[Dr. Worm]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It smells to me like someone taking one symptom and reporting others which cannot be verified or denied to cover his decision. I see it all the time in official reports.

Ok, once again, just to be clear, this smells to you like someone decided to kick the kid out of school for absolutely no reason other than to be really really mean, and then lied about the kid smelling like pot to cover his ass? That is really what this smells like to you? If you're right about that, then yeah, I totally agree with you, that guy is a ☺☺☺☺. But it smells to me like the article was slanted for the purpose of making a point rather than report facts, and presented the (very limited) information in such a way as to make it sound worse than it was. I see it all the time on FOX news.

But I say we suspend the guy for filing a false report then, if he can prove it's not false, we'll let him come back to work.

This is a silly example, I'm going to respond to your "innocent until proven guilty" murder example from your previous post:

To put it another way: Prove to me you didn't kill someone last week... I'll hold off excecuting you for murder for a day or to so you can do so.

If there are multiple good reasons to be suspicious that I killed someone last week, you really don't think I should have to defend myself in court? Really? That is a pretty radical position. Or perhaps even more germane, do you think that a driver swerving all over the road that gets pulled over reeking of alcohol should not be asked to take a breathalizer just because he is "innocent until proven guilty"?

On a side note: kid's father had been murdered two days prior, school was aware, school cited "red eyes" as reason to kick kid out for drug use.

The school cited red eyes and smelling like pot as reasons for sending the kid home and asking him to pass a drug test. He passed, and was allowed to return to school. Did the kid actually serve the 3 day suspension?

The fact that his father had been murdered is clouding the discussion. I can't tell if you are arguing that the policy itself is wrong or that the school was being dimwitted for following their policy so aggressively under such tragic circumstances. They are completely different conversations. (And for the record, my own position is that both the policy itself is wrong and that its application in this case was wrong.)

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Dr. Worm

Ok, once again, just to be clear, this smells to you like someone decided to kick the kid out of school for absolutely no reason other than to be really really mean, and then lied about the kid smelling like pot to cover his ass? That is really what this smells like to you?

You keep inserting "absolutely no reason"... I never said that.

Though my actual point is that you won't presume the administrator guilty of lying on the documentation despite the fact that he has not proven his innocence: shouldn't a student be held to the same standard?

This is a silly example, I'm going to respond to your "innocent until proven guilty" murder example from your previous post:
If there are multiple good reasons to be suspicious that I killed someone last week, you really don't think I should have to defend myself in court? Really? That is a pretty radical position.

Is it?

Let's make apples-to-apples. You smelled like gunpowder and seemed to have the post-murder jitters. I should arrest you and take you to court now?

Really?

And once in court, you need to prove you *didn't* murder someone?

*That* is your standard?

Or perhaps even more germane, do you think that a driver swerving all over the road that gets pulled over reeking of alcohol should not be asked to take a breathalizer just because he is "innocent until proven guilty"?

Actually, he gets asked because he's consented to taking a breathalyzer when he got his license. A child has not volunteered for mandatory pee-tests at the whims of school administration.

You cannot arrest nor convict someone for a failure to take a breathalizer, nor is their unwillingness to do so proof of guilt. That not only should be the standard, it actually *is* the standard.

You *can* take away someone's (non right) driver's license because "take a breathalizer on demand" was part of the agreement. You are not taking it for them being drunk, you are taking it specifically for the refusal to submit to a breathalizer.

The school cited red eyes and smelling like pot as reasons for sending the kid home and asking him to pass a drug test. He passed, and was allowed to return to school. Did the kid actually serve the 3 day suspension?

Was the kid kicked out of school?

Did he do anything wrong?

The fact that his father had been murdered is clouding the discussion. I can't tell if you are arguing that the policy itself is wrong or that the school was being dimwitted for following their policy so aggressively under such tragic circumstances. They are completely different conversations. (And for the record, my own position is that both the policy itself is wrong and that its application in this case was wrong.)

It's terribly important in that it provides a strong "alternate theory of the crime".

"Red eyes" becomes a given... making the *only* argument "he smelled like pot to me".

But let's focus down on the abstract lesson here. Non-drug using kids get kicked out of school and tested on demand based on accusation of drug use. Is that a good system?

[Dr. Worm]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You keep inserting "absolutely no reason"... I never said that.

Though my actual point is that you won't presume the administrator guilty of lying on the documentation despite the fact that he has not proven his innocence: shouldn't a student be held to the same standard?

You don't believe the reasons provided and you have offered no alternative reasons for the kid being sent home....that leaves me with "absolutely no reason". And if you believe he legitimitely had reasons for doing this, the rest of your argument would be nonsensical, again leaving me with "absolutely no reason".

There was reason to be suspicious of the kid smoking pot. I don't see any reason to be suspicious that the administrator was lying on the documentation. You and OJ Simpson may both claim to be innocent of murder. The fact that there are far more reasons to be suspicious of his claim than of your claim means that your claims will be held to different standards. Whether or not you find this "fair", it would be impractical at best and really just nonsensical to deal with life any other way.

Is it?

Let's make apples-to-apples. You smelled like gunpowder and seemed to have the post-murder jitters. I should arrest you and take you to court now?

Really?

And once in court, you need to prove you *didn't* murder someone?

*That* is your standard?

You really think this is apples to apples? I disagree. I think you are taking your analogy too far, for a number of reasons. For one, I think that reasonable suspicion is going to be different for different infractions. I think that smelling like gunpowder is a good reason to suspect that I've handled gunpowder recently. Murdering someone is not exactly on the same scale as possession or use of marijuana, so I think we both agree that slightly more evidence is necessary to reasonably suspect someone of murder, but yes, if there is reasonable suspicion that I murdered someone, I should be charged with murder and then I should be given the chance to defend myself in court. Once we get to court, your analogy fails again: the kid was just asked to pass a drug test. If I could pee in a cup and it could tell conclusively whether I had murdered someone, then yes, I absolutely believe that I should be asked to pee in a cup in that circumstance.

Actually, he gets asked because he's consented to taking a breathalyzer when he got his license. A child has not volunteered for mandatory pee-tests at the whims of school administration.

You cannot arrest nor convict someone for a failure to take a breathalizer, nor is their unwillingness to do so proof of guilt. That not only should be the standard, it actually *is* the standard.

You *can* take away someone's (non right) driver's license because "take a breathalizer on demand" was part of the agreement.

Following the public school's policy is not part of the agreement when you enroll your kid in public school?

But let's focus down on the abstract lesson here. Non-drug using kids get kicked out of school and tested on demand based on accusation of drug use. Is that a good system?

Are you asking me? I've already stated explicitly (in the very section that you just quoted) that it is not a good system. I just think you're spinning the facts to make it seem more egregious than it really is by implying that non-drug using kids are getting kicked out of school and tested on demand based on accusation of drug use for "absolutely no reason". Whether you are using those words or not, that is what you are making it sound like (quite deliberately, might I add), and yeah, of course I agree that sounds really bad. While I still think the system is wrong, it doesn't sound nearly as bad when you change the sentence to: "Kids get sent home and given a drug test because there was reason to believe that they had been using drugs, and when they passed the test they were allowed to return to school unpunished."

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Dr. Worm

You don't believe the reasons provided and you have offered no alternative reasons for the kid being sent home....that leaves me with "absolutely no reason". And if you believe he legitimitely had reasons for doing this, the rest of your argument would be nonsensical, again leaving me with "absolutely no reason".

Evidence that indicates that the administration may have been lying in their claim that he smelled (more than anyone else in the school) like pot.

1) He hadn't smoked pot.

Wow. That's actually a very compelling reason right there. Add to it that such details are (in my antecdotal experience) very commonly fiction.

Oh. You wanted reasons why the administrator would lie? That's far more than was required to kick this kid out but OK. I'll give actual theories of the crime.

Administrator saw kid acting strangely, looking tired. He figures he's a druggie, picks a symptom to support this assumption, adds "smells like pot" either because he thinks he does, or because the form he filled out required two symptoms, and sends the druggie home.

Maybe he genuinely thought the kid had used drugs. Maybe he dislikes the kid. Maybe he had a bad day and needed to take it out on someone. Maybe he's been getting poor performance reviews and needed to show paperwork that he was actually monitoring school activity (much like cops giving out tickets to meet quota), maybe he got him confused with another kid, maybe he thought that the kid needed to not be at school and figured he was doing him a favor.

Wow... there's dozens of possibilities as to why, and at least two reasons to think it's actually false (1. it's commonly false and 2. the kid didn't smoke pot).

I've now done *far* more to prove that the administrator lied than seems to have been done to prove the kid smoked pot. Let's suspend the administrator and let him back if he proves his innocence.

There was reason to be suspicious of the kid smoking pot. I don't see any reason to be suspicious that the administrator was lying on the documentation.

You want to believe there is no reason, but that's obviously not true.

And while I disagree, I'll assume for the sake of argument that there was indeed reasons to *suspect* the kid might have smoked pot. "Suspicion" should not be punishable.

You really think this is apples to apples? I disagree. I think you are taking your analogy too far, for a number of reasons. For one, I think that reasonable suspicion is going to be different for different infractions. I think that smelling like gunpowder is a good reason to suspect that I've handled gunpowder recently. Murdering someone is not exactly on the same scale as possession or use of marijuana, so I think we both agree that slightly more evidence is necessary to reasonably suspect someone of murder

No. Absolutely, positively not. No way, no how, no sir. I in absolutely no respect feel that the burden of proof should be lifted because the offense is more minor.

Just in case I'm unclear: let me repeat. It is a tremendous travesty of justice to say "It's OK to punish the innocent if their (non-existent) crime is minor".

Hell. If anything, a pot smoker represents less of an immanent danger. Pragmatically, there's little to no harm to let him go (not so a murderer, where letting them go might reasonably lead to more deaths). I'm shocked anyone would like a "probable murderer" go out of a lack of certainty then punish a "probable J-walker".

I have a categorically and diametrically opposed position to yours here.

[Dr. Worm]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No. Absolutely, positively not. No way, no how, no sir. I in absolutely no respect feel that the burden of proof should be lifted because the offense is more minor.

Just in case I'm unclear: let me repeat. It is a tremendous travesty of justice to say "It's OK to punish the innocent if their (non-existent) crime is minor".

Hell. If anything, a pot smoker represents less of an immanent danger. Pragmatically, there's little to no harm to let him go (not so a murderer, where letting them go might reasonably lead to more deaths). I'm shocked anyone would like a "probable murderer" go out of a lack of certainty then punish a "probable J-walker".

I have a categorically and diametrically opposed position to yours here.

If you think that the nature of evidence should be exactly the same regardless of the nature of the crime, then I honestly don't know even how to respond. Wow. Ok. Yes, I think that is very weird, and is a position categorically and diametrically opposed to any position I have ever had on anything. Which is strange, I felt like we generally had similar viewpoints on most things. Oh well.

If you are arguing that smoking pot is relatively harmless and should not be punished in the first place, then I have already agreed with that many times.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Worm

While I'm sure we all agree that a touch of sensitivity and understanding should have been used in such a tragic circumstance, I'm curious what you suggest a school's policy should be for dealing with a student whose eyes are bloodshot and who smells like pot. Are you suggesting that the school was way out of line for asking such a student to pass a drug test, or are you suggesting that the school was way out of line for asking this particular student to pass a drug test after his father had just been murdered?

how about leave him alone. What a kid does off school property is none of the school's business. If he's breaking the law, it is the police who has responsibility for enforcing and not the school.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Bryan

how about leave him alone. What a kid does off school property is none of the school's business. If he's breaking the law, it is the police who has responsibility for enforcing and not the school.

Or try to intervene... or at least offer.
Or keep an eye on him to find out if he is smoking pot at the school.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Bryan

how about leave him alone. What a kid does off school property is none of the school's business. If he's breaking the law, it is the police who has responsibility for enforcing and not the school.

To be fair, if he's coming to school high, then it is the school's business.

With regard to this case, however, if it's really true that the school sent the kid home before administering a drug test or following up on any of its suspicions, then I think the school behaved poorly and owes him an apology. While the fact of the father's murder wouldn't be a legit reason to let the kid off scott free if he had done drugs, it should certainly have been a reason for the school to err on the side of tact. Sending the kid home before confirming their suspicions -- likely causing a confused scene in front of the kid's friends and disrupting his return to school after he wanted to come back -- is defaming and excessive in any case, but I think it was downright offensive in this one. Administrators could easily have dealt with this in an infinitely more sensitive manner without compromising their no-tolerance drug policy.

And I agree with those who say that even if the kid had been found guilty, a referral to a counselor might have been far more helpful than a swift kick out the door. The school likely guaranteed that this kid and any who witnessed the incident will never come near its guidance counselors or teachers for help in sticky situations from now on.