What's the diff between forced drug testing & TSA searches?

One of our Washington state Reps submitted a bill recently that would require drug tests for those receiving aid for families. It won't get a hearing this session because of court cases in other states. Apparently this was tried in Michigan and Florida. In both cases federal judges struck down state laws on 4th Amendment grounds stating: A drug test is a search, and that the 4th Amendment requires there be "some quantum of individualize suspicion" for a search to meet constitutional muster. Isn't this the same thing the TSA is doing to travelers? Am I missing something?

 

Good point. I thought the bill was shelved because an amendment was added to require the same testing for electeds.

 

If it was added that wasn't mentioned in the article. I heard on a radio show awhile back that Florida stopped drug testing welfare recipients because the number of those using drugs was so low it wasn't worth the money spent on all the testing.

 

Yeah. The TSA searches are done under the administrative search doctrine - it's an exception to the 4th Amendment. No individualized suspicion needed.

 

you mean the administrative search fiction, not doctrine, right? The fiction where they wave a magic wand over the words of the 4th and change them when it suits them, because "we need to do this"...

 

One and the same.

 

OK, so then why can schools, which are funded with government tax money, force drug tests on students?

 

A urinalysis cost pennies. That is a BS excuse.

 

I'm not up on school drug testing, I'll confess. Before I say anything else, let me go look it up.

 

When airline crews were subjected to random screening starting around 1991, it seemed the cost was not insignificant. A positive would trigger a more advanced analysis which was very expensive. A lot of people shied away from poppy seed rolls out of fear of a false positive, but not me. Never got a positive, though.

 

Okay, looked it up. Drug testing of particular groups of students, like, say, "all athletes" , "all students in band and/or theater", are done using an administrative search analysis. These searches should be done only in accordance with a school board policy. Not that that always helps, of course. And for the record, I'm not a supporter of drug testing students, or almost anyone else for that matter.

Other student searches need to have reasonable suspicion - and note that students have a lower expectation of privacy than adults do.

The goal that is usually stated is to have a drug free school while balancing student privacy rights.

There are a lot of individual cases and situations - when to use drug sniffing dogs (risky), when to search lockers, backpacks, etc. What to do in cases of theft, etc. It's one of those 'fraught' legal areas.

 

Thanks, Sonny.

I'm with you in your opposition to drug testing without cause, whether it be students in school or a requirement of a job application.

One school district close to where I live is testing students randomly. HOWEVER, the parents have to opt in to the program. What message does that send to the kid about parental trust?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/07/29/nj-middle-school-implements-drug-testing-program/

 

Well, I guess the good news is that it's voluntary - voluntary for the parents. But the mandatory, 'zero tolerance' policies are horrible and destructive.

You're absolutely right about the parental trust issue. I think back about when I was that age - I would have viewed it as my parents selling me out. And I didn't even do drugs! I would have viewed it as a huge invasion of my privacy, yes, even at that age.

 

While I agree with you and Sunny, I wonder if these parents are the same that willing march their children through the TSA gauntlet with the plastered sheep smile, wrapped in the safety blanket.

 

I'd bet they are.

 

It's stunning to me that parents are willing to put their kids through this stuff, whether drug testing or going through scanners or getting groped. It's denial on a scale that's unimaginable to me. Yet I have plenty of friends who are in that boat.

 

P.S. I am requesting that a Coach please change the title of this thread to something more descriptive. Every time I see the current title, "What's the difference?" I have to go back and re-read it to remind myself of what it's about. It should say something like "Forced drug testing" or "What's the diff between forced drug testing & TSA searches" or whatever. Just something more relevant to the content. Thanks.

 

Is it denial or a case of "we'll let the government take care of us" ('cause we can't think logically or rationally or we are just plain too lazy)?

 

The friends I'm thinking of are simply in denial that this (expletive deleted) -- which we've been publicizing for two years -- is going on at the airports. Logically, isn't it considered irresponsible to risk allowing your child to be abused?? Yet I sure as (expletive deleted) wouldn't say that to any of these people; you can imagine how that would go over.

 

You may not, but I would. I have very little need or approval of a "friend" that gives a $hit about freedoms and the established standards of this country. There are very few differences of opinion, in a variety of subjects, that would be important enough to me to weigh heavier than the value of a friend. The issue regarding the attack on our rights by the DHS and TSA is definitely one of them though. This is, in large part, because I don't remember my oath stating I would support and defend the Constitution(and the rights guaranteed by such), with death if need be, except for those rights or parts of the Constitution that people(those that I risked my life defending) decide are too bothersome or worrisome to "allow" me to keep. I looked, there were no asterisks on the form or footnotes saying that certain sections of the Constitution were exempt from defending.