dynamo
Bluelighter
true , what i should have said as long as it didnt effect their job , ie. doing it a fri sat night
-
DPMC Moderators: tryptakid
Should School Districts Drug-Test Teachers?
- Thread starter E-llusion
- Start date
fastandbulbous
Bluelight Crew
honestly, i don't think i'd trust my child's education in the hands of a person who might be having an LSD, MDMA, or any other kind of psychedelic after-glow on any given day of the week.
the same goes for a hungover drunk, though. i'd rather my kids get the best education that I and the public or private school system around us could provide-- if that means simply having a sober teacher, then it means having a sober teacher.
i'm probably going to catch some backlash for this one.![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
In my experience as a biology/chemistry teacher, the ones to watch for dodgy behaviour were the teachers who didn't use any recreational drug (I include alcohol & tobacco in that grouping); it's a stressful job, especially when the government keeps moving the goalposts/putting more paper pushing etc on teachers rather than actually letting them teach & as such, teachers who didn't use something as a form of release at the weekend were the ones most likely to be involved in something like assaulting a kid (I have witnessed that happen twice - never a serious assault, more grabbing a kid and pushing them up against a wall while issuing threats if they continue to misbehave, but both times the teacher losing it was a teetotal, religious sort), or worse. Admittedly in the majority of cases the intoxicant was alcohol (I've seen the head of science, who was a really good teacher, at the last school I taught at so shitfaced at the xmas party that he was probably more pickled than the specimens in the biology prep room
), but there was always at least a couple of science teachers (other than me!) who induged in more exotic substances and to be quite honest they had a much better relationship with the kids and as a rule got some of the best work from the kids purely through being more open minded.I fully agree that anybody who repeatedly comes into work intoxicated shouldn't be in such a responsible position, but if I had kids, I'd much rather their teachers were open minded and say took psychedelics at the weekend than never took anything, but were so tightly wrapped that they were a ticking time bomb, as the latter seem to discourage any thinking/discussion outside the very narrow confines of their subject. I only have to remember one of the two teachers I mentioned above trying to have a lesson about reproduction in humans and it being a travesty due to their anally retentive & uptight demeanour because it involved sex (it was a catholic school, so you can imagine what sort of fucked up affair it was having a guilt ridden devout catholic trying to explain sexual behaviour to 15/16 year olds. It would have been hilariously funny if it wasn't so bloody serious)
fatallyflawed
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Messages
- 5,651
They are still causing that risk by random testing.
Gets caught up discharged.
Pops on random testing...discharged.
And from what I have seen (prior military) most people holding govi jobs tend to try and be more careful. With a govi job,you fuck off one, you fucked em all off.
My friends in the corps who got discharged were from drug testing. They didnt speed around with joints or even go into public to much. I think most teachers might be careful of it to.
Just my opinion though.
panic_the_digital
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,172
Nope. The only teachers I know who have been tested are coaches who are in a position to drive the students to sporting events and such. Teachers unions are pretty effective at keeping the man out of their shit.
Last edited:
MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,542
My wife's a teacher, and she's had 'submit to random drug testing' written in as a term of every contract she's signed. Don't believe she's ever been tested, but she takes no chances.
In the state of New Jersey, the law is written explicitly that a teacher convicted of a felony -- or ANY level of drug violation -- will be stripped of their license to teach.
The education sector, even moreso than the healthcare sector, really REALLY frowns upon recreational drug use. The government is maybe the only workplace that's less tolerant of it, from what I've seen.
In the state of New Jersey, the law is written explicitly that a teacher convicted of a felony -- or ANY level of drug violation -- will be stripped of their license to teach.
The education sector, even moreso than the healthcare sector, really REALLY frowns upon recreational drug use. The government is maybe the only workplace that's less tolerant of it, from what I've seen.
phr
Bluelighter
^
I think it's just illicit drugs.
I wouldn't have a problem with pre-employment testing and suspicion testing. Random testing isn't necessary, imo, since they aren't performing a job that puts lives at risk.
If you do test positive to a suspicion test(or an out of work drug charge), I don't think you should be fired outright. Well, unless, we're talking about an extreme situation. Not being given a chance to correct the issue sends the wrong message.
I think it's just illicit drugs.
I wouldn't have a problem with pre-employment testing and suspicion testing. Random testing isn't necessary, imo, since they aren't performing a job that puts lives at risk.
If you do test positive to a suspicion test(or an out of work drug charge), I don't think you should be fired outright. Well, unless, we're talking about an extreme situation. Not being given a chance to correct the issue sends the wrong message.
if you can't tell the difference between a teacher under the influence and one who is not, then who cares. If there are no signs of drug/alcohol abuse, either physically or in their persona(?) then there is no problem. yeh? So in these cases, why the testing? If drug use is evident, not just in rumor, then testing is appropriate.....
foodisgood
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 285
My dad is a field superintendent for a construction supplies company and that statement couldn't be more true. He was once telling me a story where he had to drive a guy to the place to get tested and as soon as they got out of the truck, the guy getting tested said he needed to use the bathroom and that was the last time my dad saw him.
keygen
Bluelighter
no drug testing questions lol 
MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,542
*Love*Lite*
Bluelight Crew
DRUG TESTING IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY AND DIRECTLY VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.
That said, I disagree with any drug testing. Period.
Plus can we really afford to be spending MONEY on drug tests for any public worker in this economy?? Oh right! More drug tests... more convictions... more people in jail... more money from the jail system... and the Hypocritical circle continues. Probation is totally working. RANT END
That said, I disagree with any drug testing. Period.
Plus can we really afford to be spending MONEY on drug tests for any public worker in this economy?? Oh right! More drug tests... more convictions... more people in jail... more money from the jail system... and the Hypocritical circle continues. Probation is totally working. RANT END
rant*N*rave
Bluelighter
What if a teacher who uses a car responsibly and doesn't let it affect their job performance gets in a bad accident and ends up in the hospital for an extended period?
Doesn't the school stand to lose everything they've invested in that teacher simply because the educator chose to drive a car and got in an accident?
DOING DRUGS CARRIES THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY AS *ANY* ACTION TAKEN IN A PUBLIC SETTING. PERIOD.
And therefore, it should be punished in the same way - only if it causes harm to others. And yes, I do feel that way about DUI/OWI, or any other possible analogous scenario. If you get in an accident that causes harm, you should be punished orders of magnitude more for having done it while behaving irresponsibly. A law against driving drunk does no more to deter drunk driving than would a law that severely increases the consequences of fucking up while drunk.
The notion that we might remove perfectly good teachers from our schools because they smoked a joint two weeks ago is ludicrous and a perfect example of everything being so backwards and wrong in the US. We should be doing everything we can to keep good teachers regardless of what they do in their free time. In fact, the people they oughta worry about firing are the ones that actually do a shitty job of teaching. There are plenty of those - I'd worry about that first.
Finder
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Messages
- 32,361
Drug tests do not gauge level of intoxication at the time the test takes place. In fact, one could make the argument drug testing is really only geared toward catching cannabis users (and perhaps total addicts who can't help themselves and use constantly) as cannabis is the only substances that lingers at detectable levels for weeks on end.
Pretty flimsy rationale behind requiring these for teachers any way you look at it.
Pretty flimsy rationale behind requiring these for teachers any way you look at it.
phr
Bluelighter
^
If the only goal is to catch them while intoxicated, yes. I don't think that's the only goal, and maybe not even the main goal.
Like someone said above, even a conviction for using out of work can create issues for the teacher and for whatever school is their employer.
If the only goal is to catch them while intoxicated, yes. I don't think that's the only goal, and maybe not even the main goal.
Like someone said above, even a conviction for using out of work can create issues for the teacher and for whatever school is their employer.
phr
Bluelighter
^
There are a few others detectable after 1-3 days, which is what the two other most abused illicit drugs, coke and opiates, typically fall under. But it is unfair against cannabis users, which typically causes the least amount of problems. I guess it works out for them though, since cannabis is the most used illicit drug.
There are a few others detectable after 1-3 days, which is what the two other most abused illicit drugs, coke and opiates, typically fall under. But it is unfair against cannabis users, which typically causes the least amount of problems. I guess it works out for them though, since cannabis is the most used illicit drug.
What if a teacher who uses a car responsibly and doesn't let it affect their job performance gets in a bad accident and ends up in the hospital for an extended period?
Doesn't the school stand to lose everything they've invested in that teacher simply because the educator chose to drive a car and got in an accident?
DOING DRUGS CARRIES THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY AS *ANY* ACTION TAKEN IN A PUBLIC SETTING. PERIOD.
And therefore, it should be punished in the same way - only if it causes harm to others. And yes, I do feel that way about DUI/OWI, or any other possible analogous scenario. If you get in an accident that causes harm, you should be punished orders of magnitude more for having done it while behaving irresponsibly. A law against driving drunk does no more to deter drunk driving than would a law that severely increases the consequences of fucking up while drunk.
The notion that we might remove perfectly good teachers from our schools because they smoked a joint two weeks ago is ludicrous and a perfect example of everything being so backwards and wrong in the US. We should be doing everything we can to keep good teachers regardless of what they do in their free time. In fact, the people they oughta worry about firing are the ones that actually do a shitty job of teaching. There are plenty of those - I'd worry about that first.
last i checked, driving transportation is an essential part of life-- no driving, riding, or walking and you're perfectly safe but you can't even go to work.
...since when has consuming illicit substances been a prerequisite to work?
meaning they can do pretty much everything in their power to stop teachers from engaging in illegal activity, on or off the job. ( for some reason this sentence reminds me of all those middle school teachers engaging in sexual relationships with their students AFTER school and OUTSIDE of school, but still were fired from their position and had legal action taken against them.)
i hate that fact, but, unfortunately, it is a fact.
Just saw this and I agree 100% with the pre-employment and suspicion-testing.
I still hold my stance that i'd rather my children have the benefit of a sober teacher.
ResinTeeth
Bluelighter
Yeah I've heard of several BLers mention stuff about students being drug tested. I was actually pretty shocked as I've never heard of such bullshit. Then again I've gone to public school my whole life and I suppose I'm not too surprised by your old private school doing testing. After all it is a private school and parents are paying for it of their own volition.