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

[BPSCG]

Link.

PEQUANNOCK, N.J. — Teens who drink alcohol could be caught three days later under a high school's new testing policy for students.

The test, which will be given randomly to students at Pequannock Township High School, can detect whether alcohol was consumed up to 80 hours earlier. The legal drinking age in the United States is 21.

Other districts already use the test. Middletown began using it last spring for students suspected of using drugs and alcohol. This month, the district expanded it to include a random pool of about 1,800 students.

Pequannock Superintendent Larrie Reynolds said the policy approved last week should be a deterrent to students who feel peer pressure to drink.

Under the program, students who test positive will not be kicked off teams or barred from extracurricular activities, Reynolds said. Instead, they will receive counseling — and their parents will be notified.

The ACLU has weighed in, as expected:

"Medical care and treatment are issues between parents and children," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

Does that include contraception and abortion?

 

[Beerina]

They should not be testing the children without the parents' permission.

I hope some 18 year old sues the hell out of them because he's not a child, for that matter.

 

[shemp]

My reading of the thread title lead me to believe that school officials were testing students' urine to see whose urine they should drink this weekend. Isn't it a sex crime to drink urine from those too young to give consent? Well, if it isn't it should be! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???

 

[Darth Rotor]

Link.
The ACLU has weighed in, as expected:
Does that include contraception and abortion?

This is piss poor use of school district money.

The test, which will be given randomly to students at Pequannock Township High School, can detect whether alcohol was consumed up to 80 hours earlier. The legal drinking age in the United States is 21.

Random urinalysis tests are intrusive and degrading. The chain of custody issues are detailed and labor intensive. The operational safety feature that the Navy's urinalysis was based on as a reasonable legal "search" was the lethality of flightline accidents. Given the metabolic rate of alcohol digestion, once the student has arrived in school, anyone not obviously drunk is not a threat to safety -- their car is in the parking lot. There have got to be better uses of taxpayer money than this for schools, such as books, classroom upgrades, hire another teacher, plumbing, etc.

An old type B management adage is to take fear out of the work place. This program explicitly adds a disincentive for students to look at school in a positive light, as the policy adds one more hassle to a teenager. Getting away with sneaking a beer from the old man is part of growing up.

Get the woodchipper out, Beeps, there appears to be a schoolboard who needs to become as one with the football field.

DR

 

[steverino]

Like SHEMP, I thought this thread would be about drinking pee.

I think a Seattle 19 year-old can drink in British Columbia, Canada, then would fail a urine test back home a day later. But I guess that is a bit older than a high school senior.

I don't like this testing. It is unsettling. I can't pin point why at this moment. Anecdotal-I was on a cross-America bicycle trip at age 16, with a group leader who was the legal guardian. I broke off from the group. Legally, I think I was under-age to live my own life, a "run-away" which was totally cool.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I thought schools were there to teach people, not monitor them for obedience to the law.

 

[fuelair]

They should not be testing the children without the parents' permission.

I hope some 18 year old sues the hell out of them because he's not a child, for that matter.

All they need is a provision that any student is free to refuse - but may not then participate in any activities other than their assigned classes. Covers that problem.

 

[fuelair]

I thought schools were there to teach people, not monitor them for obedience to the law.

Then, I guess that teachers don't have to report drug symptoms, gang signs/signals/ possible abuse, etc.. as none of those are teaching either. Oh, wait, we sure are required to do those in Florida - can be arrested, censured, etc. if we don't. Good try though!!

 

[Tony]

Link.
The ACLU has weighed in, as expected:
Does that include contraception and abortion?

What government entity is forcing minors to get abortions and take contraception?

If people wonder why public schools in the US are such a joke, one doesn't need to look any further than absurd measures like this.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Then, I guess that teachers don't have to report drug symptoms, gang signs/signals/ possible abuse, etc.. as none of those are teaching either. Oh, wait, we sure are required to do those in Florida - can be arrested, censured, etc. if we don't. Good try though!!

They report what they see, but they aren't expected to break their students' homes and set up cameras to document possible abuse, are they? Or conduct background investigations of the parents, or perform physical examinations of the children?

Just as it is the duty of all citizens to report crime, but it is not the duty, is not advisable, and in many cases not even legal for citizens to go out looking for and investigating crime. If I hear you brag about how you're cheating on your taxes, I can inform the IRS. I may not utilize my ninja skills to break into your mansion and photograph all your bank statements with my awesome miniature camera pen with infra-red option. Cool though that would be.

 

[Katana]

This is piss poor use of school district money.

According to the article, the testing is being paid for with federal grants, so it's piss poor (and I assume the pun was intended ) use of your tax money.

Random urinalysis tests are intrusive and degrading. The chain of custody issues are detailed and labor intensive. The operational safety feature that the Navy's urinalysis was based on as a reasonable legal "search" was the lethality of flightline accidents. Given the metabolic rate of alcohol digestion, once the student has arrived in school, anyone not obviously drunk is not a threat to safety -- their car is in the parking lot. There have got to be better uses of taxpayer money than this for schools, such as books, classroom upgrades, hire another teacher, plumbing, etc.

An old type B management adage is to take fear out of the work place. This program explicitly adds a disincentive for students to look at school in a positive light, as the policy adds one more hassle to a teenager. Getting away with sneaking a beer from the old man is part of growing up.

Get the woodchipper out, Beeps, there appears to be a schoolboard who needs to become as one with the football field.

DR

Good point. The issue of chain of custody is a big one. Also, I started to wonder about the accuracy of these tests and who has access to the results? All of the faculty or just counselors? I would hope they would use some discretion.

The article makes it sounds like there is legitimate concern for false positives:

Urine screenings look for ethyl glucuronide, produced by the body after it metabolizes alcohol. School officials acknowledge the test is sensitive, and false positive readings can be the result of using products containing ethanol, including mouthwash and Balsamic vinegar.

But Reynolds said in order for students to test positive, they would generally have had to consume the equivalent of one or two drinks.

Generally?

A false positive may not seem like a big deal since the kids won't get punished, but no child wants to have to face parents who think he/she drank when that wasn't the case. Depending on the parents, the kids, their relationships with each other, something like this could have real consequences at home.

 

[Spindrift]

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.

 

[BPSCG]

What government entity is forcing minors to get abortions and take contraception?

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

If you agree, then do you consider abortions to be medical care and treatment?

If you disagree, do you support schools testing kids for alcohol?

 

[Tony]

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

Not absolutely. Do you have any evidence that the ACLU made that statement as an absolute?

If you agree, then do you consider abortions to be medical care and treatment?

I believe it falls under that umbrella.

If you disagree, do you support schools testing kids for alcohol?

If the parents request that the school test their kid and if the parents are going to pay for it, sure. But I don't agree that the school should force every student to take an alcohol test. School is for education, that's what we pay for, we don't, nor should we, pay for drug testing.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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.

That's cruel to children. It will make their cigarettes taste funny.

 

[Darth Rotor]

According to the article, the testing is being paid for with federal grants, so it's piss poor (and I assume the pun was intended ) use of your tax money.

Yes deliberate pun.

Federal money? I missed that detail.

Now I am pissed.

A Sith productions "Dear Senator Hutchinson" letter will once again be in the mail on the morrow.

Last one left with their sanity, turn off the lights. New Jersey is going mad.

DR

 

[Grammatron]

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

 

[brodski]

Is it illegal to drink under 21 under all circumstances? Under parents supervision? With food? Taking communion wine?

 

[fuelair]

Is it illegal to drink under 21 under all circumstances? Under parents supervision? With food? Taking communion wine?

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

 

[BPSCG]

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

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.