Parent doesn't want Quaker son taking...

Parent doesn't want Quaker son taking drug test

There are 35 comments on the The York Daily Record story from Sep 23, 2010, titled Parent doesn't want Quaker son taking drug test. In it, The York Daily Record reports that:

The parent of a central Pennsylvania high school student wants her son exempted from random drug testing because integrity is a tenet of the teen's Quaker faith.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The York Daily Record.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
George

Marshall, VA

#21 Sep 23, 2010
Leeds wrote:
<quoted text>
Kindly point us to the facts then. Exactly how many drugged students have caused bodily harm with a vehicle in this school's parking lot in the past...... let's say 50 years.
If you can prove that an actual problem exists I'm sure the rest of us would be faster to support the fix. Fixing problems that don't exist by curtailing liberties seems a bad joke, not something supportable in any way for any reason.
its the high potential for an incident to happen! I really dont want drugged up and boozing kids driving on school property where many other people are walking! Lets just let the police set up a dui checkpoint at the school! oh thats right! That is such an infringement on everyones liberties! LOL
Leeds

Export, PA

#22 Sep 23, 2010
George wrote:
<quoted text>its the high potential for an incident to happen! I really dont want drugged up and boozing kids driving on school property where many other people are walking! Lets just let the police set up a dui checkpoint at the school! oh thats right! That is such an infringement on everyones liberties! LOL
I don't quite get your post. You seem to now be openly mocking yourself and to be perfectly honest I am confused as to why you would do so...
Garth

York, PA

#23 Sep 23, 2010
We have slid down the path of big brother wanting to monitor us 24/7. Why not chip them too? Install a video camera in their bedroom to see if they're pulling their pork? Oh, wait, that's already been done. Enhanced driver's licenses that allow anyone with an RFID reader to see your personal info. What is really humorous, well it's not funny when you're involved, is that you can't get your college student's grades or his medical information because of "privacy rights". This country is simply screwed up beyond all recognition.
xix

Stockton, CA

#24 Sep 23, 2010
The article stated:
>"Janet Malin told the school board Monday that requiring her son to agree to the policy calls into question a core belief of the family's religion. She says membership in the Religious Society of Friends requires her son to be truthful and obey society's laws."

As if that will insure the school or anyone that he is telling the truth.

As I understand it, a public school has no right to force a student to submit to a drug test without probable cause.'Probable cause' is a grey area in the law, but without any indication of drug use the kid should not be 'suspected' of such merely because he is who he is.
xix

Stockton, CA

#25 Sep 23, 2010
George wrote:
<quoted text> Lets just let the police set up a dui checkpoint at the school! oh thats right! That is such an infringement on everyones liberties! LOL
No it isn't.

When obtaining a drivers license you sign a statement which says you must submit to restrictions set up by federal, state and local law enforcement. So basically by accepting the license you have waived your right to do as you please just because you have the license to drive a motor vehicle. That is why they claim driving is a privilege, not a right.
Pablo

Falls, PA

#26 Sep 24, 2010
xix wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't.
When obtaining a drivers license you sign a statement which says you must submit to restrictions set up by federal, state and local law enforcement. So basically by accepting the license you have waived your right to do as you please just because you have the license to drive a motor vehicle. That is why they claim driving is a privilege, not a right.
But the school isn't the police or PennDOT. If the commonwealth finds you are capable of driving, why should a school be able to overrule that?

Furthermore, I don't see PennDOT conducting random drug tests on its drivers. The school is overstepping its bounds.
Pablo

Falls, PA

#27 Sep 24, 2010
George wrote:
<quoted text>its the high potential for an incident to happen! I really dont want drugged up and boozing kids driving on school property where many other people are walking! Lets just let the police set up a dui checkpoint at the school! oh thats right! That is such an infringement on everyones liberties! LOL
If PennDOT gave them a license then the school must abide by that. The school should not have the authority to require drug tests to park. So its okay for these drugged up students to drive on highways, but not park at school?

Furthermore, the drug tests may show a presence of something in their blood, but that doesn't mean they are under the influence.
Pablo

Falls, PA

#28 Sep 24, 2010
Izzy wrote:
No one should be able to hide behind their religious beliefs. Priest who prey on children, pastors who take pictures of their private parts and send them via their phone to under-aged girls, pastors who kill their wives..the list goes on and on. I'm sure they were supposed to be truthful and obey society's laws. But how is that working out? Sorry, but being a Quaker doesn't make one any more believable than any other religion.
In some cases religion should take precedence. Here, I think the better argument is individual liberty and privacy. A drug test is a search. Unless the school has probable cause and a warrant, they should not be able to conduct drug tests. Requiring students to consent in order to participate in sports has no rational basis.
George

Marshall, VA

#29 Sep 24, 2010
Leeds wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't quite get your post. You seem to now be openly mocking yourself and to be perfectly honest I am confused as to why you would do so...
You have always been confused! LOL
George

Marshall, VA

#30 Sep 24, 2010
Pablo wrote:
<quoted text>
In some cases religion should take precedence. Here, I think the better argument is individual liberty and privacy. A drug test is a search. Unless the school has probable cause and a warrant, they should not be able to conduct drug tests. Requiring students to consent in order to participate in sports has no rational basis.
A drug test is not a search. Dont forget, if he signed the agreement he "could" be subject to random testing. he had to do this to be permittd to operate a motor vehivle on school property. If he or his mommy didnt want him subject to random testing, then ride the bus. It was his choice what he wanted to do!
George

Marshall, VA

#31 Sep 24, 2010
Pablo wrote:
<quoted text>
But the school isn't the police or PennDOT. If the commonwealth finds you are capable of driving, why should a school be able to overrule that?
Furthermore, I don't see PennDOT conducting random drug tests on its drivers. The school is overstepping its bounds.
he3y numb nuts? Its not that he couldnt operate a vehicle, he just couldnt drive one on school property! PennDot doesnt give you a liscense to drive wherever you want to!
George

Marshall, VA

#32 Sep 24, 2010
xix wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't.
When obtaining a drivers license you sign a statement which says you must submit to restrictions set up by federal, state and local law enforcement. So basically by accepting the license you have waived your right to do as you please just because you have the license to drive a motor vehicle. That is why they claim driving is a privilege, not a right.
So right. I was being sarcastic when I said it was an infringement.
rhd

Jarrettsville, MD

#33 Sep 24, 2010
Leeds wrote:
<quoted text>
Abstinence is hardly a core value of Christianity. You need to switch to a church that doesn't lie to you, friend.
Every christian church preaches abstinence smarty, how about instead of attacking people and this posts you add some substance to the conversation. Or is that too difficult for you?
rhd

Jarrettsville, MD

#34 Sep 24, 2010
Pablo wrote:
<quoted text>
In some cases religion should take precedence. Here, I think the better argument is individual liberty and privacy. A drug test is a search. Unless the school has probable cause and a warrant, they should not be able to conduct drug tests. Requiring students to consent in order to participate in sports has no rational basis.
So are the parents going to refuse to submit to random drug testing if their employer requires it? They can't hid behind religious beliefs with that, no religion forbids drug testing. Part of their faith is abiding by laws and that's great for them if they actually do it. But how many people, HONESTY, abide by every part of what their religion teaches. Not every Jew keeps kosher and not every Catholic agress to go forth a multiply. Good for that kid and his parents for obeying the law but don't blow a school policy out of proportion to get your 15 minutes.
Don Corleone

Moorestown, NJ

#35 Sep 24, 2010
George wrote:
<quoted text>he3y numb nuts? Its not that he couldnt operate a vehicle, he just couldnt drive one on school property! PennDot doesnt give you a liscense to drive wherever you want to!
before calling anyone numb nuts, take some damn typing lessons for crying out loud and/or put down the jim beam.

go ahead and support "the man" and these ridiculous invasions of privacy... if everyone was like you we'd still be flying the British flag.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Society of Friends Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Six young Quakers join in building a movement f... (Sep '16) Sep '16 FSM 2
News Quakers hold conference on peace education for ... (Jun '16) Jun '16 little lamb 1
Philip Gulley and James Mulholland (May '07) May '16 LeTe2 23
News Conscientious Objection: 100 years on (Jan '16) Jan '16 little lamb 4
News Quakers object to funding for developing milita... (Dec '14) Dec '14 OwenEverett 1
News Daniel Boone and his family found freedom in th... (Dec '08) Jan '14 confused 15
News Huntsville's Quakers keep peaceful traditions o... (Jun '13) Jun '13 Nassar 1
More from around the web