Primary schools introducing random drug testing

[placidfemme]

From the Herald today:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10390168


Primary schools introducing random drug testing

9.15am Friday July 7, 2006


Cannabis use among schoolchildren is forcing primary schools to implement random drug testing, according to the School Trustees' Association.

Speaking at the association's national conference in Christchurch this week, an association adviser Ron Mulligan said drug tests were being increasingly used in schools for children of all ages.

Last year there were more than 5000 student suspensions, of which 29 per cent were drug-related.

While most drug use was at secondary school level, there were increasing numbers of primary school pupils using drugs, Mr Mulligan told Radio New Zealand.

He said boards could either require students to produce a clean test before letting them back into school, or reinstate them on the condition they submit to random tests.

- NZPA


That is so shocking! :gob:

Firstly.... how old are kids in primary school? Between 5 and 12 right?

How do kids that age afford the drugs in the first place... I don't know how much tinny's (sp) cost, but obviously a 50 bag costs $50... do they save thir pocket money for a few weeks? Do they steal stuff to sell to pay for the drugs? (which raises another worrying issue).

How can parents not notice bloodshot eyes and the smell of pot, and the increased eating from the munchies... the lack of interest and obvious "stoned" distant look...

[James Deuce]

Time to send the kids to school drunk instead of stoned methinks.

[sAsLEX]

Just "borrow" it off on of the 12 adults passed out in the house

[placidfemme]

Just "borrow" it off on of the 12 adults passed out in the house

well... they havn't mentioned which social economic class these 29% of students come from.

[sunhuntin]

what about that kid that was on tv a few weeks back....that tv 3 fat show. he was 12 i think...and been smoking since age 4. obviously stole the initial cigs, but then mum started buying/giving them to him.

that is sick that PRIMARY kids are doing drugs.....hell...when i was in primary the only problem was everyone wanted to do cooking, lol. and people wonder why i dont want kids? why bring em in to a world where 5 year olds are suspected of drug taking. that is truly a heart breaking thought.

[The_Dover]

Yeah, this is shocking.

I couldn't roll a joint until I was at least 13.

[placidfemme]

what about that kid that was on tv a few weeks back....that tv 3 fat show. he was 12 i think...and been smoking since age 4. obviously stole the initial cigs, but then mum started buying/giving them to him.

that is sick that PRIMARY kids are doing drugs.....hell...when i was in primary the only problem was everyone wanted to do cooking, lol. and people wonder why i dont want kids? why bring em in to a world where 5 year olds are suspected of drug taking. that is truly a heart breaking thought.

it is a scary thought bringing kids into this day and age... its not really fair on them is it... I didn't watch that program about the fat kids (franly I'm sick to death of watching fat people on tv... they are really ripping the shit out of it ATM), but I did see the shorts and I agree that that is disgusting. A child of 4 years old CAN be controlled by an adult. Thats just pure weakness on behalf of the "loving" parent.

[placidfemme]

Yeah, this is shocking.

I couldn't roll a joint until I was at least 13.

I couldn't roll anything until I was 19 lol (used one of those stupid rolling machines when I changed from tailers to rollies) took me about a year to learn to roll a decent smoke that wasn't too loose/tight or the damn filter would fall out...

So you get this: :first:

And I get this :second: hehe (yay I finally won something!!! even if it was self awarded)

[sAsLEX]

well... they havn't mentioned which social economic class these 29% of students come from.

doesnt take a degree in rocket surgery or brain science to figure it out though does it!

[Squeak the Rat]

Cool, I need to score a hundy bag. I might pop down to the local primary school and see if I can get a new dealer.......:doobey:


Faark that is a sad story......

[yungatart]

Some of these kids are given the drugs by their parents - hell, there's even stories of parents blowing cannabis smoke up the nose of their baby - to keep it quiet and calm, y'kno. Some kids steal it off their folks and some find it lying around the house.... No its not fair on the kids to be brought up in that environment but as long as we, as a society, keep paying incompetent, uncaring parents to breed, that is the kind of results we can expect.

[The_Dover]

hell, there's even stories of parents blowing cannabis smoke up the nose of their baby - to keep it quiet and calm, y'kno.

Ahh, the old kiwi ingenuity.

[sAsLEX]

Some of these kids are given the drugs by their parents - hell, there's even stories of parents blowing cannabis smoke up the nose of their baby -

modern day whiskey on the gums to stop the crying when teething

[Lou Girardin]

Are those parents insane?
Do they realise how much a 9 year old with the munchies will eat?
It'll send them to the poorhouse.

[sunhuntin]

*puts head down and cries at the sadness of the whole deal*

[Maha]

And what will happen to the people...... when the day come's and the child no longer owes his existance to his two biological parents ......:doobey:

[Skyryder]

I make no bones about my opposition to random testing.................of anything.

The idea of random drug testing came about in the early sixties and was a requirement of federal and state employees in the United States. Since then it has spread into the work force in the guise of safety issues. When I was at Redbus, management along with the AWUNZ blessing, was going to introduce random drug testing into the Redbus workforce. From a staff of about three hundred drivers I was the only one to oppose this. As a committed trade unionst vehemently I might add.

Air New Zealand won a court case that allowed for random drug testing within its workforce. I have read the complete ruling on this some time ago but if i remember corrictly the ruling only applied to 'related industries.' That's not the exact wording but is as close as I can recall.

On the surface random drug testing would appear to be an acceptable practice and I do admit a stroang case can be argued for it. I's just i can argue a stronger one against it. (I'm not going to here as Ii would have to find all my notes on this whever they are) But as far as the general public go it is still against the law. Some argue that non evedential drug testing is random testing. I hold the opinion that it is not. A positive on a non evedential test gives reasonable cause, for a lawful evidential drug test, and this in my view is an entirely different matter.

I would be very surprised if any School Board does have the right to impose randon drug testing on it's pupils. It may be that this could run counter to the schools charter and if so the board could be in breach of it's obligations not only to the school community as a whole but also to its pupils.

I hope some parents have the balls to fight this.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Education and Crime: English supports school-child drug testing - National’s Education spokesman, Bill English, says he supports principals and boards of trustees who choose to use drug testing in their schools. “These schools are making an effort to deal with a serious social issue – National backs them in this, and parents and communities should too. from
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0607/S00074.htm



What English and other proponents of random testing do not fail to recognise is the fundamental principle of trust. [BOnce you introduce random testing you are in effect saying that YOU DO NOT TRUST[/B] That any politician can adovcate this principle to the elcorate at large shows just how much respect they have for the people that they claim to represent.

Skyryder

[placidfemme]

A 9 and 11 year doing pot! :nono:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10390889


Brothers save school from fire started by young drug smokers

Wednesday July 12, 2006


A pair of cannabis smokers aged 9 and 11 almost set a Dunedin school on fire yesterday.

The day was saved by another pair of youngsters who raised the alarm after jumping on their bicycles to investigate the smoke.

Police are now trying to find where the young smokers got the cannabis.

Senior Sergeant Steve Aitken, of Dunedin, said the boys were smoking in the grounds of Halfway Bush School about 10.30am when they set a bush on fire.

Police had spoken to the boys after the incident.

"It looks like they have acquired some cannabis and were having a wee puff when things got out of control."

It was very unusual, and particularly concerning, for police to come across children that young smoking cannabis, he said.

"Obviously this incident highlights some other issues we are very worried about."

The boys would be referred to the police youth section and inquiries were continuing about how they acquired the drug.

Fire hero Shannon Rowe, aged 12, of Halfway Bush, said he been practising what to do in case of a fire since he could walk.

All the training came in useful yesterday when his quick thinking saved his old school from the threat of burning down.

The Kaikorai Valley College Year 8 pupil was playing with his brother Dylan, 10, at their home when they saw what appeared to be a classroom at their old primary school on fire.

The boys immediately rode over to investigate. When they found the bush on fire, Shannon called 111 on his cellphone.

Their mother Michelle Rowe said the boys had practised fire drills at home since they were little.

"They know all of the evacuation points in the house if there is a fire, it is just so important, especially the way our house used to be, it didn't have a lot of exit points."

Senior Station Officer Ian Anderson, from Roslyn, said the fire could have been a lot worse, as the bush, part of a shrub border behind one of the school classroom blocks, was only centimetres from the wooden window frames of the building.

- OTAGO DAILY TIMES


Seems in this case random drug testing would be good

[James Deuce]

Random testing of anything is wrong.

Either pass a law making drug testing compulsory so we can have a proper revolution for decent reasons, or let school teachers beat kids senseless and shut the hell up.

[placidfemme]

or let school teachers beat kids senseless and shut the hell up.

I don't know about beating them senseless, but corporal punishment should be brought back...

[Drunken Monkey]

I don't know about beating them senseless, but corporal punishment should be brought back...

I'm not so sure about that. a) I grew up ok, and I didn't go to schools that had corporal punishment (was in Aussie while they were still doing it here). b) Even if my hypothetical kids were playing up, I will be the one to dish out punishment. If some teacher lays a hand on 'em, I'll be dealing to the teacher.

[placidfemme]

I'm not so sure about that. a) I grew up ok, and I didn't go to schools that had corporal punishment (was in Aussie while they were still doing it here). b) Even if my hypothetical kids were playing up, I will be the one to dish out punishment. If some teacher lays a hand on 'em, I'll be dealing to the teacher.

hmmm... Its just a matter of opinion really. I wouldn't be too happy if my kid (hypothetically) got canned at school for doing something wrong, but at the same time, if they deserved it, well that will teach them. Being canned at school is more of a (whats the word?) humiliation tatic, everyone knows you got dealt to, they all know you deserved it, and it encourages others not to do the same.

When I was at school (I'm talking high school - Form 1 -7), boys got canned only if it was a serious offense (with girls they had the option of being canned or being suspended) and the teachers did not do the canning.

The student would be sent to the headmasters office (or head lady if it was a girl that was in trouble), the teacher would lay thier case as to why they think the student deserves more than a manual (physical punishment, like picking up litter, cleaning classrooms and the like... which is usually a 4 hour punishment during an afternoon that the student does not have afternoon activities) or a detention (which again is a 4 hour punishment). The headmaster (or head lady) then questions the said student and makes an informed decision on what punishment is appropriate (taking into consideration the amount of offenses this student has, the teacher [because most headmasters know which teachers are just nagging old farts and which teachers arn't] and the circumstances this incident happen in).

If the headmaster (or head lady) decides that this student deserves to be canned, they then decide on the amount of canes (usually 2, 4 or 6 of the best) depending again on the circumstances.

If it is a boy they get canned in the headmasters office with usually the teacher or other school offical as witness that the canning was not excessive (drawing blood, more than 6 whacks e.t.c).

If its a girl and they end up deciding that canning is the best option they give the girl the option of being canned or being suspended.

*was canned twice*

I think canning students is right. They need to learn that there are consequences (sp) for thier actions, not mommy and daddy running to thier defense all the time, because then the students attitude towards the school is "you can't touch me, you can't do anything so I'll do as I please"... which is what happens now. IMO

[Ixion]

Quite so.

Parents who say "if my child needs punishment I'll punish him/her" never do.

As a result there are now so many children who believe that they will never have to face any consequences for their actions. The school cannot punish for misbehaviour, the parents will not . Until they get caught throwing rocks off motorway overbridges.

Incidentally has anyone else noticed that it is the parents of the most obnoxious and insufferable brats who are the first to berate parents who do punish, and to claim that their little darling is the most well behaved child under the sun .

[placidfemme]

Quite so.

Parents who say "if my child needs punishment I'll punish him/her" never do.

As a result there are now so many children who believe that they will never have to face any consequences for their actions. The school cannot punish for misbehaviour, the parents will not . Until they get caught throwing rocks off motorway overbridges.

Incidentally has anyone else noticed that it is the parents of the most obnoxious and insufferable brats who are the first to berate parents who do punish, and to claim that their little darling is the most well behaved child under the sun .

Well, every parent thinks thier child is the best and most well behaved. Which is fair enough someone has to love those kids. But that "love" sometimes clouds parents judgements too much.

Bring back the biff!

[scumdog]

Yeah, this is shocking.

I couldn't roll a joint until I was at least 13.

That extra finger on each hand cause you some confusion and got in the way??

[scumdog]

hmmm...*was canned twice*

I think canning students is right. They need to learn that there are consequences (sp) for thier actions, not mommy and daddy running to thier defense all the time, because then the students attitude towards the school is "you can't touch me, you can't do anything so I'll do as I please"... which is what happens now. IMO

How did they get you into the tin??
Did the school have a special canning machine??(p/t)

[placidfemme]

How did they get you into the tin??
Did the school have a special canning machine??(p/t)

lol

I jumped in the tin haha, I was caught smoking on school grounds (twice) and they said said I could get caned or suspended... so being a little shit I thought 5 minutes of pain is better than 2 weeks of boredom... so I got caned :)