Document text
61 °F Forecast | Road Cams Friday, May 27, 2005 Today's News | Shop Our Valley | Tempo | Health | Community | Home Delivery | Contact Us SECTIONS Home Page Local News Sports Business Obituaries Life Opinion Tempo AP News Weather Classified Archives Site Map SPECIAL SECTIONS Since We Asked Britt Festival Outdoor Journal Menu Guide How To Guide Health Biz Connection Readers' Choice Real Estate Showcase Real Estate Guide Joy Magazine Homelife Magazine Wedding Guide Passport to the Rogue Valley SHOP OUR VALLEY AutoFinder HomeFinder JobFinder Classified Place an ad TOP JOBS EXTRA Ashland News NIE Personals Movie Times TV Times E The People Volunteer Moving here? eSouthernOregon CUSTOMER SERVICE FAQ's Advertise with us Home Delivery Employment Contact Us Media Kit Oregon Road Conditions & Cams Email Story to a Friend May 15, 2005 Since WE Asked: A Different ‘Test’ For Students? When a group of Medford parents brought a petition to the school board, asking for an official look into the possibility of randomly testing students for drugs, they knew the suggestion would spark a debate. So did we. That’s why we made it our question last week ... and you folks didn’t fail us, as we received dozens of responses with various opinions on the subject. After you have had a chance to read through them, please take a moment to answer this week’s question. But for now, we asked: Should schools be allowed to randomly test students for drugs? Advertisement Yes, especially students participating in sports. Random tests might help alleviate a life long problem (and) allow parents to get their children help. — Dawn D., Gold Hill Yes. Employers have that ability. Schools should too; but with personal rights protected and treatment options and counseling, not expulsion, mandatory for students. — Jackie, Talent Absolutely not. If adults cannot be randomly tested, then students should not be held to standards that adults are unwilling to be held to themselves. If parents want to drug test their children, they should take them to their family doctor and ask for it there. — Jamie, Medford Sure, test the kids — then the teachers, then the principal, then the school board, then the bus drivers, then ... then ... then, etc. — Bill S., Eagle Point I would be all in favor of school drug testing. If it worked. But it doesn't. What it does do is send a strong message to kids. The message that we adults don't trust them. The message that their word and their integrity is worth less than their urine. The message that the government has the right to intrude into every facet of our private lives. Ask yourself, who would be more likely to favor random drug tests meant to ensure lockstep purity, Jesus or Hitler? — Greg F., Cyberspace Testing students should be considered when the entire drug testing program is used from the top down first. We may not want to believe it but it would shock everyone if the first people tested were the administrators and civic leaders, the police and law profession, our medical professionals, and so on. ... I have no ax to grind, just would like everyone to take a real look at reality. Drive into any city in this land and before you see a school, or church, or police station, you will see a Drug Store. Every time I see a sign on a vehicle that says "Our Company Drug Free" I want to laugh. Saving our children starts at home, if anyone is there to spend time with them. — D.B., Applegate Schools should definitely be allowed to randomly test for drugs on their students. How else do we expect to keep our public schools safe? Although it's ultimately up to the parents to expect more of their children. If they don't enforce drug laws firsthand, then who else will? — Jennifer S., Central Point Randomly testing students or employees for drugs is to assume they are guilty and must prove their innocence. That's not American. Testing must be limited to those who exhibit signs of drug abuse. Those who function and perform normally should not be subject to America's new witch hunt. — Darryl E., Eagle Point I don't think the school should be paying just because parents don't trust their children. If the parents feel that strongly about it, let them take on the responsibility and have their own children randomly tested. Do these parents think the rest of the taxpayers are big, deep pockets? — Don B., Medford Why random drug tests? If they know there is a problem, then they know who the problem kids are, right? Just test those kids and save the school district some money. Either way, random or profiling, they're just asking for huge legal problems. Hmmmm, public random drug tests. What's next, cameras in our homes? — Bruce, Medford YES!!! There are too many children in school today that are on drugs. If the parents want them tested, they should have to pay for it. I feel that every student should be tested at least three times a year for the sake of the school and other students. I also feel that with open campus that adds to the problem of drugs because every day you see these kids light up their pot once they are off the school grounds. Closed campus for all students. — Kathy M., Medford OR Absolutely! One more step should be added though. When a kid tests positive for drugs then the parents or guardians should be tested also. Kids don't get their dope just from other kids or a dealer. Might help Mom or Dad to be more watchful. — Alan F., Trail No. Drug testing has absolutely no effect on students' drug use, as shown by the largest study ever done on the topic, which was federally funded. Besides, shoving students into bathroom stalls while their teachers stand outside the door listening for the sounds of urination is invasive andembarrassing. — Tom Angell, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, 1623 Connecticut Ave NW; Suite 300; Washington, DC 20009 Sure, test students, but only if you also randomly drug test the teachers and administration, parents and pastors, bus drivers and coaches, etc. Rather than singling out students, how about we treat equally those responsible to teach, train, guide, and influence them. The results may enlighten us all. — Rick B., formerly of Central Point NO. Random drug testing violates privacy in a most degrading fashion. It is most effective in detecting the least-toxic substance, marijuana. Would the concerned Medford parents prefer their children choose the less-detectable and second most popular form of substance-abuse, huffing? — Rick S., San Jose, Calif. I believe this is a good idea. We all want our children to be safe and with random drug testing, I would hope this would help keep more kids away from drugs. This might have an influence for them not to take a chance at getting caught. — Lisa H., Medford It's the parents job to monitor their kids and make sure they aren't doing drugs. Why should taxpayers have to give up their hard earned money to support a program to do what parents should be doing already? — Krissy C., Medford Realize that drug use is a problem, but educators should educate — not police — the students. Testing general student population tramps on the 1st Amendment. — Robert J., Phoenix The use of random drug testing is schools will serve no good purpose, but will train our youth to do without their full complement of civil rights. Given the current plans and goals of the federal government, a bunch of adults who have been trained since school to do without their civil rights will be more easily made compliant to the will of the government than a bunch of adults who know and are protective of them. So indeed yes, test them. If we truly love our President and want a real Christian America, drug testing as training for compliance to governmental dictate can never begin too soon. — Laird F., Williams Since the publication of the definitive "Making Sense of Student Drug Testing, Why Educators are Saying No" (January 2004) written by Fatema Gunja, Alexandra Cox, Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D. and Judith Appel, JD, the key flaws in random student drug testing have been exposed. Simply put, evidentiary coercive interventions fail to accomplish the 'deterrence' aims intended. The 24-page report facilitated by ACLU and the Drug Policy Foundation discusses promising alternatives to continuing paradigms of failure. I commend it to your readers and trust it helps inform parents and caregivers about how best to address drug use among young people in your community. — Blair Anderson, Director, Educators for Sensible Drug Policy, Christchurch, New Zealand By all means, YES! Maybe we can nip this drug problem in the bud before it takes hold of them! As a mother of three, I would fully support random drug testing in the schools; I would welcome it! — Lisa M., Medford Yes, with parental consent. — JLD, Central Point If there is a reasonable belief that a student or group of students are under the influence of a controlled substance then by all means YES!! Schools are suppose to be for education not someplace to go to "get high." — Michelle, Medford This Week’s Question Led by Commissioner David Gilmour of the Jackson County Board of Commissions, the board has favored the removal from office of Justice of the Peace Robert King of Gold Hill, who was cited for possession of one-eighth of an ounce of marijuana. King has refused to resign and last week, Gilmour’s call for a citizen-led recall effort has been shown to have not gathered momentum. Jackson County Clerk Kathy Beckett estimates that a recall election would cost in the vicinity of $25,000. With this as a backdrop, we ask: Should the Jackson County Board of Commissioners continue its efforts to have Justice of the Peace Robert King resign or be recalled? Please try to keep your answers brief and on the issue at hand. Responses received without your name and town can not be considered for publication. All responses will appear on the Web site a week from today. You may submit your answer by using the form here on the Web site, or you may respond directly to [email protected] Mail Tribune Home | Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life | Opinion AP News | Archives | Site Map | Community | Classified Copyright © 1997-2005 Mail Tribune, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Website Feedback Free Music Downloads Conference Calls - $50/Month Home Security Systems Trunks, Footlocker, Trunk, Footlockers home equity loans helzberg diamonds Distance Education Diamonds Online Poker Auto Insurance Mesothelioma Slippers Student Loans tcg student loan consolidation teleconferencing Website Design & Marketing Memory Foam Mattress w2 forms Mortgage Calculator Free Home-Loan Referrals Payday Loans Advertisement s