Ridiculous. Yes, Gilmour, Ignatius, and St Ed's are all private, parochial schools, but this makes no sense to me. If a student wants to smoke pot off campus, the school should have no right in defeating that.

Back in the day, my brother was getting straight A's at Gilmour Academy. Went on to get his engineering degree at Case Tech. Smoking weed never stopped him from realizing his dream...and success in the business world.

Hopefully enrollment will drop significantly.

Who smokes pot off school property .... That why school lunch was created....

Ridiculous. Yes, Gilmour, Ignatius, and St Ed's are all private, parochial schools, but this makes no sense to me. If a student wants to smoke pot off campus, the school should have no right in defeating that.

Back in the day, my brother was getting straight A's at Gilmour Academy. Went on to get his engineering degree at Case Tech. Smoking weed never stopped him from realizing his dream...and success in the business world.

Hopefully enrollment will drop significantly.

LOL Wedge, and for every one like your brother who turned out okay three slipped into an abyss. From what I understand about this, it is about intervention and not punishment. You are talking 14,15, 16, 17 year old kids here. I have no problem with adults and more mature people and recreational drug use....but I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep your kids safe and out of that culture at least until such time as they have the maturity to make intelligent decisions.
You are also talking St. Ignatius, Gilmour and St Ed's...that's a privledge to go to those schools. If you want to do drugs, go to a public school and quit wasting somebody's money.

HitsRus;1611816 wrote:LOL Wedge, and for every one like your brother who turned out okay three slipped into an abyss. From what I understand about this, it is about intervention and not punishment. You are talking 14,15, 16, 17 year old kids here. I have no problem with adults and more mature people and recreational drug use....but I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep your kids safe and out of that culture at least until such time as they have the maturity to make intelligent decisions.
You are also talking St. Ignatius, Gilmour and St Ed's...that's a privledge to go to those schools. If you want to do drugs, go to a public school and quit wasting somebody's money.

3/4 slip into abyss? I highly doubt that Hits. We live in a so called free society and people, even 15 year olds can make their own decisions. We are no longer a free society. Orwell had it correct.

ccrunner609;1611759 wrote:They are "private" schools. Why you so mad?

Not at all mad. Just sharing my libertarian viewpoint. For the record, I haven't toked a doobie in over 35 years. What people do off campus should be no concern to these schools. If their grades suffer, then boot em out.

Footwedge;1611837 wrote:Not at all mad. Just sharing my libertarian viewpoint. For the record, I haven't toked a doobie in over 35 years. What people do off campus should be no concern to these schools. If their grades suffer, then boot em out.

Those respective schools are about more than graades. If the parents don't want to commit their child to a certain set of ideals and code of conduct then they are free to go elsewhere for their educational services.

Footwedge;1611836 wrote:3/4 slip into abyss? I highly doubt that Hits. We live in a so called free society and people, even 15 year olds can make their own decisions. We are no longer a free society. Orwell had it correct.

15 year olds cannot make their own decisions about education. They are minors and are dependent upon the final approval of their legal guardian.

Footwedge;1611837 wrote:Not at all mad. Just sharing my libertarian viewpoint. For the record, I haven't toked a doobie in over 35 years. What people do off campus should be no concern to these schools. If their grades suffer, then boot em out.

Even though it was 35 years ago, it has lasting effects. All you have to do is read your Breowns playoff thread to see that.

Al Bundy;1611852 wrote:Even though it was 35 years ago, it has lasting effects. All you have to do is read your Breowns playoff thread to see that.

REPS!

God damnit I agree with Footwedge

Yes, these are private schools and they're well within their rights, but the issue is that there are plenty of publics instituting the same thing right now. There are 2-3 in Mahoning and Columbiana Counties looking at it right now.


I've never understood how a public school was allowed to issue punishment for anything that happens off of their grounds or under their immediate supervision. They should be punished by no one other than their parents (or police if they get arrested for something) for shit that has nothing to do with school. But courts consistently rule that schools can essentially do whatever the hell they want. If only the schools would worry about improving education instead of these little power tripping distractions. Not to mention that money could be used on other things to improve the actual education too.

ts1227;1611862 wrote:God damnit I agree with Footwedge

Yes, these are private schools and they're well within their rights, but the issue is that there are plenty of publics instituting the same thing right now. There are 2-3 in Mahoning and Columbiana Counties looking at it right now.


I've never understood how a public school was allowed to issue punishment for anything that happens off of their grounds or under their immediate supervision. They should be punished by no one other than their parents (or police if they get arrested for something) for shit that has nothing to do with school. But courts consistently rule that schools can essentially do whatever the hell they want. If only the schools would worry about improving education instead of these little power tripping distractions. Not to mention that money could be used on other things to improve the actual education too.

Especially when it leads to utter bullshit like when a Mansfield-area school (Clear Fork) suspended a kid and/or kicked him off the soccer (or some sports) team solely because he retweeted a picture of weed on 4/20. He wasn't caught smoking weed, he wasn't caught in possession of weed, he wasn't even caught on social media talking about smoking weed...he was just "caught" retweeting a picture of it.

From what I've read, his family is suing the school for that and hopefully they bury the administration.

These particular schools have been clear in their policy that there are no punitive results associated with the tests....

Every positive test will be subject to an automatic retest. First positive retest, school counseling and opportunity to engage in informal rehab/treatment, then a second test at an undetermined time. Second positive retest is mandatory rehab/treatment.

my only real problem with this is that it is not the schools job to raise or police your kid. that is your job as a parent. drug tests cost less than 20$ at cvs. it seems nowadays parents just wanna drop off their kid at school and let the school educate them and now add to that the job of disciplining them and teaching them right from wrong. do your job as parents and this would not be neccessary

Gblock;1611885 wrote:my only real problem with this is that it is not the schools job to raise or police your kid. that is your job as a parent. drug tests cost less than 20$ at cvs. it seems nowadays parents just wanna drop off their kid at school and let the school educate them and now add to that the job of disciplining them and teaching them right from wrong. do your job as parents and this would not be neccessary

Although I agree with most everything in your post, I would consider choosing a parochial school who drug tests and has a code of conduct as a parental effort to surround the child in an environment that's most conducive to academic achievement and reflective of the culture the parents are trying to emulate.

Interesting comments on both sides of the issue.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/05/drug_testing_at_st_edward_st_i.html

Con_Alma;1611884 wrote:These particular schools have been clear in their policy that there are no punitive results associated with the tests....

They don't have the standing to say that unequivocally when the cops show up.

queencitybuckeye;1611893 wrote:They don't have the standing to say that unequivocally when the cops show up.

...with regards to activities within the school?????

I've never understood how a public school was allowed to issue punishment for anything that happens off of their grounds or under their immediate supervision. They should be punished by no one other than their parents (or police if they get arrested for something) for shit that has nothing to do with school.

No punitive actions are to be taken...intervention only. I think that falls within an educational institutions scope. We are talking minors here.

Every positive test will be subject to an automatic retest. First positive retest, school counseling and opportunity to engage in informal rehab/treatment, then a second test at an undetermined time. Second positive retest is mandatory rehab/treatment.

3/4 slip into abyss? I highly doubt that Hits. We live in a so called free society and people, even 15 year olds can make their own decisions

So if it's only 1/4 is that enough? C'mon wedge....we are talking minors here...libertarianism is for adults.
The programs are geared for intervention. That he smoked a 'doobie' isn't the problem as much as it can and does expose immature, impressionable kids to individuals who could take them further down a dark path.

HitsRus;1611927 wrote:No punitive actions are to be taken...intervention only. I think that falls within an educational institutions scope. We are talking minors here.

But for public schools, should taxpayers really be on the hook for the school not minding their own damn business about stuff that's none of their concern if it's not happening on their watch?

Footwedge;1611836 wrote:... Orwell had it correct.

I don't think Orwell had it right as much as Huxley (Brave New World) did. Perhaps a bit if both.

ts1227;1611980 wrote:But for public schools, should taxpayers really be on the hook for the school not minding their own damn business about stuff that's none of their concern if it's not happening on their watch?

Thats up to the taxpayers in that public school district.

majorspark;1611987 wrote:Thats up to the taxpayers in that public school district.

Maybe, maybe not. Students in public schools have rights, and rights cannot be voted away.

queencitybuckeye;1611991 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. Students in public schools have rights, and rights cannot be voted away.

Thats a different argument. Point is if taxpayers don't want to "be on the hook" they can deny new or renewal funds to the district with that policy in place.

majorspark;1611995 wrote:Thats a different argument. Point is if taxpayers don't want to "be on the hook" they can deny new or renewal funds to the district with that policy in place.

True.

Con_Alma;1611886 wrote:Although I agree with most everything in your post, I would consider choosing a parochial school who drug tests and has a code of conduct as a parental effort to surround the child in an environment that's most conducive to academic achievement and reflective of the culture the parents are trying to emulate.

Is it really a parental effort? Seems to me these parents would be more than capable of policing this on their own.

And I think private schools should be looking for ways to slow run-away tuition costs rather than tack-on ineffective, non-value added expenses no matter how trivial.