dave

Jag -

How do you figure this is a see-through argument?

Secondly, it's only a pointless analogy if you consider analogies pointless. If you don't, it's not. And it's not misleading. I will say it again - <b>You surrender something every time you get something worth having</b>.

Now. Consider this for a moment. The US Government is taking over security at airports. This means that they will be the ones performing the searches. They will be scanning bags and wand-ing passengers. They are more government and less commercial than the public schools. Based upon the 4th Amendment that Nic has posted, you would have a stronger case arguing against security at airports than you would against urine testing in high school "competetive extracurricular activities". Based upon the Constitution and its amendments, schools have more of a right to search students than the security screeners at airports will have to search you. Think about the precedent that this case will set (if decided in the students' favor) and all the nasty work that will have to go into undoing it when someone challenges airport security.

Now think about the fact that no one has much of a problem with airport security. It's a pain in the ass and can be time consuming, but that's part of the territory.

The same will be true with competetive extracurricular activites in Oklahoma now.

Personally, I think it's kind of silly and definitely unnecessary, but I don't think that the students have a leg to stand on. Maybe half of one. Maybe.

You are very well read in conspiracy and how humanity will come to and end because of Big Brother. I think you need to balance it out with something about how humans are generally benign and dumb and don't quite have the desire or brains to pull off some of these things you accuse them of trying. You and I both know that cavity searches would never fly (unless it were the oral cavity), and including that in there is simply ridiculous. The uproar from parents would be phenomenal. The notion of cavity searches at school is absurd.

You know this in your omniscience?

There is certainly a possibility that they are moving toward that, yes. But I find it difficult to see how you can say, with any certainty, that this practice of urine testing students in "competetive extracurricular activities" is simply a giant ruse that will lead us into a world where all students are tested for drugs on a regular basis. The fact of the matter is that you don't <b>know</b> that's what they are doing. You have to look at their argument for what it is, not what it might be. You wouldn't want someone twisting your arguments or ideas such that the merit of your opinion was based upon what said opinion <b>might</b> be - you would want it based upon what said opinion actually <b>was</b>. Why do you twist someone else's argument then? Why do you turn urine testing on students in "competetive extracurricular activities" into the Orwellian nightmare that it's not?