Breathalyzer test required for Homecoming Dance

The State of Ohio puts on DUI check-points quite often. Matters of fact, in the last week through next week, with the holiday, we're going to have a total of somewhere between 120-125. There's no law against it and has been proven to be effective.

I too pee'd in a cup so much at work, I had to pee in a cup at home or it was hard to go.:rolleyes: I could heat the house with the drug/alcohol screening paperwork I've gathered over the years....

...but I choose to work there.

As a parent of four, I wouldn't like the breathalyzer business unless parents were informed pryor to the dance.

Also, as a parent, I would not object to the breathalyzer with prior notice as a school dance is not a requirement and we choose to let our kids go there.

All my kids have long graduated, youngest is 25. They went to a country school that had more of a dope problem then the parents in the area wanted to believe.
The PD wanted to bring a dog in to sniff the lockers and when the parents heard, they STORMED city council chambers demanding that this not happen.

I sit and listened to many parents getting up in front of council saying how much of an abuse of privacy this would be, that there just wasn't that big of a drug problem in the high school. They blamed what amount of drugs that was there on people bringing them in town from Columbus,Ohio.

Wasn't any of THEIR kids doing the dealing.:rolleyes:

It was almost comical as I watched three parents of kids that were known big-time dealers at the school making the most noise.

So the police Chief caved in and said instead of bringing the dogs in to sniff the lockers, he suggested the principal along with the truant officer do a scheduled locker inspection.

On the day of the pre-scheduled, announced locker inspection no drugs were found in any lockers....BUT, while the locker inspections were going on inside, the dope dogs had a field day in the parking lot.

The busts they made that day was incredible. They were also able to bust a theft ring consisting of about a half dozen high school kids which they in turn ratted out several adults involved. Some of the cars that contained dope also had many $1000's of stuff stolen from neighboring homes....

...and yes two of the three known drug dealers that their parents were at the city council meeting objecting the most were busted. Go figure!:cool:

When we were in high school, locker searchs happened often. If I remember correctly, if you chose to drive to school and park on the school parking lot, you signed a waiver that your car was subject to a search. The buses drove everyday, it was law you had to go to school but not law you had to drive there.

We had truant officers that if they heard you had something illegal in your locker/car, would come get you out of class and search till their heart was content. Since the truant officer was an LEO, he could arrest you.

Course, it was the truant officers job to make as big a deal out of a bust as he/she could to try to intimidate the kids to think twice about bringing something illegal to school.

By the way, this was a public school.
 
Duh, all of you in favor.....how many of you would have passed? I can think of a lot of occasions when I was in high school (especially at football games, etc) that if they had done "spot checks", I wouldn't have made it. Todays kids have lost a lot of freedoms that we used to have. In that, I often feel sorry for them. But given the nice "early" warning, a student has the right to not attend, and hold their own dance somewhere else (imagine students independently renting a hall, inviting the whole school, and no one attending the school sponsored breathalyzer function). If a school wants to be like a prison, some students are just going to have to make for freedom.....................PS: How about surprise drug test for teachers, or surprise alcohol test for politicians and cops? I don't think Ted Kennedy would have lasted so long.
 
I was one of the "good kids" in my high school days, but I'd have passed on the mandatory breathalyzer function on principle.

I also don't think kids today are all that different than they were in the 80's, for the most part... although I do think parenting is not as good as it had been.
 
I wouldn't want my son wrestling or doing any other close contact sport with somene with HIV. Including that test as part of te physical they already take seems reasonable. My only objection would be the cost.

I had a friend that rolled his ranger after a end of the school year party when he was driving drunk the spring of my Junior year. He came back to school a paraplegic his senior rear. The breathalyzer costs nothing, and if a 17 year old kid wants to attend a dance how can anyone have a problem making sure they're not drinking there?

I think that making them go through a metal detector seems reasonable too, especially if there has been a history or threats that heighten the risk.
 
Last edited:
For everyone who thinks this is ok:

Why not a mandatory blood test, as well? How about a mandatory lie-detector test to see who's having underage sex? Strip searches for weapons and drugs?

If not, WHY NOT, and what would be the difference and where do you draw the line?

I agree that conditioning kids to think unwarranted, intrusive searches are normal and acceptable is dangerous business for the future of our Republic.

Every single kid should take a big swig of mouthwash before the test in protest.
 
I'm disgusted people would think this was okay. If you think the little miscreant is misbehaving, gently grab him by the scruff of his neck and call the parents. If your little juvenile detention facility (i.e., high school) is that far out of control, then look in the mirror. Sorry, but I've lived this crap first hand.
 
Uh, what does this have to do with guns?

Edit: I just noticed that non-gun related discussions may be allowed in the Law and Civil Rights Section if they are related to universal Civil Rights. Sorry for the "Uh, ...." statement. "Full ahead mate".
 
Last edited:
If you think the little miscreant is misbehaving, grab him by the scruff of his kneck and call his parents
Click to expand...

Well...thats what used to happen when you and I went to school. Do that grabbing part today and you'll likely be out of a job and being sued by the parents. (Where's the barf icon when ya need it.)

IMO, thats part of todays problem. In many instances the kids are running the schools just like they do at home.
 
LOL I think a lot of folks here are not parents.

As a parent of a current high school studen who is a new driver. I LIKE IT!!! Teenagers by definition are irrisponsible. Even the great kids think they know everything and can handle anything. Two of my son's friends have died in auto accidents so far... All alcohol involved. It's not just the drinkers... A drunk in a car can kill a perfect student as easily as anyone else.

Why does this thread survive in this forum?... I think mostly because Gun owners tend to be more responsible than the averaje Joe or Jane. And the subject is very very important.
 
If not, WHY NOT, and what would be the difference and where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

At adulthood.

As a parent, I would have a problem with anyone in any school performing invasive testing or searches, but a breath test for admission to a dance sends an unambiguous signal to a population who aren't supposed to be drinking anyway.

I don't think that establishing school authority sets the groundwork for a sort of authoritarian personality that happily accepts infringements of civil liberties as an adult. I received detention for inter alia no belt, not cleanly shaven and my favorite, not making it from gym dismissal through the shower dressed, with tie back on to my fifth floor locker and down the steps of the main building to the third floor of Loyola hall for biology in five minutes. I believe this was not possible, since no one ever made in time unless gym had an early dismissal.

Kids are subjected to many sorts of unfairness without it translating into a legal/political attitude. If anything it may teach them how important the rights of an adult are.
 
Last edited:
I wondered if I would even get a reply to this thread I created.

Here is my thoughts.

As a parent, (I say that with all the responsibility that the word parent should invoke) I want my children / child as safe as can be. This is my youngest at 17and his older brother and older sister have already graduated. By todays standards my wife and I may be a little over the top. We know where he is almost every second of the day, we scrutinize every person he comes into contact with, and if necessary I have in the past made certain children off limits for general hanging out with. He asks permission for every place he wants to go, and tells us who he is going with. He has never been caught with drugs, or alcohol on his breath and in general I believe he is a pretty respectful young man. This is my job as a parent. Am I a perfect parent, probably not by a long shot, but I do the best I know how, more than I can say for much of what I see going on in other places.

So I believe in anything that will keep my child safe and can't disagree based soley on those arguments with the people who agree with the breath testing. It's funny how we can logically support any higher authority action for the benifit of all......... However, it is wrong plain and simple and I have to completely agree with Mleake.
by Mleaske "I'm pretty appalled at all the strident 2nd Amendment supporters in here, who routinely decry the government pulling its Big Brother routine and wanting to regulate away our guns "for the good of the children," and yet these same folks seem to think breathalzying every kid that goes to a school function is not only acceptable but laudable.

Actually, I'm past appalled. I'm disgusted."
Click to expand...

My job in no way shape or form is the goverment or schools job, and quite frankly, I don't want them deciding how my child needs parenting. Where do we draw the line on giving up freedoms and with whom do we give them up to? Who decides who gives up which freedoms? How many teachers / janitors / parents go to work or a dance with a little snoot "or worse" under their belt. What happened to being prosecuted after the crime. Severely punish the first child and the parents if necessary that are caught acting inappropriately because of alcohol. Then see how many kids go to or how many parents allow their children to go to a dance drunk.

I'm with you Mleake. I'm just appalled people can justify this.

Someone asked. This is a large public suberban high school.
 
Last edited:
Hey, guys, while we are all about having higher authority preemptively keep us safe...

Why not set up cars so they can sense the speed limit on a given stretch of road (cellular data, satellite, etc), and then use governors to keep us all from speeding?

Why not require underage girls to wear chastity belts on dates?

Why not require adult males to take a dose of saltpeter when they go on a date, unless their date signs a waiver saying she wants them fully functional?

Here's an interesting idea, and it's even been put forward by the OP: Punish actual offenses. Make examples of offenders. Encourage parents to do their job...

Oddly enough, when I was growing up there were two extremes as to the worst behaving kids: Those whose parents thought they could do no wrong; and those whose parents always assumed the worst and acted like martinets.

In my hometown, one of the worst kids was the Chief of Police's son. His dad was quite strict, too...

And then there's the stereotype about minister's daughters... and Catholic schoolgirls. Authority that shows no trust tends to encourage rebellion, just as much as a complete lack of authority encourages anarchy.
 
MLeake said:
Why not require adult males to take a dose of saltpeter when they go on a date, unless their date signs a waiver saying she wants them fully functional?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a college dating policy.

I would like to suggest a distinction that should help resolve some issues in this discussion, the distinction between government and things that are government funded.

Government governs us. Legislatures pass laws binding us. Governors and mayors run governments that execute those laws. Courts impose judgments on us.

That they are paid by tax money doesn't mean that all things paid by tax money are government. The armed services do not govern us, so they are not themselves government. They also impose restrictions on the liberty of those under their control that would be unacceptable in other contexts. Viewing schools in a similar light demonstrates that actions taken to acheive the educational goal need not be government, but all part of the necessary control of minors left in their care.

Questions about government regulation of adults are inapposite.
 
zukiphile, I'd put it to you that a school or school board deciding, independently of parental inputs, to institute mass breathalyzing is a massive overreach, and not part of the normal control an institution needs for the welfare of its students.
 
Interesting that the same statement of logic you use to support the testing is the same argument from a logistics stand point that I use to support how wrong it is.

by Zukiphile "I don't think that establishing school authority sets the groundwork for a sort of authoritarian personality that happily accepts infringements of civil liberties as an adult. I received detention for inter alia no belt, not cleanly shaven and my favorite, not making it from gym dismissal through the shower dressed, with tie back on to my fifth floor locker and down the steps of the main building to the third floor of Loyola hall for biology in five minutes. I believe this was not possible, since no one ever made in time unless gym had an early dismissal."
Click to expand...

Do you see the difference in your statement above and the breath testing.............. In everyone of these cases you mention, you were punished after you commited the infraction. They didn't scrape your skin to see if you took a shower. How would you have felt about that.
 
MLeake said:
zukiphile, I'd put it to you that a school or school board deciding, independently of parental inputs, ...
Click to expand...

Do we know that this was independent of parental input?

In my village, the PTA and school board work together pretty closely.

MLeake said:
... to institute mass breathalyzing is a massive overreach, ...
Click to expand...

What is being overreached? Does a minor have a right to attend an evening school function after drinking? I don't believe so.

Does the minor have a right of privacy comparable to that of an adult? I don't think you would want your child to attend a school in which enforcement of drug and weapon policies were limited by the sort of restrictions you and I have when dealing with a PO.

I believe there is a universe of dangers against which protection is likely to reflect reasonable parental anxieties.

If you and I had to pass a breathalizer test before entering a city council meeting, that would be a very different circumstance, in that it would be adults and government.
 
hitthespot said:
Do you see the difference in your statement above and the breath testing.............. In everyone of these cases you mention, you were punished after you commited the infraction.
Click to expand...

I see even more differences, the most prominent being that a breath test isn't a punishment.
 
zukiphile, the fact that the OP strikes me as a concerned and involved parent, and that he was not aware of this new policy until his son told him about it, makes me suspect the school and/or school board acted independently of parental inputs. The OP strikes me as the type who probably is involved with his PTA.

Note, also, that my mother was notorious at the high school where she taught for flunking the captain of the soccer team the week of the state championships. She was all about holding people accountable for their actions. She would not be in favor of blanket breathalyzing.

Here's the crazy thing - when that soccer team captain's parents and coach tried to pressure my mother, she stood up to them. When her principal waffled on the issue, she stood up to him. Kid didn't get to play. He actually was held accountable.

I'd say what we need are more educators like my mother was, and more parents like my parents were, and less Big Brotherism.

Call me crazy.
 
I'm not so sure it's a great idea myself, although not because I don't think there's anything wrong with drinking. Instead, I think it is a reflection of skewed American attitudes and values more than anything else.

To begin with, Americans seem to delay adulthood. We do this by having a high legal drinking age in most places. If drinking at age 17 is bad, how is it good at age 21? But we've been through that before, constitutionally speaking. Yet one can drive in Virginia at age 15 1/2. Logically, the answer is to raise the legal driving age. But I guess no one sees it that way except car rental companies, who do not administer breathalyzer tests.
 
Bluetrain said:
Instead, I think it is a reflection of skewed American attitudes and values more than anything else.

To begin with, Americans seem to delay adulthood. We do this by having a high legal drinking age in most places.
Click to expand...

I agree and would add that the MADD and .08% bac approach is something I find a bit hysterical.

Deadly accidents are predominantly found in adults who are blowing well over any historical legal limit. I also oppose the idea of an alcohol free childhood.

I had wine with dinner as a lad, just as I had peas and carrots. It is a normal part of life that kids tend to think of as a big deal only if it is new to them.

All that said, if I had a teen aged daughter going to an evening function with the bi-pedal bag of hormones that is a teenaged boy, I would be just slightly happier if I knew they weren't also drinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top