September 17, 2009
Thursday

Aside from the extreme unconstitutionality of the current drug testing system, the proposal for a "selective drug testing policy" offered by Chris Elliot is much MUCH worse.

Implementing a "selective drug testing policy" is about as respectful to the American Justice System as curb stomping the nine members of the Supreme Court and then proceeding to wipe up the mess with the original draft of the U.S. Constitution. I apologize for the graphic image.

Here are some major problems with this proposal, which I sincerely hope is never brought in front of our school board. Ok One: The landmark Supreme Court Case Acton vs. Vernonia School District, (which was decided by a vote 6-3, if I remember correctly)ruled that the fourth amendment's right to privacy does not outweigh the school's need to practice drug prevention policies. Now the other key point to this ruling was that school's can ONLY drug test athletes, but it has now been expanded to include any student participating in an activity whereby they represent the school. The reason being, playing a sport or being involved in an activity is voluntary, therefore the child is technically submitting to being tested and not being forced.

However, in the plan devised by Chris Elliot, students do not get the choice to submit to a test, instead they are forced. Literally forced. While it is a choice to join a school activity it is not a choice to attend school. It is illegal for a child to quit school before the age of 16. Therefore the student has no choice, whether he or she is involved in an activity or not, they are subject to drug tests.

Selective Drug Testing SCREAMS discrimination. And I can hardly believe that teachers are being suggested as the ones who offer consult on who gets tested!! Did I miss the punchline or was that it? This absurdity would be almost laughable if it wasn't so unconstitutional and violating. Good lord! Based on what science will these decisions be made? What criteria is there? Any? The reality is probably none, because the only evidence teachers could supply is what the pick up in the hall ways. And since when did hearsay become evidence of reasonable suspicion? Did Mrs. Elliot confuse reasonable suspicion with UNreasonable suspicion? The courts are bound by proving beyond a reasonable doubt, but schools have been given the authority to invade privacy based on reasonable suspicion. And HEARSAY is not grounds for suspicion, unless you mean of an unreasonable kind. I simply cannot see how this could be conducted efficiently and fairly, unless of course the intent is to be inefficient and unfair, then I would say this plan passes with flying colors!

Why this is a total disgrace to the American idea of justice. Most judicial systems in the world, including the United States' are based on the premsis that people are innocent until proven guilty, opting for a selective drug testing program which should be aptly named "the discrimination policy" is to view students as guilty until they prove their innocence. Nothing justifies the sacrifice of human rights for innocent people. This plan shows a complete lack of awareness and understanding of judicial philosophy and a complete awareness and understanding of tyranny.

Soooo...what'll it be ladies and gentlemen?

Opposing this plan does not mean you are against drug testing, just against a policy that drags American ideals of justice through the mud.

Evan Bolling
Ketchikan, AK

About: "Resident of Ketchikan for 20 years."

Received September 17, 2009 - Published September 17, 2009

Related Viewpoint:

Drug Testing By Chris Elliott

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor

SitNews ©2009
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska