Steroid testing liberal fascism?
In the wake of the steroid controversy surrounding major league baseball and professional sports in general many communities have begun to test their high school athletes for steroids. I’d like to know how the people who label themselves conservatives on this blog feel about steroid testing on these kids. Does this not fall under the catagory of “liberal fascism?” Drug testing intrinsically intrudes upon the privacy of the person being tested does it not?
Moreover while steroids have become the hot button popular issue they are hardly the most widely used drugs. Heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine kill far more people every year than steroids do. Why waste your time testing student athletes for steroids when there are kids in the very same schools on the verge of throwing their lives away by getting addicted to hard drugs? Why test student athletes at all? Any teacher or child psychologist will tell you that these kids are less likely to do drugs than those not involved in extra-curricular activities. I’m not trying to minimize the effects that steroids can have on a high school kid but they are hardly the biggest threat.
Is it a case of tracking? Are we just protecting the kids that we think are woth saving and giving up on the rest? E the Wise I must say I’m particularly interested in your opinion as you are both a teacher and football coach.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
gurusteve
E the Wise
Andre the Defiant
hairybeast
thompaine
School rules are not typically governed by Constitutional principles. If I suspect a kid has drugs in his pack, it is okay for me to check it. For no reason at all, we can bring dogs in and sniff out lockers. And on two separate occasions, I have helped to search and seize person and property and in one case, seized drug periphenalia from a car and turned it over to the cops. We tell kids what not to say, tell them what they can’t wear, prevent them from carrying weapons, prevent them from communicating in various ways, ask them to incrimminate themselves (and their peers), quarter soldiers in their homes. . . you get the point.
No one is forcing the kids to play sports. If by playing, they agree beforehand to drug testing then they can be tested. Before any kid plays sports, they and their parents have a slew of paperwork to sign and fees to pay so it is unquestionable that various schools will begin adding drug testing paperwork into the fold as a precondition for athletic participation. Am I completely comfortable with it? Not necessarily. But I don’t get too worked up about it.
thompaine: Heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine kill far more people every year than steroids do. Why waste your time testing student athletes for steroids when there are kids in the very same schools on the verge of throwing their lives away by getting addicted to hard drugs? Why test student athletes at all?
It’s because the drugs you mention don’t give a compeitive advantage to the participant. Steroids have encroached upon the sanctity of the competition, and it is this that drug-testing administrators focus upon.
High school athletes will be tested for steroids only if they choose to participate on athletic teams; if they don’t play, they won’t be tested. By volunteering to be part of a team, they are inter alia volunteering to be tested.
It’s the same thing as driving while intoxicated: by applying for a driver’s license and operating a motor vehicle, you are consenting to sobriety tests if the police stop you.
Mr Paine asked:
The schools are sponsoring an activity which increases the probabilities that the participants will choose to use steroids; that makes it different from the decisions kids take when it comes to other drugs. Simply by sponsoring sports teams, schools are, by their official actions — which would be state action in the case of public schools — increasing the probabilities that a particular student would use steroids. That makes steroid testing different from testing for recreational pharmaceuticals.
DFV said- It’s because the drugs you mention don’t give a compeitive advantage to the participant
So it’s simply an issue of competitive advantage? The kids’ health is not the major concern? Aren’t you a teacher also by the way DFV?
Dana said- Simply by sponsoring sports teams, schools are, by their official actions — which would be state action in the case of public schools — increasing the probabilities that a particular student would use steroids
So they are attempting to shield themselves from litigation by angry parents who’s kids started using steroids? Which by the way would be a joke. The parents should be the first line of defense when it comes to their kid’s drug use or lack thereof.
This is part of my issue with these programs. It’s yet another example of parents shifting blame from themselves when their child makes poor decisions. My kid’s on steroids and the school is responsible because they never tested him. While the school certainly should be held responsible for a child’s health and safety while he or she is in school it is the parent’s responsibility the rest of the time.
E and DFV )if you are a teacher I honestly don’t remember.) 2 scenarios for you involving non student athletes.
1 If a kid shows up to your class obviously high can you have him tested for drugs?
2 If a parent suspects their child is doing drugs in school can they request that the school test him or her.
Just trying to understand the ins and outs of the system a little better.
The premise here is absolutely absurd.
Sorry Thom, you really aren’t trying to understand the ins and outs. You are making the inane Libertarian drug argument again. But since you made an appeal to the authority of the teachers I will refrain from commenting further. I will take all my years as a player, coach, administrator, official, and parent and sit in the corner.
I am being dismissive because the underlying foundation of your argument is shaky. NO, people do not have an absolute right to do what they want with their bodies. This is especially true of children. All arguments that start with that premise are inane. Their logic becomes circular and their debate is pointless.
In the spirit of conviviality, I humbly suggest that the real discussion is further up the philosophical food chain my young friend.
I don’t suppose you’d care to elaborate on your summary dismissal would you PG?
PG I began writing comment # 8 prior to your post popping up.
You are making the inane Libertarian drug argument again.
Not exactly. It’s more or less an obnoxious attempt to prove that conservatism/liberalism is not a black and white issue. Instead there are many subtle shades of gray. I do contend that a “pure” conservative would be opposed to these tests. I also never directly said I oppose such testing did I? I just asked some questions to spark a debate.
As far as the libertarian drug argument I won’t dive into that again as it has been discussed ad nauseum but let me just say that while I suport the legalization fo drugs they absolutely should not be acessible to minors.
The other point I was trying to make is that the way these tests are administered is ridiculous. Steroids are a FAR smaller problem than other illicit drugs. If you’re going to do this do it right.
Sorry PG I won’t drag you back in. But if your contention is that I only wanted to hear from the teachers you are mistaken. By all means I welcome yuor comments as always.
Thom, I was being very tongue in cheek. I will elaborate further when I get back from therapy later. I was just poking you with a stick, no worries.
Never a problem Mr. Warner. Just didn’t want to think your comments weren’t welcome. Good luck at therapy.
thompaine: So it’s simply an issue of competitive advantage? The kids’ health is not the major concern? Aren’t you a teacher also by the way DFV? And…
Steroids are a FAR smaller problem than other illicit drugs. If you’re going to do this do it right.
In fact, the competitive advantage IS the issue. Look, you should sympathize with this position, thompaine. It’s very libertarian. It says that if some high school guys want to go smoke pot after the game Friday night, we as a society won’t construct an entire testing system to try to nab them for that. But if Central High is going to field a team of roided-out freaks, then we will absolutely put a stop to that.
In other words, the libertarian argument (”it doesn’t matter what someone does with their own body”) applies to the recreational drugs, but it doesn’t apply to performance-enhancing drugs.
Mr Paine wrote:
Yup, that’s exactly what they are trying to do; are you surprised?
Dana I am not in the least bit surprised.
DFV - while I would tend to agree with the libertarian viewpoint when it comes to adults I draw the line when it comes to kids as I’m sure any sensible person would. I do consider myself to have libertarian leanings but not strictly libertarian so if my viewpoint does not mesh entirely with that of the libertarian platform then so be it. I am by no means saying it is OK for kids to do steroids but the current system misses the forest for the trees so to speak.
Just to muddy the picture further with my personal viewpoint. When I talk about drug legalization I would include steroids however if the major leagues or NFL want to test for drugs they are a private enterprizes so it is entirely up to them. Moreover being a sports fan I would certainly encourage stricter testing in pro sports but that’s a different discussion.
Also steroids are not 100% illegal now. Many of them are perscription drugs with legitimate medical uses. Like painkillers or sleeping pills of course abuse and posession of them without a perscription is illegal.