 5:32 PM
|driving is a privilege not a right, it doesn't matter how many times I hear this pocket sized civics lesson, I won't buy it.
Do you know how it became a privilege? A bunch of people started saying it, until everyone was saying it, now it's true.
In 500 words or less, tell mw why on earth I should accept that driving is a privelege not a right?
Feb 6, 2003 7:33 AM
|Having a child is a right. You need no approvals from anyone. Same with free speech, religion, etc.
To legally drive, you must obtain permission from the state. You must show competency (minimal as it is), insurance, etc. That means it's not a "right."
|it's not in the constitution as a right now is it? (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Feb 6, 2003 8:04 AM
|You're all a bunch of commies.||53T|
Feb 10, 2003 4:58 PM
|The principle argument against the bill of rights was that people would reason that freedoms not listed would be assumed to be not freedoms at all. The supporters of the BOR thought that the constitution would not be ratified unless a list of specific restrictions on the federal gov't were included. The opposition obviously had a point. They correctly predicted the preponderance of SHEEP in this country who assume the federal government has unlimited power, except where restricted by the BOR. Please see Amendments 9 and 10 for clarification of your misunderstanding.
For crying out loud, to point to state's misuse of power to declare an activity a "privelige" is the height of sheepdom. You could point to Ruby Ridge and say that the proper role of the state is to shoot babies dead while being held in their mother's arms.
Feb 10, 2003 5:20 PM
|While that's a good rant, I don't see the connection between unlisted rights and driving being a right. I agree that there are rights not listed in the Constitution, one of which I noted in my post -- the right to have children.
That still doesn't make driving a right. Let me ask you, are these activities rights: airplane piloting, practicing medicine, owning a nuclear weapon... none of them are listed, either?
Just because it is very common does not make it a right.
Now, once you legally have driver's license, you do acquire a right, and the government cannot take it away without due process. Maybe that's what you are thinking of.
|You're just yankin' my chain, right?||53T|
Feb 13, 2003 8:00 AM
|Do you seriously believe that rights are aquired from the government? You have read the Declaration of independance, and maybe even Locke's Natural Rights of Englishmen, so you know that rights come by virtue of birth, and predate the creation of any government. Practicing medicine for money is a great example of persuing happiness, which is specifically listed as an inalianable right in the D of I. When the government (state or federal) places limits on the practice of medicine, for public safety (state) or interstate commerce (federal) reasons, it does not make it any less a right. It does not turn into a "privilege". The legal and moral authority to limit a right, such as the free parctice of medicine to earn a living, comes from the need to protect the greater good. States have always acted to restrict rights in order to protect the public health, safety and morality. The federal governement only has this authority with regards to interstate commerce, and certain foreign policy and national defense areas.
You say that you don't see the connection between unlisted rights and driving. On the federal level I see it very clearly: all powers not specifically delgated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. This is the essence of "strict construction" (I am a strict constructionist). If we do not assume a wide range of natural rights, how do we keep the growth of governmnet restriction at bay? This increasing level of government restriction is what the founders of this country saw as the greatest threat to the well-being of its citizens, even greater than invasion by foreign forces.
|95% Sheep. 4%Wolves. 1% Sheep in Woolenblend clothing. nm||128|
Feb 5, 2003 10:43 AM
|That's right kiddies, step right up and get your free Brown Shirt!||js5280|
Feb 5, 2003 10:56 AM
|Report a dirty, drug using classmate to John P. Walters!|
Feb 5, 2003 12:32 PM
Feb 5, 2003 1:00 PM
|Oh come on now, all you civil libertarians. Don't you know that you're supposed to love Big Brother?
Doug, I'm surprised. I thought you were a libertarian. From some of your comments from time to timeyou sound as if you're in favour of authoritarian government as long as it's of a conservative, nee Republican, stripe.
|it was voluntary||DougSloan|
Feb 5, 2003 3:49 PM
|"Voluntary" means "voluntary". We respect everyone's right to make their own decisions, no matter how bad they are, right? In this case, we were told the decision to participate was voluntary. Therefore, I respect that decision. No authoritarian force is requiring anything.
My position is actually more libertarian than the others, if you really examine it.
|Sure it is.||czardonic|
Feb 5, 2003 4:23 PM
|And what do you suppose will be assumed about those who decline?|
|I see your point||DougSloan|
Feb 5, 2003 4:45 PM
|I guess the good ones are screwing it up for the guilty ones. :-)
|Guilty of what?||czardonic|
Feb 5, 2003 6:02 PM
|Valuing their privacy? Understanding the spirit of the Constitution? Suspicion of authority?
We certainly don't need those kinds of people.
|key phrase here is "we were told it was voluntary"||ColnagoFE|
Feb 6, 2003 8:06 AM
|Aren't those drug tests they perform at some workplaces voluntary as well? Thought if you refuse to take them you don't get the job.|
|like searches at the airport?||DougSloan|
Feb 6, 2003 8:09 AM
|Sometimes we voluntarily give up rights to get something in exchange. I don't see the issue, as long as it is truly voluntary.
|yes, but what do the students get in exchange here?||ColnagoFE|
Feb 6, 2003 9:13 AM
|other than a lesson in how to "voluntarily" give up their basic rights as a US Citizen? What kind of lessons are we teaching these kids? That the ends always justifies the means?|
Feb 6, 2003 10:22 AM
|I'm not sure of their real motivations. Don't know enough about the program. I'd bet, though, that it was the students' idea, probably one of those goody-two-shoes student council things. They don't want to get lumped in with the suspicious ones.|| |