Alternative to Drug Testing

CPLZ,
I am a former teacher so I always beleive that prevention should be taught through education.

As a required class, all D1 college athletes have to take an 8 week class. Each week covers a different topic. why not do it on the HS level.

So presenting a good class on proper nuitrition for athletes, if done right, would be a better alternative to try before testing. Also included should be the dangers of taking illegal steroids, recreational drugs, etc.

Good idea. JMO.

CPLZ, I think that is a FANTASTIC idea! Nutrition is not very well taught and that is one of the problems we as a society has run into along with athletes. I realize athletes and nonathletes have different nutritional needs so it would be a little bit more difficult to make it a class that would suit both, but I do believe both need to be offered.

Here's one problem to your idea-- In the state of Illinois, you have to be a certified teacher to teach in a high school. How many nutritionists or dieticians hold a teaching certificate?

CPLZ-I like the idea but the cheaters will still cheat. We teach anti-drug messages every year in school, but kids still use them. It proposes and alternative and I think that it may prevent some kids on the fence from using them but the cheaters will still cheat.

Nutrition classes for everyone would be in order, if you want to separate athletes vs non-athletes, so be it, but you should have random drug testing because you will still have the few who will want to cheat, you create a sense of deterrent with harsh consequences and not knowing if you possibly could get caught will stop a few more than just education.

Its a great idea but why not implement it as well as drug testing? The cheaters are looking for a quick fix. They are looking for an edge that no one else has. The kids that are willing to use will use unless they are afraid they will get caught. No different than any other drug. We have had drug awareness class for years , Dare etc etc. How well is that working out?

I say all athletes should be tested. From HS all the way up. If your not using you shouldnt have a problem with it. Its only a negative for the ones that want to use it. The ones that are not using will see it as a positive because they will know they are not having to compete against cheaters.

i think it's an area of our life most of us know nothing about. nutrition taught in schools, may help out the numbers of over wieght teens. and help the athletes understand the right fuel will make the engine run stronger. great idea.
i'm not sold on it being a deterant to drug use though. our police department gets urine test's supplied to them for free. it's my understanding the drug test company's do it as a public service.

Education seems to be the first thing that suffers when it comes to "teaching" moral lessons. Educating athletes on proper nutrition and proper health strategems is the proper thing to do, butt IMO is to "passive" and doesn't have that "gotcha" element that all the control freaks love.

Ever consider the damage that is being advocated to a person's self-esteem when the method of compliance already assumes your guilt by forcing your son to "give" a urine sample? Hmmm, unintended consequences.

And then I wonder, the girls are "given" the "right-to-privacy" protection under a "woman's-right-to-choose" because "it's-her-body", but I guess the rest of our son's are just dufus male athletes and just chattel to the state, just need to pee in the bottle and keep their mouth's shut.

What a country? JMO

Control Freaks? Your self esteem is hurt when you have to P in a bottle?

Yes, we dont want to hurt our kids by doing something that might deter them from using illegal substances. The harm to their self esteem is way worse than using drugs.

Lets See. Son, are you OK? No dad. Whats wrong? My self esteem is crushed. Why? I had to P in a bottle today. Those G&^$%&@*@($&$&@! How dare they hurt your self esteem. G#(*$*&$&#( Control Freaks again!

Metal bats are good. Wood bats cause trees to be cut down. (Pray for a control freak today!)

So we want a drug free enviroment. No problem. Test all the students, staff, board members, boosters and parents. Gotta protect everyone from themselves.

Not trying to hard to be a smart a$$, but how are you going to stop drug use in HS? Are our only concern athletes? 90% of the school aren't jocks. How about Ritalin use by the straight A kids? Do we test for that? I think it is a slippery slope that I don't care to go down.
But if you have to, test them all.

Doughnutman I agree with you. These so called learning institutions are supposed to be teaching our children how to think IMO that includes teaching them the "purpose" of something called "self-restraint". But "self=restraint" goes against the liberal paradigm "if-it-feels-good-do-it". That is what has been taught since the 60's by the "me-me-me-generation" called the "boomers". Now their son's and daughters are reaping the whirlwind of that selfish ideology. Why? Because children simply exempify the examples that been set by the adults.

If you want your sons and daughters to stop using drugs, then the adults are going to have to set a different example that is based upon a totally different paradigm then what the children have been watching, listening to in music and movies created by adults that glorify everything about the drugs that ends up being destructive to the individual. Has anyone been watching whats happening to Britney Spears?

The cause of the drug usage in sports goes to the heart of a culture that is founded on easy s*e*x, p*o*r*n*, and "if-it-feels-good-do-it. You want purity and righteousness in baseball, deal with the corruption of the soul of the individual, teach them piety and self-restraint in schools and stop listening to the secular-progressives whose path leads straight to self-destruction.

That's my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by LLorton:
Ever consider the damage that is being advocated to a person's self-esteem when the method of compliance already assumes your guilt by forcing your son to "give" a urine sample? Hmmm, unintended consequences.

And then I wonder, the girls are "given" the "right-to-privacy" protection under a "woman's-right-to-choose" because "it's-her-body", but I guess the rest of our son's are just dufus male athletes and just chattel to the state, just need to pee in the bottle and keep their mouth's shut.

What a country? JMO

Please correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that female athletes are not being tested because of the reasons you stated? If so then that is completely wrong because if you randomly test one athlete then you have to have all athletes open to testing - male and female. Females have to *P* in a bottle just like the males.

You are worried about people's self esteem being hurt because they have to *P* in a bottle? If something like Peing in a bottle makes them feel bad they are probably a weak minded individual. If having to P in a bottle is the worst thing to happen to them they have lived a good life. We are to worried about hurting people's feelings that it gets to the point you can't teach kids because if they fail it will stunt their emotional development. What a load.

Anyway back to the topic by CPLZ. I think it's a good idea to have this class but there are several problems in that you will have to make sure the class lines up with the states curriculum standards. If that doesn't line up then you are in trouble - have to teach to the test.

Another problem is what someone mentioned about hiring a dietician to teach and they not being certified.

Another problem is getting the board of education to pay for another teacher. Schools are not going to find money to pay for this class when it probably won't help test scores - got to teach to the test.

Even after the negative stuff I just put please go ahead and bring it up. Hopefully you can get things changed to where it will actually benefit kids instead of - teaching to the test.

Coach May and coach2709 you both seem to be saying that testing athletes for the purpose of "catching" them in drug use doesn't violate their 5th Amendments self-incrimination rights.

As I understand it we are dealing with a procedure that is a "legal" one, and any violation, or false positive reading can lead to prosecution and jail time. Under those parameters it is not to the benefit of any individual to willingly provide a sample of their blood, their urine, or their DNA unless they consent willingly without coercion.

For minors in high school it would be absolutely illegal to expect your son or daughter to provide such bodily fluids without the consent of the parents.

As for females under the precedent of protections they already have of "right-to-privacy" laws, I believe a good case could be made that those protections provided to them relative to their reproductive rights could also encompass their decision to forego any intrusion of their persons. After all, it is their body and they have a right-to-choose.

There are no such protections for males. That was my point.

The method that is being employed is "coercive" on its face. That is not unusual in sports because we all learn to follow the rules if we want to play. But this is different. For instance, if you break a rule in sports you may get benched or fined some money. But drug testing results in being indicted and is dealing with the rights of citizens under the US Constitution against self-incrimination. Do we just ignore the US Constitution because it creates an inconvenience to what we want to achieve as a result? What other rights then are you willing to suppress and give up in order to comply with coercive methods.

Would it not be better to implement a system that educates our children and our athletes on the reasons and the purpose of living their lives based upon building character. How do we do that? By teaching them how to make good decisions based upon self-restraint, self-discipliine, good nutrition, proper physical training for anatomical development.

This idea of testing individuals to "catch" them so we can put them into our controlled institutions to warehouse them is not only stupid it has totally corrupted our society.

Put me down as one of those who realizes my opinion represents the minority on this. If you look at the results of what has been done trying to "regulate" human behavior relative to drug use, rather than provide "incentives" in proper cultural boundaries, to create good character, and honorable behavior, it is apparent that there is a lot more to this then we understand. There are to many government agencies invested in the status quo to ever think that we will see the day when the humane component will put back into our judicial system relative to the control of pharmaceuticals.

Thats just my opinion.

First it's legal because sports, band, theatre, mock trial, etc... are all EXTRA curricular activities at the school. A student has a choice if they participate or not. No one is forcing students to participate or take tests. If you want to participate then you are agreeing to opening yourself up to to the testing. If you drive to school that is a privilege and not a right. It is the parents responsibility to get the students to school and the school provides transportation in busses and allows driving as a privilege - there is no right to drive for students. Once again if you want to drive it is your choice. You don't want tested then you can't drive.

Second females have to partcipate in testing. The right to privacy laws do not apply here and never could. If you exclude females from this you will have a discrimination law suit. Granted it's not a typical one since it's the guys being discriminated against but rules are rules.

Third if a studnet tests positive they are not hauled off to jail in handcuffs. I think you went to the extreme on that one. In our school if you test positive for drugs you are suspended from all extracurricular activities for one calendar year. Granted I would like to see some sort of counseling services provided but I also don't think the school system should pay for it. This is where parents need to step up and try to help fix the problem.

Fourth the problem isn't putting people into jail and holding them there. This is just an outcome of the problem - the problem is parents doing a terrible job at home. If a kid is using drugs this gives the parents a chance to fix the problem - if not they may never know the kid is on drugs. Now I am not saying all people who are on drugs have bad parents. There are some great parents who have kids on drugs. Drug abuse is just the most random problem out there.

quote:

Originally posted by LLorton:

Would it not be better to implement a system that educates our children and our athletes on the reasons and the purpose of living their lives based upon building character. How do we do that? By teaching them how to make good decisions based upon self-restraint, self-discipliine, good nutrition, proper physical training for anatomical development.

I totally agree with this statement. We need to be proactive (teach) instead of reactive (test). But all this went out the window with the passage of No Child Left Behind (Thanks Bush and Bipartisan Congress). Schools now have to make sure students are going to perform well on one test usually in the spring. Schools now have to concentrate more on academic goals and standards than anything else. The government stresses getting all the kids on the bus towards high achievement although they don't realize all kids want to get on said bus.

CPLZ sorry for steering the thread in another direction.

Coach,
Make no apologies, threads go where they will...it's all good.

Cheers

coach2709 participating in sports means you must abide by rules and I agree with that premise.

Not being an attorney I cannot speak about rights and priveleges as though I fully understand the legal ramifications of an implied waiving of your rights if you participate in sports or driving a car.

However, I believe you cannot waive your rights that are guaranteed to you under the Bill of Rights. Maybe an attorney can clarify that. That's the reason we have the appeal system.

Anyway my understanding is that all rules and regulations must comply and comport with the US Constitution. Otherwise there is no "Supreme" legal document that governs us. That's my understanding.

Whether you "choose" to participate or not you are still covered under the 5th Amendment. I believe it has been shown in the past with so many of these decisions thatt they are implemented based upon political sentiments of the US Supreme Court. As the court gets back to its original "intent" instead of the "living" document notion, I believe you will begin to see a shift to protecting individual rights and less of the "group" and "class" philosophy that has been so prevalent in the courts recent liberal history.

I just think there is a better way then selectively "testing". If you're going to single out athletes, then I'm with doughnutman and advocate "testing" everyone. To my way of thinking that is only fair. The problem with that is some coaches might get caught as I've heard of some with reputation that aren't free from drug use.

IMO we are living through another era of prohibition all over again, and people are getting hurt, and lives are being destroyed.

JMO

llorton
while as i've said before i have no interest in big brother looking over our shoulder .i'm not interested in giving rights away but i am concerned with substance abuse by todays youth. i'm in favor of testing everyone but whats the penalty for the every day student? kick them out of school? they probably would enjoy that.

if it's ok to test people in the work force as part of their employment,why not extra cirricular activitys at school? you don't need to play sports or band ,but if you want to you must be clean. i have a completely different take on this.it isn't just as easy as a urine test,there needs to be help avalable,even handed penaltys ,etc.lots of work by people who want to help, not just punish.

i see this as helping parents deter kids from drug use. it won't happen to most parents,but there may come a day when your kids don't listen to you. and when you get done takeing everything away from them,and they still do as they will, now what? your limited in your recourse by the law, that helps their rights? it's really easy dealing with the kids that follow the path, not so easy getting them back on it once they have strayed.
very frustrating and no clear cut answer,if it helps one kid it's worth it. it seems to me the other kids in the school have the expectation ,to be educated in a safe,drug free enviornment.

Interesting.

What about the rights of a "clean" player - getting in the batters box - and getting skulled by an "amped up" steroid user on the mound?

How about owning a construction company - and having your employee operate a 30 ton monster crane - that - if mishandled - will kill people?

Here is my take - the "owners" of any of these entities have a responsibility to ensure that their "employees" are not drug addled. And if they do not live up to their responsibility as "employers" - they should be held accountable.

At some point - common sense usurps creative legal thought. IMO.

20dad my concern is about the kids. Most of them don't realize the consequences of their actions. Under peer pressure they will usually go along with the crowd. At parties it is very easy for them to get into trouble.

I just think it is wrong to place legal criminal attachment to actions of kids who are in the process of "learning" about life and all the pitfalls associated with being young.

College level maybe things are more settled for them and they should be held to a higher standard of behavior...but they are still kids.

I feel very uncomfortable about the "gotcha" element of recreational use of drugs. As an adult I fully understand why but have some trepidations of how dragonian the penalties are for our children.

Let me just say for my son and other children we have this has not ever been a problem we have had to deal with. But I can imagine how difficult itt would be for parents to deal with the knowledge that their child was using drugs and then on top of that the government is using their child's drug use to destroy the entire family in some cases. It just stinks.

It just doesn't seem right in this country that we can't find an alternative to drug testing with all the highly educated people wee have to solve problems. JMO

llorton
i will agree or should have stated. i personaly see no good reason to involv police in a posative drug test. counceling, some help of some sort. i'm fairly certain the ncaa, or the plumber down the street don't get turned in to the authoritys,when they fail.
while i know kids will experiment,i did when i was in school. iam a recovering alcoholic or a scientific experiment which ever you choose. and it started in high school. but i know every one doesn't end up like me, i just don't know which ones will. that is the $64 question.

i think the different points of view are great, i do see your point. but i see the need for a little more. keep's ya thinking doesn't it.

I also think we have to distinguish between the "social" drug user and the steriod user--they tried to label Brett Favre a "druggie" a few year back when he went into rehad but his drug dependency was due to pain killer dependency from a major surgery---that a huge difference from the social druggie or the steroid user-- how many " military vets" do we have in society who became addicted to pain killers (morphine)?


Let us not group all of them as one---they are two totally different problems

TR - I think you make a great point with not lumping everyone into the same category. My opinion is that we don't look at each individual case and hand out punishement based on all the circumstances. It's easier to come up with blanket punishments to cover your tail than it is to look at each situation and handle it that way. Of course this is because Americans are looking to sue someone at any given moment.

Llorton the 5th amendment is a protection for someone under arrest or being investigated by the police. It does not apply to high school drug tests. Two totally seperate situations.

quote:

I just think it is wrong to place legal criminal attachment to actions of kids who are in the process of "learning" about life and all the pitfalls associated with being young.

College level maybe things are more settled for them and they should be held to a higher standard of behavior...but they are still kids.

I feel very uncomfortable about the "gotcha" element of recreational use of drugs. As an adult I fully understand why but have some trepidations of how dragonian the penalties are for our children.

The reason why they put legal criminal attachments to actions of kids is because they are doing things that are illegal. If you use drugs you are breaking the law regardless of the reason you start using drugs.

I don't see how you can criticize the Supreme Court for being too liberal when you are pretty much saying punishements for kids are too harsh. I have yet to run across a kid who was punished for using drugs on his first offense and they were put into jail. Usually it involves being on his record - which is sealed and will not be opened when he becomes an adult - and some sort of help.

I just don't believe you have a real grasp of what punishments are out there for kids.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful towards you if it's coming across that way.

Our school randomly drug tests. You sign a paper prior to participation saying you agree to be tested if your name is picked. Don't sign then don't play. However, if you test positive your punishment only involves suspension from your sport for a given amount of time and going to in-school suspension. And, they tell your parents. The authorities are not involved with a positive drug test. (I'm not sure you can be arrested for testing positive - just if you have drugs on your person??) I would imagine if you were caught at school with drugs on your person or selling drugs, then they would call the authorities.

My sons have both been tested (my oldest one twice). Their self esteem was not affected in any way. They do not use drugs or even drink alcohol, so they thought it was all kind of funny - no big deal. I think they are glad about the tests b/c it bothers them that some kids are doing drugs and if the tests can help, then they have no problem with it. I will say some kids have figured out ways to get around the tests, so don't think it is a cure all solution.