jennEfer
-
Posts
1,503 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by jennEfer
-
-
Originally posted by momadance
the supreme court will rule that in public scholls, they can not test anybody and everybody. they can however make some loophole that says something along the lines of...for extra curricular activities you have to get tested, and then require all students to participate in at least on activity.
However, in private schools they can test anyone and everyone. My boyfriend went to catholic school, and when he graduated the drug-test program was optional. Meaning that if you wanted to get drug tested you could go do it. Then they made it mandatory for all who wanted to enter the school right after he graduated in 99'.
Personally, I don't think that they should be able to drug test students. If a student wants to fuck up their body by doing drugs, or if they want to experiment with drugs, that is thier business. UNLESS they bring their drugs into school or come to school fucked up on whatever, then I think the school has the right to test. If not, I think it should be up to the parent of the student to give them a drug test, not the school.
-
High Court Reviews Student Drug Tests
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:59 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is hearing a case that should allow it to clarify questions lingering from its landmark 1995 ruling that public schools may test student athletes for drugs.
Lindsey Earls, a top student who had never been in trouble, says her high school had no reason to suspect her of drug use, and no right to demand she submit a urine sample to prove she was clean.
The 1998 drug test was a condition of Lindsey's and other students' participation in extracurricular activities at a rural Oklahoma school. Now it is the basis of a Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of many student drug tests.
``It was sort of sprung on us,'' said Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth College who sang in her high school choir and participated on an academic quiz team. ``I felt strongly about it. That is none of their business.''
Unanswered then was whether schools may also test students involved in extracurricular activities apart from sports, or even the entire student body.
Wider drug testing remains relatively rare among the nation's 15,500 public school districts. Lower courts have reached differing conclusions about the practice.
Earls and her younger sister, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, claim that such ``suspicionless'' drug tests violate the Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches or seizures.
The National Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws are among the other organizations supporting the students. The libertarian Cato Institute and the conservative Rutherford Institute are also on board.
Tecumseh, Okla., school administrators have said drugs were a persistent but not widespread problem among their high schoolers. There was no particular reason to suspect students who participated in activities such as the debate team or competitive choral singing, the school said.
But the school claimed in court papers that the random tests were a deterrent. If students wanted to represent the school in extracurricular activities, they might think twice about using drugs, the school argued.
The Bush administration and a long list of organizations, including the Drug-Free Schools Coalition and the National School Boards Association, are backing the school system.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, pointed to a 2000 government survey in which 54 percent of high school seniors reported some illegal drug use in their lifetime. Nearly 25 percent said they had used drugs within the last month.
``School children are not only more vulnerable to drug use than adults, but such abuse is much more likely to devastate their lives,'' Olson wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.
A federal court initially rejected Earls' suit, but a federal appeals court ruled the other way last year.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the school argued that the lower court drew the wrong conclusions from the 1995 athlete case, and that its ruling conflicts with other appeals courts around the country.
The Tecumseh testing program ran for part of two school years. It was suspended after Earls sued.
Only children involved in competitive extracurricular activities were tested on the theory that by voluntarily representing the school, they had opened themselves to greater scrutiny than other students.
The policy covered a range of voluntary clubs and sports, including the Future Farmers of America club, cheerleading and football. Students were tested at the beginning of the school year. Thereafter, tests were random.
Overall, 505 high school students were tested for drug use. Three students, all of them athletes, tested positive, Earls' lawyer said. Two of the athletes also participated in other extracurricular activities.
The school offered drug counseling after a positive test, and those who complied could remain on their teams. Those who refused were barred from competition.
The case is Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 01-332.
-
Ok, so this doesn't pertain to many of us because most of us are either in college or out of school alltogether. But, there is a supreme court case going to trial today about whether or not high school students can be tested for drugs at the discresion of school faculty. Students participating in sports, clubs, and activities are required to take a drug test in some high schools. I know for a fact that a local catholic school by me requires that ALL students get drug tested on a regular basis and before entering the school.
The argument being made against this is that students involved in after-school activities are more likely to abstain from drug use because they don't have any idle time. Also, if they are able to test certain groups of people, why not test everyone?
What does everyone think about this? How do you think the supreme court will rule on the case?
Let me see if I can find the article somewhere, it might give alittle more insight.
-
Definately go for function, not form. Going for form is like doing body work before engine work... a big no-no for anyone who is a REAL car buff. Go for speed and function before looks.
-
Originally posted by vbman15
considering i'm new (to rutgers new brunswick and clubplanet)....i stood near the bar....with crxtacy....didn't know anyone's face....i guess u guys were sitting alreay........or still at whereever getting happy with MR.CORONA
so next time there's a meet up @ RU....please tell us where u might be in the restaurant.....really like to get to know u guys
We were upstairs, to the right, all the way in the back. That is the only place they will put us due to the fact we are always on the brink of getting booted out of there ::cough::alphster::cough:: But, yeah, next time just ask the people at the front where the parties are seated, and they will direct you upstairs. Sorry you couldn't be there for the drunken mess of fun. (you should have come to the pre-game)
-
hehe... we all look so evil with our red eyes, but def. some quality drunken pics... lol
-
OK.... so it took me alittle while to reply about friday night but I just don't have access to the computer as much when I am at home.
BUT ANYWAYS... here it goes. I bring my friend crystal who isn't an advid clubber. Lets just say the guy to girl ratio caused an increase of molesting on friday night, making the atmosphere quite uncomfortable. I go to clubs to chill with friends, dance, and have a good time. Unfortunately, Crystal got fed up with the roxy scene because of the touchy-feely nature of about 80% of the guys there, and kinda brought down my mood. Thanks to all my fellow CPers for saving the vibe, and I am sorry I had to leave early, but I was just looking out for my friend's well-being.
-
I thought this was going to be one of those www.bored.com games similar in nature to 'elf bowling'.
-
Originally posted by o-jay®
This is either the biggest scam in recent NYC clubbing history or simply brilliant.
I totally agree. Because look at this thread, everyone is flipping out about whether or not this thing is real or not. If the fabled Glowbana is not a hoax, then you know we will all have the urge to check it out just because of all the hype we have given it over the past couple months. It IS fucking brilliant.
ps. i STILL know something you dont know
-
I KNOW SOMETHING YOU DON'T KNOW!!!
-
WHERE ARE THOSE PICS?!!
-
I am willing to pay... I just want confirmation from someone about the validity of our cards.
-
Thats fawkin awesome... hehe... i found myself three times in that collage.
-
i like the second one better... now i want to dig out the nintendo
-
Originally posted by magilicuti
looks fake to me
hehe, it is fake... but kinda fucked up... just thought it was amusing
-
This one is funny... especially for all those who used to play super mario as a kid.
-
So strange... but really funny. (needs sound) http://www.threebrain.com/daily.html?01_17_2002
-
-
Someone better answer soon... they might be debating it... who knows?
-
There is some wierd shit on the net.
-
You see... I am always thinking...
Cause all the other :special: nights they had at Roxy, the post would say something about Roxy cards being accepted, or Roxy cardholders getting in for free... and this time nothing was said.
I just thought it was kind of shady and thought I would clarify it for all those going on friday. Hey, I am a poor college kid, and saving money is my first priority.
Most likely, I will still go to roxy on friday regardless, but at least now I am forewarned of how much money will be spent.
-
Isn't that the college one? Isn't rutgers somewhat involved?
-
:laugh:Where did you find this?
-
I wouldn't say he should be banned... he just needs to get on topic.
If not, then he should be banned.
hehe... we all look so evil with our red eyes, but def. some quality drunken pics... lol
Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit about PVD coming to SF?
in New York / New Jersey
Posted
I agree with you there. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Paul VanDyk, but I am really not in the mood to be packed into Sound Factory like a Sardine with a bunch of meaty people. Besides the fact that the set is only going to run for 6 hours at the most, which doesn't compare to the marathon sets he used to do at Twilo. Its just not the right vibe and scene for a quality night with PVD.