Why can parents "violate" these rights and it wouldn't be a violation? I'll tell you. For the same reason you're wrong when you say that children should have the same constitutional rights to privacy as adults - because they require GUIDANCE. And thats the job of the parent and the teacher. Yes, Amused, we know you have a good understanding of the Constitution, but that only serves to confuse me when you can't grasp that which a 16-year-old girl in your quote (whose rights you are ironically defending) can.
The whole reason one can attack the idea of a "gateway" drug is that it is borderline enough in its legality that you will have many allies, but to argue that there isn't such a thing, or that tobacco isn't one; can you honestly expect a 12 year old kid whose tried tobacco a few times and liked it, to not move onward to harder drugs?
Yeah you can always bring up counterexamples, and even if you don't, the implications of my belief that these are "gateway" drugs are such that the burden of proof is on me, especially if you call me on it.
But are you just going to sit there and deny that kids require such guidance?
Or that no one outside the family bears any role in raising this kid?
Or that no matter how much you wish to pin the responsibility on the parent to not only raise their kid, but ensure their kid doesn't pose a menace to other kids, many parents just won't accept such responsibilities and will neglect as they please?
Or that an elementary or high school teacher should not be distracted from his number one obligation in order to repremand kids for smoking?
Or that as a typical parent you should not have to concern yourself with your child being peer pressured to smoke and its implications?
Yea, they can't buy cigarettes but I don't recall reading that they cannot legally smoke cigarettes. I guess you can pair the two together.
But when will our freaking government learn? Cradle to grave big brotherism. Get the heck out of our lives and stay out.
In Alabama possession or use of tobacco under the age of 19 is illegal. Most if not all states have the same law regarding purchasing, possession and use. Alabama, Utah, and I think South Dakota are the only three states that 19 is the legal age for tobacco purchase, use, and possession.
Hoover, Vestavia Hills are pretty wealthy areas and Mountain Brook is one of the wealthiest areas in the USA. What does that have to do with anything? Well rich people like security and this gives them security that their kids are not smoking or doing drugs. The parents would lose a lot of respect from their kids if they tested their own kids. When the schools do it, the parents get the results but the kids don't blame the parents for the testing.
Hoover, Vestavia Hills are pretty wealthy areas and Mountain Brook is one of the wealthiest areas in the USA. What does that have to do with anything? Well rich people like security and this gives them security that their kids are not smoking or doing drugs. The parents would lose a lot of respect from their kids if they tested their own kids. When the schools do it, the parents get the results but the kids don't blame the parents for the testing.
Whatever...
My point is: rather than whine about in on an internet message board, why don't you all actually do something about it?
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,505
- 20,118
- 146
Grasp what? That you wish for the government to interfere in our daily lives just to appease your moral outrage over people harming themselves? The teacher's job is to educate. The parent's job is to raise the child and instill morality.
The 16 year old defends testing because "it's illegal and addictive." So tell me, Busmaster, why can't the governmemnt randomly test YOU? Or your parents, or your grandparents? If they refuse, they lose all rights to join any clubs or have any activity outside of work. Oh, and forget any promotions or raises.
It's not the tobacco that led them to the other drugs, Busmaster. It's their rebellious nature and sense of adventure/recklessness. I've known more than my fair share of non-smoking drug addicts, and I've known even more smokers who would never touch drugs.
As I said previously, "gateway" mentality is backwards logic. To say the tobacco "leads" to harder drugs is like saying it's cold outside because it's snowing. No, Busmaster, it's snowing outside because it's cold, and it is not the tobacco that leads to stronger drugs, it's the dispossition of the child. Were tobacco not to exist, those inclined to go down that road would simply try something else.
My perfect "counter example" is my own experience as a child drug addict, and therefore my own experience knowing many other child drug addicts.
Yes, they do... from their parents. When parents abdicate their responsibility for this, the state gains more control over our lives. The state can NEVER offer the personal guidence a child needs.
Not if the parents don't want it, no.
How is a self desructive child who has not caused direct harm to another child posing a menace? How is little Johnny lighting up off school grounds harming other kids?
Believe it or not, we did not have school drug testing for over 100 years in public schools, and it was never a problem.
What the child does off school property is none of the teacher's business.
That's going to happen no matter how fascist a state you create. No matter how many freedoms, or how much privacy you take away, society will always have a drug problem, and that will endanger our kids. Instead of leaving it up to the state to impose arbitrary, ineffective and idiotic responsibility, why not take responsibility for your children yourself?
One of the many reasons I left the US. It's a great country and I still look to it for leadership but the day to day encroachment of Big Brother is just too much. I want my kids to grow up without such an influence from (and there truly is no better expression for it) nanny state rule.
I live in Mexico now where government corruption is rampant and beaurocratic red tape is never-ending but at least on an everyday basis we do not have to tolerate these kind of intrusions in our lives. I like the simple life and the opportunity for that in the US seems to have long since dwindled. The saddest part is that people seem accepting of that; not me, but I'm a minority, so I just left.
I live in Mexico now where government corruption is rampant and beaurocratic red tape is never-ending but at least on an everyday basis we do not have to tolerate these kind of intrusions in our lives. I like the simple life and the opportunity for that in the US seems to have long since dwindled. The saddest part is that people seem accepting of that; not me, but I'm a minority, so I just left.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,505
- 20,118
- 146
Well, the fact that all states make it illegal to smoke in state buildings makes it a bit easier... just extend that rule to the school yard as well. It has less to do with age, and more to do with basic school rules... like no chewing gum in class.
geno
Lifer
- Dec 26, 1999
- 25,074
- 4
- 0
Pretty much, IMO. The parents are sending the kids to school, so they're the school's responsibility once they step on grounds. It's the school's property, so the students must abide by their rules, ya know? But, once they leave the school's grounds, it's up to the parents to keep an eye on them.
For instance, here at college. We can't drink as minors on campus, and if they catch us doing so, we'd get in trouble. But, are they gonna administer tests to see if we'd been drinking before we enter the dorms? I don't think so (or hope so :Q)
These are primary roles, yes. But parents also teach and teachers should also encourage, motivate, and yes, instill morality. I am with you on the gist that parents are responsible for their own children but what happens when their children grow up to be delinquents who are harmful to society and no one involved refuses to be responsible for that? What if someone else is hurt by it?
The government cannot randomly test me because I am above the age one considers to be impressionable and in need of guidance. My life decisions have been made, and I am deemed by society as being capable of being responsible for my own decisions. Thats not a very good comparison, Amused...
So you are denying my assertion that if one starts smoking tobacco at a young age (late elementary to high school) there's a higher likelihood that he would eventually turn to hard illegal drugs? You're absolutely right that its the disposition of the child, but it can sometimes go a long way if you eliminate, or make it much more difficult for them to get such things.
I see. I applaud you, for you seem to have come a long way.
Amused, you get down to the heart of the matter, which is the question of, and the placement of all responsibilities of child-rearing onto the parent, and rightly so. But where we differ is that my priority is to ensure that others are not adversely affected by a child who wasn't taught properly, and in this society, I feel that cannot be done to any extent without government interventions. Your priority seems to me, to be to ensure minimal government intervention, no matter the amount of personal sacrifice or risk...
"A self destructive kid who hasn't caused others harm" is a stretch IMO... At best he builds upon an environment that is counter-productive and detrimental to learning. At worse... God knows - he can befriend others and lead them down a bad path; he can also lure gangs in and cause an unsafe situation for everyone.
So exactly when do you define drug-infested schools as a problem then?
True. Except if and when it interferes with his actions when at school.
Because when I have children, I will not be able to look after them 24-7. I can work to ensure my children will not do drugs by being a good parent, but I cannot ensure his safety when he is not with me, all of the time. Anything that can assist me to that end, has its virtues.
Amused,
Your views are terrific - for a utopian society. But people are inherently selfish, and will commit crimes and other selfish acts. An active, involved government is the best way to ensure what I consider to be self-evident.
The boundaries for your rights and freedoms exist at a point where if crossed, they would encroach upon mine, and they should be enforced as such.
This has always been the premise for what I believe...
Your views are terrific - for a utopian society. But people are inherently selfish, and will commit crimes and other selfish acts. An active, involved government is the best way to ensure what I consider to be self-evident.
The boundaries for your rights and freedoms exist at a point where if crossed, they would encroach upon mine, and they should be enforced as such.
This has always been the premise for what I believe...
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
Originally posted by: Fausto1
I swear, the whole "gateway drug" theory is completely asinine. What's gonna be the next "gateway"? Mountain Dew? It contains caffeine, right? I knew plenty of kids in HS who were caffeine junkies....only a matter of time until they graduate to Smack and Crack and become prostitutes to support their habit, right?
This is a parenting issue IMO, because you're talking about a drug that is legal/illegal based solely on age. Point being: regardless of what kind of stupid testing regimen you put these kids through, they're going to have legal access to smokes later down the road in life and will need to make a decision at that point based on information.....not based on having their wrists slapped. It's no different than alcohol. They're gonna have access to it and they're gonna try it. All you can do is arm them with good information and hope they make good choices.
PS- Amused: I very much enjoy reading your contributions to ATOT and generally respect your opinion, but if you use the term "nanny-state" in one more thread, I'm calling in the killer mutant clown airstrike. K?
The gateway drug theory is valid. Because it's provable by observation.
Now, I don't agree that Tobacco is a gateway drug. BUT, the fact that kids smoke it, means those particular kids are susceptible to pier pressure. Nobody, NOBODY, started smoking because they like it. At some point they either saw that it was cool because somebody else did it, or were asked to try a cigarette by one of their friends. That behaivor is what leads to further drug use.
Now as far as the gateway drug theory, I think it's not about the physical drug, but rather the psychological/behaivoral trend accompanying it. Since smoking weed does have a desirable effect, then yes and no it can be a gateway drug. But if someone started smoking weed because their friends smoked weed, then that choice is what leads into other substance usage.
Regardless of why they're doing it, if Public schools are allowed to kick out God, check your lockers, pass out condoms, etc. then yea they can test your pee. I would see a serious problem if the school came to your house to take a stool sample.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter