The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
New Jersey H.S. Institutes Mandatory Breathalyzer Tests...
Zahaladeen
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
STORY: http://wcbstv.com/local/pequannock.high.school.2.622734.html
This of course comes on the heels of a local HS here in WA that has instituded random drug tests for students.
It makes me wonder... I understand the need to keep schools safe, and Lord knows my children will never darken the doorway of a public school because here in America they are such a wreck, but should people under 18 years of age be compelled to turn in evidence against themselves by the state?
As a pinko-commie journalist, my first answer is no. Then again, after I think about how much damage one of these kids behind the wheel could do, with a fifth of krunk-juice in them and texting. Sure, why not?
...but I'm not sure that should be done at school. However, I am willing to be convinced.
This of course comes on the heels of a local HS here in WA that has instituded random drug tests for students.
It makes me wonder... I understand the need to keep schools safe, and Lord knows my children will never darken the doorway of a public school because here in America they are such a wreck, but should people under 18 years of age be compelled to turn in evidence against themselves by the state?
As a pinko-commie journalist, my first answer is no. Then again, after I think about how much damage one of these kids behind the wheel could do, with a fifth of krunk-juice in them and texting. Sure, why not?
...but I'm not sure that should be done at school. However, I am willing to be convinced.
Zahaladeen on
0
Posts
I don't see the problem here it's the same as metal detectors and a frisk to enter the dance and make sure shit doesn't go down IMO.
There's a world of difference between "I'll monitor all your phone calls and emails but trust me i won't do anything sinister with the info" and "Sign this contract stating that you understand alcohol is not allowed at school functions and that we will check and make sure"
If you're underage the administration of your school is your guardian until you go home and they have a legitimate interest in making sure alcohol is not at their campus and related events.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
God dammit I'm tired of America's zero tolerance mentality when it comes to things like these. Instead of teaching kids safe and responsible usage, they're teaching "you can't drink anything at all until 21, then go out and have as much as you want."
I'm not so sure I agree with this. I think the schools place should be to enforce a zero tolerance policy with alcohol. First of all, it's illegal for anyone under 21, period. Second, they want to keep it out of the schools, both in an educational and social aspect. Those kids are welcome to be idiots and go out and drink and do whatever the hell they want off school grounds. No one is stopping them there. (barring the cops of course)
I do agree that soccer mom comment is complete crap though.
Actually in many states (not sure about Jersey) it's legal to drink in private under the supervision of a guardian. That's more what I was thinking of when I mentioned "safe and responsible usage."
Also, can we nominate "I don't think people will like, drink anymore," as the most profound remark made on this whole story?
On the other hand if a democratic country decides to ban drinking and really wants to put that much effort into it, well, will of the people and all that? Kids will just do other drugs that aren't picked up.
Having cleared up your point a little though, yes, I agree that if stated adopted that policy, where a guardian could be responsible to make sure driving didn't occur or something, then a good "self responsibiliy" approach to alchohol would be better than "one drink killed my pregant mom" pictures in school books...
edit: what ninja bot said makes more sense, not the guy who showed up to school drunk...
Yes but I think that is part of the problem. I'd be fine with this if it was instituted in the manner of "If you show up drunk to these school functions, we'll discipline/etc you" because that results in (obvious) unruly and disruptive behavior and kids that continue to get drunk may have a problem with alcohol to be able to address. But in this instance they're blanket targeting kids even if they had a large enough sip of alcohol for it to register on the Breathalyzer and figuring anyone with a reading outside of that as having a problem with alcohol or a potential to cause a problem when there's no basis in fact for that assertion.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yeah, it really doesn't do much other than cause a minor inconvenience.
Less reasons to attent school functions.
That's not really the way things worked out at my school.
I don't suppose that would work too well at a Catholic school.
actually, I believe it's illegal to purchase under 21.
With parental consent at least, you can drink before then.
EDIT: beaten to the punch
Teaching kids that school is a place where you'll be treated like a criminal even if you've done nothing wrong?
Yeah, that's a great idea.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Or just *gasp* skip the day after. You'd have to be an absolute moron to get caught by a test like this.
Telling kids that alcohol at school functions is not tolerated and that the administration is serious about it is worth hurting some feelings.
I had to go through a metal detector, have my ID displayed, and there were security guards at my HS i think they can deal with a breath test if they want to go to the dance.
Then confiscate alcohol when it's found and escort any kids under the influence out.
It's already been well-established that this is pointless. First, it doesn't stop underage drinking. Second, teenage drinking itself is not a problem, it's when kids act stupid when drunk or drink to excess. So instead of teaching kids, "You can do what you want to your own body as long as you keep it under control and don't hurt yourself or others," we're teaching them a different message. I'm not 100% sure what that message is but I suspect it's something along the lines of, "Sobriety is a teenage thing. Alcohol is an adult thing. We don't care about the consequences of your drinking, just the age you're doing it at, so just wait a few years and once you hit 21 (or get to college) you can drink yourself into a stupor if you want." Or maybe it's along the lines of, "It's not your conduct we care about. We just want to remind you, at every opportunity legally possible and with every method at our disposal, that until you graduate or drop out, we own you."
Personally, I'm a big fan of waiting until somebody actually breaks the rules before treating them like they've broken the rules. But, hey, if you want to put the cart before the horse, that's fine too. That seems to be the modus operandi of the public school system in our country right now.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So why are policies getting TOUGHER?
High school students are treated like little children day in, day out. Not that that's right, but this is nothing special.
In my admittedly limited experience, the people who come up with policies like this are control freaks who got into school administration because they enjoy executing power over powerless people, and they use safety as a convenient rationalization to convince themselves and others that they're not simply exercising control for the sake of control.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, which is why if it's even remotely financially possible, I will not send my kids to a public school. Two of my major goals in life are that I live in an area with good secular private schools and that I make enough money to send my kids to one of them.
Just because I was treated like cattle doesn't mean I want my kids treated that way. I'd like my kids growing up to believe as I do that sometimes dignity and privacy outweigh the illusion of safety.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The ones that think this is right are the fundamentalist people; who do not have to be religious; who believe their morals and views are the best ones for everyone else, prime example is tipper gore.
Hell most of the people know that this isnt totally right but its close, its the schools choice but they could do better.
Actually teaching teenagers; not kids; about alcohol and the proper handle it; along with sex; would do wonders for this country. but zero tolerance and straight out punishment is all wrong.
The private schools around me were atrocious. Most were religious but all were controlling and orwellian.
The public high school I went to was just incredible. Cool teachers, really laidback atmosphere, and great education and environment.
Don't dismiss all public schools in the country. It depends on the school. Do your research before sending your kids to a school and don't make blanket statements like that; it will only limit your options.
Underage drinking is a tricky situation though. It's my understanding that in most states it is illegal. Period. Some, I've heard, have it allowed to be consumed under adult supervision. In the case that it's illegal, fullstop, I'm not sure how you could justify teaching teenagers about alcohol and how to handle it when they're barred from drinking it outright.
But I suppose it's a similar situation to teaching a teenager to drive. Hell, you can even teach an 8 year old sitting in the car seat the logistics of driving a car, even though the kid is years away from being able to drive it.
In short, I'm torn. What exactly do you propose that we teach teenagers in resposne to drinking?
This. If I when I have kids of elementary and high school age I can find public schools of near the quality I went to, I'd send them there in heartbeat. You just have to do your research.
Im not saying it should be made legal, but I think the ages we associate things with could be switched. Like voting, driving, armed service, and drinking. But thats a different beast.
What I think schools/parents; yes this should be a joint effort kind of thing; should teach their kids is how to handle themselves in the presence of alcohol and its influences. Same thing with sex, most kids by highschool know how and have in some sort or another experienced sexual acts. They need to be taught how to be responsible about it, hell i knew what an vagina and penis where and knew how sex worked in middle school.
Or certain cough medicines and mouth wash. To quote a political commentator, "the only thing we should have zero tolerance for is zero tolerance".
The problem with this approach is that it assumes I'm going to have sufficient timely information on which to base a decision. When my high school decided that we didn't deserve lockers and ripped them out, they did so in an August district meeting just a few weeks before school started. When they decided to start randomly interrupting class with drug-sniffing dogs, nobody had any forewarning of the policy until after it had been finalized and announced. Nobody knew that they were hiring a tow truck company to slim-jim and search cars in the parking lot until after it started happening. The idea that they should make a rule that nobody is allowed to stop or stand in the hallways at any time, enforced by hall monitors who would bark at us "KEEP MOVING! NO STOPPING! YOU IN THE BLUE SHIRT! KEEP WALKING!" came about mid-year. And nobody knew when the out of order signs went up that they intended on locking all of the central boys' bathrooms indefinitely (leaving only two open at opposite sides of the campus, making it impossible to actually take a piss before getting to certain classes on time), the signs just never came down all year.
The decision to send your kids to X or Y school needs to be made early. It affects your housing, it affects your budget, if you intend to send your kids to a private high school you need to start saving for it when they're in grade school. And for some of the best secular private schools in my area you need to make sure you enroll early because they are so popular. So if a public school starts to make some behind-closed-doors eleventh-hour decisions, it's not exactly a reasonable options to just yank my kids out and send them to a different school unless I was already fully prepared to do so.
And besides that, some of this shit was happening at all the high schools in my district, and a little bit of it at all the high schools in my region. There was no plurality; if I were to say to my kids "okay, we'll send you to a different public school" that statement would have no relevance because all the nearby public schools were being managed by the same people. At least with private schools, if I'm living in an area with a number of good secular private schools (like, say, San Francisco) I have some options.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I can tell you that my experience with a public school is almost the exact opposite. Heck, the biggest change we have had recently was the change from mods to periods. Boys bathrooms get locked only after they get vandalized, and they get reopened a week later. There's an ID rule, but nobody really pays attention to it, and the biggest thing it controls is computer access.
Seriously, there are such things as good public schools, but you do have to research these things. I'm sorry your experience is so fantastically shitty though.
As for the breathalyzer thing, I don't see how this is an issue, just don't go to the dance.
"Lived." I've been out of high school for about 12 years now.
I have stories. Hoo baby, do I have stories.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This mentality is the root of the problem. The most common complaint you will hear from disciplinarians, parents, and teachers is about how much trouble they're having "reaching out" to teens, and getting them to trust them. Telling them "we're teaching you to be an adult" while at the same time treating them like a petulant and guilty child, is baseless and counterproductive. Moreover, it's a spit in the face of the teens who DO treat alcohol respectfully.
At the college I went to, there were numerous persons who were raised by control freaks, and sent to control freak highschools, and instead of teaching those people to treat alcohol and sex responsibly, they had the "zero tolerance" "abstinence only" educations. Guess what happened to those people when they got to college (unfortunately, especially the girls)? They got way in over their heads with booze and sex, and it was a fucking mess.
Same goes for drug education like DARE. I haven't seen what the program is like recently, but when I went to gradeschool (Catholic), we got lecture about how one joint would fry your brain, and how one drink would ruin your life. Nothing spurs curiosity of a taboo substance like you know, making it taboo. Moreover, I seem to remember the DARE "President" of our class getting busted for showing up compeltely wasted to highschool functions. Oops.
In short, "zero tolerance" is an exercise in irrational wishful-thinking; based on the fairy-tale assumption that teens can be magically shielded from the terrors of alcohol abuse, and then somehow have a fucking clue how to handle it responsibly when they get older once they figure out that everything they were told was horseshit. This also includes the sutff that wasn't horseshit but out of spite for having been lied to any of that prescient knowledge gets chucked out of spite.
The reality is that teens are most likely going to do things that their parents don't want them to, and instead of pretending this isn't going to happen, they should be given the tools and the trust of their parents that they'll make the right decisions. More often then not, this will work too. My parents have done several things poorly in my upbringing (religion), but the smartest thing they ever did was sit me down and tell me "We don't care if you call us at 4am looking for a ride because you're drunk, we'll give it to you- no questions, no lectures, no yelling. We would rather get that call from you then from the morgue saying they need an ID on a body." And you know what? I never even had to make that call. 8-)
EDIT: I am so fucking sorry Feral.
Wait, what?
Who?
I don't remember that.
The school has a legitimate interest in making sure that it's events are alcohol-free. Breathalyzers are an intrusive way to go about it (rather than increased chaperoning and supervision), but if a school were regularly having problems with kids pre-partying and getting wasted then some action would certainly be warranted. That doesn't seem so farfetched either, as I've heard plenty about schools that had to ban water bottles, because too many people filled them with clear liquor.
I'm all for lowering the drinking age, and for reasonable alcohol education, but I don't really think that turning a blind eye to underage drinking is really the best way to go about it--especially wildly irresponsible underage drinking, like filling your water bottle with vodka (wtf?).