High School To Collect Students’ Hair For Mandatory Drug Testing

23536

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01...ect-students-hair-for-mandatory-drug-testing/

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (CBS St. Louis) — A Kansas City high school will begin collecting hair from students to conduct mandatory drug tests.

KHSB-TV reports that Rockhurst High School will start the random drug testing during the 2013-14 school year.

“Our point is, if we do encounter a student who has made some bad decisions with drugs or alcohol, we will be able to intervene, get the parents involved, get him help if necessary, and then help him get back on a path of better decision making, healthier choices for his life,” Rockhurst Principal Greg Harkness told the station.

The school will collect 60 strands of hair from the student and test for several types of drugs, including marijuana and cocaine. If a student comes back with a positive drug test, that student will have 90 days to get drug-free. The station reports the file will be destroyed for a student who tests positive after graduation and colleges and universities will never know about the failed test.

Matthew Brocato, the school’s junior class president, told The Kansas City Star that the mandatory drug testing is not to punish students who fail.

“When you hear ‘drug testing,’ you think cops,” Brocato told the Star. “At first you’re taken aback. Is it for the better?”

cont. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01...ect-students-hair-for-mandatory-drug-testing/
 
that is insanely fucked up. I'd laugh if they did a hair test on me, they'd find every class of drugs they were looking for. This really should not be happening in schools, this is discrimination. How is this going to improve any student's life anyway? It's just going to fuck things up for them, make them hate the system even more and likely lead them to bigger issues with drugs.
 
my understanding was that hair testing is extremely expensive for one thing but damn i forsee a lot of kids getting shipped of to rehab by freaked out parents
 
Matthew Brocato, the school’s junior class president, told The Kansas City Star that the mandatory drug testing is not to punish students who fail.

“When you hear ‘drug testing,’ you think cops,” Brocato told the Star. “At first you’re taken aback. Is it for the better?”

what the hell does this 16 year old kid know about the subject>? lmao
 
This doesn't sound so bad. If there are REALLY no legal reprecussions for the students, and it REALLY doesn't affect their chances of getting into college, then why not? Parents and teachers are right to be concerned about drug use among their students. Teenagers shouldn't be taking drugs, not even cannabis.

As someone mentioned above though, it baffles me how a high school can afford all those tests.
 
Clocktower said:
This doesn't sound so bad. If there are REALLY no legal reprecussions for the students, and it REALLY doesn't affect their chances of getting into college, then why not? Parents and teachers are right to be concerned about drug use among their students. Teenagers shouldn't be taking drugs, not even cannabis.

As someone mentioned above though, it baffles me how a high school can afford all those tests.
Click to expand...

It will snowball into much more i garauntee it. people test positive, then school wants to know where drugs came from, then sniffer dogs at school, then cops investigating students, then arrests when some kid has some pot, now cant get into college and fucked.
 
nowdubnvr6 said:
It will snowball into much more i garauntee it. people test positive, then school wants to know where drugs came from, then sniffer dogs at school, then cops investigating students, then arrests when some kid has some pot, now cant get into college and fucked.
Click to expand...

My son goes to a "rehab high" because he was struggling in drug court. Every week he has to give a urine sample.
Once a kid gets a conviction on their record, they can go to college but ineligible for any federal grants. :(
 
It really depends on the apsect ratio the two men assume. However, do remember that acceleration due to gravity is relatively independent of mass.
 
sekio said:
It really depends on the apsect ratio the two men assume. However, do remember that acceleration due to gravity is relatively independent of mass.
Click to expand...

Of course. Air resistance acts to oppose a falling object. The formula for air resistance is cv^2, where v is the velocity of the falling object and c is a constant determined by the object's shape. The larger the object's area, the larger the constant.
 
Aha! It's true that in a vacuum, two objects beginning above the surface of the earth at rest will fall at the same speed (all else being equal!) However, let us assume that one object, a man for example, is more massive than the other. That means he has more inertia than the thinner man. Then, for both to achieve equal acceleration, the force of gravity acting on the more massive man must be greater than the force of gravity acting on the less massive man!

This means that while the fat man may have a larger surface area than the thin man, the force pulling him downward is also stronger. In fact, the force of gravity is proportional to his weight!

Let's consider the thin man, and say that gravity pulls him downward with a force of F=ma newtons, while he is slowed by a drag force of D newtons. He reaches terminal velocity when D=F. As Numbers mentioned, D=cv^2, where v is the thin man's velocity through the air and c is some constant relating to the man's surface area (note that c is proportional to surface area, we'll use that later!). Then, at terminal velocity we can write: cv^2=F, and solve for v! The thin man falls at a speed of:

v=sqrt(F/c)

(We can expand this to v=sqrt(ma/c), which shows that while the acceleration a is indeed a constant independent of mass, the terminal velocity v is proportional to the square root of mass!)

Now, let's say the fat man weighs three times as much as the thin man. Then gravity acts on the fat man with a force of 3F=3ma. I'll be generous and say he has twice the surface area of the thin man (he must be wrinkly!), which means a drag constant of 2c. Call the fat man's terminal velocity u. Then, just as above we can write 2cu^2=3F, or

u=sqrt(3F/2c)

A little algebra reveals

u=sqrt(3/2)sqrt(F/c)

or,

u=sqrt(3/2)*v

Now, remember, u is the terminal velocity of the fat man, v is the terminal velocity of the thin man. We know that sqrt(3/2)>1, so...

The fat man is falling faster!

This is why I'd rather be standing under the thin man. =D
 
Last edited:
Clocktower, mass of a falling object has nothing to do with freefall acceleration. To be brief, gravitational force on an object of mass m at a distance r from the center of the Earth is:

F = (GMm)/(r^2) [where G is the gravitational constant and M is the mass of the Earth]

Gravitational force is also described by Newton's second law:

F = ma

So then we make both equations equal:

ma = (GMm)/(r^2)

and the m's cancel out!

Truly, you could make a Chris Christie statue out of lead and a Calista Flockhart statue out of styrofoam and their gravitational accelerations would be the same. If these real persons were dropped out of an airplane at the same time, whichever one hits the ground faster has nothing to do with their weights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top