Insisting On Sober Students

School districts across the state are showing a growing interest in adopting breathalyzer policies to make sure students don't show up drunk at school dances. Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Not the AP

La Puente, CA

#61 Jan 8, 2008
Heather of Collinsville wrote:
There are alot of good points made on the posts regarding this issue on both sides.
1. It is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.(Please note, I did not say possess.)
2. It is legal to administer a breathalizer to students when there is probable cause or the testor is not a government agent.(The Fourth Amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. Sad, but true.)
3. With regards to other illegal substance abuse, I suspect that if an inexpensive way to detect a student was using was available, the school systems would employ that method of detection as well.
4. If children opt not to attend these dances due to potential testing, I would suggest that their parents have a nice long talk about drinking, driving, and drugs with them.
Ours is not a black and white world. There is no cut-n-dry answer. We must look at each individual issue and judge it based on it's on merits.
(The Fourth Amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. Sad, but true.)

The school is not a private organization.
Concerned American

Hicksville, NY

#62 Jan 8, 2008
Konnecticut_Better_Yet wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there will be people complaining--it's true. These are school administrators and schoool board members. They should have at least a middle school level grasp of Civics. Apparently not.
So much for the presumption of innocence. These people are a disgrace to knowledge and education and to the country and everything it stands for.
So, a small group of brd. members and admins. can violate someone's rights for your own self image, without consequence, but have a drink as a minor and you go to jail? Ummm...that would be the definition of totalitarianism. Heck, that's probably a grade-school definition.
Tens of millions for public school budgets and this is what board and administrators come back with? This is what they have to resort to to solve their problems (or at least problems that reflect negatively on them and their district)? Pathetic. If a student was given the same problem as a problem solving exercise and came back with the same solution, he'd get an 'F.'
Ever wonder why your district's big bad zero tolerance policy only works one way? Because there would be no scool boards or administrators. Sometimes it's hard to tell who the students are, listening to these morons. Jesus, pick up a history book already.
How about daily breathalizers and urine samples from the School Staff. Remember we also need to protect our students from unruly teachers.
Good German

Deep River, CT

#63 Jan 8, 2008
Concerned American wrote:
How about daily breathalizers and urine samples from the School Staff. Remember we also need to protect our students from unruly teachers.
Yes, I think we should have police dogs, metal detectors and pee tests at the entrance to all public places, particularly supermarkets and stores, but also movie theaters and churches and of course all government buildings. Also, such checkpoints should also be at every factory gate or any entrance to a place of employment. Terrorism, drugs and other crime menace the men, women and children of our great nation and only a criminal or terrorist would have anything to hide or fear from such checkpoints. Surely the kids in our security-conscious schools are psychologically and politically prepared for it....

Since: Jan 08

United States

#64 Jan 8, 2008
Stuart Hosley wrote:
What is it about "you can't attend a school event if you have been drinking" that you don't understand?
They enter a school building after drinking, keep them there until a responsible person can come get them.
Gerard, ever thought about taking a common sense approach to problems insted of googling the law statutes!
I would say it would be irresponsible to let some one who arrived after drinking to let them drive away!
Common sense says parents are responsible for raising their children, and folks who make claims about what parents can and cannot do should be prepared to back them up. Since research shows:
"parents who provided alcohol to their adolescent children or drank with them were more likely to have children who neither regularly used nor abused alcohol."

the New Puritans shouldn't be making claims about CT law which are incorrect.

Regarding the dance issue:
I never said students should be allowed into the dance -- just questioning what right the school has to detain someone outside of normal school hours who has broken no law.

Regarding the issue of the kids driving home -- who said the kids were driving? There is currently a legal limit of 0.02 for younger drivers, which of course can and should be enforced.
Not the AP

La Puente, CA

#65 Jan 8, 2008
Gerard wrote:
<quoted text>
Common sense says parents are responsible for raising their children, and folks who make claims about what parents can and cannot do should be prepared to back them up. Since research shows:
"parents who provided alcohol to their adolescent children or drank with them were more likely to have children who neither regularly used nor abused alcohol."
the New Puritans shouldn't be making claims about CT law which are incorrect.
Regarding the dance issue:
I never said students should be allowed into the dance -- just questioning what right the school has to detain someone outside of normal school hours who has broken no law.
Regarding the issue of the kids driving home -- who said the kids were driving? There is currently a legal limit of 0.02 for younger drivers, which of course can and should be enforced.
Schools cannot detain anyone. The legal limit should be no different for anyone.

.08 is .08

Gab

“Surrounded by Libs.”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#66 Jan 8, 2008
Gerard wrote:
<quoted text>
Common sense says parents are responsible for raising their children, and folks who make claims about what parents can and cannot do should be prepared to back them up. Since research shows:
"parents who provided alcohol to their adolescent children or drank with them were more likely to have children who neither regularly used nor abused alcohol."
the New Puritans shouldn't be making claims about CT law which are incorrect.
Regarding the dance issue:
I never said students should be allowed into the dance -- just questioning what right the school has to detain someone outside of normal school hours who has broken no law.
Regarding the issue of the kids driving home -- who said the kids were driving? There is currently a legal limit of 0.02 for younger drivers, which of course can and should be enforced.
Which proves once again you can find any nonsence on the internet to suppor your nonsencicle adolescent babbling!
Parents who encourage destructive behavior tword their kids are less likely to have kids with destructive behavior?
O.K. I got one for you that makes about as much sence.
Until you can balance a tack hammer on you'r head,only then,can you head a balanced attack.

Since: Jan 08

United States

#67 Jan 8, 2008
Interesting that I seem to be able to find links to reputable sources e.g. state of Connecticut, Federal NIH, Boston University School of Public Health (see below) to support my statements, but the those who disagree seem to only have stridency to justify their opinion.

"I cannot come out and say that we can teach responsible drinking -- I would be at major risk from an institutional perspective for saying that -- but what I can say is that there is at least some evidence that by providing alcohol in a protected environment within the context of a meal, perhaps, we can at least minimize the excitement of it," said researcher Kristie Foley of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. "But you would never get funding for a project like that, not in our current political climate."

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/sum...
Brothers Keeper

Somerset, KY

#68 Jan 8, 2008
Konnecticut_Better_Yet wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called the fourth amendment of the bill of rights. The Nazis need probable cause before they can start sticking their incompetent noses where they think it belongs.
And it is exactly people like you why we need a bill of rights. So you think government should be able to pry anywhere where they please at their own whim, because people shouldn't be doing anything wrong? It's disgusting what people like you are doing to this great country.
MORE should watch out over each other. The world would be a better place!

Gab

“Surrounded by Libs.”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#69 Jan 8, 2008
Gerard wrote:
Interesting that I seem to be able to find links to reputable sources e.g. state of Connecticut, Federal NIH, Boston University School of Public Health (see below) to support my statements, but the those who disagree seem to only have stridency to justify their opinion.
"I cannot come out and say that we can teach responsible drinking -- I would be at major risk from an institutional perspective for saying that -- but what I can say is that there is at least some evidence that by providing alcohol in a protected environment within the context of a meal, perhaps, we can at least minimize the excitement of it," said researcher Kristie Foley of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. "But you would never get funding for a project like that, not in our current political climate."
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/sum...
Again which supports my theory.
Einstein endorsed cocaine.
How did that go?
That was the political climate then.
At what point should we stop learning from our past and keep commiting the same Miss Takes?Research Miss Takes!

“Expanding exponentially...”

Since: Dec 07

Hartford County, CT

#70 Jan 8, 2008
Gerard wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it (Chapter 38-89) says:
"The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to (1)...(2)...(3) a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor while accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse of the minor, who has attained the age of twenty-one. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to burden a person's exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state in violation of subsection (a) of section 52-571b.
"
and subsequent sections have similar language. You have to read the whole thing to understand it, not just look for keywords to bolster your argument.
I read the entire statute. Thank you, but I do not respond to people unless I have a clear understanding of the situation. That is the same provision I referred to in my first response to you. Again, this provision to the original statute (minors may not possess alcohol) states that minors may "possess" alcohol while accompanied by a parent or a spouse. However, this law is to protect minors if they happen to be carrying an alcoholic beverage to a family member.

You keep arguing semantics, but the reality of it is that this is a provision to the original statute. The original statute stated what minors could not do (possess alcohol). The provision stated what minors were able to do without committing a crime (possess alcohol while with a parent, or for religious reasons). In order for your argument to hold water, the provision would have to include that minors may possess *and consume* alcohol while accompanied by their parents, and not the other way around. All of the other statutes referred to minors not being able to buy or possess alcohol (except for this provision), and to legal adults not being able to sell, procure, or serve minors alcohol, nor host underage drinking parties. The only other laws referring to underage drinking is the Zero-Tolerance driving law. Why do you think if a minor blows a .02 they are arrested for DUI? Do you honestly think that kid could say, "It's alright. I was drinking with my mom and dad," and be able to drive away?

There was no provision made in any of the other statutes stating that minors may possess, be served, or consume alcohol while in the presence of their parents. As for the statute in which this provision is found, it is not possible to consume alcohol without possessing it. Since the provision you cited is the only provision to the only statute about minors possessing alcohol, it would have to explicitly state in that provision that minors could consume alcohol.

I checked out your website. You seemed to put a lot of faith in the information on that website, especially for someone who says that you can't believe everything that you read on the internet. Even that website had this to say...

"APIS does not assume that minors are allowed to consume alcohol in a jurisdiction simply because that jurisdiction allows parental furnishing to minors."

“Expanding exponentially...”

Since: Dec 07

Hartford County, CT

#71 Jan 8, 2008
Gerard wrote:
<quoted text>
Common sense says parents are responsible for raising their children, and folks who make claims about what parents can and cannot do should be prepared to back them up. Since research shows:
"parents who provided alcohol to their adolescent children or drank with them were more likely to have children who neither regularly used nor abused alcohol."
the New Puritans shouldn't be making claims about CT law which are incorrect.
Regarding the dance issue:
I never said students should be allowed into the dance -- just questioning what right the school has to detain someone outside of normal school hours who has broken no law.
Regarding the issue of the kids driving home -- who said the kids were driving? There is currently a legal limit of 0.02 for younger drivers, which of course can and should be enforced.
Where on Earth did you find that quote? What research are you talking about? I have known sixteen people in the course of my life (yes, I sat here and counted) whose parents allowed them to do whatever they wanted. Their parents drank with them all the time. They sometimes smoked with them. Five of the sixteen turned out alright. The other eleven...well, three of them are dead, four are in the gutter, three are doing the absolute bare minimum in life, and one's in jail. Please provide the link to this "study" so I can read it.

The odds are that the kids showing up for the dance were not drinking with their parents, even if the statute and provision you keep referring to did permit consumption while accompanied by parents. They were most likely at a friend's house, which means that *if* the parents were home, their child is the only one who may get away with it. All of the other kids would be arrested. They should therefore be detained.

I agree with you on the zero tolerance, though.
No Police State

Deep River, CT

#72 Jan 8, 2008
Suzy Greenberg wrote:
Where on Earth did you find that quote? What research are you talking about? I have known sixteen people in the course of my life (yes, I sat here and counted) whose parents allowed them to do whatever they wanted. Their parents drank with them all the time. They sometimes smoked with them. Five of the sixteen turned out alright. The other eleven...well, three of them are dead, four are in the gutter, three are doing the absolute bare minimum in life, and one's in jail. Please provide the link to this "study" so I can read it.

The odds are that the kids showing up for the dance were not drinking with their parents, even if the statute and provision you keep referring to did permit consumption while accompanied by parents. They were most likely at a friend's house, which means that *if* the parents were home, their child is the only one who may get away with it. All of the other kids would be arrested. They should therefore be detained.
I agree with you on the zero tolerance, though.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/ChildrenAndP...

Quote: "When children are served alcohol by their parents, drinking problems are generally low. When children are prevented from drinking until an older age, drinking problems tend to be high. The evidence is overwhelming. 3

"In many groups around the world, virtually everyone drinks and they drink both frequently and regularly, but they have very few drinking problems. Such groups familiar to Americans include Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, Jews, and Portuguese. What are the keys to their success? In such groups:

"Alcohol itself is seen as a neutral substance - neither good nor bad in itself. It's not a poison and it's not a magic elixir that can solve peoples' problems. It's how alcohol is used that is important.

"People can choose either of two equally acceptable options:(a) to abstain or (b) to drink responsibly and in moderation. What is totally unacceptable for anyone under any circumstance is the abuse of alcohol. Alcohol abuse is simply never tolerated.

"People learn how to drink from an early age within the safe and supporting environment of the home. They don't learn how to drink from their friends and acquaintances, who aren't looking out for their best interests. Common sense suggests that it's better to learn how to drink in the parent's house than in the fraternity house. 4" Unquote.

References:

3. Heath, D. B.(Ed.) International Handbook on Alcohol and Culture. London, England: Greenwood, 1998; Peele, S., and Brodsky, A. Alcohol and Society: How Culture Influences the Way People Drink. San Francisco: Wine Institute, 1996; Hanson, D. J. Preventing Alcohol Abuse: Alcohol, Culture and Control. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1995.

4. Hanson, D. J. Preventing Alcohol Abuse: Alcohol, Culture and Control. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1995.
No Police State

Deep River, CT

#73 Jan 8, 2008
"Drinking is so dangerous that people should learn how to drink in moderation before they learn how to drive and in USA the opposite is true:"

http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/general/le...

Cross-cultural research (medical as well as behavioral) shows that a no-misuse message about alcohol has sustained advantages over a no-use (abstinence) message. Cultures that accept responsible social drinking as a normal part of life have less alcohol abuse than cultures that fear and condemn alcohol. Moreover, moderate-drinking cultures benefit more from the well-documented cardioprotective effects of alcohol. Positive socialization of children begins with parental models of responsible drinking, but such modeling is often undermined by prohibitionist messages in school:

http://www.peele.net/lib/antidote.html

More from the Peele page:

Positive socialization of the young: We can best prepare young people to live in a world (and a nation) where most people do drink by teaching them the difference between responsible and irresponsible drinking. The most reliable mechanism for doing this is the positive parental model. Indeed, the single most crucial source of constructive alcohol education is the family that puts drinking in perspective, using it to enhance social gatherings in which people of all ages and both genders participate.(Picture the difference between drinking with your family and drinking with "the boys.") Alcohol does not drive the parents' behavior: it doesn't keep them from being productive, and it doesn't make them aggressive and violent. By this example, children learn that alcohol need not disrupt their lives or serve as an excuse for violating normal social standards.

Ideally, this positive modeling at home would be reinforced by sensible-drinking messages in school. Unfortunately, in today's neotemperance times, alcohol education in school is dominated by a prohibitionist hysteria that cannot acknowledge positive drinking habits. As with illicit drugs, all alcohol use is classified as misuse. A child who comes from a family in which alcohol is drunk in a convivial and sensible manner is thus bombarded by exclusively negative information about alcohol. Although children may parrot this message in school, such an unrealistic alcohol education is drowned out in high-school and college peer groups, where destructive binge-drinking has become the norm (34).

To illustrate this process with one ludicrous example, a high-school newsletter for entering freshmen told its youthful readers that a person who begins to drink at age 13 has an 80 percent chance of becoming an alcoholic! It added that the average age at which children begin to drink is 12 (26). Does that mean that nearly half of today's children will grow up to be alcoholic? Is it any wonder that high-school and college students cynically dismiss these warnings? It seems as though schools want to tell children as many negative things as possible about alcohol, whether or not they stand any chance of being believed.
Because

Vernon Rockville, CT

#74 Jan 16, 2008
Konnecticut_Better_Yet wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called the fourth amendment of the bill of rights. The Nazis need probable cause before they can start sticking their incompetent noses where they think it belongs.
And it is exactly people like you why we need a bill of rights. So you think government should be able to pry anywhere where they please at their own whim, because people shouldn't be doing anything wrong? It's disgusting what people like you are doing to this great country.
I reiterate: Children have no rights under the law. The 4th amendment guarantees the right to freedom against habeus corpus. For citizens who have attained the age of majority. Which is 18. Children are the property of their parents and therefore are guaranteed protection under other laws. There's also a law Im sure youre familiar with: CT Statutes. There are thousands of them. They were approved and verified prior to enaction, so theyre not unconstitutional. One of them says that people under the age of 21 may not possess or consume alcoholic beverages. So if a school district wants to test a student who is under 21 to see if he's been drinking, that school district has every right to, under the law. It's not a violation of habeus corpus. Its called making sure our children are safe from the perils of society. Even jailhouse lawyers like you who think they know everything...
tkay

East Granby, CT

#75 Feb 10, 2008
pro-coach wrote:
<quoted text>
The important difference here is the teachers/chaperones are adults and drink legally.
So the teachers/chaperones can show up smelling of alcohol at a school function to make sure the kids aren't drinking? I can't show up at work after a few drinks, can you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Westbrook Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Cops Salute Beloved K-9 on His Way to Be Put Down Feb 25 Parden Pard 6
Homosexuality and Pedophilia are linked. (Apr '13) Feb 14 Hythe 2
Unlikely THEIFS:( (Sep '10) Feb 14 Muttu 3
Pat Shingleton: "Edwin Got Zapped..." Feb 11 jonsmith55 1
In Russia, creeping awareness that economic cri... Feb 3 RUSSIAN COLLAPSE 2
Maine we need 4 more CPS cases gone wrong to st... (Feb '12) Jan '15 ethelhodg 19
Islamic leader urges Muslims to visit Jerusalem Jan '15 Kristos Paedophilos 2
Westbrook Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Westbrook People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:03 pm PST