Less Zero Tolerance my behind!!!

[Andara Bledin]

I think trying to get drug dealers out of school before their drugs make more people ill is a smart move, but I suppose some people don't think drugs that make students sick is a big deal.

First off, stop lumping all drugs together.

It's idiotic, knee-jerk, Big Brotherish antics like this that leave kids dying because they can't have their inhalers on their person while in school.

OTC an prescription versions of OTC pharmaceuticals that have no value as recreational narcotics should never be lumped in with that looming specter of "evil drugs" that you keep pointlessly trying to invoke.

The administration in this case had decided the girl was guilty based on the allegations of two proven offenders and nothing else. And in their mad witch hunt, they took thing way too far by any rational standards because they couldn't admit that maybe the kids that had already broken the rules might have lied and they were wrong.

Your blind support of authority to the exclusion of all else including common decency is truly disturbing.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

I can just picture the conversation now:

Principal "What are you doing with these drugs?"
Proven Trouble Kids "They aren't ours. They are, uh, Innocent Girl's!"
Principal "Oh, well that makes sense."

[blas87]

That was just beyond ridiculous. Greenday has made some very good points in this thread, and the above....exchange between Officer Greenday and Johnny Buttfuck is just.....wrong.

[Greenday]

I can imagine Greenday as a cop

Johnny Longlegs: You caught me coppa. Fine, I'll come clean, I've been dealing drugs for Tony Marmaluke. Check the car, its registered to him and you can find the entire stash in the trunk

Officer Greenday: Just because you say you work for Tony Marmaluke how do I know for sure? He's only been accused of crimes, they never managed to catch him red handed? I hear he was an honors student in school.

Johnny Lonlegs: What, really? Didn't Tony the Snitch come to you also saying that Tony Marmaluke is behind this entire drug empire?

Officer Greenday: Just because a couple of people I don't like independently tell me the same story that doesn't mean I'm going to go around investigating it all willy nilly. What if one day in the future a judge declared investigations to be unconstitutional. I can be thrown in jail for doing things that will one day become unconstitutional.

Johnny Lonlegs: No you can't.

Officer Greenday: Yes I can. I know more about the constitution then every judge in America.

Hey! I would NEVER use the phrase "willy nilly" in a sentence.

[Greenday]

His main argument that judges that he disagrees with are morons and school officials should know what judges will decide before the case is brought to them.

If a judge doesn't know the Constitution, I think that definitely qualifies them to be called a moron.

If I pull out a gun and shoot someone in front of a large crowd, wouldn't you expect me to be arrested and thrown in jail? I'm pretty sure you'd call me an idiot if I said, "Hey, how was I supposed to know the judge would say I was wrong?" Ignorance of the law does not excuse them breaking the law. And you'd have to be ignorant to think as an adult with no powers from the law that you have the right to strip search a child without anyone's permission.

I would be extremely happy to call any person involved with this case who claimed that they didn't know it wasn't okay a moron to their face.

[the_std]

But they didn't break the law. The law was changed after the fact. Nowhere did it say that strip searches where prohibited. Under your thinking everybody who drank when the drinking age was 18 should have been arrested when it was changed to 21

Correction. The law didn't change. The interpretation of the law did.

[FArchivist]

I think some districts have their heads so far up their asses with this zero tolerance rule BS.

The main problem with zero tolerance policies is that they allow NO room for discretion. That's how you get problems like this. Unfortunately, zero tolerance didn't evolve because administrations wanted to make it easy for them. It was actually demanded by the public in the early 1990s. We have to get tough on crime, three strikes, zero tolerance for offenders, yadda, yadda....and the legislators did exactly what the public wanted.

Unfortunately, the public was unaware of a little thing called "Unintended Consequences". (As usual.)

But then, I am old enough to remember when everyone was clamoring for this. *sigh*

[HYHYBT]

No; SOME people were clamoring for this, and it "tough on crime" always sounds good in campaign ads, regardless of what, if anything, the candidate does to deserve the label. It happens in other areas, too; it's not that different than when, a few governors ago, one pushed through a law (or possibly separate laws, but at the same time) requiring fewer students per classroom and cutting funds for teacher pay simultaneously. That way he could look good on both education and the budget, sticking city and county governments and their school boards with the blame when they were forced to raise property (etc) taxes to cover the difference.