I went to High School in Texas and they do not care about your personal privacy at all. They had random drug dog tests in the parking lot. So that means that students got punished for being 18 and having tabacco in their vehicles. Pretty stupid, no?

I actually grew up in a town west of DeLeon & attended school in another Texas town, and I can also attest to the loss of rights as a public school student.

I can recall at my high school, there were security cameras in every hallway to prevent truancy (which I can definately say that there were several people that still got away with it regardless of the cameras.)
Thanks for posting the article!

I'm having great difficulty being against the drug tests. Obviously I agree with the LP's position on drug policy, but as long as drugs are illegal then there is a responsibility to enforce against their usage, right? That whole nation of laws, not men sort of thing?

I understand that it's in invasion of privacy, but if kids have certain responsibilities while at school, why is requiring them not to be doped up such a big deal? I'm not trying to be contrarian here, I'm just unsure of the arguments against this sort of school policy. If anyone could inform me, either here or via email, I would appreciate it.

There can be no moral obligation to obey an immoral law. If there were we'd have to reopen all the Nuremberg cases and let them all off because they were merely obeying the laws of their time (ie just following orders).

It's also illegal for many of these students to have sex, so as long as those laws are on the books why not subject them to random full body cavity searches (for evidence of sexual activity) by any government thug with some illgotten authority at the school?

"There can be no moral obligation to obey an immoral law."

Excellent quote, kct2.

To clarify things, I believe that while private scools (as well as employers) should have every right to stipulate the conditions to which students should adhere. But private schools are a different issue, one in which civil liberties come into play.
Most of the students don't feel that they had any choice in attending a public (tragedy) educational facility. If it were a private decision, the parents would be able to choose what policies and attitudes they would like to instill in their children.
Besides, what type of Americans would we be raising that were raised on pissing into a cup every month since grade school? Honestly, I'm gagging just thinking about "Generation Sig Heil".

And honestly, I'd be worried about that predicament. There are far too many perverts out there to allow that kind of unwarranted invasive surveillance, necessary to ensure that nobody was "cheating" (very easy to do. Ever hear of the "Whizzinator"?).

I don't have kids, but it hasn't been that long that I've forgotten that I would've felt weird with quite a few male teachers I wouldn't have wanted observing my package.

Not a good idea at all. *shivers*

Marcus Brutus

Well, I suppose there is that whole Fith Ammendment thing...However, why not just limit it to drug testing? Why not also extend it to adults getting a driving license? We could also test DNA to make sure they haven't raped someone, take their fingerprints to ensure they haven't stolen anything, if they own a gun do a balistic fingerprint of their firearm.

OK, maybe I'm going overboard with those examples, but I can see this as a valid slippery slope argument. I don't like it one bit.

I think you had the 4th Amendment in mind, because the 5th deals with double jeopardy and not having to testify against oneself. Regardless... the 4th Amendment does allow an exception for probable cause, which makes me wonder: is several people showing up under-the-influence enough for probable cause? The kids have certainly been told "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," as stated in the 4th Amendment.

But, as I said, this really revolves around what constitutes probable cause. It seems to me that if the school believes too many kids are coming to class messed up on whatever substance, they might have probable cause. On the other hand, if they are testing them upon arriving at school, you can't justify that as "for safety reasons" because they have already driven intoxicated, high, or whatever; it would serve as a threat not to do something, which gets kinda shady in my opinion.

I know the courts have ruled that random drug searches on school property are okay because the student has willingly chosen to bring whatever substance to school with him, and the lockers are for the student's usage; it's at his discretion what he puts in them, but they are also provided by the school for optional usage. That doesn't make it right necessarily, but I'm trying to look at what kind of precedent exists.

I know just out of principle that these random drug tests violate privacy, and they (like so many other prevention programs) would probably end up doing great harm, so maybe I'm just trying to understand the whole argument better.

Since when is probable cause group related?

Some guys at my office, apartment complex, social club, have committed a crime and that's probable cause to search me?

Don't think so.

ktc,

Excellent point. I think I understand now.

(And no, that's not sarcastic!)

"There can be no moral obligation to obey an immoral law."

That just about sums it up. I 100% oppose this for the same basic reasons that I oppose prohibition.

The argument about not having a moral obligation to obey an immoral law is a good one, but it begs the question: how do you determine what is moral and immoral? The Constitution is a legal framework, but if you accept the natural rights philosophy behind the document, you have an idea of what is right and wrong. But, the document can also be seen as a reflection of natural rights and thus the supreme interpretation for the United States is not in something abstract like "natural law" but rather what is written in the Constitution itself.

That being said, how can one argue that prohibition or a particular drug policy is immoral? Again, I'm not trying to make a point; I'm just trying to figure out how one could go about making an argument involving "morality" without delving into the realm of mere personal preference rather than what constitutes a natural right.

Personally, I base such decisions on the concept of self ownership. I own me, and subsequently each person owns themselves.

From this bedrock principle the only logical, morally correct, laws are those which enforce the ZAP.

Now, I get your point. If each person is not morally obligated to obey laws they find immoral where does that leave the "rule of law"? Quite frankly, I don't know. Perhaps in the dustbin of antiquated political thought.

But when it comes right down to it what is law? In a democracy it's mob rule. In a dictatorship it's the whim of one man.

Does this make me an anarchist? Perhaps in the abstract sense. However, in the practical sense I believe we need laws and law enforcement, but those must be limited to the ZAP.

What is ZAP? I imagine, from the context, that it has to do with "the right to swing my fist ends where the next person's nose begins."

Yes. The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) or Non Aggression Principle (NAP), two different names for the same thing.

The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) states:

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to INITIATE force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation.

The ZAP is a personal philosophy intended to guide the interactions of human beings. It is a philosophy, not a law.

The ZAP is a way of living and thinking. It provides an immutable "moral compass" by which to live one's life. One may simply ask oneself: "Does the action I wish to take initiate force against anyone?" If the answer is "no," you may feel free to take that action. If the answer is "yes," you are morally prohibited from doing so.

The ZAP is the only personal philosophy that makes no exceptions, yet works in literally every situation. It can be applied equally at the level of international relations and between sqabbling children.

The ZAP does not take the place of other philosophies or religions. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and Nihilists can all follow the ZAP in addition to their other beliefs.

This is NOT pacifism. While you are probibited from INITIATING force, you are completely free to respond to it's initiation against you as necessary.

"...how do you determine what is moral and immoral?..." If it is PERSONALLY invasive, it is an immoral law. Or as previously stated "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

The rule of law, is intended to be based on reason and respectful of individual rights. "Democracy" in its pure form is nothing more than mob rule, lynch law if you prefer. It is initiated violence (violence doesn't have to be physical-moral, mental or psychological equally qualifies) against human dignity and the rights of man. The flaw in your logic Marcus remains in your concept of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". That is statism at its purest, that is why laws like this are immoral.

To the students, I would REFUSE TO COMPLY. Walk if you need to, park in public parking and tell the school to SHOVE their privilages.

As a society we need to start refusing "privilages" and TAKE back our rights, forcably if needs be.

Slashdot is running a discussion on the drug war. Clearly many people support the libertarian stance on this, how can we tap into this energy?