Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom' nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of participation. A. d. Benoist
49 comments:
i think that it is a prevention because it doesn't conflict with the forth admendment its not like they come up and search or a secizure so if you refuse to take it then you may look suspicious. also they do it just for the good of the school not offend any body. there are even some schools who have more strict procedures like walking through medal detectore and they have to leave there back packs out og call just so the cops can check. Also the can check there lockers. So what i think is that it is just a procaution and the school board is just trying to keep it's student safe.
although I don't like the idea of having to wait in a big line to take a breathalyzer test before a school event. I'm gonna have to agree with david and say this is a prevention. I don't see anything unconstitutional about it and it just seems like a way to keep students safe and keep a good atmosphere at the event. Besides kids can just drink after the event so its no big deal . . . Haha just kiddin Mrs. Burr
The idea of using a breathalyzer on all students before school events sounds ridiculous, but is more so prevention than unconstitutional. The districts and administration want a safe environment for all the students, and that's why they took these precautions. It sort of conflicts with the constitution with the search and seizure rule since students who refuse to abide by this test may be taken into further inspection or deal with the police. Although it seems like the school board is intruding on the student's rights given by the constitution, they are not and these breathalyzer tests don't appear to have an obvious confliction with the constitution. In the end, the school board is just taking more so a precaution to help keep their school events as "clean" as possible.
In response to david's comment, i agree with the fact that you think that it is just a prevention since that seems like the more evidently obvious reasonl. Although it seems merely to be in reach with the constitution's lines, disputes are definitely arguable with how the rules are interpreted. how they approach the the situations with the breathalyzers and also how they approach the situation in which a student refuses is key to the action being constitutional or unconstitutional.
On this subject I feel that the schools number one priority is the safety of the students, it is also the schools job to teach students that fun can be had without resorting to the "societally accepted teen ritual of drinking" However, if we let things go that sort of conflicts with the constitution and we become complacent, is there a concern that we will become used to slowly losing our sort of constitutional rights. Is it possible that a governmental power would take advantage of this?
When we notice that our "sort" of rights have turned into our "rights" will it be to late?
I agree with both colin and david. It is just prevention for the school. I also agree with ms burr that it is very important for the school to be in charge of the students safety.
I have mixed feelings about this because it's not just an issue of wether they're doing it for prevention or not but on how they handle the situation. One way can be closer to breaking the constitution while one method might be far from it. Overall i think prevention is a pretty good reason to breathalize children. Even if they're children.
On the other hand, they are children. i strongly believe that the parents should be the ones making the decisions on this matter because they are 100% responsible for they're kids.
I think they should just keep the police man at the door, maybe making an open that sort of forces the officer to be relatively close to the student as they walk in the door so that he/she can smell the alcohol or see any other signs of drinking. This way that would give the people a reason to test someone without stumbling onto the iffy part of the 4th amendment which, like the article said, was created to avoid unreasonable searches.
I think in a way, Chris has a very good point. The breathalizer iz not going to stop some kid who already drinks from drinking on that night. And with so many kids experimenting, like in the 60's and 70's but not NEARLY as close, what good will it do to deter them from a friendly controlled school event and make them wanna go somewhere else to do their thing?
If the students really just wanted to drink and dance they would most likely go make their own party with their friends.
I think this is a horrible prevention tactic. If teens have a desire to drink and dance/party, they'll do it somewhere where they dont run the risk of being caught. Instead of going to a school sponsored event, they'll forego the trouble completely and do their own thing. Knowing that, what good does a breathalizer test serve?
Wow, im hearing two good sides on this which makes it hard. Teens will most definately find a way to drink. I've never been a big dance or school events person but if I was going to be attending I'd want to be safe. I agree with Carlos that the school is 100% responsible for what goes down at these events. Im almost positive that parents would like to trust the school in keeping their kids safe. I think its just prevention. Trying to keep the kiddies safe :)
I have a question though...do yuo think that the breathalyzers are costing the school a ton of money.
I think that if the schools dont trust their students THAT much then maybe they shouldn't have the events. Its really hard because education cost so much as it is. Maybe they should use the money to make education better. Then again I have no idea where these testing things are coming from. You think it'd take up alot of time too...hmm
As much as I don't like it... I think it's fair that schools can breathalize students at school events. They're on school property and the supervisors are only thinking about what's best for everybody.
I disagree with KArgo because just the threat of having breathalizers stopped a LOT of kids from getting drunk before homecoming.. I do agree that you can't really stop teens from drinking and partying but that did delay it at least for a little while... After homecoming is a completely different story though! lol.. Just kiddin Mrs. Burr!
I think that a breathalyzer test before entry to a school dance is prevention. The fourth ammendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures,but this is not violating the fourth ammendment. The student must take the test to get into the dance however they don't have to go to the dance. If a student doesn't want to take the test then they don't have to go to the dance. The test is for the good of the school and student because they don't want students to show up drunk to a dance because who knows what might happen then? Although there may be some students who disagree with the breathalyzer test i believe that it is not all that bad if you have not been drinking then you have nothing to hide.
I agree with colin when he says that the district just wants a safe environment for the students and staff members. The breathalyzer test is more for the safety of others than anything else.
I agree with cory's comment about not being able to stop kids from drinking but delaying them a little. If a student knows that there is going to be a breathalzer test then they are not going to drink and then take the test they will wait until after the dance before they go drink.
I think that this is not breaking their rights to the fourth amendment at all, the administration and staff are just trying to make sure it is a safe environment for everyone. Maybe testing everyone before entering is a little to the extreme tho, so i think they should only test suspicious students.
I totally agree with what Mrs. Burr is saying about how it is their job to maintain safety which is a good thing. But this so called "ritual" of drink is no "ritual" its a part of life that everyone goes through and experiences not just teens
In response to derek's comment, if the school advisors only tested the kids who they think looked suspicious, that would bring up another controversial issue. Students could say that they think they are being discriminated because other students weren't tested with the breathalyzers while they were. The only way the administration can keep from this hassle is to test every student with equal suspicion.
I think thats its a good way to prevent teenagers from coming to events under the influences. However, I don't think that it will stop teenagers from drinking all together. They can hope all they want, but coming from a teenager, you tell a teen not to something and they will rebel. I'm not talking about all teenagers, but some. Also, the teens may not come to event under the influence, however they may leave the event early just to drink. In addition, I don't think that it's unconstitutional, it's just a prevention.
I agree with Katie, it isn't that great of a prevention tactic. Teens are going to drink especially when adults are telling them not to. Also, if they can't do it there they'll find somewhere else, and it may not be as safe.
I agree with cgerber it does sound absolutely ridiculous, but it does create a safer enviroment for those who go to the events.
I completely agree that if the student has nothing to hide then they shouldnt mind the tests. I probably wouldnt go because it seems like it would be a hassle to have to wait for EVERY student to get the breathalyzer. To get an accurate reading it can take quite a bit. Unless, you have really good breathalyzer which costs lots of money. Its a good idea but they need a better way. If they arent taking accurate readings why bother? Its a good idea to not want drunk kids et school events but maybe this is going to far...I cant really think of any other suggestions though.
I think that it is just a prevention and that it does not go against the constitution. Its not like they are patting you down they just want to try to keep everyone safe.
I also agree with David. Its just a prevention and it could be worse. I know of some schools that have to leave their backpacks out in the hall so that a dog can come by and see...well smell if there are any drugs and such in them.
I agree with Carlos also when he said that if kids really want to drink then they can just go somewhere else and do it but what if the kid isn't able to go anywhere else that night then it stopped them from drinking for then...or for now...or...well never mind but you catch my drift.
I can see why some would say that requiring students to take brethalyzer tests treats everybody as if they're guilty, but i do think that it is just prevention for the student's safety. It is the school's responsibility to make sure their students are in a safe environment and that seems like that is exactly what they are doing.
I also agree with everyone who said that the tests won't necesarily stop kids from drinking. They will still continue to do it elsewhere.
I think it is prevention. But how good could it really work? The thought of having to stand outside and take a breathalyzer would turn many away from even going to the dance. Plus what if a student snuck alcohol into the dance after taking the test? Also, if the student wanted to drink, they would just find a party or some other place to drink. Its only preventing them from drinking in one location.
I agree with Cory this might prevent for a little while but after they leave who's stopping them. Kids will just wait till after the dance to drink. Also what if the students show up on marijuana and not alcohol? There just seems to be a lot of ways for students to get around this "prevention"
I was thinking about what jterry was saying. Would it cost lots of money? I cant imagine lots of kids getting caught with this at a school dance. So would the school be wasting money on the test instead of using it to upgrade there facilities?
I think that it is not totally ridiculous, but I do think in a way it is violating constitutional rights. Normally, people don't just administer drug or alcohol tests randomly unless a job or sport required a drug free atmosphere. Seeing as how this is not normally on a school day, during school hours, or, depending on the dance, off campus, I do not believe that guilty until proven innocent is a fair thing to do.
Like Corey said, its only a matter of postponing the drinking time... not stopping it all together. Its ridiculous to believe that this is actually a preventative measure. Another thing I don't believe is that it is a sign of the times. The 60's and 70's were as much a turbulent time in substance abuse as now, if not much more. That generation became successful and normal people just like the generations before them. The only thing that HAS changed is we have entered into an era of political correctness and lawsuits which doesn't allow for much room for error these days.
I disagree to a certain extent with Alec because kids do like to have fun, some different than others. I think that honestly, if someone is too drunk to behave correctly at a dance, then it will be noticeable to a teacher or cop. There isn't a dire need for a breathalyzer test.
Derek, I would like to repectfully disagree on your comment that everyone goes through the drinking. It is the acceptance of this theory that makes it seem permissible for teens to drink. I know many who go through life without the need to drink or to prove themselves without deviant behavior. (deviant: outside of the norm).
I also disagree with that. Some people never have problems with drinking. Some do. It's far from being a part of life.
I personally think its a good idea, its one step towards stopping it all together. But yes, people will find ways around it, they always do. I think that it would work best if they had a few people roaming the dance or something and tested people who looked weird, or acted different.
I agree with Jessica T, that the cost would make them less desirable, plus, not alot of schools can afford them.
oh, and the fact that the hassle would be to much, that people would just not go, so therefore where do they get the money for the machines?
I agree with what Ryan has said about the issue, this will be very costly for the school. Also students will in fact just go somewhere else and drink or just not go to the dance period. With this i think that the dance will even be worth it, the staff is going to end up probably paying more for the dance than they will make for purchased tickets.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.. I BELIVE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT EVERYONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.. THIS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS THAT AND I DONT THINK IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED.. IF YOU WANT TO GIVE BREATHALIZER TESTS GIVE THEM TO PEOPLE WHO YOU SUSPECT HAVE BEEN DRINKING AS THE SCHOOL EVENT COMMENCES.
I'M NOT AFRAID OF GETTING CAUGHT DRINKING.. I'M AFRAID THAT IT WILL BECOME A PRACTICE TO TAKE AWAY OUR OWN GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. IF WE ALLOW THIS NEXT THING THEYLL WANT BREATHALIZER TESTS BEFORE YOU GO TO SCHOOL OR AT LUNCH OR RUNNING ALL OUR STUFF THROUGH A X-RAY MACHINE TO MAKE SURE WE DONT HAV DRUGS OR WEAPONS ON US. PLUS.. WE WILL BE SENDING OUR CHILDREN A MESSAGE SAYING EVERYONE IS DANGEROUS UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.
I BELIEVE, LIKE MANY OTHERS, THAT HAVING THESE BREATHALIZER TESTS WONT EVEN PREVENT KIDS FROM GETTING DRUNK. THEY CAN ALWAYS GO TO ALTERNATE PARTIES, WHICH IM SURE THERE WILL BE IF THIS IS PASSED, OR DRINK AT THE AFTERPARTY. ALL THIS WILL ENSURE IS LESS ATTENDENCE TO SCHOOL EVENTS.
I believe that breathalyzer tests are a good thing. Especially if it will detur kids from drinking. The number one killer for everyone not just teenagers is car crashes. and if a teenager is drinking and driving the chances raise significantly. I personally dont drink. so i have no problem taking a breathalzyer.
I will wait in line for a breathalyzer test. if its going to stop drinking. If teenagers didnt drink in the first place we wouldnt even be in this situation
It is not unconstitutional because it is insuring the safety of the youth of America. Plus schools have the right to do such a thing because its on school property. And i am sure you would not find one mom or dad that says "i want my kid to drink and drive and party and do all this stuff that could get him/her into trouble, because its a good thing." And if a parent did say that then, are they really a parent?
brett makes a good point inwhich i dont think that any students parents want them to drink or smoke so i still support the fact that is only a proicaution. not any violation of any of the admendments. So the school district will keep doing what they have to to keep the american school system safe.
Post a Comment