DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

No. Only with probable cause, parental notification, or parental demand. Otherwise it's a waste of money and effort.

This would mean that "all" should be stricken from the question. Not even "most" or "many".

Spoken like a true drug addict.

What drugs are you implying that I use then? Speak up. If you must impugn my character in order to attempt to argue against me, then at least make your arguments specific, colorful, and amusing rather than pathetic.

I have not used or attempted to use any narcotic substances personally. I don't think that is a necessary requirement to oppose excessive police state tactics used to control such substances. Obviously you do, but you are wrong. Lots of non-drug users (or former drug users) oppose such policies on the grounds that they are used in a racially charged manner, or an excessively violent manner, or are fighting a losing battle by using police when we could use doctors instead, and so on. The number of valid reasons, even before getting into the serious philosophical disagreements about the role of the state that I have with authoritarian people like you, is legion without some strange claim that what we really want is to be able to get high. Which is false.

Additionally, lots of drug users are not addicts, most in fact. The implication that I am the more extreme version of such a person is offensive and wrong. I demand an apology. This would be about the third or fourth time you have made a personal attack on me in recent debates. It gets tiresome. Try actually defending your positions instead of defaming others.

I did not imply in any way shape or form that YOU were using drugs, I merely stated that your argument was spoken like a true drug addict. The implication, if any actually could be made from my statement, would be that perhaps you might be a drug advocate(which, in my humble opinion, is worse than a drug addict mainly because drug advocates enable not only the addict, but the addicts supplier on up the line to the drug cartels who manufacture all those illegal narcotics that the drug advocates want to see the addicts use).

The implication was indeed perfectly clear. You can't weasel out of this one. Only drug addicts (or drug advocates in this new definition of terms) would use such arguments in your view. Some problems, as usual, with this failed defence of a personal attack. I'm not sure how I was to conclude personally that your reply was meant to imply that I am a "drug advocate", much less that this was a version of social drug use that was somehow worse than addiction. "Advocacy" has little, if anything to do with addiction. In fact I would argue that true drug addicts (as distinct from the large majority of drug users) are very likely often among the strongest advocates AGAINST drug use simply by observing their behaviors.

I fail to see how I was to make this connection without access to your personal dictionary (one which has nothing to do with the common use of words that the rest of us generally agree upon). If you are going to make assertions, as I said, make them clearly and openly then, and with the sort of luridly amusing details that you enjoyed when you accused me of being a non-citizen immigrant of some variety. At least I will be entertained by such accusations rather than offended by them. If giving personal offense is truly your purpose (and not defense of your arguments and opinions, as it appears to be the case), again, clarity and detail would be of greater utility to you. I would at least be offended for the reasons you truly intended rather than for reasons that your lack of writing ability and mis-use of the English language provide as opportunistically available to any common reader of your statements.

I did not state or even imply that a) people should use drugs or be encouraged to use such drugs. I would prefer to leave such decisions to the individual bodies involved (parents, children, adults, etc). Using a bludgeon of state action like school testing seems overwrought with multiple problems far worse than the purported problems of student drug use. A problem which I have yet to see convincing evidence presented by you or anyone else is demanding of a concerted state political action in response. b) in opposing policies regarding such drugs somehow one must only conclude instead that they are engaging advocacy for such drugs. As I stated previously (and you have studiously ignored in your haste to conclude that there must be some personally objectionable basis to my disagreements with you), there are many, many good reasons to object to drug war policies, policies such as mandatory testing of students, without concluding that only advocacy of drug use or desire for drug use is the only possible source of such opposition. If you want to conveniently ignore valid objections in order to make ad hominem assertions about others, and that appears to be your M.O, then good luck with that. It has no use or validity in debate, or in convincing people of the statements that you enjoy every right to make about your own beliefs and opinions. And you should find that it has not over time made people on this site or elsewhere in your life more convinced that they were wrong and you correct about those opinions and beliefs.

Stating, as is stereotypically done by defenders of such policies, usually authoritarian people like you, that only people who want to get high or want others to get high (say drug dealers, another hidden implication of these new statements which I find offensive and stupid), oppose such policies is utterly false. You should be above such an implication as it demeans yourself and any attempt to make arguments that you make. That you have repeatedly demeaned yourself by making such implications about the nature of my status as an American citizen, patriot, drug user, etc, suggests that you have no idea how to defend the positions you are taking without making assertions (unfounded and unchecked) about the personal character of others who disagree with you.

How sad. For you. Grow up sir. Learn how to argue without making personal attacks. One day people might actually want to listen to what you have say as a result even when they disagree with you.

Speaking of reasons to object, you might want to look a little closer at your confused statement and response here. I think you will find that it contains one of the exact strains of hypocrisy that explains why people like me might object to the specific nature of the drug war. Namely that there are numerous products which have often similarly marginal uses to the end user which are perfectly legal to produce, supply, market, and obtain and for which there are also numerous addicted persons. Is not, by your logic, advocacy of this type equally fraught? Would that not imply that there are legions of licensed professionals in the medical field that could be caught up in your web of objections (for reasons other than addiction maintenance treatment that you presumably object to), or people in the tobacco or alcohol corporations, and so on?

Policies like drug zero tolerance at schools, of a variety that mandatory drug testing looks remarkably like, lead to things like strip searches of students in search of "drugs" that will turn out to be aspirin or prescription drugs for treatment of perfectly legitimate ailments or injuries. Drug testing itself is fraught with difficulties and inexact elements and will accomplish little more than continuing to punish largely lower class and minority students for not having access to means to avoid, defeat, or bypass testing regimes (such as access to legal counsel to defend themselves against false positives for example).

We already punish students enough. We should spend this excess of energy pushing them to excel instead.