N.J. Schools Test Students' Urine for Weekend Drinking

[brodski]

In Florida, technically the answer to all the above is ye - and restaurants usually have the signs about it posted (mostly to warn tourists that they could be arrested for what might be legal in their home country).

fair enough.

Oh - most denominations (Protestant) do not use wine for communion because they technically are anti-alcohol (some really are).

I know many churches don't but some do. Would the first amendment trump alcohol laws? Has abyone ever pushed the issue?

 

[Checkmite]

Everyone in that school should just start using mouthwash with alcohol in it everyday.

Once everyone starts testing positive it would make this stupid idea useless.

Sounds like the kind of thing I would've done...

 

[brodski]

I think you need to qualify that with "in public." I don't think there's any law against giving your sixteen-year-old a beer or a glass of wine at home.

in which case, could a kid get out of the urine test by getting a no from his mum saying that they knew he had been drinking?
Could the school do anything about that?

 

[strathmeyer]

I think you need to qualify that with "in public." I don't think there's any law against giving your sixteen-year-old a beer or a glass of wine at home.

You don't think there's any law against giving your sixteen-year-old an alcoholic beverage? Wake up an smell the drug war!

There was a TV commercial a few years back about a couple finding out they were being sued because one of their children's friends drank in their house.

It could happen to you!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You don't think there's any law against giving your sixteen-year-old an alcoholic beverage? Wake up an smell the drug war!

It varies by state, but at least in Texas there is no such law. A minor may imbibe in visible presence of parents or legal guardians.

Some States allow an exception for consumption when a family member consents and/or is present. States vary widely in terms of which relatives may consent or must be present for this exception to apply and in what circumstances the exception applies. Sometimes a reference is made simply to "family" or "family member" without further elaboration.

Source

There was a TV commercial a few years back about a couple finding out they were being sued because one of their children's friends drank in their house.

There's a difference between allowing your own child to drink in your home and allowing other people's children to do so.

 

[BPSCG]

You don't think there's any law against giving your sixteen-year-old an alcoholic beverage? Wake up an smell the drug war!

There was a TV commercial a few years back about a couple finding out they were being sued because one of their children's friends drank in their house.

It could happen to you!

A commercial. Well, it must be true, then.

Yeah, if you're at home and your kids are having a party and booze is being served, you could be liable.

But if you're at your Saturday night dinner with the family and pour some wine for your minor, well, I've never heard of anyone having their door knocked down by the cops in that situation.

Never heard of a Passover seder being rousted because daddy served some Manischevitz wine to the kids.

If it's illegal, show me the statute.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Do you agree with the ACLU that "medical care and treatment are issues between parents and children"?

Yes. Actually, I'd had told the parents to butt out of it, but maybe that's just me.

Can you show me one instance, just one, where it would have served justice for the school to get involved? Just one case where the opinions of "the school" (which means the head teacher, I guess) should have over-ridden the opinions of the actual human beings in question?

You can't have it both ways, my friend. From the posts you've made, on this and other topics, you seem to be both a libertarian and an authoritarian. Well, you cannot both have your cake and eat it.

 

[brodski]

You can't have it both ways, my friend. From the posts you've made, on this and other topics, you seem to be both a libertarian and an authoritarian. Well, you cannot both have your cake and eat it.

I don't think that BPSCG is a libertarian, a "small government" conservative yes-- but you just need to look at the marijuana thread to see that by no stretch of the imagination is he a libertarian, he's far too much of a pragmatist.
Just because one thinks that the government should say out of some matters, it does not follow that they must stay out of all matters- even if there are similarities between cases.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't think that BPSCG is a libertarian, a "small government" conservative yes-- but you just need to look at the marijuana thread to see that by no stretch of the imagination is he a libertarian, he's far too much of a pragmatist.

Well, possibly, but then since I am a pragmatist in politics, surely he'd agree with me much more often? Surely, in fact, he'd be a fan of social democracy, since that actually works?

Is he really against legalization of cannabis? I must look at that thread and kick his ass more thoroughly and consistently.

 

[brodski]

Well, possibly, but then since I am a pragmatist in politics, surely he'd agree with me much more often? Surely, in fact, he'd be a fan of social democracy, since that actually works?

that would only hold if politics was a science, rather than an art, and even then if there was only one "correct" way in which to order society.

Is he really against legalization of cannabis? I must look at that thread and kick his ass more thoroughly and consistently.

No, he's ambivalent towards it, weighing the social costs against any social benefit and then against ideological consistency. There are some in that thread who are against legalisation, although they are in the minority.

 

[BPSCG]

Do you agree with the ACLU that "medical care and treatment are issues between parents and children"?

Yes.

Good. So do I.

Actually, I'd had told the parents to butt out of it, but maybe that's just me.

I don't understand this. If you agree that medical care and treatment are properly issues between parents and children, why should the parents butt out, whether the issue is alcohol testing or abortion?

Can you show me one instance, just one, where it would have served justice for the school to get involved? Just one case where the opinions of "the school" (which means the head teacher, I guess) should have over-ridden the opinions of the actual human beings in question?

I don't follow you. I haven't been trying to make the case that schools should override parents or do parents' jobs for them.

 

[BPSCG]

No, he's ambivalent towards it, weighing the social costs against any social benefit and then against ideological consistency.

Thank you; nicely put, though I would rephrase "ideological consistency" as "principles."

 

[brodski]

I don't understand this. If you agree that medical care and treatment are properly issues between parents and children, why should the parents butt out, whether the issue is alcohol testing or abortion?

Look at it this way, there are three entities who have an interest in medical decisions relating to the child.
First the child herself (as we are discussing abortions let us assume this is a girl we are talking about), secondly the parents and thirdly the state.
However not all interests are equal.
The state only had an interest where the parents are using undue influence to damage the health of the child (for instance parents refusing lifesaving surgery or blood transfusions because of the parents religious beliefs).
Regarding the interests of the child and the parents, the balance between the two is not always the same, as a child grows older their right to medical autonomy grows, whilst the parents rights shrink, by the time you reach the point where contraceptives or abortion may become an issue, the child's rights are at least equal to the parents rights, in which case the child can invoke the sate to trump the interests of the parents, if the sate is not prepared to support the child in opposing the decisions of the parents taken for the child, then the parents rights will win out. Once a child becomes an adult, parents' interests are completely irrelevant, and the state only has an interest in extreme circumstances (where the adult is not mentally able to make decisions for herself, or in the prevention and control of some nasty infections diseases)

 

[brodski]

Thank you; nicely put, though I would rephrase "ideological consistency" as "principles."

I didn't think that pragmatists where allowed principles. If we are, I'd better go out and get some.

 

[BPSCG]

Look at it this way, there are three entities who have an interest in medical decisions relating to the child.

(...snip...)

However not all interests are equal.

Agreed, so far.

The state only had an interest where the parents are using undue influence to damage the health of the child (for instance parents refusing lifesaving surgery or blood transfusions because of the parents religious beliefs).

Fair enough.

Regarding the interests of the child and the parents, the balance between the two is not always the same, as a child grows older their right to medical autonomy grows, whilst the parents rights shrink, by the time you reach the point where contraceptives or abortion may become an issue, the child's rights are at least equal to the parents rights, in which case the child can invoke the sate to trump the interests of the parents, if the sate is not prepared to support the child in opposing the decisions of the parents taken for the child, then the parents rights will win out.

Emphasis mine. I don't think it's a question of child's rights vs parents' rights. It's child's rights vs parents' responsibilities. Parents have a responsibility to do what is best for the child; when parents fail to do that is when the state is supposed to step in, and even then, only in extreme circumstances; the state doesn't step in when a parent unfairly punishes a child for misbehavior, or doesn't punish him at all. The state steps in when the punishment is dangerous or unreasonably painful. Similarly, the state doesn't step in if a parent doesn't take a child to the doctor at the first sniffle premonitory of a cold; it steps in when the parent refuses a life-saving blood transfusion.

Now, is an abortion in a child's best interests? I would say, often, yes. Am I the best judge of that? Not for my neighbor's kid, no. What if the parents are utterly supportive of the girl, and are willing to do everything necessary to help her raise her baby and make sure she is able to finish school and otherwise live a happy life, and that is what the girl wants? Clearly, abortion might not be in the girl's best interests in such a case.

Ah, but what if the girl wants the abortion, and her parents are against it? Or doesn't want the abortion, but her parents favor it? Why does the state (i.e., society) have such a compelling interest in this matter that it must intervene? Unless there's some compelling evidence that the parents' decision is not just detrimental to the child's best interest, but catastrophically so, why should the state get involved?

Once a child becomes an adult, parents' interests are completely irrelevant, and the state only has an interest in extreme circumstances (where the adult is not mentally able to make decisions for herself, or in the prevention and control of some nasty infections diseases)

Agreed.

 

[BPSCG]

I didn't think that pragmatists where allowed principles. If we are, I'd better go out and get some.

Paradoxical, isn't it? But as Ayn Rand said, there are no paradoxes; when you think you have a paradox, re-examine your premises, because one of them is wrong.

 

[brodski]

Agreed, so far.
Fair enough.

Emphasis mine. I don't think it's a question of child's rights vs parents' rights. It's child's rights vs parents' responsibilities.

sorry I've been hearing "rights and responsibilities" rhetoric for so long, I tend to assume that you can't say one without implying the other.

Parents have a responsibility to do what is best for the child; when parents fail to do that is when the state is supposed to step in, and even then, only in extreme circumstances; the state doesn't step in when a parent unfairly punishes a child for misbehavior, or doesn't punish him at all. The state steps in when the punishment is dangerous or unreasonably painful. Similarly, the state doesn't step in if a parent doesn't take a child to the doctor at the first sniffle premonitory of a cold; it steps in when the parent refuses a life-saving blood transfusion.

Agreed, but pregnancy is a little more than a sniffle, I would say that the potentially has an interest, depending on the circumstances.

Now, is an abortion in a child's best interests? I would say, often, yes. Am I the best judge of that? Not for my neighbor's kid, no. What if the parents are utterly supportive of the girl, and are willing to do everything necessary to help her raise her baby and make sure she is able to finish school and otherwise live a happy life, and that is what the girl wants? Clearly, abortion might not be in the girl's best interests in such a case.

agreed, not all situation s are the same.

Ah, but what if the girl wants the abortion, and her parents are against it? Or doesn't want the abortion, but her parents favor it? Why does the state (i.e., society) have such a compelling interest in this matter that it must intervene? Unless there's some compelling evidence that the parents' decision is not just detrimental to the child's best interest, but catastrophically so, why should the state get involved?

And this is the rub, at this point in the child's development I think that "rights and responsibilities" for medical conditions are largely equal between the parents and the children. The kids are old enough to have explained to them the impact of their medical decisions, but the parents still need to guide those decisions. However, whilst responsibility and rights may be equal, power is not. In the situations you describe, unless the sate got involved, the parents would almost always have their way. The sate steps in to protect the rights of the child, however, the state can also use "common sense" or public policy to determine when they will and when they will not protect the rights of the child.
The state should not decide the same way in every case, they will also look at what will probably be in the best interests of the child, and take into account many of the factors which you outlined above

 

[Dr Adequate]

Good. So do I.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you, I thought it was a rhetorical question to which you thought the answer was "no", and that you were being a Right-Wing Jerk.

I don't understand this. If you agree that medical care and treatment are properly issues between parents and children, why should the parents butt out, whether the issue is alcohol testing or abortion?

I was qualifying my statement, since "yes" didn't seem strong enough.

I don't follow you. I haven't been trying to make the case that schools should override parents or do parents' jobs for them.

Again, my apologies. I thought you were being snide about the ACLU, a body for which I've just felt more and more respect ever since I started taking an interest in American politics.

 

[luchog]

Sounds like the kind of thing I would've done...

Back during my school days, a friend went to a different school in a... lower class part of town where they were really big on the "stopping alcohol/drug use". As part of their anti-drug program, the school decided to institute a random breathalyzier policy after a student got in an DUI accident due to drinking at school. For the introduction of the program, all the students were lined up class by class and tested, for "familiarization" purposes.

My friend, and a couple of his schoolmates decided on an entertaining little personal protest. One of them had a bottle of Binaca breath drops (an alcohol-based breath freshener, usually mint-flavoured). They all loaded up on them as they were waiting in line. By the time it was their turn, all three of them tested legally dead.

Needless to say the school administration was not amused.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

There are few religions where drinking wine is part of certain rituals. How will the school deal with that?

The test shows positive when the student has had the equivalent of 1 or 2 beers. I don't know any religion that requires enough wine to match that. Generally it's a sip or two.

The only ceremony I'm aware of that comes close is Passover seder, when you drink four cups. However, anyone who drinks four full cups is probably Orthodox, which means they'd be off from school that week anyway.