Drugs Making Sense of Craig Smith
posted by on March 18 at 16:40 PM
I gotta hand it to sports writers. They create compelling narratives out of what is essentially the same story repeating again and again. They give meaning to the utterances of the inarticulate. They must be brilliant. Most of them.
Craig Smith over at the Seattle Times proclaims that last week’s unanimous ruling by the state Supreme Court, banning random student drug testing, “lacks sense” and is a “defeat for common sense.” The Justices decided that searching a student’s bodily fluids was at least as invasive as searching their luggage, which requires reasonable suspicion.
Justice Sanders wrote:
“The urinalysis test is by itself relatively unobtrusive. Nevertheless, a student is still required to provide his or her bodily fluids. Even if done in an enclosed stall, this is a significant intrusion on a student’s fundamental right of privacy. …“In sum, no argument has been presented that would bring the random drug testing within any reasonable interpretation of the constitutionally required ‘authority of law.’”
That’s what the judges ruled, and it makes sense. What lacks sense is Smith’s knee-jerk reasoning.
I’m angry. It’s a bad decision. Random testing, even though it was only in a handful of schools, provides one more reason a kid can say “no” when tempted by peers.“Sorry, guys, it’s my senior season and with my luck I’ll get caught in drug-testing if I even get near marijuana. Let’s find something else to do.”
That seems compelling. But the only peer-reviewed scientific study ever conducted on random drug testing, by the University of Michigan, showed it has no impact—it’s not a deterrent to drug use. It’s more likely that a students who face random piss tests are actually saying, “Sure, guys, let’s go smoke pot. Since the tests are random, I probably won’t get tested anyway. But if I do, I’ll only get kicked off the swim team…”
Is that what Smith really wants: for students to game the system and, if they lose, get expelled from the very extracurricular activities that would keep them from using more drugs? Because that sure would make sense.
I don't go looking for the sports page when I want good constitutional analysis. The guy is a doof.
Which part of FREEDOM! doesn't the Times get?
“Sure, guys, let’s go smoke pot. Since the tests are random, I probably won’t get tested anyway. But if I do, I’ll only get kicked off the swim team…”
Which is funny because it will make the drug use more likely to result in a shitty life. Lots of kids do drugs in high school and college (and beyond) but few actually become drug addicts. Mostly becasue they have other shit to do then sit around high all the time. If you take that away form a kid, then you lose that important tool for teaching someone how to responsibly drink, smoke pot, jerk off.
I've always thought random drug testing is a fundamentally flawed and un-American idea.
One of the most basic premises of our legal system is the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty, and that the police must have reasonable suspicion to search you.
Random drug testing is just the opposite of that. It presumes you must be doing drugs, or that somebody must be doing drugs (assuming guilt with no proof). And that no actual evidence need be presented to justify a drug test (a search by any other name).
Whether or not a student athlete smokes a bit of refer on the weekend is none of the school's business. The school can test his (or her) academic performance. His coach can judge his athletic performance. If he is doing acceptably in both of those areas, then leave him the fuck alone.
All random drug testing does is make kids go, "Sure, let's go snort coke or binge drink or any number of ridiculously dangerous and/or highly addictive drugs that'll be out of my system over the weekend!"
But at least it'll stop those goddamn potheads from ruining our children and, by extension, our future.
What a useless fucktard. I'm glad he's angry - with any luck it'll take years off of his life.
"I've always thought random drug testing is a fundamentally flawed and un-American idea."
All random drug testing? Testing for minors? Or just students? Or athletes? What about people who have dangerous jobs?
Because I kind of like to know about the people with dangerous jobs using, I really don't want them putting my life at risk. And if I were a parent I'd like to know if my kid were using drugs...other people's kids, not so much.
So, if smoking pot is so bad, how come the BC teams beat us so often?
(caveat - doing drugs is bad for sports performance, IMHO)
Sports writer states opinion not based on empirical evidence.
At least governmental agencies would never form and implement policies without looking at the data.
@7: yeah ALL random testing.
It's kind of like prior restraint of speech.
Silly people . . . still laboring under the mistaken belief that there's a Constitution.
Just make sure the SCOTUS doesn't find out that each state has it's own constitution.
@12 haha, its unreviewable, so screw scalia and his cronies this one is final.
@7, if you'd like to know if your kid is using drugs, you can always randomly test him/her yourself. Why is it the school's job to make sure you know if your kid is doing drugs?
On the dangerous jobs issue, the important thing for me would be, are they high or drunk while on the job. Not, do they smoke a little weed on the weekend. So, I might be fine with random breathalyzers or other "are you impaired right now" checks, but in my opinion, random testing is sort of unnecessary.
Images and video from Dan Savages' glorious war on Iraq.
http://iraq.reuters.com/
This comment to be deleted soon as off-topic.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).