High Court Reviews Student Drug Tests 

  High Court Reviews Student Drug Tests 

Posted by FoM on March 19, 2002 at 14:22:36 PT
By Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writer  
Source: Associated Press 

The Supreme Court is hearing a case that should allow it to clarify questions lingering from its landmark 1995 ruling that public schools may test student athletes for drugs.Lindsey Earls, a top student who had never been in trouble, says her high school had no reason to suspect her of drug use, and no right to demand she submit a urine sample to prove she was clean.
The 1998 drug test was a condition of Lindsey's and other students' participation in extracurricular activities at a rural Oklahoma school. Now it is the basis of a Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of many student drug tests."It was sort of sprung on us," said Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth College who sang in her high school choir and participated on an academic quiz team. "I felt strongly about it. That is none of their business."Unanswered then was whether schools may also test students involved in extracurricular activities apart from sports, or even the entire student body.Wider drug testing remains relatively rare among the nation's 15,500 public school districts. Lower courts have reached differing conclusions about the practice.Earls and her younger sister, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, claim that such "suspicionless" drug tests violate the Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches or seizures.The National Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws are among the other organizations supporting the students. The libertarian Cato Institute and the conservative Rutherford Institute are also on board.Tecumseh, Okla., school administrators have said drugs were a persistent but not widespread problem among their high schoolers. There was no particular reason to suspect students who participated in activities such as the debate team or competitive choral singing, the school said.But the school claimed in court papers that the random tests were a deterrent. If students wanted to represent the school in extracurricular activities, they might think twice about using drugs, the school argued.The Bush administration and a long list of organizations, including the Drug-Free Schools Coalition and the National School Boards Association, are backing the school system.Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, pointed to a 2000 government survey in which 54 percent of high school seniors reported some illegal drug use in their lifetime. Nearly 25 percent said they had used drugs within the last month."School children are not only more vulnerable to drug use than adults, but such abuse is much more likely to devastate their lives," Olson wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.A federal court initially rejected Earls' suit, but a federal appeals court ruled the other way last year.In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the school argued that the lower court drew the wrong conclusions from the 1995 athlete case, and that its ruling conflicts with other appeals courts around the country.The Tecumseh testing program ran for part of two school years. It was suspended after Earls sued.Only children involved in competitive extracurricular activities were tested on the theory that by voluntarily representing the school, they had opened themselves to greater scrutiny than other students.The policy covered a range of voluntary clubs and sports, including the Future Farmers of America club, cheerleading and football. Students were tested at the beginning of the school year. Thereafter, tests were random.Overall, 505 high school students were tested for drug use. Three students, all of them athletes, tested positive, Earls' lawyer said. Two of the athletes also participated in other extracurricular activities.The school offered drug counseling after a positive test, and those who complied could remain on their teams. Those who refused were barred from competition.The case is Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 01-332.On the Net:Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.govAppeals court ruling: and click on 10th Circuit.Source: Associated PressAuthor: Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writer Published: March 19, 2002Copyright: 2002 Associated PressRelated Articles & Web Sites:Cato Institute Testing Policy Debated Before Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

Comment #14 posted by dddd on March 21, 2002 at 09:12:23 PT
comment on comments
...this 'thread' was outstanding!........starting with EJs' suggestions of trouser dropping drug test supervision being fertile grounds for deviant behavior,,,and then Doc Zombies furthering of the pedophilic theories,(which I thought were well explained,,,,you are cool doc Zombie).............Then,,Joyce is brought into the picture!...Of course Mary Friend likes us!,,,and,,we love her!,,...."antis" would be lost without us,,and we would be able to live in peace,and spend our time speaking out against all the other forms of Joyce Nalepka,and her Bill Bennett la-la land 700 club political cult.........It's probably nothing new,,,but I think the internet will be easily overtaken ,,and regulated,,monitored,,and controlled within about ten years from now.It will be like a strange blend of phone companies,and cable TV/ISPs,,and it will be done thru the conjured up "threat" of pedophile terrorists who tell kids how to make methcrack out of fruit rollups and nail polish.......could say more,,but I already said too much....I will repeat my prediction that the 'internet',,,will be controlled in days to come...It will be kindof like subscribing to cable TV,and probably owned by the same megacorporations.....(you dont suppose Time-Warner/AOL will be involved?)....Just think about it for a minute;,,Imagine that the Internet was no longer availiable to us,,,sites like this would be almost impossible...some kinda AOL-WEBCORP type corporations will own the internet soon,,,Remember...this is the first and LAST PLACE,where us Sheeple can gather and discuss things....The internet is the only source of "free press",that is not yet owned enough to be controlled......I've said way too much,,,,dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on March 21, 2002 at 07:25:39 PT:
Don't misunderstand me...
I have always welcomed even the most rabid antis to post long as they stay and explain their positions in a rational fashion. But they haven't.Joyce may be a lawyer. As a lawyer, she knows that it is discourse in any trial that gets to the facts. She has adamantly refused to discuss the facts regarding the fraudulent origins and continued illogical basis for cananbis prohibition.Have any of you seen anything that she has ever said here that directly addressed any comment...or commenter, for that matter? Most of her posts have been as if we were standing immediately in front of her, fully visible...but it's as if she is turning her head and addressing a fellow anti - like we're some sort of static museum display. She has never done us the courtesy of directly addressing us, whether individually or in toto. Sorry, but I refuse to be treated like a non-entity by the likes of her. Respect is a two-way steet. And she has done nothing to earn that respect. Period.I can disagree with my neighbor, and no harm is done. But Joyce is a tooth on the cogwheel of the mill which is grinding our freedoms into the grist for the DrugWar. Her actions, either directly or indirectly, aid and abett that process. Because of people like her, our brethren are in jail...or dead. She may not have pulled the trigger on people like McWilliams, Sepulveda, Hernandez, Dorismond, et al...but her support of the people who did is evident, as she has never deigned to comment to us about those murders-by-police of innocent people. And it is that support of those unlawful murders, ostensibly to save the children, that emboldens the government to be ever more vicious in its' efforts.Sure, I'll be happy to talk with her...but she doesn't talk, she pontificates. She refuses to consider that there is so much more to this issue than 'druggies' using cannabis for medicinal purposes. The future of the Republic is darkening quickly...and it's people like her who are drawing the curtain down. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Jose Melendez on March 20, 2002 at 17:32:28 PT
Hear, hear!
I agree with FoM. By engaging Ms. Nalepka in meaningful debate, both sides gain knowledge, and others are more easily able to discern the truth for themselves.
There is an old saying that a rising tide lifts all boats. Joyce Nalepka and friends should be encouraged to speak out prolifically, not only because she will eventually recognize the truth herself, but also because her opinions, framed by history and science and posted in the public domain, will help the truth be known despite the lies she has been conditioned to believe.Remember that while Cannabis has been stripped from the modern versions of the Bible, archeology proves the truth to those who once followed hypocrites blindly, if they are only shown the truth. Hemp is not mentioned in history schoolbooks, but eventually, the truth is exposed that cannabis seeds contain the highest palatable levels of the essential fatty acids linolenic and linoleic acid, which are chemically more healthy to consume than meat.Is it coincidence that in the first pages of Genesis that God is quoted as claiming that we have been given the seeds of herbs and fruit trees as meat? In my opinion, no. Is it a crime against humanity that sowing those same seeds are criminalized? Yes, of course. Now, are we going to corner one scorpion at a time, like killing one cockroach with a shoe? Or are we going to stop leaving out crumbs for them to feed on?Ugh, I must be drinking too much alcohol, because that was confusing. How about this: If a McDonald's opens up on the corner, eventually a Burger King starts up nearby. The Wendy's and/or Taco Bell that moves in only increases the traffic to the "food corner", rather than taking away business from the other stores. So Joyce and her crowd only help the larger debate by presenting their positions, because the customers (everyone else) eventually gravitate to the best service. In our case that means that other humans following the debate will prove to themselves that cannabis is safe, and that drug war is treason. - Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on March 20, 2002 at 11:54:02 PT
One More Thing
I know that when someone attacks me I go away and tune out and don't listen. I assume that prohibitionists have similar feelings. If we don't ever talk how can change come? I want dialogue open. I hope it will happen but if it doesn't it's ok too. I guess I look at the drug war differently then others. I just want peace in the drug war. That's all. What keeps me going is hope.
What's New in Drug Policy Reform
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by FoM on March 20, 2002 at 11:31:21 PT
I hope by me saying that she liked us I didn't get you or anyone upset. I have seen terrible attacks against the antis on line over the years and that won't solve anything but we don't do that here and it makes it easier to read what we write. I don't mean she will change her course but she might just listen.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on March 20, 2002 at 10:59:41 PT:
Uh, did anybody get that?
I'll repeat it for the benefit of those who missed it:from Jose's post (Comment #4)"Jose Melendez: Joyce Nalepka is alive and well. She's been busy with the case that's being heard today on school drug testing (Pottawatomie v. Earls et. al). I'm sure she will continuing her dialogue with you.Earls, people. The matter covered by the article, above. She is once again inserting her opinions sans facts, just as Anslinger did, into the legal machinery... which will be used to further erode our rights.And she 'likes' us? 'Likes' us? Such affection I find poisonous. Anybody who expects someone like Joyce to suffer a sudden "Saul of Tarsus" conversion and quit using her skills and our taxpayer-provided money to cage adults in the name of 'saving the children' should quit drinking; it's destroying the bare minimum of brain cells you have left.Remember, people, it's Joyce and her friends who fill the ranks of the anti 'forlorn hope'. The higher-ups in the anti food chain are only too well aware of their failures. Indeed, they owe their continued meal tickets to that failure. But they need drum-beaters like Joyce to do their dirty work in the trenches. Which she very happily obliges, not understanding the way in which she has and is continued to be used. As I keep saying, I'd pity such people if they weren't so dangerous.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Jose Melendez on March 20, 2002 at 04:34:01 PT:
test THIS!
Blind for a dayReading in her favorite newspaper that the District of Columbia's Department of Motor Vehicles, at 301 C St., NW, was transformed and modernized, Mary Ann Novak went to renew her driver's license "with some optimism." Sure enough, her assigned number indicated she would be processed in a city record four minutes, barely enough time to fill out the required forms. That is, until they noticed a small bandage on Miss Novak's foot, "and anyone with a bandage has to be cleared by D.C. medical services," a DMV officer informed her. "When I protested that I had just put on that bandage before coming down to renew my license and I could as quickly take it off, they sternly dismissed me and firmly directed me to Room 1033," she says. Arriving in Room 1033, Miss Novak took a paper number like those used at deli counters. The number she drew indicated there were about 40 people in front of her. "I noted that I was definitely the youngest person around," she tells Inside the Beltway, "until I was joined by a man who I learned had an artificial leg and was there for his annual handicap parking renewal." After nearly two hours of waiting, Miss Novak was called into a cubicle "with a sullen young women whom I had watched deny licenses to a steady stream of senior citizens, including many for failing the vision test," she says. "To my surprise, instead of being questioned on my foot bandage, I was tersely directed to take the vision test. "So, I shrugged and bent my head to the vision machine, crisply reading off the numbers to the clerk. To my further surprise, she stated that I couldn't get my license because I was legally blind and unable to see the correct row of numbers. I responded that there was no other row of numbers and that I wasn't blind, and when she asserted that there were lines above where I was reading, I told her it was too dark to read anything. She then handed me a form for my ophthalmologist to fill out, "From being too lame to drive and now too blind to see, this was beginning to feel almost biblical to me," says Miss Novak. "As I turned to go back into the clerk's cubicle, I saw her lean over and look into the vision machine. Suddenly, she called out that her machine was broken."As new light bulbs were being installed in her machine, the clerk calmly and without apology took Miss Novak's $30 and directed her to the next room for her license photo."Don't cry for me," the Washingtonian says, "cry for the many others who failed the eye test, especially the senior citizens."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Zero_G on March 20, 2002 at 01:03:18 PT
If Joyce likes me...
Does that mean she does not believe I belong in a cage, or does that mean she believes I shoud be in a cage for my own good?Most of the people who like me have my best interests at heart...confused and curious, open-hearted to possibilities,
Zero G
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on March 19, 2002 at 18:13:52 PT
Just a Note
I want to tell all of you that I think Joyce likes us here. I say that with sincerity. We might not agree on issues but we are trying to listen and be polite. It is easy to get angry when someone doesn't agree with us but it shows character if we can restrain ourselves and talk rationally. We all are trying to do that and I thank you all so much.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by FoM on March 19, 2002 at 18:05:24 PT
Joyce did tell me she was anxious to chat here but was busy with a Supreme Court Case and would soon post again. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on March 19, 2002 at 17:48:10 PT:
waging drug peace...
After a few tries at downloadin, I gave up and ran a whois and contacted the administrator listed there: I know I'm not supposed to post emails, I hope this one will be acceptable, and on topic.
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:46:00 -0800 
From: "Jose Melendez" airjose
To: Ri10159386 
CC: amercares 
Subject: Is Joyce OK? 
Joyce Nalepka used to post comments occasionally on,
and a few of us wondered if she is all right...
It's been a while, and considering the recent flurry of cannabis activity
in your area, I would have expected (maybe even hoped:) that she would
speak up on the issue. 
I understand we may be on opposite sides of this fence, but on cannabisnews,
we have a community feeling, and that includes looking out for each other,
even when we disagree.
Jose Melendez
Here is the reply:From: address deleted
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:22:44 EST 
Subject: Re: Is Joyce OK? 
To: sales 
Jose Melendez: Joyce Nalepka is alive and well. She's been busy with 
case that's being heard today on school drug testing (Pottawatomie v. 
et. al). I'm sure she will continuing her dialogue with you. Thank 
you for 
your concern.
Dick Bucher
Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Shishaldin on March 19, 2002 at 17:22:14 PT
No doubt, EJ,...
...that this system will be (already is!) abused. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and I'm sure they're flipping about in their graves to see our children excluded from the Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches or seizures. Last time I checked the Constitution, I hadn't seen any exclusions for age...might've been covered by the stain Asscroft left on it."It amazes me and appalls me that otherwise sexually conservative Americans are so gung ho on forcing teenagers take down their pants and expose themselves to adults..."Sexually conservative? Perhaps... How about REPRESSED? A scary example being the gaggle of priests recently busted for fondling lil' boys and girls *under the color of authority (once again)*, with their repressed sexuality manifesting itself in deviant, abusive, and always secretive ways. I've known more than a few teachers who had a "hard-on" (literally and figuratively) for some of my fellow classmates. This repressive situation, if allowed to go unchecked, will only make a bad situation worse.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on March 19, 2002 at 16:56:11 PT
Child Porn Sting
Not only teachers get far in thier careers able to hide their pedophilia: cops, judges, Priests, other religious types all got caught.It's an interesting array of people, I suppose: all supposedly role models and authority figures.How often does the child molester gain access to his victim because of his authoritarin position? Answer is most of the time children are molested by people they know and parents and othrs are always shocked by the station in life of the perpetrators.This is against the law and I have seen no rallies or websites or bumperstickes, or full-page ads in print media clamoring for an end to child porn laws. Child porn is a real crime that will remain a serious (I argue it's a violent crime, but I am an old stick in the mud) crime even after cannabis is legalized.Smoking pot is treated as worse than child molestation though: there will probably be no discussion of forfieture claims for the perpetrators property, nor am I aware of any sort of mandatory minimum sentencing for sex offenders. The younger perpetrators won't be threatened with loss of school loans. Ther will be no SuperBowl Ads linking child molestors to terrorists.The reality is that child molestors are potentially dangerous people with severe underlying psychiatric issues. They are a small fraction of our population.Pot smokers are a huge portion of our population, I estimate pot smokers outnumber the poulation of black people in america: black people make up about 12% of the US population. Cannabis Culture probably is about 20%. Laws criminalizing that many people cannot possibly be good or enforcable laws...can they? The urine testing scam is a vastly lucrative venture for the few that reap the profits of a nationwide attempt to harrass and ruin anyone and everyone for smoking or liking marijuana. This is why the DEA is capriciously is trying to eliminate hemp foods from the market at this point : to protect the testing industry.Lastly, urine testing STILL means you ar guilty until proven innocent.It is class warfare, and a fine example of violence (specifically sexual abuse, as EJ dexcribes) being inherent in a system. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on March 19, 2002 at 16:06:01 PT
Recent child porn bust and teen urine testing
That recent big child porn bust turned up a lot of school employees, in particular counselors and teachers. It was pretty disgusting to see how far into the teaching profession these people can get without being detected.It makes me wonder what's really behind this push to make routine inspections of the naked private parts of American teenagers under the guise of protecting them from drug abuse.Urine testing involves a sexual violation no matter how discretely it is performed, and there is no way to perform it discretely when you are trying to prevent cheating.It amazes me and appalls me that otherwise sexually conservative Americans are so gung ho on forcing teenagers take down their pants and expose themselves to adults who are in power over them in an institutionalized setting.It's a situation ripe for abuse.Just think of it -- a kid who maybe smoked a joint or two last week, he already has to take his trousers down to give the urine sample so he's already feeling somewhat physically violated and vulnerable, he fails the urine test, and the teacher in charge of the testing turns out to be some pedophile and uses the failed urine test as a means of sexually coercing the kid into providing sex or posing for photos.It's a situation completely ripe for abuse and I hope people will somehow be able to see that and prevent it.Otherwise there are bound to be some sad stories down the line. It's a situation ripe for abuse, and it will be abused.
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment