Breathalyzer test required for Homecoming Dance
- Thread starter Hitthespot
- Start date
Let me put it this way - as I described it "Social Stigma" would be linked to a drug-addicted parent's babies dying of neglect - not hidden behind closed doors, or stuffed into classrooms where they can bully and disrupt productive students, but out in public view for people to get sick and disgusted over.
The stigma of a reckless drug abuser has little to do with him or her, but with the carnage that's left behind, which the government is no longer responsible for mopping up. Extreme? Perhaps, but that's the way I feel.
The stigma of a reckless drug abuser has little to do with him or her, but with the carnage that's left behind, which the government is no longer responsible for mopping up. Extreme? Perhaps, but that's the way I feel.
Can anyone say "mandatory drug testing before getting government assistance"?
There is something very wrong with our society when we have mandatory drug testing for people actually having enough moxy about themselves to actually go out and look for a job, then continue random drug screenings during that persons employment. This is the same person that works every day to pay for people on gov't assistance.
Yet the government, extending its almighty assistance in creating an ever more dependent society, continues to make it sooo easy for young, healthy people to lay on their backs, not lift a finger to support themselves, pop babies out at the rate of a well oiled puppy mill and if they choose , stay high or drunk all day long.... getting free government assistance and never get drug tested before or during recieving said assistance.
Again, all while you and I get up every morning, put a smile on our face and go to work everyday to pay for this lifestyle...and yes, get dope/breathalyzer tested while doing it....
...and we're worried about the message being sent to our kids(there rights being violated) in giving breathalyzer tests to go to a school dance.
Me thinks there's bigger fish to fry.
Here's a thought, these same societal destroying government programs that are sucking the tax dollars by the billions, that every working individual pays today , are stomping on the rights of not only that working individual but his/her kids as well, as the tax money taken out of his/her paycheck affects his/her childrens way of life.
Just maybe if we did a little butchering of these wasteful, tax sponging programs, one of the parents could afford to spend a bit more time at home parenting as there'd be more spendable income staying in the household.
Then we have illegal immigrants over here working, doing jobs that many government officials are on record as saying, "these immigrants are only over here doing jobs that we won't do".
Where's the puke icon when ya need it.
Here's a new gov't program for ya.
Dope test people before they get on gov't assistance and random test while on assistance. Also give them a physical to find out their limitations. Put these people to work earning this assistance. Doing these menial jobs illegal immigrants are doing, picking trash up along the roads, doing menial labor/clerical jobs currently done by government employees(which will reduce government thereby saving tax dollars) etc.
Send illegal immigrants where they came from....
...but we can't do this as I'm sure somewhere along the line, someones rights would be violated, they would file a civil rights lawsuit, win and we would be right back to the free hand outs paid for by the working once again.
I gotta go take some blood pressure medicine in which I had to pay for cause the gov't won't give me any.
There is something very wrong with our society when we have mandatory drug testing for people actually having enough moxy about themselves to actually go out and look for a job, then continue random drug screenings during that persons employment. This is the same person that works every day to pay for people on gov't assistance.
Yet the government, extending its almighty assistance in creating an ever more dependent society, continues to make it sooo easy for young, healthy people to lay on their backs, not lift a finger to support themselves, pop babies out at the rate of a well oiled puppy mill and if they choose , stay high or drunk all day long.... getting free government assistance and never get drug tested before or during recieving said assistance.
Again, all while you and I get up every morning, put a smile on our face and go to work everyday to pay for this lifestyle...and yes, get dope/breathalyzer tested while doing it....
...and we're worried about the message being sent to our kids(there rights being violated) in giving breathalyzer tests to go to a school dance.
Me thinks there's bigger fish to fry.Here's a thought, these same societal destroying government programs that are sucking the tax dollars by the billions, that every working individual pays today , are stomping on the rights of not only that working individual but his/her kids as well, as the tax money taken out of his/her paycheck affects his/her childrens way of life.
Just maybe if we did a little butchering of these wasteful, tax sponging programs, one of the parents could afford to spend a bit more time at home parenting as there'd be more spendable income staying in the household.
Then we have illegal immigrants over here working, doing jobs that many government officials are on record as saying, "these immigrants are only over here doing jobs that we won't do".
Where's the puke icon when ya need it.
Here's a new gov't program for ya.
Dope test people before they get on gov't assistance and random test while on assistance. Also give them a physical to find out their limitations. Put these people to work earning this assistance. Doing these menial jobs illegal immigrants are doing, picking trash up along the roads, doing menial labor/clerical jobs currently done by government employees(which will reduce government thereby saving tax dollars) etc.
Send illegal immigrants where they came from....
...but we can't do this as I'm sure somewhere along the line, someones rights would be violated, they would file a civil rights lawsuit, win and we would be right back to the free hand outs paid for by the working once again.
I gotta go take some blood pressure medicine in which I had to pay for cause the gov't won't give me any.
Last edited:
oneounceload
Moderator
When it starts with the WH and its staff and then the Congress and Senate, yes
Agree Oneounce.
After all, shouldn't we(citizens) already be demanding testing of those that are demanding the same of the people?
On another note, I worked for a city for many years. I found it strange that in my position, we were drug/alcohol tested on a very regular basis. My job didn't entail emergency runs. Therefore less dangerous to hurting the public.
Police and Fire was exempt from this testing.
Didn't/doesn't make to much sense to me that the driver and tiller of a hook- n-ladder could run through town while running a call, busting traffic lights and somehow be exempt from testing. Same with LEO's on calls...and I've partied with many of both.
Strengths of unions are something.
After all, shouldn't we(citizens) already be demanding testing of those that are demanding the same of the people?
On another note, I worked for a city for many years. I found it strange that in my position, we were drug/alcohol tested on a very regular basis. My job didn't entail emergency runs. Therefore less dangerous to hurting the public.
Police and Fire was exempt from this testing.
Didn't/doesn't make to much sense to me that the driver and tiller of a hook- n-ladder could run through town while running a call, busting traffic lights and somehow be exempt from testing. Same with LEO's on calls...and I've partied with many of both.
Strengths of unions are something.
Last edited:
Carry_24/7
New member
1. I don't drink and drive, I've always gotten by a checkpoint in seconds with no hassle. So, bring on all the DUI checkpoints they can afford to staff.
2. My kids should not be drinking, so what's the harm in a breathalyzer test that everyone else is also required to take for gaining entry? So, bring them on. If my kids don't like it, they can stay at home. Same as flying. You don't have to be searched....no one can make you be searched...unless you want to fly.....thats still choice.
2. My kids should not be drinking, so what's the harm in a breathalyzer test that everyone else is also required to take for gaining entry? So, bring them on. If my kids don't like it, they can stay at home. Same as flying. You don't have to be searched....no one can make you be searched...unless you want to fly.....thats still choice.
TheGoldenState
New member
If you're not pouring out a flask into the jumbo punch bowl, it's simply not a highschool dance.
Breathalyzer to enter the dance??
Good god.
Check to see if the Districts head isn't a Strickland jr.
Breathalyzer to enter the dance??
Good god.
Check to see if the Districts head isn't a Strickland jr.
Carry_24/7
New member
Thats another beautiful thing about America; your kids are your kids.
oneounceload
Moderator
Not according to the government - you act n a manner that THEY find offensive and you can go to jail, even if your are disciplining your kids
The Nanny state is here, and the topic just adds more proof to that
Sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, kids who want to drink will either:
1) Not go to the dance and drink elsewhere,
2) Just drink after the dance, or
3) Save the booze for another night.
I'd like to see the school district's cost-benefit analysis for the breathalyzer program, to include all associated costs (equipment, contracting, training, legal, and every hour spent in meetings to create the program) and all measured benefits (did it actually stop anybody from drinking, driving, etc?).
If they can't show tangible benefit, then it is by default a waste of taxpayer money.
1) Not go to the dance and drink elsewhere,
2) Just drink after the dance, or
3) Save the booze for another night.
I'd like to see the school district's cost-benefit analysis for the breathalyzer program, to include all associated costs (equipment, contracting, training, legal, and every hour spent in meetings to create the program) and all measured benefits (did it actually stop anybody from drinking, driving, etc?).
If they can't show tangible benefit, then it is by default a waste of taxpayer money.
Last edited:
The kids are property of the system...
The rules are made as they wish...
One incident was with Junior having an issue with a boy who was pickin' on Junior's little buddy.
Junior knows this kid also liked to see him in trouble for protecting the small kids this boy liked to bully.
So this time junior tells him "Wait 'til after school, I will handle this off school grounds..."
Well junior waited until he actually crossed an intersection before spinnin' this kids noggin'...
I got called in the next day to speak with the most racist school employee I ever seen in my life... Their Principal went on to berade me and junior he accused me of raising a "BULLY". I informed him that junior settles scores he don't start them... Me and my son were addressed with derogatory terms aimed towards white folks and he then tells me the reason he was in authority to punish my child for offenses off school property...
AND I QUOTE... "IF IZ CAN SEE IT FROM MY SKOO IT IS ON SKOO PROPERTY..."
So I snatched him out right then and did my best teaching him the 3 R's... The only excuse I have in my favor for doing less than a stellar job is that Junior was several grade levels below expected in ability yet they passed him on to the next grade... (That whole no child left behind BS)...
Brent
The rules are made as they wish...
One incident was with Junior having an issue with a boy who was pickin' on Junior's little buddy.
Junior knows this kid also liked to see him in trouble for protecting the small kids this boy liked to bully.
So this time junior tells him "Wait 'til after school, I will handle this off school grounds..."
Well junior waited until he actually crossed an intersection before spinnin' this kids noggin'...
I got called in the next day to speak with the most racist school employee I ever seen in my life... Their Principal went on to berade me and junior he accused me of raising a "BULLY". I informed him that junior settles scores he don't start them... Me and my son were addressed with derogatory terms aimed towards white folks and he then tells me the reason he was in authority to punish my child for offenses off school property...
AND I QUOTE... "IF IZ CAN SEE IT FROM MY SKOO IT IS ON SKOO PROPERTY..."
So I snatched him out right then and did my best teaching him the 3 R's... The only excuse I have in my favor for doing less than a stellar job is that Junior was several grade levels below expected in ability yet they passed him on to the next grade... (That whole no child left behind BS)...
Brent
On the one hand, I understand that the schools want to protect themselves from liability.
On the other hand, I've met an awful lot of functionaries, over the years, who - if given the slightest increase in power - kept looking to acquire more and more of it. I don't like to give them the proverbial inch, because it all too easily turns into miles.
As far as drug testing in order to receive benefits goes - it makes a great sound bite. I used to favor that position, and many of my friends still do. The thing is, since Governor Rick Scott instituted exactly that program in Florida, only 2% of those tested have failed. Seems like a waste of money, to get a 2% return.
In fact, what I think we need to do is streamline welfare programs. This is one of the few areas where I thought Michael Dukakis had some good ideas, back in the '80s. One of the main problems with welfare, in most places, is that the system effectively encourages people not to work - because if they get a job, they lose all benefits.
I have a cousin who has not been able to go back to work, because each time she tries, she is in the red. Her kids lose medical benefits from the state, and her kids have some chronic issues. She can't make enough money to pay the bills and have her kids treated at an entry level, minimally skilled job.
The state would save money, in the long term, by a) continuing benefits when people find employment, but cutting them by a percentage of the person's new income; as the person made more money, the benefits would decrease, but not as quickly as the person's earnings would rise. In other words, achievement would be desirable and rewarded; b) putting more emphasis on skills training programs, so people on welfare would have a better shot at the jobs that are actually available in the current market; and c) putting realistic requirements in place as far as recipients' job searches.
I bring up c) because a guy I work with, who is from Oregon, has a sister who drives him nuts. Her scam, and it works under Oregon's system, is that she applies for the required number of jobs every period. She applies for the CEO positions at CitiBank, Bank of America, AT&T, etc. Oregon lets her get away with it, and has been doing so for years. My co-worker is no longer on speaking terms with his sister.
In either case, my cousin's in Florida, or the guy's sister's in Oregon, the state's policies are causing the state to maintain people on welfare that shouldn't have to be maintained. In one case, because policies virtually force the person to remain on the system's teat; in the other, because policies don't punish malfeasance.
On the other hand, I've met an awful lot of functionaries, over the years, who - if given the slightest increase in power - kept looking to acquire more and more of it. I don't like to give them the proverbial inch, because it all too easily turns into miles.
As far as drug testing in order to receive benefits goes - it makes a great sound bite. I used to favor that position, and many of my friends still do. The thing is, since Governor Rick Scott instituted exactly that program in Florida, only 2% of those tested have failed. Seems like a waste of money, to get a 2% return.
In fact, what I think we need to do is streamline welfare programs. This is one of the few areas where I thought Michael Dukakis had some good ideas, back in the '80s. One of the main problems with welfare, in most places, is that the system effectively encourages people not to work - because if they get a job, they lose all benefits.
I have a cousin who has not been able to go back to work, because each time she tries, she is in the red. Her kids lose medical benefits from the state, and her kids have some chronic issues. She can't make enough money to pay the bills and have her kids treated at an entry level, minimally skilled job.
The state would save money, in the long term, by a) continuing benefits when people find employment, but cutting them by a percentage of the person's new income; as the person made more money, the benefits would decrease, but not as quickly as the person's earnings would rise. In other words, achievement would be desirable and rewarded; b) putting more emphasis on skills training programs, so people on welfare would have a better shot at the jobs that are actually available in the current market; and c) putting realistic requirements in place as far as recipients' job searches.
I bring up c) because a guy I work with, who is from Oregon, has a sister who drives him nuts. Her scam, and it works under Oregon's system, is that she applies for the required number of jobs every period. She applies for the CEO positions at CitiBank, Bank of America, AT&T, etc. Oregon lets her get away with it, and has been doing so for years. My co-worker is no longer on speaking terms with his sister.
In either case, my cousin's in Florida, or the guy's sister's in Oregon, the state's policies are causing the state to maintain people on welfare that shouldn't have to be maintained. In one case, because policies virtually force the person to remain on the system's teat; in the other, because policies don't punish malfeasance.
Hitthespot
New member
Interesting and thought provoking post Mleake.
I used to look down my nose at those very people. I was working 6 days a week providing a living for my family (and had done it since I was 19) while it appeared too many were sponging off me and every other hard working American. However, as you point out, it just isn't that simple. While many take advantage and actually think it's our job to take care of them, there are many more who can't do the right thing no matter how hard they try. I know people who are working two jobs and still cannot afford rent and medical for their kids. They have no choice but to swallow their pride and ask for goverment help. Let alone those like you mention who cannot afford to go to work and lose their food stamps, medical, and usually free rent.
I do know that my mom and dad raised 4 sons, all on my dads factory job. Mom took care of the house and us kids and I don't ever remember wanting for anything. We were not rich, but we ate well and had our own home over our heads. Now people struggle with both parents working. It just doesn't make since.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do believe that this great nation can solve these problems somehow.
I used to look down my nose at those very people. I was working 6 days a week providing a living for my family (and had done it since I was 19) while it appeared too many were sponging off me and every other hard working American. However, as you point out, it just isn't that simple. While many take advantage and actually think it's our job to take care of them, there are many more who can't do the right thing no matter how hard they try. I know people who are working two jobs and still cannot afford rent and medical for their kids. They have no choice but to swallow their pride and ask for goverment help. Let alone those like you mention who cannot afford to go to work and lose their food stamps, medical, and usually free rent.
I do know that my mom and dad raised 4 sons, all on my dads factory job. Mom took care of the house and us kids and I don't ever remember wanting for anything. We were not rich, but we ate well and had our own home over our heads. Now people struggle with both parents working. It just doesn't make since.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do believe that this great nation can solve these problems somehow.
oneounceload
Moderator
If the kids did 2 or 3, then the machine did its job - NOT having them drink (and possibly drive) during the dance at thew school, thus helping the school avoid a lawsuit
oneounce, maybe... the thing is, they were testing the kids before they were admitted to the dance, not as they were leaving.
So those who want to drink before the dance will just not go. They'll drink elsewhere. In fact, it may push kids away from going to the dance, who otherwise would, because their friends who want to drink won't go to the dance. So the overall dance numbers go down, the overall other/drinking numbers go up.
Now they're out possibly drinking for longer (and in turn more) than they would have if they just had a few before the dance.
Furthermore, I doubt it's that tough to sneak in a flask or a few minis or probably even a few cans of beer. So they could be putting that down quickly in the bathroom stall at the dance, and leaving intoxicated anyway.
All I'm saying is, people will always find a way around the rules, and the lawsuits will come anyway.
So those who want to drink before the dance will just not go. They'll drink elsewhere. In fact, it may push kids away from going to the dance, who otherwise would, because their friends who want to drink won't go to the dance. So the overall dance numbers go down, the overall other/drinking numbers go up.
Now they're out possibly drinking for longer (and in turn more) than they would have if they just had a few before the dance.
Furthermore, I doubt it's that tough to sneak in a flask or a few minis or probably even a few cans of beer. So they could be putting that down quickly in the bathroom stall at the dance, and leaving intoxicated anyway.
All I'm saying is, people will always find a way around the rules, and the lawsuits will come anyway.
Now... I may be more open to them sayin'...
"Everyone may be subject to a breathalyzer before being allowed to leave the premesis..."
In this way EVERYONE is outwardly invited to attend and the only ones who would need to worry about leaving on their own or leaving in the back of a cop car *are the ones drinking before or during the event.
In the wording of the warning, the use of "may" states that not everyone must be expected to blow but anyone can be.
Brent
"Everyone may be subject to a breathalyzer before being allowed to leave the premesis..."
In this way EVERYONE is outwardly invited to attend and the only ones who would need to worry about leaving on their own or leaving in the back of a cop car *are the ones drinking before or during the event.
In the wording of the warning, the use of "may" states that not everyone must be expected to blow but anyone can be.
Brent
Last edited:
zincwarrior
New member
Or what? Its an extracurricular event. The school has no legal basis for holding anyone. In some jurisdicitons that could be considered illegal.
If the child is committing a crime, on their property, and the crime could interfere with the safety of innocent drivers, I feel they can stand there and block the doors awaiting the cops to arrive...
But I doubt that is needed... I think the resource officer system would have genuine law enforcement representation right there who would immediately relieve the school faculty members of this by taking the child into their custody to handle the alcohol charges if needed.
Brent
oneounceload
Moderator
Exactly, and them NOT drinking at the dance and thus exposing the school to a lawsuit is what the school is concerned about - not whether they are out somewhere else getting hammered and driving - if that happens and kids get killed, the school springs for some "grief counselors" (GEEZ!) to come for a day, but they won't be getting sued
It comes down to the issue of liability