The Cellar - View Single Post

03-21-2002, 02:32 PM

VS -

I have to keep this short because I have work to do, but I will try and respond to your points real quick.

First, let me state that I agree with the statement that testing students in "competetive extracurricular activities" is stupid. It is a waste of money. At the very most, urine testing should extend to athletes. That's it.

That having been said, I don't think that the students challenging the practice have a leg to stand on. They will lose, and rightfully so. They are challenging it with improper ammunition. Appeal to the taxpayers and say "this program is ineffective and wastes money; demand to have it stopped!" It is well within the bounds of the law to test students for drugs so long as they are given an opt-out (i.e., don't join the chess club). Some even think that it may be constitutional to test all students anyway. That's not what we're talking about, so we're not going to go there. But it's just to illustrate that the testing of students in "competetive extracurricular activities" is constitutional.

Now, I personally have no problem with testing athletes for substances. Here's why: it is of a real benefit. We do stand to gain. The world has lost many great athletes to drugs. The one I mentioned earlier, and the one that's closest to me, is Len Bias. If you don't know who he is, do a Google search. In a nutshell, he was probably going to be bigger than Michael Jordan. He was the University of Maryland's all-time highest scorer until this weekend, when Juan Dixon broke his record. He was first draft pick in '86 to the Celtics. He died from cardiac arrest induced by cocaine. His legacy now, instead of becoming the greatest NBA talent in the history of the league, is the cautious tale of athletes and drugs. Sadly, it seems to have been forgotten by many.

Even putting Len Bias and "illicit narcotics" aside, performance enhancing drugs have had a negative effect on sports. They give an undeserved edge to players, which ruins the competition. Sports aren't particularly interesting to me, but winning or losing in, say, the Olympics or a high school lacrosse game is life for some of these people. It matters to them. Cheating should not be tolerated, and stamping that out is simply good practice.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, are pain reducers in sports. Many injections and pills are used by athletes to reduce the pain so they can play. There's a big problem here - many of them wind up permanently damaging their bodies. Your body hurts for a reason - something is broken! Don't ignore it. Many athletes don't understand this (let's face it, not many football pros are intellectual giants, no offense to them), and they wind up regretting it later. I don't think we should set out to save everyone from themselves, but I think people should understand what they are getting into before doing it. If you choose to ruin your knees, that's fine. But I want you to understand what you're doing before you do it.

Drug testing can catch and prevent all of those. Whether or not you agree that those are benefits to society I'm not sure, and you don't need to buy me a drink even if you do - I don't drink. What I think is important is that we, as citizens, become more aware of what exactly our rights are and what we can do to fight gross tresspasses. Fighting this with the 4th Amendment is absurd. It is truly absurd. It is conditional. If a cop came up to you on the street and demanded to search you, he could not do so. You could sue under the 4th Amendment. If he came up to you and said "Yo, If I give you a donut, can I search you for weapons?", you can't do anything. It would be absurd to try and sue under the 4th Amendment because it was conditional; you could simply refuse the donut and walk away.

There's still more to respond to and this is long already, so I'll get to it later if I feel like it. In the mean time, please read over this post a few times and consider the validity of its points and the absurdity of arguing drug searches under the 4th Amendment in this case.

03-21-2002, 02:32 PM	#37
dave Guest Posts: n/a	VS - I have to keep this short because I have work to do, but I will try and respond to your points real quick. First, let me state that I agree with the statement that testing students in "competetive extracurricular activities" is <b>stupid</b>. It is a waste of money. At the very most, urine testing should extend to athletes. That's it. That having been said, I don't think that the students challenging the practice have a leg to stand on. They will lose, and rightfully so. They are challenging it with improper ammunition. Appeal to the taxpayers and say "this program is ineffective and wastes money; demand to have it stopped!" It is well within the bounds of the law to test students for drugs so long as they are given an opt-out (i.e., don't join the chess club). Some even think that it may be constitutional to test all students anyway. That's not what we're talking about, so we're not going to go there. But it's just to illustrate that the testing of students in "competetive extracurricular activities" is constitutional. Now, I personally have no problem with testing athletes for substances. Here's why: it <b>is</b> of a real benefit. We do stand to gain. The world has lost many great athletes to drugs. The one I mentioned earlier, and the one that's closest to me, is Len Bias. If you don't know who he is, do a Google search. In a nutshell, he was probably going to be bigger than Michael Jordan. He was the University of Maryland's all-time highest scorer until this weekend, when Juan Dixon broke his record. He was first draft pick in '86 to the Celtics. He died from cardiac arrest induced by cocaine. His legacy now, instead of becoming the greatest NBA talent in the history of the league, is the cautious tale of athletes and drugs. Sadly, it seems to have been forgotten by many. Even putting Len Bias and "illicit narcotics" aside, performance enhancing drugs have had a negative effect on sports. They give an undeserved edge to players, which ruins the competition. Sports aren't particularly interesting to me, but winning or losing in, say, the Olympics or a high school lacrosse game is <b>life</b> for some of these people. It <b>matters</b> to them. Cheating should not be tolerated, and stamping that out is simply good practice. Lastly, and probably most importantly, are pain reducers in sports. Many injections and pills are used by athletes to reduce the pain so they can play. There's a big problem here - many of them wind up permanently damaging their bodies. Your body hurts for a reason - something is broken! Don't ignore it. Many athletes don't understand this (let's face it, not many football pros are intellectual giants, no offense to them), and they wind up regretting it later. I don't think we should set out to save everyone from themselves, but I think people should understand what they are getting into before doing it. If you choose to ruin your knees, that's fine. But I want you to understand what you're doing before you do it. Drug testing can catch and prevent all of those. Whether or not you agree that those are benefits to society I'm not sure, and you don't need to buy me a drink even if you do - I don't drink. What I think is important is that we, as citizens, become more aware of what exactly our rights are and what we can do to fight gross tresspasses. Fighting this with the 4th Amendment is absurd. It is truly absurd. It is conditional. If a cop came up to you on the street and demanded to search you, he could not do so. You could sue under the 4th Amendment. If he came up to you and said "Yo, If I give you a donut, can I search you for weapons?", you can't do anything. It would be absurd to try and sue under the 4th Amendment because it was conditional; you could simply refuse the donut and walk away. There's still more to respond to and this is long already, so I'll get to it later if I feel like it. In the mean time, please read over this post a few times and consider the validity of its points and the absurdity of arguing drug searches under the 4th Amendment in this case.