There is a difference between right to life and a right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Where is this "right to life" that you speak of? I can't seem to find it in my notes.
So if it isn't unreasoanble what possible grounds do you have to oppose drug testing?
Sometimes it is unreasonable. I said it depends on the situation.
The right you were referring to was the right to be secure in your person etc from unreasonable searches and seizures, were you not?
I'm talking about any right. Why do you believe children do not have the rights you have? Some rights are specific such as voting rights but, what about search & seizure? Do children not have a right to be secure in their person from ureasonable...............?
Drug testing children however doesn't seem unreasonable.
Why is it reasonable for children but not adults? Why does a fetus have a right to life but a child doesn't have a right to unreasonable search? What's the defining factor here for you?
You actually hurt your abortion argument with your contradictions.
Other than that- drug testing by companies is generally foolish and wasteful (and unreasonable), drug testing of extracurricular kids is foolish for the reasons pointed out by everyone (those aren't the kids mostly doing drugs), drug testing of all kids would just drive out/ruin the kids that need help the most, and drug testing of all people is one of the most perverse ideas I have heard in a long time.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm opposed to drug testing. I won't apply for or work at places that test, and when I can, I try to avoid supporting those places too. Particularly Blockbuster, because drug testing vide store workers is the epitome of ridiculous abuse of the concept.
A person owns their body. They should be 100% in charge of what goes on within its borders. Its no one else's business, frankly. Companies should be worrying about performance, not drug testing.
Why is it reasonable for children but not adults? Because they are CHILDREN.Why does a fetus have a right to life but a child doesn't have a right to unreasonable search? If you don't see the difference in killing and doing a search whether it is reasoanble or not, you are hopeless.What's the defining factor here for you? See above.
You actually hurt your abortion argument with your contradictions. No not at all. I don't understand why you can't see the distinction. Why do we have a juevinle justice system instead of putting children in adult prisons? Becasue they are DIFFERENT. Do you have kids, JT?
ok then. when isit reasonable to conduct a drug test, i mean aside from when a cop pulls over a car he can't see through from one side to the other cuz it looks like a cheech and chong movie? but i suppose then a drug test isn't realy necessary.
ya know. this is actually getting to be a good discussion.
Couldn't our current regard of kids be seen as a modified version of the way slavery worked? Kids can be traded, locked up and/or beaten (to an extent), and more. In a very real way, parents own their kids, and they share that ownership with school, and with the government, among others.
At some point some super-genius-mature 12-year old is going to become a lawyer and argue to the Supreme Court that a person's natural rights and ownership of self don't start at some arbitrary point in time, but instead are tied to something else (the ability to reason, simply being alive, consciousness, or something else)..and the benchmark for who/what has rights is going to shift mightily.
i'm not saying its unreasonable. if theres reason to suspect, its perfecty reasonable. its no different than a cop seeing a car swerving down the road, and stopping it. a field sobriety test is likely in the driver's immediate future.
lance you may well be right in that. you can see it already in states where emancipation from one's parents is legalised.
ok then. when is it reasonable to conduct a drug test,
When a person wants to take a drug test to see what drugs there are inside them, and in what quantities. Other than that, it's nobody's freakin' business what those things and quantities are.
i mean aside from when a cop pulls over a car he can't see through from one side to the other cuz it looks like a cheech and chong movie?
I don't see a reason why a cop should ever have to do a drug test. If a person's driving is endangering other, it should be readily apparent. If a person is too fucked up to drive, then that also should be readily apparent. What chemicals are in the driver's body are irrelevant. What matters is, is the driver endangering people? Is the driver incapable of driving? One shouldn't need to titrate the driver's body fluids to figure it out.
How do you drug test a driver for sleepiness, or illness, or dizziness, or depression, or anger, or any of the many non-drug things which can cause dangerous driving? Should we start letting cops do medical tests to determine if people are in any of those states? I'm sure it can be tested.
lance, the simple answer is that its smoking marijuana is illegal. whether or not that's right is another whole debate. i was just looking at it from the point of view of enforcing the law. its no less legal to drive with a bac of greater than 0.10 or 0.08 than it is to drive while high.
within the past year, i caught a blurb on the news that could somehow detect a driver who was "too sleepy" to drive by examining the driver's eyes. i don't remember all the details of this however :( the problem with this, as opposed to a bac test is that the bac test is completely quantitave. this is far from that. personally, if i make it past the 10 at nite "dozing" period, i can go for hours after that.
how is testing for drugs in school going to nip the problem before it gets big?
another aside. i never put a whole lot of faith in the results of the surveys that say "36% of high school seniors say they've smoked pot in the last month". i've taken those surveys. i've seen other students take those surveys. in fact, the last time i took one, several of us made it a group activity, with the goal being to throw off the results as much as we possibly could.
incidentally that aside leads to the next question. is it reallythat big of a problem in schools that we need to test every student for drug use? my guess, based on my own actions when it comes to those surveys is that it probably isn't.
Screw drug testing! It costs $500 a pop for that little pee in a cup test. That would pay for a whole mess of books and classroom materials. I'd rather pay for that than a liter of piss from the football team.
Drug testing (for mind or behavior-altering drugs) as a general action is an unreasonable action, because it tends to attach an unreasonable presumption to the results of the test. It's unreasonable because it doesn't make sense. I.E., the results of a drug test don't necessarily tell you much about the actual or potential behavior of the person, or their character or whatever. Furthermore, the tests are almost always attached to some short list of illegal drugs, which ignores so many other drugs which might affect those same qualities, that it makes the tests biased and moot. If it isn't obvious, the drug that poses the most danger to the workplace is alcohol, and I'd put a lot of prescription drugs right below alcohol on that list, and above most illegal drugs.
So, the act of testing (the medical act of measuring and all that) isn't unreasonable by itself, but the context in which the drug testing takes place is where the unreasonable stuff lies.
It's unreasonable to think you are protecting your workplace from the dangers of drug abuse by doing drug testing. It is unreasonable to think that you are making your workplace safer by doing drug testing. It is unreasonable to think that you will have happier, more productive, or otherwise better workers by doing drug testing. And so on.
In the context of mandatory testing, which isn't connected to some privilege-- like testing of all school kids, or of all people, or of any folks who aren't asking for something extra, it's unreasonable because a person has a right to decide what goes into and comes out of their body, and they are in charge of everything inside its borders. It's up to Person A if they want Person B to have any access to their body or not. If I don't want to tell anyone what chemicals are in my body at what amounts, I shouldn't have to. To require that I do is unreasonable.
I don't see a reason why a cop should ever have to do a drug test. If a person's driving is endangering other, it should be readily apparent. If a person is too fucked up to drive, then that also should be readily apparent. What chemicals are in the driver's body are irrelevant. It is relevant. It is a crucuial element of driving under the influence. If you don't know for sure what they are on you don't get a conviction.
Furthermore, the tests are almaost always attached to some short list of illegal drugs, which ignores so many other drugs which might affect those same qualities, that it makes the tests biased and moot.
e.g., eat a poppy-seed bagel in the morning for breakfast and see what shows up when you take a drug test.
how is testing for drugs in school going to nip the problem before it gets big? If you have a kid that is just starting to use you can at least try to stop the problem.
incidentally that aside leads to the next question. is it really that big of a problem in schools that we need to test every student for drug use? Most likely they would do it only when they suspected there was a problem.
It is relevant. It is a crucuial element of driving under the influence. If you don't know for sure what they are on you don't get a conviction.
exactly! as i said, the only reason for this is the set of laws we have prohibiting the use of certain chemicals, and even moreso, the laws prohibiting driving under the influence of said chemicals. were those laws not present, then there would be no need for said test.
It would be fine and dandy if drug users didn't drive, build automobiles, run heavy equipment, do construction, use butcher knives......... Because of this it isn't as simple as it being a private issue.
I see nothing wrong with a company not wanting to employ drug users. Doesn't the company have that right to test and not hire such people?
Most likely they would do it only when they suspected there was a problem.
then you test only those who you suspect are using. but, methinks you'll have a very very difficult time forcing any student to submit to a drug test just because he or she happens to be in school on the day they administer the test. i certainly wouldn't have submitted to one when i was in school just because someone suspected i was smoking pot.
If what you say is correct, what about the guy I find at the scene of an accident? I control the bleeding until help arrives, but I am now exposed to this man's blood. Don't I have a right to know what's in his body? If not, I should just let him die, right? The sad fact is it happens all the time. I can't let him die, but he is not obligated to tell me what's in his blood. Sucks, don't it?
DWI and DUI generally don't require any specific type of chemical just that something has made the driver intoxicated. You can get a DWI od DUI if you are driving after chemotherapy.
then you test only those who you suspect are using. but, methinks you'll have a very very difficult time forcing any student to submit to a drug test just because he or she happens to be in school on the day they administer the test. i certainly wouldn't have submitted to one when i was in school just because someone suspected i was smoking pot.
Then you get in school suspension or some such thing for the remainder of the year.
Not true. DWI - (driving while impared) does not require any substance use or abuse. A person could simply be tired and charged with DWI. DUI requires a substance to be involved at a specific threshold.
Then you get in school suspension or some such thing for the remainder of the year.
so instead of sitting in a normal class i end up in the iss room. oh. big punishment there. that's akin to suspendig someone in elementary school for fighting on the playground. its a vacation for them.
Subdivision 1. Driving while impaired crime. It is a  crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical  control of any motor vehicle within this state or on any  boundary water of this state:
(1) when the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) when the person is under the influence of a controlled  substance;
(3) when the person is knowingly under the influence of a  hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or  muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's  ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) when the person is under the influence of a combination  of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1), (2),  and (3);
(5) when the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or  as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating,  or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.10 or  more;
(6) when the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the  person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured  within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in  physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or  more; or
(7) when the person's body contains any amount of a  controlled substance listed in schedule I or II other than  marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols.
Subd. 2. Refusal to submit to chemical test crime.  It is a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical  test of the person's blood, breath, or urine under section  169A.52 (test refusal or failure; revocation of license).
Subd. 3. Sentence. A person who violates this  section may be sentenced as provided in section 169A.24  (first-degree driving while impaired), 169A.25 (second-degree  driving while impaired), 169A.26 (third-degree driving while  impaired), or 169A.27 (fourth-degree driving while impaired).
HIST: 2000 c 478 art 1 s 7; 1Sp2001 c 8 art 11 s 2; 1Sp2001 c  9 art 19 s 3
Subd. 2. Impairment from prescription drug. If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it is an affirmative defense to a violation of section 169A.20 subdivision 1, clause (7) (presence of schedule I or II controlled substance), that the defendant used the controlled substance according to the terms of a prescription issued for the defendant in accordance with sections 152.11 and 152.12.
which means that when the pharmacy gives pe a prescription for something with codeine it better provide the "do not operate machinery" sticker on the bottle.
incidentally, lance, if you're reading, these statues were taken from the minnesota statutes.
that's the sorriest excuse for changing a name i've ever heard, csc. intoxicated is too difficult to prove. not that i'm trying to make a dig at those guys, but wouldn't changing the definition of "intoxicated" in the statute make it easier to prove?
jethro bodine - 09:35am Mar 22, 2002 PST (#761 of 806) Conservative Crusader!
mind if i ask why it shouldn't apply to children?
Because they are children. They need spervision. fold, with his limited intellect, is apparently unable to see the difference between a right to life and a right to be free from unreasonable searches. These are different rights. Of course, we didn't discuss whether it is really unreasoable to to do drug tests on children.
Furthermore, the tests are almost always attached to some short list of illegal drugs, which ignores so many other drugs which might affect those same qualities, that it makes the tests biased and moot.
e.g., eat a poppy-seed bagel in the morning for breakfast and see what shows up when you take a drug test.
That's actually not what I was e.g.-ing. More like, e.g., Prozac, booze, Xanax, codeine, etc. I wasn't referring to false positives...though those make drug tests unreliable also. (on edit: I was referring to drugs which are not generally tested for.)
I see nothing wrong with a company not wanting to employ drug users. Doesn't the company have that right to test and not hire such people?
Do they have the right? Yes. Is it helping the company to do so? Probably not. Is it unfairly discriminating against some drug users over other drug users? Yes. Is it based on distrust and invasion, and a sick ethic to have within an organization? Yes.
It would be fine and dandy if drug users didn't drive, build automobiles, run heavy equipment, do construction, use butcher knives......... Because of this it isn't as simple as it being a private issue.
You know what? Millions of them do, and they don't hurt anybody doing it. What does that do to your premise?
If what you say is correct, what about the guy I find at the scene of an accident? I control the bleeding until help arrives, but I am now exposed to this man's blood. Don't I have a right to know what's in his body?
No, I don't think so. Under what rule of nature do you have that right?
If not, I should just let him die, right? The sad fact is it happens all the time. I can't let him die, but he is not obligated to tell me what's in his blood. Sucks, don't it?
I suppose it does suck. Sometimes you have to make hard choices in life. Frankly, I doubt it happens all the time. I doubt it happens more than a few times a day, at most.
What if you go to help the guy, and his car blows up and you die? Sucks, don't it? Yep. And that's the risk that the good samaritan/hero takes. You could always just let him die and not have to worry about it, if you think you could live with that. Life's choices aren't simple sometimes.
Are you trying to imply that saving a person's life, or assisting them, gives the saver/helper an increased right to access the savee's private info? Or are you just bummed that it sucks?
That Minnesota DWI statute makes me want to puke. Our system of laws is ridiculous.
I feel a rumble...oh man...is it? WHOA! It is! It's the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. It felt like about a 5.7 on the tyranny scale.
actually, csc, i believe in minnesota you're only required to help in the highest capacity you've been trained to. for most people that means calling 911 and waiting for more advanced help.
Do they have the right? Yes. Is it helping the company to do so? Probably not. Is it unfairly discriminating against some drug users over other drug users? Yes. Is it based on distrust and invasion, and a sick ethic to have within an organization? Yes.
Why isn't it helping the company? I'd have to find some statistics but, drug & alcohol users generally cost a company more than non substance abusers. It's in the companies interest to not hire those people.
I don't know what you mean by unfairly discriminatory?
Is it based on distrust and invasion, and a sick ethic to have within an organization? Yes.
That's your opinion. Distrust? Are we to trust people on their word that they are not drug users? Invasion? If I'm paying someone to do a job I don't think it too much to ask that they not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
You know what? Millions of them do, and they don't hurt anybody doing it. What does that do to your premise?
There's always exceptions and it may even be that a majority of them don't hurt anyone. I read or saw somewhere that the average drunk drives their car hundreds of times drunk before they actually end up hurting or killing someone.
Is it unreasoable to to do drug tests?
Depends on the circumstances but generally no, it's not unreasonable. This includes adults as well as children.
There is a difference between right to life and a right to be free from unreasonable searches. You do understand the difference, don't you?
So if it isn't unreasoanble what possible grounds do you have to oppose drug testing?
The right you were referring to was the right to be secure in your person etc from unreasonable searches and seizures, were you not?
There is a difference between right to life and a right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Where is this "right to life" that you speak of? I can't seem to find it in my notes.
So if it isn't unreasoanble what possible grounds do you have to oppose drug testing?
Sometimes it is unreasonable. I said it depends on the situation.
The right you were referring to was the right to be secure in your person etc from unreasonable searches and seizures, were you not?
I'm talking about any right. Why do you believe children do not have the rights you have? Some rights are specific such as voting rights but, what about search & seizure? Do children not have a right to be secure in their person from ureasonable...............?
Drug testing children however doesn't seem unreasonable. Therefore the 4th amendment should not be an issue.
Drug testing children however doesn't seem unreasonable.
Why is it reasonable for children but not adults? Why does a fetus have a right to life but a child doesn't have a right to unreasonable search? What's the defining factor here for you?
You actually hurt your abortion argument with your contradictions.
Other than that- drug testing by companies is generally foolish and wasteful (and unreasonable), drug testing of extracurricular kids is foolish for the reasons pointed out by everyone (those aren't the kids mostly doing drugs), drug testing of all kids would just drive out/ruin the kids that need help the most, and drug testing of all people is one of the most perverse ideas I have heard in a long time.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm opposed to drug testing. I won't apply for or work at places that test, and when I can, I try to avoid supporting those places too. Particularly Blockbuster, because drug testing vide store workers is the epitome of ridiculous abuse of the concept.
A person owns their body. They should be 100% in charge of what goes on within its borders. Its no one else's business, frankly. Companies should be worrying about performance, not drug testing.
Why is it reasonable for children but not adults? Because they are CHILDREN.Why does a fetus have a right to life but a child doesn't have a right to unreasonable search? If you don't see the difference in killing and doing a search whether it is reasoanble or not, you are hopeless.What's the defining factor here for you? See above.
You actually hurt your abortion argument with your contradictions. No not at all. I don't understand why you can't see the distinction. Why do we have a juevinle justice system instead of putting children in adult prisons? Becasue they are DIFFERENT. Do you have kids, JT?
Drug testing is always unreasonable,....
no it isn't
ok then. when isit reasonable to conduct a drug test, i mean aside from when a cop pulls over a car he can't see through from one side to the other cuz it looks like a cheech and chong movie? but i suppose then a drug test isn't realy necessary.
ya know. this is actually getting to be a good discussion.
Couldn't our current regard of kids be seen as a modified version of the way slavery worked? Kids can be traded, locked up and/or beaten (to an extent), and more. In a very real way, parents own their kids, and they share that ownership with school, and with the government, among others.
At some point some super-genius-mature 12-year old is going to become a lawyer and argue to the Supreme Court that a person's natural rights and ownership of self don't start at some arbitrary point in time, but instead are tied to something else (the ability to reason, simply being alive, consciousness, or something else)..and the benchmark for who/what has rights is going to shift mightily.
That's my prediction, at least.
Why is drug testing unreasonable?
i'm not saying its unreasonable. if theres reason to suspect, its perfecty reasonable. its no different than a cop seeing a car swerving down the road, and stopping it. a field sobriety test is likely in the driver's immediate future.
lance you may well be right in that. you can see it already in states where emancipation from one's parents is legalised.
When a person wants to take a drug test to see what drugs there are inside them, and in what quantities. Other than that, it's nobody's freakin' business what those things and quantities are.
I don't see a reason why a cop should ever have to do a drug test. If a person's driving is endangering other, it should be readily apparent. If a person is too fucked up to drive, then that also should be readily apparent. What chemicals are in the driver's body are irrelevant. What matters is, is the driver endangering people? Is the driver incapable of driving? One shouldn't need to titrate the driver's body fluids to figure it out.
How do you drug test a driver for sleepiness, or illness, or dizziness, or depression, or anger, or any of the many non-drug things which can cause dangerous driving? Should we start letting cops do medical tests to determine if people are in any of those states? I'm sure it can be tested.
lance, the simple answer is that its smoking marijuana is illegal. whether or not that's right is another whole debate. i was just looking at it from the point of view of enforcing the law. its no less legal to drive with a bac of greater than 0.10 or 0.08 than it is to drive while high.
within the past year, i caught a blurb on the news that could somehow detect a driver who was "too sleepy" to drive by examining the driver's eyes. i don't remember all the details of this however :( the problem with this, as opposed to a bac test is that the bac test is completely quantitave. this is far from that. personally, if i make it past the 10 at nite "dozing" period, i can go for hours after that.
It is also reasonable for schools to do drug testing in an attempt to nip the problem before it gets big.
how is testing for drugs in school going to nip the problem before it gets big?
another aside. i never put a whole lot of faith in the results of the surveys that say "36% of high school seniors say they've smoked pot in the last month". i've taken those surveys. i've seen other students take those surveys. in fact, the last time i took one, several of us made it a group activity, with the goal being to throw off the results as much as we possibly could.
incidentally that aside leads to the next question. is it reallythat big of a problem in schools that we need to test every student for drug use? my guess, based on my own actions when it comes to those surveys is that it probably isn't.
Screw drug testing! It costs $500 a pop for that little pee in a cup test. That would pay for a whole mess of books and classroom materials. I'd rather pay for that than a liter of piss from the football team.
oh, but as the number of tests taken went up, the schools would get a volume discount, csc.
</sarcasm>
It depends from what perspective you mean.
Drug testing (for mind or behavior-altering drugs) as a general action is an unreasonable action, because it tends to attach an unreasonable presumption to the results of the test. It's unreasonable because it doesn't make sense. I.E., the results of a drug test don't necessarily tell you much about the actual or potential behavior of the person, or their character or whatever. Furthermore, the tests are almost always attached to some short list of illegal drugs, which ignores so many other drugs which might affect those same qualities, that it makes the tests biased and moot. If it isn't obvious, the drug that poses the most danger to the workplace is alcohol, and I'd put a lot of prescription drugs right below alcohol on that list, and above most illegal drugs.
So, the act of testing (the medical act of measuring and all that) isn't unreasonable by itself, but the context in which the drug testing takes place is where the unreasonable stuff lies.
It's unreasonable to think you are protecting your workplace from the dangers of drug abuse by doing drug testing. It is unreasonable to think that you are making your workplace safer by doing drug testing. It is unreasonable to think that you will have happier, more productive, or otherwise better workers by doing drug testing. And so on.
In the context of mandatory testing, which isn't connected to some privilege-- like testing of all school kids, or of all people, or of any folks who aren't asking for something extra, it's unreasonable because a person has a right to decide what goes into and comes out of their body, and they are in charge of everything inside its borders. It's up to Person A if they want Person B to have any access to their body or not. If I don't want to tell anyone what chemicals are in my body at what amounts, I shouldn't have to. To require that I do is unreasonable.
Does that answer your question?
I don't see a reason why a cop should ever have to do a drug test. If a person's driving is endangering other, it should be readily apparent. If a person is too fucked up to drive, then that also should be readily apparent. What chemicals are in the driver's body are irrelevant. It is relevant. It is a crucuial element of driving under the influence. If you don't know for sure what they are on you don't get a conviction.
Furthermore, the tests are almaost always attached to some short list of illegal drugs, which ignores so many other drugs which might affect those same qualities, that it makes the tests biased and moot.
e.g., eat a poppy-seed bagel in the morning for breakfast and see what shows up when you take a drug test.
how is testing for drugs in school going to nip the problem before it gets big? If you have a kid that is just starting to use you can at least try to stop the problem.
incidentally that aside leads to the next question. is it really that big of a problem in schools that we need to test every student for drug use? Most likely they would do it only when they suspected there was a problem.
It is relevant. It is a crucuial element of driving under the influence. If you don't know for sure what they are on you don't get a conviction.
exactly! as i said, the only reason for this is the set of laws we have prohibiting the use of certain chemicals, and even moreso, the laws prohibiting driving under the influence of said chemicals. were those laws not present, then there would be no need for said test.
Do you have kids, JT?
Yes I do, what does that matter?
Regarding drug testing.
It would be fine and dandy if drug users didn't drive, build automobiles, run heavy equipment, do construction, use butcher knives......... Because of this it isn't as simple as it being a private issue.
I see nothing wrong with a company not wanting to employ drug users. Doesn't the company have that right to test and not hire such people?
Most likely they would do it only when they suspected there was a problem.
then you test only those who you suspect are using. but, methinks you'll have a very very difficult time forcing any student to submit to a drug test just because he or she happens to be in school on the day they administer the test. i certainly wouldn't have submitted to one when i was in school just because someone suspected i was smoking pot.
Lance:
If what you say is correct, what about the guy I find at the scene of an accident? I control the bleeding until help arrives, but I am now exposed to this man's blood. Don't I have a right to know what's in his body? If not, I should just let him die, right? The sad fact is it happens all the time. I can't let him die, but he is not obligated to tell me what's in his blood. Sucks, don't it?
DWI and DUI generally don't require any specific type of chemical just that something has made the driver intoxicated. You can get a DWI od DUI if you are driving after chemotherapy.
then you test only those who you suspect are using. but, methinks you'll have a very very difficult time forcing any student to submit to a drug test just because he or she happens to be in school on the day they administer the test. i certainly wouldn't have submitted to one when i was in school just because someone suspected i was smoking pot.
Then you get in school suspension or some such thing for the remainder of the year.
Not true. DWI - (driving while impared) does not require any substance use or abuse. A person could simply be tired and charged with DWI. DUI requires a substance to be involved at a specific threshold.
Then you get in school suspension or some such thing for the remainder of the year.
so instead of sitting in a normal class i end up in the iss room. oh. big punishment there. that's akin to suspendig someone in elementary school for fighting on the playground. its a vacation for them.
when did the i in dwi change from intoxicated to impaired?
It is only a problem if the kid is 12 or older. Kids younger than that cannot commit a crime in the state of Minnesota.
and if the parent of a kid under 12 isn't sufficiently supervising the kid to keep them from using drugs, then the parent *ought* to be in jail.
DWI changed quite a ways back. It was that way when I took my law class in 1990.
169A.20 Driving while impaired.
Subdivision 1. Driving while impaired crime. It is a
 crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical
 control of any motor vehicle within this state or on any
 boundary water of this state:
(1) when the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) when the person is under the influence of a controlled
 substance;
(3) when the person is knowingly under the influence of a
 hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or
 muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's
 ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
(4) when the person is under the influence of a combination
 of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1), (2),
 and (3);
(5) when the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or
 as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating,
 or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.10 or
 more;
(6) when the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the
 person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured
 within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in
 physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or
 more; or
(7) when the person's body contains any amount of a
 controlled substance listed in schedule I or II other than
 marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols.
Subd. 2. Refusal to submit to chemical test crime.
 It is a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical
 test of the person's blood, breath, or urine under section
 169A.52 (test refusal or failure; revocation of license).
Subd. 3. Sentence. A person who violates this
 section may be sentenced as provided in section 169A.24
 (first-degree driving while impaired), 169A.25 (second-degree
 driving while impaired), 169A.26 (third-degree driving while
 impaired), or 169A.27 (fourth-degree driving while impaired).
HIST: 2000 c 478 art 1 s 7; 1Sp2001 c 8 art 11 s 2; 1Sp2001 c
 9 art 19 s 3
Here's the DUI DWI low down. I see it has changed recently.
http://www.sessoms.com/DWIversusDUI.html
even more interesting, from 169A.46:
Subd. 2. Impairment from prescription drug. If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it is an affirmative defense to a violation of section 169A.20 subdivision 1, clause (7) (presence of schedule I or II controlled substance), that the defendant used the controlled substance according to the terms of a prescription issued for the defendant in accordance with sections 152.11 and 152.12.
which means that when the pharmacy gives pe a prescription for something with codeine it better provide the "do not operate machinery" sticker on the bottle.
incidentally, lance, if you're reading, these statues were taken from the minnesota statutes.
that's the sorriest excuse for changing a name i've ever heard, csc. intoxicated is too difficult to prove. not that i'm trying to make a dig at those guys, but wouldn't changing the definition of "intoxicated" in the statute make it easier to prove?
Thank the "PC" crowd.
jethro bodine - 09:35am Mar 22, 2002 PST (#761 of 806) Conservative Crusader!
mind if i ask why it shouldn't apply to children?
Because they are children. They need spervision. fold, with his limited intellect, is apparently unable to see the difference between a right to life and a right to be free from unreasonable searches. These are different rights. Of course, we didn't discuss whether it is really unreasoable to to do drug tests on children.
Jethro, Knock this crap off already.
That's actually not what I was e.g.-ing. More like, e.g., Prozac, booze, Xanax, codeine, etc. I wasn't referring to false positives...though those make drug tests unreliable also. (on edit: I was referring to drugs which are not generally tested for.)
Do they have the right? Yes. Is it helping the company to do so? Probably not. Is it unfairly discriminating against some drug users over other drug users? Yes. Is it based on distrust and invasion, and a sick ethic to have within an organization? Yes.
You know what? Millions of them do, and they don't hurt anybody doing it. What does that do to your premise?
No, I don't think so. Under what rule of nature do you have that right?
I suppose it does suck. Sometimes you have to make hard choices in life. Frankly, I doubt it happens all the time. I doubt it happens more than a few times a day, at most.
What if you go to help the guy, and his car blows up and you die? Sucks, don't it? Yep. And that's the risk that the good samaritan/hero takes. You could always just let him die and not have to worry about it, if you think you could live with that. Life's choices aren't simple sometimes.
Are you trying to imply that saving a person's life, or assisting them, gives the saver/helper an increased right to access the savee's private info? Or are you just bummed that it sucks?
That Minnesota DWI statute makes me want to puke. Our system of laws is ridiculous.
I feel a rumble...oh man...is it? WHOA! It is! It's the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. It felt like about a 5.7 on the tyranny scale.
That Minnesota DWI statute makes me want to puke. Our system of laws is ridiculous.
I feel a rumble...oh man...is it? WHOA! It is! It's the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. It felt like about a 5.7 on the tyranny scale.
roflmao, lance.
actually, i'd be surprised if the minnesota dwi laws differ all that much from the general dwi laws of the rest of the country.
Lance:
It is against the law for me NOT to help him, so there is no life choice to be made.
Oh yeah, I was just saying I was bummed that it sucks.
Let's change the DWI law to the "Don't Withhold Income" law. I'd like that one much better. :)
actually, csc, i believe in minnesota you're only required to help in the highest capacity you've been trained to. for most people that means calling 911 and waiting for more advanced help.
Do they have the right? Yes. Is it helping the company to do so? Probably not. Is it unfairly discriminating against some drug users over other drug users? Yes. Is it based on distrust and invasion, and a sick ethic to have within an organization? Yes.
Why isn't it helping the company? I'd have to find some statistics but, drug & alcohol users generally cost a company more than non substance abusers. It's in the companies interest to not hire those people.
I don't know what you mean by unfairly discriminatory?
Is it based on distrust and invasion, and a sick ethic to have within an organization? Yes.
That's your opinion. Distrust? Are we to trust people on their word that they are not drug users? Invasion? If I'm paying someone to do a job I don't think it too much to ask that they not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
You know what? Millions of them do, and they don't hurt anybody doing it. What does that do to your premise?
There's always exceptions and it may even be that a majority of them don't hurt anyone. I read or saw somewhere that the average drunk drives their car hundreds of times drunk before they actually end up hurting or killing someone.
And to think, Jethro calls me a Liberal!
Good Samaritan laws suck.