Want to see the Nanny State run wild? Visit Aberdeen.

I think there is a law against this kind of thing and it is called the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Hopefully some parent will refuse to sign their kid up for this and fights it to the end.

This is just another example of the American people being willing to give up some of their essential liberties in the name of safety. The Patriot Act in microcosm.

I think the Aberdeen School Board members should pee in a cup and then the results are posted in the American News. Let’s see if they pass before they foist this on the parents and kids.

I’m just sayin’.

I love how the article says they will be “required” to sign up for “voluntary testing.” What?

Generally, I don’t agree much with the nanny-state arguments presented here, especially the smoking ones. But this post couldn’t be more right on. It’s unbelievable that a school board would even CONSIDER this, but to actually implement it — absolutely ridiculous.

Why do they even think they could do this? Custer High School in the late 60’s was the same way. Those of us who resisted got black balled. It was an insidious, local mini-conspiracy. These things happen. Our job is to let people know that that shit’s not cool. Good luck to all on both sides of the political spectrum. This is one of those issues on which most of us seem to agree.

5B. p.s. Later on in life, all those (faculty and administrators) who acted that way came to our various class reunions and apologized.

Sometimes we get caught up in the fervor of the moment and do things that we, as true freedom lovers regret. That’s why I think it is more important to condemn the actions than the persons.

I am no friend of illicit drugs of any kind or the legal alcohol and tobacco varieties, but if the impact of someone taking drugs is not obvious from behavior or performance, then why is there a need for intrusive drug tests?

Teachers and administrators need to know their students and their parents. I think the current times do demand a good video system which may help deter vandalism and bullying however.

Schools have also been designed with incredible stupidity and shortsightedness so that the physical design contributes to problems as well. How many times the same mistakes have to be copied is a source of amazement to me.

Somehow tagging this with “Nanny State” however seems a bit inappropriate. It seems to me it might be more appropriately tagged with something like “Conservative Anti-terrorism, anti-drug fears run amok”.

This is a simple case of the state thinking that they love our kids more than parents do. Except in extreme circumstances that is a matter of general public health (which this is not), the state has no authority to require, authorize, permit or even encourage any medical treatment, procedure, or test on my children without my permission. This includes the subject of this thread, contraceptives, and abortion. Period. End of story.

9. Agreed.

Interesting enough, a few days ago on this blog we had a discussion on the Patriot Act and the conservatives were arguing that “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” I don’t agree with the school board at all but where are the conservatives on this one? Shouldn’t the same arguments apply?

Nanny: Custodian of children.

State: government

If this doesn’t fit the definition of “nanny state”, nothing does. To overtly mischaracterize this as “conservative” or related to “anti-terrorism” is a shallow and moronic attempt to denigrate one’s political opponents.

So Troy, allow me to be moronic….what is the difference?

Just for the sake of an arguement and to point out when Troy Jones has a hole in his logic…. Couldn’t one point out that the Republicans in the Patriot Act clain that drug money funds terrorism then the Aberdeen School Board testing the kids for drugs is helping to cut off the funding to terrorists.

They should call it a drug test they should call it a “Patriot Test.” If you test positive for drugs you are paying for guns in the terrorists hands.

Since you are for the kids not being tested for drugs you must be for terrorism. I am disgusted.

See how easy it is to make this a conservative argument Troy?

13. Within the concept of natural law and embodied in the Constitution is the idea of subsidiarity which place the State in a subsidiary role relative to the family and the individual. In other words, the government is to serve the family/individual. In our Constitution, on some matters power was expressly or implicitly granted to the government.

Even to the extent that power may be exercised by the government, the principle of subsidiarity requires the government to only do so when there is a compelling “public interest” and to otherwise refrain from exercising power. Whenever the state usurps power from the individual without compelling “public interest”, it is by definition becoming a “nanny state”.

Most of the arguments between political liberal and conservatives relates to a difference opinion of “compelling public interest”. But when you have an issue like this one in which certified conservatives like Pat Powers and myself and certified liberals like Todd Epp and Bill Fleming agree is not a “compelling public interest”, the issue is one not able to be defined by traditional political lines.

Instead, what you have is a problem (teen drug and alcohol abuse) in which certain people believe that the solution requires the exercise of state police power justifies the abrogation of the principle of subsidiarity and, in my opinion, a violation of certain defined individual rights. Few liberals or conservatives take lightly the abrogation of this principle or violation of the Bill of Rights.

While we might disagree with the Patriot Act, the comparison to this issue is shallow. The Patriot Act comes out of a specific power granted to the federal government- protect the public from foe (domestic and foreign). The use of a medical test to DETERMINE if a crime/rule violation has occurred by an individual goes well beyond the concept of protecting the general welfare, providing common defense, and insure domestic tranquility.

P.S. Bill, I finally responded to your points in the thread about the Bishop’s letter.

15. Good answer Troy. We perhaps do disagree on the Patriot A, but even so, that is not a strictly liberal v. conservative argument. I think it’s more of a libertarian v. authoritarian dispute.

I’ll check out your reply on the Bishop’s letter.

Thanks for the heads up.

Bill, we do disagree slightly on the Patriot Act. Much of it goes against my classic civil libertarian bias. At the same time, in the world as it is today, I believe that it passes the “compelling public interest” test to protect us from domestic terror attack from our non-uniformed, non-state enemies. However, when the threat is less imminent, I will be among the earliest of most conservatives to advocate its repeal (in part and in total). Personally, I am grateful that we don’t have to consider more draconian measures as we did during WWII.

Buying Drugs = Money for the Terrorists. The or was the DEA lying?
By even criticizing the Patriot Test you are emboldening the terrorists. I am shocked. Troy just shocked. Ok I’m kidding on the square.

Another question for you Troy, oh scholarly one.
What sort of evidence does the state use against someone in a DUI? I’ll make it multiple choice. Is it A) a Medical test B) A Geometry test C) A Warshack test?

It’s “A” a medical test. So by your logic: “The use of a medical test to DETERMINE if a crime/rule violation has occurred by an individual goes well beyond the concept of protecting the general welfare, providing common defense, and insure domestic tranquility.” Then you would favor throughing out breathalizers and blood tests used to convict drunk drivers and all the convictions made with that evedince should be over turned.

I’m glad we’re all against this and all and some of you Republicans are finally remembering your libertarian roots. But seriously you guys treat the bill of rights like a buffet table and pick out the rights you like and don’t like.

Pretty soon they will test for blue eyes.

18. Penny

they use a blood test.

but they use it after they have a reason to suspect illegal behavior.

the day they start blood testing everyone just for being in a car, they can give my kid a drug test just for being in school.

PP is right on here and if I lived in Aberdack I’d tell ‘em to %#-+#%*-##%#=++

A question…….Isn’t being required to sign up for voluntary testing an oxymoron?

I had the privilege of attending Aberdeen Central penitentiary…oops…I mean high school–with camera’s in every hall and “house parents” and police officers that patrol hallways clip boards and detention slips in hand, each student with their mandatory security name badge that must be worn at all times and locked class room door policy.
I understand the need with “homeland security” at the forefront, but student drug testing really does that this from a learning environment to a juvenile detention center setting…
The students in the entrepreneurship class make t-shirts every year to sell as their class project. In our first year in the new building they wanted to print bright orange shirts that read “Aberdeen Central Inmate #2004″ needless to say the concept was quickly shot down by the administration…although they are really living up to their not wanted epithet now…
This is all just a little ridiculous!

I think #20 nails this issue on the head.

Why are we (or Aberdeen High School students) a suspect of wrong-doing just because we’re alive.

PP I usually don’t agree with your “nanny state” inference, especially when it comes to smoking, but you’re right on here.

A couple of questions.

(1) do any of you have a kid you want to keep from getting addicted to meth?

(2) if you are concerned that your kid might get and try meth from his school buddies, do you think the school has any obligation to help you stop that? Or should they say “hey, not our problem, we just signed up to teach, dope bought in our parking lot is your problem.”

(3) what is your perceived risk level, that YOUR kid wont be offered…..and try(?) meth from a school buddy? If you say zero, youre living in the 1950’s and should not trouble yourself over modern problems. Put on another Sing Along With Mitch LP, and enjoy.

(4) If your kid is already addicted to meth, and is rapidly self-destructing his life and maybe yours, do you find yourself wishing the school had been more proactive?

I am not in favor of suspending the constitution, so spare me that speech. Any parent that wants out of this, im guessing, will get his kid out of it. And the rest are gonna say “test my kid any and every day you want to, and call me with the results!”

todd, im sure your kids are either through school or if not, doing fine. They dont need tests. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of parents whose kids are not making it, and those parents are looking for help ANYwhere they can get it.

#20 thanks for helping to make the point to bring this back to the Patriot Act. Thanks to the Patriot Act the government can monitor our phone calls without the citizen having done anything wrong.
I’m glad the conservatives like PP and Troy Jones can see how the Aberdeen School Board is over reaching in this point but are not consistent enough in there philosophy to see how the Patriot Act is overreaching as well. There is a parallel to be made.

On another topic, I love the quote you use here on liberty PP. But unfortunately DH Lawrence never wrote a book called “Classical American Literature” in 1922 or any other year. In 1923 he wrote a book called “Studies in Classic American Literature” (at the same time his fiction books were being banned for being pornographic). But I’ve read that book (I like reading books by banned authors) and that quote is nowhere in there. If it is I’d like you to point it out to me. I think it’s a great quote. I hope that it’s real and not something you just cut and pasted from some other right-wing website PP.

I hereby nominate Penny’s use of the phrase “Warshack test” for the intended phrase “Rorschach test” as the malapropism of the week. Second?

26 Thanks for paying attention. Gold star for you. That post had a lot of errors. You are correct to correct me.

Thanks again.

Old Hand:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) I agree it is unrealistic to think that we don’t have a pervasive drug problem which places all students in varying degrees of risk.
4) If this was the case, shouldn’t I be looking at myself before I look to the school? Old hand, this is the point of my opposition. Parents have the right to test their kids now. If they think they should do it, they should do it. We are delegating too much of the raising of our children to a government/society which doesn’t/can’t lvoe our children like we do/should. As a parent, I am my children’s first teacher, doctor, counselor, etc. When I need help, I need to ask for help. But I shouldn’t expect the hired teachers, doctors, etc. to do my job.

Just so the governments scanners find something to do this week.

Nitroglycerin, TNT, ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel, cellphones, roadside, schoolhouse, meth, Mexico, illegal aliens, drug sniffing dog, blasting caps, code, random number generator..

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. I would actually like to know if the school administrators and school board members in Aberdeen are a bunch of kneejerk liberals or wingnut conservatives.

Whatever Troy says, the actions of the Board have more in common with conservative fear and excess than with any desire of any liberals to expand the intrusive powers of any government at any level.

I am sure that the school board can make a case they find plausible that convinces them in their own minds at least that they are acting in the general welfare and well within the boundaries of what US schools can and should do to protect their students. In loco parentis? and all that.

I am not going to make that case for them, but my guess is that if some doped up kid kills a few of his classmates or goes stark raving nuts on meth, that some of the conservatives now furiously attacking the school system for going too far in the “nanny” direction will just as quickly be attacking them for failing to protect their dear children from harm.

If the waste from the Aberdeen sewerage system shows drug use at a relatively high level, will it then make sense to check students?

Some drugs are already turning up in measurable amounts in some city sewage. Also antibiotics and that is a source of another problem. Also caffeine which is a problem those of us drinking coffee and colas help produce.

There are many ways to look at these issues and black or white may not be the only options.

#24 – Old hand, I have to echo Troy’s comments, somewhat and wonder – Why in the heck are you looking for the school to do this? That’s the parent’s job. Arresting people possessing it is the police’s job.

The school is there to educate our kids. And that’s it.

#31 spam attack.

I’m not sure what qualifies as “Nanny State” it seems to be a buzzword tossed out without definition.

The word I’d use is “Big Brother”. In his post #22 estNwst describes a place that is starting to take the first jackbooted step toward the complete and total surveillance Orwell described in his 1948 classic “1984″. Optional mandatory drug testing would seem to be the second step.

The comparisons of this policy to the Patriot Act are apt. People are willing to give up some of their essential liberties for some perceived, possibly not real safety.

problem could’ve been solved if the school made it an opt-in deal instead of an opt-out. it’s nice that the school wants to help parents, but making it compulsory until a parent opts out is an obvious abuse of power.

This is almost as bad as making kids pray in school.

I hope a few of you watched the PBS program last night on Bush Unitary Presidency deciding that a few hundred years of law and constitution is irrelevant. 250,000 or so hotel motel registrants information swept up in a data mining operation in Los Vegas in the hopes of finding a terrorist link of some kind.

The Bush administration acts like a husband hiring a hitman to kill his wife. They get around prohibitions of government databases by hiring private firms to be their hitmen…slightly diffrerent “hits”, but the basic crime is similar.

And, after all the snooping and prying, ONE possible name turned up. No prosecutions. And then it was learned the whole excuse for the huge intrusion was fallacious.

I see Janklow is all irate about the Argus allegedly “lying”. I hope he can get is ire fired up on all the Bush lies since Janklow thinks lying should be punished even if driving through an intersection and killing somebody deserves only a comparative slap on the wrist…for Janklow.

Those who want a laugh or two at the expense of the Aberdeen school board should check David Neuquists Northern Valley Beacon Blog.

Wiken, “a few” people watch PBS over the course of a week, but they certainly weren’t all tuned in to your show. And when I call it your show, it’s because you were the only South Dakotan watching it.

I of course only watch SDPB because we can’t get Faux News.

Actually, now and then some of the posts here indicate an appalling level of ignorance which might result from never watching Public TV.

Had it not been for Public TV, I might never have known about Bill Buckley, Pat Buchanan, or John McLaughlin. Now and then those stopped clocks are even right and not just rightist.

I suspect that SDPB has reason to have some pride in their actual viewership and also in what they do to keep South Dakotans informed of state issues. Ignore it at your peril, but then again, you sure wouldn’t want to take any advice from anybody not certified as a rightwing loon.

Doug:
You are a mess!!

Troy Jones I agree with you. The Aberdeen School board wanted to use my money to sue me. That proves they are not the sharpest pencils in the box. A retired school teacher is the only member of the board with any common sense, Bob Nikolas.

I’ve read the excessive amount of commentary – and comments – about this issue on this blog.

What strikes me is: Where’s the outrage in Aberdeen?

Has there even been ONE letter to the editor calling this a bad policy? Did ANY parent attend the forum and accuse the board of userping their rights?

Seems like this is a minor issue blown way out of proportion by a few rabid – yes rabid – bloggers.

The program… IS VOLUNTARY. V-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-y. As in, if you’d like to use the service, go ahead. And if you don’t, that’s fine too.

And yeah… let’s see some group like the ACLU challenge this. They wouldn’t come NEAR it. Why?

Because…IT’S VOLUNTARY.

Pat began this thread with a rant (legitimate in my mind) about another example of a segment of the government over-reaching its authority to deal with problems and “persecuting them for the sake of finding the guilty”.

Lexrex has it right. If it had been characterized such that they said “We have an interest in aiding parents deal with drug and alcohol abuse of students. To aid them, we are willing to randomly test any student whose parents would like this done. Please sign the following form if this interests you.” Instead, they said, “We think you as parents should want this done so unless you stop us, we are going to do this. We as your school board know best how to raise your kids. We will only accede to your parental rights because we have to.”

Such an attitude flies in the face of two American principles: Subsidiarity and action only with a compelling public interest. Liberals and conservatives both hold these two principles dearly and rightly (in my mind) react in opposition.

But, the body politic is not served by an attitude that everything one disagrees with is part of the “right wing conspiracy by saying it appears to be “Conservative Anti-terrorism, anti-drug fears run amok” or “the actions of the Board have more in common with conservative fear and excess.” And then denigrate the conversation into a comparison to the Patriot Act, the war on terrorism, Bill Janklow and the Argus Leader.

The School Board in Aberdeen is composed of 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans. They are likely non-partisans just interested in a the students. And, in this interest, in my mind, they have concieved of a over-zealous “solution” to their problem.

In my mind, they deserve to be criticized because they are imposing their view of parenting on parents with an implication they “know better.”

But the criticism should be focused on the decision. The school board’s focus is to educate kids. This includes teaching them certain basic American principles of government which are universal regardless of political ideology: “innocent until proven guilty” and that government is to serve the public such that they don’t usurp powers that more legitimately lay with the individual/family (subsidiarity).

This is not a great “civil rights” issue. The school board isn’t totally usurping the rights of parents as it provides for an opt-out. But, it gives one the taste of superiority and that the problem can only be solved by the intervention of the school.

Parents are the first teacher, first doctor, first counselor, first minister, etc. If they want to enlist the aid of the school in their effort to know the chemical status of their kids, that is ok with me. But, lexrex got it exactly right: They did it backwards and in a way that smacks of “big brother” or “nanny statism” (both descriptors are appropriate in my mind.)

Dang them, dang them, and dang those parents in Aberdeen who are letting the government denigrate their parental rights.

Like most Americans, the members of that board have been fed a steady stream of crap from the Bush Administration justifying intrusions into privacy on the basis that if you aren’t guilty, you have nothing to hide.

This kind of self-serving crap from the ever hungry for more intrusive powers Bush Administration trickles down to other governing systems. Especially when they have problems that they alone can’t solve.

The invasion of illegal aliens and the porous borders is a combination that dumps drugs from the Mexican drug factories and gangsters and corrupt government from Texas to the Canadian border and beyond. The two factors dump a huge unfunded mandate unto local governments already faced with cost squeezes of multiple kinds.

I doubt there is a perfect solution to the drug problems in schools even in South Dakota where families still more or less exist.

The anti-abortion, anti-sex education attitudes of adults in SD also trickle-down to kids having kids they can’t really rear effectively. All these things contribute to school problems.

Those of us who were lucky enough to come from good families I suspect are clueless to the kind of lives some kids live. I know as a teacher, I was never able to associate the two…until years later.

Parental rights for incompetent lazy worthless, morally and intellectually corrupt parents is not a solution to anything. See former Republican legislator Ted Klaudt for an indication of problems with an absolutist perspective on parental rights.

Real conservatives and real liberals need to put together something that actually works and not rant and rave for something that fits their ideological preferences without regard to reality.

Klaudt should have been a democrat. He lived on the public gravy train.

No, Klaudt is your boy and he was/is a proud member of the GOP. Extremely conservative and obnoxiously defiant about it.

In fact he was on PP’s list of up and coming Republicans to watch. Little did PP know that he would be right, we all watched in horror as we learned the truth about Ted Klaudt.

The thing that about the Aberdeen policy that sticks under my skin is that parents must sign up and only if their kid’s name is drawn can they opt out. I want the right to not sign up in the first place. What is the school going to do if I refuse to sign up? Will they refuse a public education to my kid? If they do refuse my kid a public education will they be in violation of the state constitution? Will they be in violation of the equal protection under the law portion of the federal constitution.

I really don’t understand the MUST sign up to say no aspect of this policy.

Is there an issue that the fringe liberal lunatics (not all liberals) won’t somehow make it about Iraq, Bush, and Klaudt? Doug, you should read your own words.

“Real conservatives and real liberals need to put together something that actually works and not rant and rave for something that fits their ideological preferences without regard to reality.”

38 -

I think your selective reading might have allowed you to miss some parts….it’s not VOLUNTARY if students are REQUIRED to participate. It’s not rocket science.

This is a disgusting abuse of power on the part of the Aberdeen School Board. It’s a disgusting display of ageism (assuming that everyone under the age of 18 is automatically guilty of something, until proven innocent). And it’s a ridiculous display of exactly what’s WRONG with some of our elected officials.

So…..how does the recall process for a school board member work in Aberdeen?

Angie:

Selective reading? Please, for once, go actually read the story. Just this once, become informed before ranting.

Step one. All high school students are put into a pool from which a private health provider uses to randomly select students for testing.

Step two. If a student is selected, the private health provider calls the parents to ask if they would like the student to be called in for a drug test. At that point, the parent makes a choice – yes or no.

Step three (at the option of parents). A student goes in for random testing, and the parents are sent the results.

The end.

I don’t see how this is a power grab at all. It’s an appropriate policy decision to help combat illegal drug use.

They are doing ALL THEY CAN to send a message that drugs harm young people – a message that, despite what SHOULD HAPPEN, isn’t communicated often enough or convincingly enough to students.

The policy was adopted unanimously. It had the support of the student council, the administration and the teaching staff. A community group came up with some of the funding, and they got a grant to pay for the rest.

No school district can require students to take drug tests. It’s unconsitutional. Plain and simple. Period. End of sentence. A district would face million-dollar court battles fighting that, and the district would lose.

You’re right… it’s not rocket science. It’s public policy. It’s constitutional public policy. It’s parental choice. It’s a message that taking drugs damages a student’s future.

But, by all means, continue to blow it out of proportion.

“What’s the problem?”

I’m surprised you would value a parent’s rights so little. What the school has done is made participation automatic and mandatory, forcing parents to actively opt out, when the school really has little right to do so.

They have to actively opt out of having their child’s urine checked.

And you see nothing wrong with this?

47. Yup. It’s like insisting that anyone who’s name is drawn out of the hat has to sign up for ROTC or NRA, or Sports unless their parents opt them out.

i.e If you admit you are a witch, we won’t dunk you in the river.

Schools often say that physical activity fosters good life-long health and habits, so they include P.E. in the curriculum. The need to exercise and stay physically active is a good message, which is hopefully reinforced in the home.

However, if a parent so chooses, that child can be removed from physical education class. It might not be appropriate for their student, the parents may feel.

True, drug testing is a new arena – but it’s still a good analogy. Taking drugs is an unhealthy practice, and it impacts a students ability to learn and can potentially ruin a life.

A school district can’t say, “If you take drugs, we won’t let you have an education” (which is what our federal student loan program says), but they can say, “We believe the drug culture is damaging to students, and we’re going to take every possible step to address it.”

I value parents rights. I value my rights to decide how my child is going to receive an education. I value my rights to work to shape my child’s life.

I talk with my teenage son about drugs, and he tells me openly that his friends have easy access to drugs, and that some of them take drugs. I trust my son not to take drugs. But, I would certainly appreciate it if other parents took the initiative to clean up their kids and help create a drug-free environment for my son.

Problem is… not every parent does.

I’d be fine if my school district did this. It might help, and certainly doesn’t take away my quality of life or my son’s.

It’s voluntary.

Voluntary: Brought about by one’s own free choice.

Required: Ordered, demanded.

From the new article:

“All Aberdeen Central High School students will be required to sign up for voluntary drug testing scheduled to begin in January.”

I’m sorry, but if I’m required to do something, it is not voluntary. The opt-out is only a relunctant concession that they do have to defer to parents. The implication is clear that they wish they didn’t have to.

Secondly, for them to “require” something and label it “voluntary” is Orwellian. So maybe Nemec’s reference to “big brother” is better than “nanny state” just because of its blatant double-speak.