Heavy Hitters!

Test them all. Fire the dope smoking hippy teachers. I have been tested by the gubmint about 10 times in the last 3 years. Let's hold the teachers to SOME kind of standards. Thanks to the union, they dont have to actually be good at teaching, so at least encourage them to stay off illegal drugs.

I don't care WHO your bosses are, every teacher, bus driver, principal, counselor, even janitor should be willing to be tested for drugs! This whole "thou doth protest too much" fuss about it just sevrves to make me even more suspicious about teacher drug use. Especially at the higher levels!!

afan wrote:Indeed, you have the right to protest anything. We who are paying for it also have the right to laugh at the arguments teachers are using which make them look silly.

Now, can you address the question which several have asked here: why are teachers so "special" that they should be the only folks not subject to drug testing?

We are "special" because the government is the one who is trying to test us and we are intelligent enough to protest it. YOu can call us silly all you want - but it's just one more way for the government to interfere in our lives and I refuse to take it laying down. Period.

If we were Mouse Trap Builders that worked for the state and the state wanted to test us, then I would also be protesting that. It's not that we are TEACHERS, it's that the GOVERNMENT wants to test us.

So you'd be OK with a group of us citizens coming to your school demanding that you let us test you?

It's not that we are TEACHERS, it's that the GOVERNMENT wants to test us.

What's the name of the payor on your paycheck? Whoever issues the paychecks should have the right to drug test, whether it's the state of West Virginia, Wal-Mart or Zippy's Quik-Mart.

afan wrote:So you'd be OK with a group of us citizens coming to your school demanding that you let us test you?

Let me think on this one. I don't like knee-jerk answers - I'm thinking.....

Highland wrote:

It's not that we are TEACHERS, it's that the GOVERNMENT wants to test us.

What's the name of the payor on your paycheck? Whoever issues the paychecks should have the right to drug test, whether it's the state of West Virginia, Wal-Mart or Zippy's Quik-Mart.

Nope - there are differences between those employers you listed (private sector vs. government) and I believe that the Constitution is designed to protect us from the government whom I happen to work for. A signature on a check is only for bookkeeping purposes --- ask any Marine who signs their check (Navy dept.) and then ask them who is actually in charge of them.

And the simple reality is that every one of those Marines (even the ones with a whole lot more education and/or professional status than any teacher in or near Kanawha Co) is being drug tested periodically by the government. The difference is that the military sometimes conducts it's own drug tests while local governments out-source it to labs, the same ones used by WalMart and every other private sector employer in the area.

So in your opinion, nobody working for the government should/could be drug tested ?

Hounddog wrote:So in your opinion, nobody working for the government should/could be drug tested ?

That would seem to be the logical conclusion to where my argument was leading, wouldn't it? And yet somehow, even to me - that seems unsatisfactory.....I can certainly see the desire for the public to *know* that all who worked for the government, and for public, would be drug-free (illegal drugs, of course) and never under the influence of anything nefarious which could possibly impair their judgment or ability.

However, I can't help but feel that this is a slippery slope of logic which would open the door to allow testing for other situations under the guise of "safety for the public".

How well do you feel and function when your blood sugar is low/high? How about the real potential for stroke/heart attack for those with high cholesterol? and so on....then what do we do for those people who we now know can't be trusted to work because they have something which could impair their ability AT SOME POINT which COULD put someone else in danger up to and including their ability to drive a car. Stuff them into a home and put them on welfare?

We already have high feelings for those on welfare currently. Imagine that situation trebled.

Do we really want a nanny state?

For myself personally - it is an invasion of my body and a violation of constitutional rights for protection against unlawful search and seizure and especially since it's my government wanting to do it. I have done nothing wrong and refuse to waive my rights just to prove my innocence "for the sake of the children".

I love teaching - I love working with special needs children - I have been in the classroom for 14 years now and I know I do a damn good job. But I have rights and I didn't give them up when I agreed to become a teacher.

wvsasha wrote:

afan wrote:So you'd be OK with a group of us citizens coming to your school demanding that you let us test you?

Let me think on this one. I don't like knee-jerk answers - I'm thinking.....

ok - I"ve been thinking on this one. If a private group of parents wanted to form some sort of board and wanted to make drug testing available for teachers/etc to voluntarily come to "prove their innocence" then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

However, the way you worded your statement "demanded we let you test us" -- would i have given you probable cause for this testing? Would I reek of alcohol or be obviously stoned? If not....I would still have a problem with a "demand for a test" just because you asked for one.

So - is half a loaf better than none?

wvsasha wrote:...So - is half a loaf better than none?

Sure, half a loaf is always better than none! Teehee.

However, since several of us here have been subjected to drug testing for decades, at government expense, we can testify that it is not the slightest bit invasive. I used the same facilities to pee in a cup that I used to flush and wash my hands, so it was hardly even an inconvenience. My way of thinking is that if you use the facilities on government property, you are already giving them access to your urine, so what is the big deal of placing it into a cup instead of the commode?

Personally, I am much more concerned about government entities selling (or giving away) addresses and other personal information to private companies for marketing purposes than peeing in a cup. I had some trouble with the DNA sample they wanted a few years ago in the military but that was for identification purposes in case we were killed in action somewhere and shall we say ended up not looking like ourselves...

Judge Goodwin, I guess we now know who and what he stands for and who supports him.

I suppose that in the eyes of the teachers, the injunction is a win for their side.

My concern is if this issue goes through the court system and the teacher's union wins, what will this do to the existing
drug testing policies of other government entities?

Will all of the teachers feel much safer knowing that the police or fire department personel responding to their school could be under the influence of drugs?

What about when you call 911?

Do you really feel better knowing that the person on the other end of the phone may or may not get the information correct because of the influence of drugs?

One quote that I heard on the radio this morning from a teacher, sums up the teacher's position.

"It is an insult to our profession to be drug tested"

Let me translate this quote for the dumb masses:


"We are better than you, and just because you have to pee in a cup, doesn't mean we should."

Thank you local judge bought and paid for by the teachers union.

I would like to see the issue brought up in a general election. Would be very suprised if it did not pass by a HUGH margin.