Fine Gael Random Drug Testing of Schoolkids Plan.

[wheelsofire]

Yet again the myth of the Evil Pusher rides the airwaves. I have been hearing about these mythical creatures all my since the 60's,and try as I might,I could never find one.
Since there hasn't been any outcry in the tabloids following someone being convicted of actually dealing to schoolbound kids,can anyone can anyone from Fine Gael produce any actual - as opposed to anecdotal - evidence?

Anyhow,since most kids are driven to school nowadays,at just what point does the Evil Pusher sell to the little darlings? Should make it easy to spot them,no?
Has Little Enda of the newly bouffant hairstyle thought this through? Or just proof of his greeness? He is certainly recycling some pretty tired stuff.

[stretchneil]

Source?

[meriwether]

Are you saying you cannot buy drugs in schools?
I doubt that the secondary school system is awash with drug dealers peddling smack at small lunch, but it would be tremendously naive to say there are no drugs in secondary schools. Pupils are more than capable of dealing, its not just the stereotypical scumbag in a hoodie hanging round the school gates.
Basically, its a question of consent. If parents, the school board and students consent, I dont see a problem. This is what is being proposed. Do you have a problem with individual schools conducting random tests if all parties consent? I dont.

[stretchneil]

Oh God. You guys are actually proposing this? And there was me giving you the benefit of the doubt!

This is an appalling idea, and consent is only being brought into the argument as a defence for what's an incredibly reactionary measure. We all know that consent will not be real coming from most children - they will be coerced into consenting by their parents. And this will probably be because the parents will be threatened by the schools.

There is absolutely no need for random drug testing of students. Random searches in problem schools I could see as possibly having an impact in this area, but random drug testing is just invasive.

[meriwether]

Oh God. You guys are actually proposing this? And there was me giving you the benefit of the doubt!

This is an appalling idea, and consent is only being brought into the argument as a defence for what's an incredibly reactionary measure. We all know that consent will not be real coming from most children - they will be coerced into consenting by their parents. And this will probably be because the parents will be threatened by the schools.

There is absolutely no need for random drug testing of students. Random searches in problem schools I could see as possibly having an impact in this area, but random drug testing is just invasive.

how do you feel about Random breath testing of motorists? Thats invasive and unwelcome aswell by your logic?
The Army is also subject to random drug testing. Same thing?

[stretchneil]

how do you feel about Random breath testing of motorists? Thats invasive and unwelcome aswell by your logic?
The Army is also subject to random drug testing. Same thing?

I'm actually stunned that you're defending this nonsense.

Comparing random breath testing of motorists with random drug testing of school-children is ludicrous. A motorist is driving a vehicle often weighing up to 1 tonne, at speeds of up to 120 kph (legally). That's phenomenal destructive potential. A school-child is at school. If they lose concentration at their desks, they're unlikely to cause a major road accident, potentially leading to death.

Comparisons with the army are similarly ludicrous. Soldiers are often firing live ammunition. Once again, the destructive potential is enormous. A school-child is not likely to shoot several people as a result of their trigger finger twitching involuntarily.

As it happens, I'm opposed to both examples that you've mentioned, but since they're not even remotely valid comparisons, that matters little.

[White Horse]

Comparing random breath testing of motorists with random drug testing of school-children is ludicrous. A motorist is driving a vehicle often weighing up to 1 tonne, at speeds of up to 120 kph (legally). That's phenomenal destructive potential. A school-child is at school. If they lose concentration at their desks, they're unlikely to cause a major road accident, potentially leading to death.

If they overdose, they could die. Do you give a sh1t?

[meriwether]

how do you feel about Random breath testing of motorists? Thats invasive and unwelcome aswell by your logic?
The Army is also subject to random drug testing. Same thing?

I'm actually stunned that you're defending this nonsense.

Comparing random breath testing of motorists with random drug testing of school-children is ludicrous. A motorist is driving a vehicle often weighing up to 1 tonne, at speeds of up to 120 kph (legally). That's phenomenal destructive potential. A school-child is at school. If they lose concentration at their desks, they're unlikely to cause a major road accident, potentially leading to death.

Comparisons with the army are similarly ludicrous. Soldiers are often firing live ammunition. Once again, the destructive potential is enormous. A school-child is not likely to shoot several people as a result of their trigger finger twitching involuntarily.

As it happens, I'm opposed to both examples that you've mentioned, but since they're not even remotely valid comparisons, that matters little.

You're argument was that random drug testing was invasive, but not in the case of motorists, or soldiers, becuase you feel the consequences of their drug abuse is much more severe than of schoolchildren?
It seems you operate on a severity scale.
Thats rather illogical. Either something is invasive or it is not.
It is also easy to make an argument that the consequences of school children abusing (possibly hard) drugs could also forseeably lead to severe consequences. And that makes a ************************e of your argument.
Also, if Parents, pupils and the school board agree to these measures, it introduces consent. And with consent, a measure cannot really be invasive. Which also brings trouble to your argument.

[stretchneil]

If they overdose, they could die. Do you give a sh1t?

If they have over-dosed, then a random drug test is unlikely to be required in proving they are using drugs.

Don't use appallingly reactionary defences for this. Just because I think random drug testing is an ill-advised move, doesn't mean I don't care about children dying through drug abuse, and to imply otherwise rubbishes any argument you may have.

[tonys]

Where can I find this new wonder policy proposal of FG.