This story is outrageous on 2 fronts. First, I find the random testing of students to be an outrage - even if they don't appear to be intoxicated, kids at dances are going to have to take a breathalizer? That's unbelievable and I hope the ACLU takes issue with it. Secondly, if kids are caught using alcohol, the best the school can come up with is to kick them out via suspension or expulsion. How about providing them with some substance abuse counseling and helping them work through whatever is going on?

This isn't even sensible. First you say it's a random testing and further on in the article that it would only be used if a student is suspected of being intoxicated. Maybe they should be testing adults who attend after school events and ball games etc.. See how agreeable they would be to that sort of invasive testing. I doubt that even the police can legaly do a Breathilizer test without suspicion of intoxication.

Bangorian, your out of touch. First, I graduated from MA, and the dances/winter carnival are about 40/60, drunks to sober kids. Next, your comment about the ACLU taking issue with it simply shows how little you know. It is the responsibility of the SAD to provide a clean safe environement for kids for after school functions. If a student shows up drunk, and gets hurt, or hurts someone else the SAD is liable for thier actions. SAD 67 is the first of many schools to intiate this policy. Remember how bad the public opinion was when SAD's around the state implimented the drinking policy for students at non-school related events. Simply put, any student who is caught drinking, or at the party, where there is underage drinking is simply off the sports team/band/any other non graded event. Not all schools follow the same policy. But all have a variation of it. Today it is almost second nature. What you dont know, is there are already police at events like that, and under school official direction, the police WILL test students they believe have been drinking... something about not being 21 and being drunk even the police dont agree with...

Remember, once a student enters the school, their rights are VERY limited, for example, no school administrator has to have a reason to search ANYTHING in the students possesion. Its a very effective way of keeping our schools safe.

Well I don't think it is so outrageous...kids & teens shouldn't be drinking...and the only reason the school stated if they were caught that they would be suspended is so the PARENTS can take control of the situation. They need to be made aware of what thier kids are involved in, and take the RESPONSIBILITY for correcting. It is not the schools responsibility to teach kids not to drink...it is though their job to keep all the students SAFE! I do not understand HOW they get liquor in the first place????it is so expensive...what do they steal it??from parents etc. Well if more parents set better examples for their children, this type of ignorance might not happen. Maine has drinking age LAWS and parents need to TEACH their kids to obey the LAW. When I was in high shcool many years ago, a scoolmate got drunk in and about the parking lot of a school dance and when he drove off later...he ran over three innocent teens...killing one! I do not want my child to be killed by senless selfish people who make bad judgements, thank you SAD 67 for making a good decision to protect our precious children.

Students' rights are very clear...They are still citizens and administrators can not just violate those rights willy nilly..

Rev, your wrong. Schools can not search the child, they may however, search anything in their possesion, EX backpack. They must, have the police search the student (with probably cause). Although any time they search anything, the police are normally called.

Students and parents concerned about what their rights are should go to the following website..www.aclu.org/studentsrights/index.html

I taught school for thirty years and saw it all ...from school administrators trying to get kids to cut their hair, to censoring their school paper like local schools do....it's all illegal. And it's up to us to stand up for our rights because there a plenty of people who want to take them away.

Before you reject this idea outright, this just maybe could save your child's life, or another child's life. I think I like this better than a knock at the door at 1 am.

Since we as Parents are not doing a good enough job of knowing what are children are up to, the schools have to do it for us! Sad

I guess I should proof read before posting "our" children, not "are" sorry

I think it is a great idea. Do you know how many kids are attending functions like dances and sporting events intoxicated? I do not know exactly and I have been out of school for 20 years. It was a problem then so I can only estimate on the numbers now. I agree that laws are in place to protect everyone. I take issue with anyone who drinks and gets behind the wheel of a car with any amount of alcohol in their system. It is my right to not die at the hands of someone who is iimpaired. I have worked with kids for almost 20 years and I know that they are experimenting earlier and earlier and if this saves just one life either by helping them change their ways or preventing an accident then I am for it. People are so concerned over someones rights when it is something like alcohol , drugs, or religion but what about the rights of the people out for a drive in the evening or the rights of the other students to attend an event and not have to worry about peer pressure or some bonehead sitting behind them at a game being a little less than civil. Our society as a whole needs to take responsibility for its actions and teaching kids how to take responsibility early on in life will help in more areas than just this one. I fully support my district in this decision.

Alright rev, here is another site for you.. maybe this will open your eyes to the right side.

www.stoptheaclu.com

I guess I also need to proof read my text. Impaired only has one "iI. Sorry.

I think every school should do this testing. If they don't want the testing it's a good sign they probably have something to hide. It's time someone took action to clean up our schools and I commend this school for doing so. Everytime someone decides to take action against this misconduct everyone starts screaming about the kids rights. In my opinion anyone who breaks the rules also breaks their rights. It's time these brats are made to follow the rules so the kids that are serious about learning can do so without interference.

rev, when we give students more and more rights, we make our schools less and less safe.. are you saying its the right of a child to carry a gun to school and not be searched when he tells another student about it?? obvisouly not. So, if you would, go quietly back to... New York I'm guessing?? Here in Maine, we will do our best to keep schools, and the children in them safe - if you dont agree with that, then there is no point of discusing this...

I graduated from MA about 13 years ago and the school was always a good school, I think the testing is a good idea, we had one sr that would have MT. Dew bottles in his locker and have it full of rum, he would always take a drink in between classes, and he was driving himself home, I am not sure if he ever got caught or not, but there was no mistaking what he was drinking, you could smell it on him

I have to agree with the rev and Bangorian. Students have rights too. next they are going to want to make sure the kids in high school aren't haveing sex. The kids have rights. What are we becoming Russia?

Actually, the Rev is right. My kids wouldn't get tested. Go to school, attend your classes, leave. After school activities, if someone is suspicious, detain the kid and turn them over to the parents. This is a hogwash witch hunt and patent invasion of privacy. But no, no search and seizure without parental acknowledgement and approval. It's simply "training" for further 4th Amendment illegalities the Government would love to perpetrate on people. And no, I don't advocate kids drinking at school or at after school events. The issue is way, way deeper than that. You twits have no "God given" right to invade someone's privacy just because you perceive some level of usefulness in the act.

And the ACLU fights for Constitutional Rights, nummah. Problematic some times, but it's not the drinking and school issue that the ACLU, if they choose to intervene, would be going after. Intelligent people have to look beyond the purported "purpose" and deal with the underlying unconstitutional invasion of privacy that these (possibly) well-meaning administrators are attempting to perpetrate. How about daily random cavity strip searches of your kids "by lottery?" Would that be o.k. as well? So, you give them an inch and that inch is misinterpreted (legally) into allowing all forms of privacy intrusion. Nope, not my kids. They'd be told to refuse and have the school call home, whereupon, if warranted by the evidence, someone would be in deep, deep, caca. This is the direction America is taking? Nope. NFG.

If you dont want your child to be part of a "random" breathalyzer (which takes about a minute) then keep your kid home.. Its that simple. Your child has no obligation to be there.. so keep them home. My Children, will go to after school activites, and they WILL be safe.

Think about this. You take your kid and some friends to a game, the kids gets caught for being drunk and the police ask him where they were drinking. One kid says at your house before she took us to the game. Your convicted of providing a place for minors to drink without knowing it!! FACT, IT HAPPENS.. Now look at the position of the school. Kid gets hurt cause hes drunk and acting like a drunk 17 year old, then mom sues the school under the same interpretation, that she is liable for her kids drinking at her house without (her/the school) knowing it. This is a great policy, its a fast, direct solution to a problem, with no CIVIL LIBERTIES being violated, if the kids dont want to get tested, STAY HOME. wish you left wingers would step back from the trees and take a look at the forest.

Drinking KILLS...TEACH your kids not to use this cop out sedative to numb their lives. GIVE THEM LOVE! GIVE THEM SUPPORT! That is what they are seeking when the behave this way. Teach them the consequences they may face...if they kill someone...it may not be intentional...BUT they will be held accountable. If parents would step up the school might not have to consider this route...I still think it is a good idea...and applaud them for protecting our children.

You need to study up on these so called "rights". There are many things that we choose to do, organizations we join, places we go, that the supreme courts have

held up that we give up some of those rights. Join the military, even though you fight for these rights, there are some you give up. Go to a public school, or a private school, they have different rules "rights". Enter a government facility, different set of ruls. The way you interepret the constitution does not matter in the laws eyes, it is the way the Supreme court interprets it. We are living in a different world, an all changing one. This is much different then when the constitution was written. I am against the erosion of our rights also and hold the constitution in high regards, but our forefathers did not, and could not have envisioned our children shooting guns in school, and killing others while driving drunk. Believe it or not, when the Supreme courts review these constitutional questions, they take into account what the originators were probably thinking, and what they could not have been thinking of.

This world is a dangerous one, and our children need us to protect them from themselves, and from others. If you do not believe things a different then when we were kids, you have been imitating an Oserich lately.

movethen, lincolnmom, could not agree with both of you more.. Its people like you who are the reason Mattanwcook Academy will always be a great place to graduate from. I am proud to say i'm a grad, and my kids will be too.. Keep up the good work!! :)

I really need some more coffee, my spelling is going down hill !!

f that...if i was drunk i sure as heck wouldnt go to school...

EMF stands for Electronic Magnetic Field. People who use these believe that spirits are present when the EMF spikes randomly when the electronic magnetic field increases. An EVP (or Electronic Voice Phoenomenon) is when a recording of a disembodied voice (most usually a spirit) is heard on a recording during an interview.

Did you know 2/10 Ghosts were drunks during their lifetime?

more ghost info at scifi.com/ghosthunters

and i dont think the school has the right to do this...this should be left up to the police...if the school thinks a student is drunk they should be reported to the police so they can administer the test

I'm 15 and I'm gonna get LIT UP tonight... by that I mean burned and/or drunk

i believe u mean burnt.....being burned might require you to go to the hospital

nothing better to do in this state but drink, have unprotected sex, then get high, drink more, have an underage baby, drink because of that and then blame it on Baldacci. That's whats wrong with this state

is this being put into effect because of shaws closing so now people wont have anything to do but get plastered and then there kids end up getting into it...i see this as the downfall of maine....thanks alot SHAWS

was this caused by slots too??

I have a better idea. How about the schoold administers the test, that way, there will be no false calls to the police. This will save the town money and keep many of you from crying on how much we spend on the police department.

My question (ok I'm going to be serious here for a moment) I'm a legal drinker (22) and never drank underage (except when I was in Cancun - and believe me I was there and i was 19, it wasn't what I expected the ruins were great, the beach even better, but lacked women because I went so late), I went to college at Husson University and there are so many drunk people there its unbelievable. I watched a anti-drinking commercial one of my professors made that won an award that showed kids getting into a canoe and being drunk they fell out, and one drowned (or almost did). I've been conviceted of driving under the influence. Was I wrong? Yes. I made some bad decisions that night - however the breathalyzer was found to be inaccurate because I had a blood sample taken that said I was at .04 and the breathalyzer said .09

$640 for nothing.

My lesson? Get drunk, but don't drive, and most certainly do not go out in a boat in some lake and drink. Its wrong. At least wear a life preserver.

richard, definately caused by slots. slots is everything bad in this world. drove me to drunk drive 8 months prior to the place opening

Drinking doesn't kill LincolnMOM, its stupid people like me who drive drunk that do. However I wasn't legally drunk and all I did was park in the middle of Harlow Street. And couldn't find my insurance card.

Wonderful life huh?

Drinking is nothing but a dead end street!

Well, without giving away if I am pro or con for drinking, if you think about it, life is a dead end street! I guess how we get to that dead end street depends on how we live our life. Most everyone has a different street they are travelling, but eventually it will be a dead end.

Well King of Maine you sound like you need a breathalyzer test...

Bangorean - your comments are well written and right on. Schools seem to get a bit militant at times if left unchecked.

touche, LincolMOM, touche

Movethen, you are one paranoid person. The Constitution has already been interpreted. And my kids have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to an education and "random breathalyzer tests" are going to generate RIGHTFUL CONSTITUTIONAL litigation, using taxpayer dollars to fight taxpayers. Brilliant, once again. Now, you didn't answer the creeping legal issue question: what would prevent the school from instituting a "random full body cavity strip search" if it wanted to push the "rights" of the "school" (which are not CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED) to that extreme? Get the picture, nummah? It ain't about kids drinking at school. It's an insidious intrusion on privacy rights. So, keep the kids home? Nope. Truancy is illegal, nummah. LItigate? Yep, and the taxpayers will foot the bill all the way. Stop watching so much Fox News and that idiot woman lawyer on CNN that finds everyone guilty before they've even been arrested. Biggest problem in America now? The slanted views of society and paranoia created by sensationalist television broadcasting. And, again, I'm guessing you don't have kids in any school system.

Finally, many of the police that administer the breathalyzer test don't even know what they're doing and are beat out of convictions every week. Extensive training is required. What, exactly, off the top of your pointed head, is BAC in chemical terms and how does it actually effect an impairment. What is measured? Blood? Air? Breath? If blood isn't measured, how is the guesstimate of BAC arrived at? What I'm saying, beyond NO, there is no school right to "random testing," is that you're opening up a legal can of worms that will be costly to the SAD and the State. Paid for, of course, by the taxpayer, but at least it'll keep a pile of State employees busy. There are, and have been for decades, simpler ways to deal with suspected alcohol consumption by students rather than playing the "Big Brother" bit. Kick the kid out of school. Have the parents come pick them up. Charge them with illegal consumption or public intoxication, but don't start down the road of privacy intrusion under the guise of "prevention."

Well typed Bangorean

Bangorean.. At first i felt as if you were educated, and were able to make a valid point. Thank you for your last post in proving me wrong. It should be very clear to anyone reading your posts that not only are you uninformed, unable to give us a reasonable thought, but also incapable of thinking. Everyday when you send your kids to school they are aware that anything they bring into the school with them is liable to be searched, confiscated, and turned over to the police. So its pretty clear to anyone with a brain, that drinking, then going to a school may also be found out, and is within the juristiction of the school not to allow them on the property, and to turn them over to the police. Might i also point out to you that the policy also states that students are not forced to take the breathalyzer. If they choose not to, they will not be allow in. Just the same way that if some kid chooses not to wear clothes, they will not be allowed in. CLEARLY that makes sense right? So you get where i'm going with this? There are things that are expected of kids entering a school. If your kid would rather get wasted then to go a school dance with his friends, (and its your choice) then let him. When i send my children to school, i am aware, that it is the responsibility of the school, to make sure they are providing a safe place for my child. Stop trying to hide behind the law, and start being a parent. Its people like you, who try to avoid being a parent, and force the responsibility on other people. If your kid showed up at a dance wasted, i would hope you would be ashamed, not defend him because the school had "no right" to know he was drunk.. Can you open your mind up for a minute, and realize that what your trying to defend, is the same thing that is protecting your child? Just think, is that so hard??

OK, puddleduck and bangorean, please for the love of god, make your comments shorter! your making my eyes hurt! i get half way thru your comments and then all i see is BLAH BLAH BLAH. really!

I wish they would require all students to do this every day and for every "event". I think the teachers and parents should do it too. Why should anyone give a hoot if they aren't going to be drunk/drinking in inappropriate places? Oh, that violation of "rights" thing, which I guess would make more sense if so many people that cry about this weren't turning around and suing somebody when something goes wrong or someone is injured/killed; for "allowing" them their "rights" in the first place!!!

Thanks bucksport mom!! :)

Bangorean, you really went of the deep end there! I am impressed that you are so much smarter than the courts. With your explanation on BAC, I don't see how these test results are held up 90% of the tiime. Fox new is ok, on the other hand CNN.... well I'll leave it at that, and of course that is only my opinion. There are many things that I will do to save my kids life and your kids, and taking a breathalizer is for sure one of them. You say I am paranoid, wow, you go from Breathalizers to cavity searches. Pot calling the Kettle black, wouldn't you say. Qoute from you "It ain't about kids drinking at school. It's an insidious intrusion on privacy rights" If you are not paranoid, then you must be into conspiracy theories. Maybe you should quit watching Michael Moore.

later

What is amazing to me is that this is announced as "policy" I would suggest "policy" is systematic, legal and expected action? If SAD 67 expects students arriving at dances, and other after school events in an intoxicated condition, then their first mission "education of those same students" has been a failure.

Secondly; what is safer for those intoxicated students; to be at a supervised after school event? or to be out on the street unsupervised.

I fully agree that safety of ALL students should be in the highest of priorities, but I fail to see how suspending or expelling a student with an identified alcohol problem (and it is always a problem when children drink) makes anyone safer.

When I was still a teenager, one of my good friends was killed by a drunk (adult) driver I am sympathetic to the idea of identifying and helping problem drinkers. chasing them away from a place where they should be able to get help seems dumb dumb dumb!

Bangorean,

I read through your dribble so quickly I missed an important and sad question. You ask about the expensive litigation because you say the police are so inept on giving breathalizers, who's to say if it is right or wrong. Well, I would think any responsible parent showning up to school after a test shows alcohol in your child, you would be able to determine right away. If you have a test infront of you showing the BAC, and you cannot tell if your child has been drinking, you do not have much parenting skills. I would thank the police officer and school because they are giving me a chance to get my child the help he/she needs. I imagine that is what most responsible Parents would do. You, on the other hand, would probably storm out of the school, yelling they had not right, and then call a lawyer. What a great example you are setting for your child that is in need of help, not horrible parenting. This does not surprise me though, I run into Parents like this on a regular basis. Blame everyone else and avoid the true problem, the sad part about it, some of these kids grow up being like those parents. Also, just so you understand, it is the machine and it's calibration that usually comes into question in court, not how the police officer told the person to blow into the tube. This defense rarely holds up in court, just so you know.

Harry, come one, I know you really don't think like that, or you haven't thought it through. Are you one of these people we read about in court being charged with providing a minor a place to drink. Your excuse is, "I would rather he/she drink at home where I know what is going on" Come on, you really can't be that naive. At that age, most of these kids want to go to these school functions to be with friends, girls and/or boys. So, they are still going to go, but not after drinking, because the deterent is the breathalizer. Now, as a parent, it is up to you to make sure your child is not drinking after the event. Also, if you child stops going to them, wouldn't that raise suspicion in your mind. It amazes me how little parenting people want to do, they expect society to do it for them, then they complain about that also. Of course these children are not just turned away and no help given, that is why I am sure the parents would be notified. With some actions, come punishments, suspension is one of them. If your kid got in a fight at school and was suspended, would you say he is being turned away because he has an anger problem and needs help. Of course this may be true, but he will be punished and helped at the same time. This of course would only be true if you did some Parenting.

I think the random testing is outragous and just a way for a child to be singled out. School is not a rehab center or jail. What is this board thinking. Are they crazy? If my child was singled out at a dance to have a breath test done for intoxication without appearing to be intoxicated, the shool would want to hope that test came back positive or they would be in court. If my child went to a school function and was having fun with friends and then had to endure the embarrassment of being hauled in because of the lottery drawing for a breathalizer, I feel that is harrassment, degrading, and very unfair. Who thought of this and is on a power trip. Come on these are kids pick on someone your own age.

Sewmamma you sound like you look at the kids as objects or animals not children or young adults. They do have rights, and unless they appear to be intoxicated they should not be harrassed at a school function. Everyone should have rights not just certain people. Not all kids are bad and not all kids drink. My children are not brats and I dont think every child should be sentenced to this lottery. A child should only be subject to this if there is suspition or probable cause. This would be a violation of anyones rights.

Hey, kingofmaine, all babies are underage lol. I hope you still go to school.

garrisgammaw, not totally true. I have a job and I have to take random drug tests yearly. Are my rights being violated? I guess I could quit my job, but why would I do that since I have nothing to hide. Maybe I put up with it because I enjoy my job and the paycheck? Kind of like you may put up with Breathalizers because you love your children and would not want them harmed. Just think, you child may not drink, but the one that did and ran into your childs car, or whatever, this inconvenience would have saved some lives. See what I am saying, even if you are a great parent, your child fell from the heavens, this may not be the case with other family's, and could actually save your childs life. Children will be children, they will also think and act like children, this is why as Adults and responsible parents, we need to make these choices, for now. When they become responsible adults, they will have more choices to make than they know what to do with.

Movethen, you proved my point. But you still don't get it. And I didn't exactly say what you dribbled out. There was no "because." It's simply unconstitutional, or arguably so. No direct relationship to police lack of training. The statement implied that school adminsitrators would be even WORSE at it. Neither does Puddy. It's going to cost more than it's worth. If a kid is suspected of drinking, HOLD he/she and call the parents. There are two interminably separate issues here. One of alcohol consumption during school activities and the other the "random testing" of students at the will of fallible administrators. So, you'd go for the full body cavity search if the administrators wanted it, huh? That's the road you're on, a slippery slope indeed. That's the extension of the "rights" you'd grant the schools. Nope. Aint' gonna happen. Both of you watch too much Faux News "Fair and Balanced" bullsh*3. Whatever happend to the gummint "staying out of my life?" Thought that was a right-wing premise, but apparently only when it suits the goose-stepping agenda, as the current administration has so openly shown in it's evisceration of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments. Read 'em some time. School policy doesn't get to override the U.S. Constitution except in very narrow circumstances.. Two separate issues. Drinking in school, privacy invasion. I won't go so far as to insult you as you are trying to do to me. My kids are great. And oh yeah, a cop looks pretty numb on the witness stand if he doesn't understand the machine, the basis for the test, and the calibration (or, usually, the lack thereof). "Blame everyone else and avoid the true problem?" What a patently stupid thing to say. What is the true problem? Where's the evidence? Is this "just because" some administrator thinks it's a good idea? Oh, I see, you want the evidence FIRST (privacy intrusion) then you can say nyah! nyah! We caught 'em! That'll teach those kids. Read the Constitution. It might surprise you.

Dam it, what did i say about making long ass comments! Holy!

Bangorian you are very LOQUACIOUS..............are you drunk?

My guess is that "Bangorean" is johninphilippines. Hence the loquaciousness.

Short ass comment: the right-wing supremes, in a VERY close 2002 decision (meaning it could be overturned, and 4 justices disagreed with the decision) allow for random testing for kids who participate in extracurricular activities. It started with school athletes and they extended it. Whether it simply applies to the football team, the chess team, etc., etc., I don't know. Or if it applies to ALL students attending school dances, I don't know. And THAT'S where it's going to end up costing the taxpayer fighting a taxpayer suit. On the specific facts. And it is simply wrong-headed and ill-advised, although probably well intended. Still, I'd tell my kids to refuse the government intrusion - oh, wait, they'd be guilty for refusing then, wouldn't they? So, how 'bout that daily random cavity search? We going there or not? Where does it stop. I know, I know, not short-ass.

No, I reamed JIP on several occassions. And most of my spelling is pretty good.

And I'm just VERY supportive of Constitutional rights. This stuff gets my goat when "other people" "know what's better for (me, you, my kids, etc.)"

Bangorean, You seem to confuse your opinion with the law. Everything you are stating is your opinion, and only that. Yes, I am just stating my opinion also. You keep talking about full body (cavity) searches, is there another issue here with you that you would like to discuss. Your opinion is it would lead to that. My opinion is it won't lead to that. So prove me wrong? I am not suggesting I can prove you wrong, what I can prove, is you have an opinion like a million others out there. So, do you think you are highly intelligent and your opinion means more than mine, or anyone elses. Get a grip, I think it can be a good thing, you think otherwise. Oh my god, we both have opinions, wow. I really have no idea where you are getting this Fox, CNN news stuff from, what does this have to do with our children and alcohol? I think you try to read between the lines way too much, oh, this may be because you feel so intelligent. You sure blew that a couple posts back

Also, it is a shame you would tell your kids not to take the breathalizer. You are forcing your will on them in this situation that may hurt there schooling. Instead of forcing your will upon them in this case, how about just telling your kids to do there own research, think for themselves, and then let them make the decision. It's a shame you will fight your battles through your children. If you feel this strongly, how about fighting the fight yourself and leaving your children to get an education. Like I said, there are some decisions we have to make for our children, and some we have to let them make. If those goes through Bangorean, there is nothing you will be able to do about it accept pull your kids from school, or get a lawyer. Have fun spending your money, or maybe if you are lucky the ACLU will take your case, I doubt it. The battle has already been fought that blood tests, breathalizers, urine samples, they are self incrimination, but that battle was lost in the courts. Just like the State, you refuse to take the test, your license is suspended no matter what. Don't like it, get a lawyer. I don't see the ACLU coming to the aid of all these people, I doubt you will see them in Lincoln.

Why is one person posting as "Bangorian" and another as "Bangorean"?

One thing we are all forgetting is, it is the childs choice to take the breathalyzer. Because like sports and all other extra curicular activites, it is optional.. If you want to enjoy the dance/winter carnival, you need to follow the rules. Its that simple. There is no civil rights being violated, because there is nothing forcing your child to attend such activites. Here is how the scenerio will play out.. kids show up drunk, they get asked to take the test, they deny, they are then forced to leave, and next time they dont show up to make an ass of themselves.. It is a deterant, not some miracle prevention, the cost of this deterant - THE COST OF THE BREATHALYZER!! Bangorian, its clear, your so far on the left that anything you dont like your going to call unconstitutional/racism/sexist/whatever. Seriously, for your own good and the good of your community (which is the reason for this discussion in the first place) think for a minute. Your looking so far away from the point. This breathalyzer is not an amendment to the constitution. Honestly..

"The policy was not implemented because of any unusual problems in the district, according to school officials."

So then why is this being done? If nothing has happened in the past at this school, what is the point of going out and spending money on these things, when it can be used for something more educational. I just don't see their point when their is no past history of kids being intoxicated at all. I'm not saying this is a BAD idea, I just don't see the logic behind testing children at this school when there have not been any cases of it happening. Some other places it might be a good idea, like where it has actually been reported to have happened.

They actually did give a reason for this. As you know, we have now become a lawsuit society. The article stated this is to protect the students health and safety, and to protect the school from libel lawsuits. I can see it now, the lawsuit would be "You tellin me you couldn't tell my kid was drunk, you let him participate in gym class, and he fell and broke his ankle, YOU are responsible. I want 1 billion dollars!" These type of people are a dime a dozen.

Its kind of like the Walmart situation. A group of unemployed people spending next years money, rushing the doors of Walmart. Oh my, now it is Walmarts fault, not the animals that rushed through the doors. Walmart should not have had such a great sale, and this would not have happened, Walmart should have taken precautions. Give me a break people, perfect example. The school is taking precautions for them and the students. Like people saying how horrible the roads are in x town during the winter. We live in Maine people, what don't you understand about winter! Then they see the budget of the towns that do have good roads, they cry about that. Sorry for the rant, but I can't believe the people that cry and moan about everything!

Hey, let's just ban alcohol completely, that'll solve the whole problem...right?

Absolutely, then maybe I could make some real money moonshining, ha.

Is that what you would say, movethen, if the man who was trampled was your brother, father, or son?

annes still hating on you john

anne, what are you talking about. I am saying it was the animals lined up for the kill outside. I never blamed the fault of the person that was killed. Someone was killed, so someone must be at fault, let's go after Walmart since they have all the money. Sue, Sue, Sue. Gotta love what we have turned into.

I didn't mean that you were saying it was the dead man's fault. I see it as if Walmart gave the guy what any reasonable person would consider to be a relatively safe job and then placed him in a deadly situation. It was as if they threw an innocent man to the lions. If that were literally the case, then would it be the lions' fault?

Problem is, you are suggesting Walmart should have known these people were going to tear the doors off the hinges. Hindsight is always 20/20, I am sure now stores will look at this issue during these times, but the first time is always the learning experience. Let's say you are the manager, nothing looks out of the ordinary except people lining up at the door. You may not even realize there is a potential for someone getting killed, you are not programed to think that way, because you have not had that experience before. You now tell your employees to open the doors, all of a sudden it is like a riot. Are you really at fault? Some things in life happen, but why does someone always have to be at fault? Obviously the employee did not see this coming either, because if I told myself I am going to die when I open this door, I definately would not open the door. Horrible accident, that I am sure step will be taken in the future so it hopefully does not happen again. We were not prepared for 9-1-1 either because this scenerio never happened to us before. Now lets sue everyone because someone should have thought of this. Give me a break.

move - your right on. Its people doing things like that which make us use breathalyzers in school. People talked earlier about the school buying these only costs the taxpayer more money, and the money could be spent on other things, the taxpayers dont want their money spent on this etc... But when a school gets sued by someone, who "really" foots the bill? - taxpayer. When some "mad parent" thinks they have to point the finger at someone, and they sue, force the school to spend millions on things completely unnessecary, the taxpayer (me and you)are the ones paying for it.

Movethen, that's wrong. You need to read about the incident. It is well known that these situations get out of hand and there are standard practices to protect people including sawhorses, police tape and security guards. Instead, a massive crowd was pressed up against and trying to push in the door and the employees were simply told to unlock the door. Please read more about it before posting a thoughtless comment maligning the victim's family for holding Walmart to account.

puddleduck - it is a violation of privacy. I'm obviously opposed to kids drinking at school, but I don't think the fact that some kids chose to do it should mean that good kids who have their acts together should be required to take breathalizers. If they're not doing anything wrong, school administrators shouldn't be hassling them.

anne, sorry, I have read much about it, I don't listen to all the Monday morning quartbacks that they interview on the news. We have a blame someone society. The family should sue the animals that tore the door off the hinges, oh, they don't have money. I stand bye what I said. Thanks

Bangorian,

I don't think the kids that have there acts together should pay for it either, but that is what will happen when a drunk driver slams into them. sorry

Anne,

here you go...

We expected a large crowd this morning and added additional internal security, additional third party security, additional store associates and we worked closely with the Nassau County Police. We also erected barricades. Despite all of our precautions, this unfortunate event occurred.

"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the deceased. We are continuing to work closely with local law enforcement and we are reaching out to those involved."

- Hank Mullany, Senior Vice President and President, Northeast Division, Walmart U.S.

So, next time maybe they will set up a couple of tanks at the doors? What's your thoughts

So, student shows up flunking the test. Is parent notified and told to pick student up? (hopefully, parent being sober). And if parent can't be reached, does school call authorities to drive student home, or does student drive home, or wherever, anyway.? What's the point?

I would hope as a parent you would want them held in custody of the faculty or the police until you showed up, or someone you send if you cannot make it. Not a big deal. Same thing if your child was picked up by the police, they would keep them until a responsible adult showed up. This is not a big deal, simple solutions. I would really hope if your child was drunk, you would not want him/her to be released anywhere. The point is, you don't turn a blind eye just because you think it may be a hassle to pick your child up.

Movethen, check this out: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=walmart+trampled&btnG=Search+News

Click on Video: Police: Crowd at Walmart 'Recipe for Disaster"

anne,

I don't disagree this whole situation was terrible, and the loss of life unneccessary. What I disagree with, is the sue happy culture we live in. We complain that our insurance costs are rising, price of consumables rising, and it is because of our sue happy culture. Walmart will probably not pay anything, it will be the insurance company, which will pass the costs on in premiums, and then the retailers pass that on in the price of the products. We then stomp our feet and cry how we cannot believe the price of things today. We cannot be completely protected from ourselves and the outside world, accidents happen. I am sure money will be paid out, but why can't we admit that there were a bunch of animals lined up outside Walmart. Is that because we were some of them lined up at other stores at 3am to buy things we just cannot afford not to buy???

movethen, I don't consider this a "sue happy" situation. This was a tragedy where an innocent man was needlessly killed due to the store's negligence and greed. The store should be held accountable so something like this doesn't happen again. His was a great loss to his family and they should be compensated for it. That is what we call the pursuit of justice in our society. Yes the "animals" who trampled him are also responsible but it's doubtful that they will ever be identified and charged.

That is exactly what I am talking about. I don't agree that all accidents where someone is killed means a lawsuit should happen. You obviously have a different opinion on this situation than I. My opinion is this was tragic, and no matter what we do, or who we sue, tragedy will happen again somewhere else. You seem to believe that only a lawsuit will keep this from happening again, that is because this in now inbread in our society.

My opinion is still Walmart had less to do with this than the animals line up at the door. Just because we may never identify them, does not mean Walmart should pick up the brunt of the lawsuit.

INBRED, inbred. We have the best system in the world in America - not infallible, but arguably the best. Tinker with it at your peril.

Bangorean,

You really do show your lack of intelligence. What sytem are you talking about? Are you now bringing government into this conversation, this has never been about the government. Are you talking about all the lawsuits? My lack of intelligence is hampering my understanding of your superior posts. Who's tingering with what? Keep up with your intelligent posts though, we are all getting an education from them.

yeah smarty I know, TINKERING, tinker

movethen I believe Bangorean is talking about the justice system. Of course I disagree with your fatalistic opinion. The tragedy is less likely to happen somewhere else if the store is motivated to implement reasonable safety and security standards. You yourself refer to "the animals that line up at the door." You're right, the mob that was whipped into a frenzy by Wal-Mart's greedy "doorbuster blitz" marketing tactics was a dangerous, headless animal. I stand by my analogy that Wal-Mart threw an innocent victim to the lions and should be held accountable. Had they implemented standard security practices this would not have happened. People get killed in these stupid doorbuster sales every year!

Stupid people go to these doorbuster sales. This probably will not be about the criminal justice system, it will be a civil suit. Anyway, we all have opinions, that is all they are.

Yes, it is typically a civil suit for employer negligence.

Don't forget, it is "Alleged employee negligence" We wouldn't want to tinker with Bangorean's arguably best system

Movethen, By your logic no criminal should be prosecuted for any crime. ignorance is a fine excuse. "I didn't know I couldn't put the gum in my pocket and leave without paying." "I didn't know I shouldn't drive drunk, and it wasn't my fault all those people died." Why should Wal-Mart even bother to buy insurance? "Hey, I didn't know I could throw a grenade into the crowd. It's not my fault people got hurt." Movethen, a corporation with Wal-Mart's resources and experience has a certain basic responsibility to the taxpaying public just as you do when you get behind the wheel or use a gun. When you cause a car accident due to your negligence your insurance premiums go up. Actually, I due agree with you on one point, due to Wal-Mart's power and connections, we'll all be stuck with the bill their insurance company should pay. Actually, Wal-Marts premiums should go up. But punishing the family of the victim by saying, "hey, too bad, people get crazy sometimes and there's nothing anyone can do to control the situation because we'll have to raise the cost of generic cigarettes by two cents to pay for a risk manager at 2 million dollars a year who would be able to tell us the most likely scenario and that might reduce our sales and profits by .0001 percent and that's communism so let's just say we had no idea that putting a part time employee with no crowd control experience in charge of an unruly mob will work out and hope everything works out." Movethen, if your child had been put in charge of controlling that mob would you feel the same way? Inquiring minds want to know.

Wow, maybe the kids will start smoking dope or crack in order to avoid the breathalizer, The web's we weave by making these decisions...........

BCB,

All I am saying is when something happens, the first thing we look to do us Sew. I am sue no criminal charges will be filed against Walmart, some some of your hilarious examples are comparing apples to oranges. If you were one of the front people in the crowd and you accidently trampled this guy, I am sure you will tell the police you did not mean to do it, and could not see it coming. If you were sued, you would probably be telling everyone how your getting the screws put to you.

If you slide on Black ice and slam into someone else, can they sue you because you should have known the temps and black ice conditions. Of course they can sue, does not mean they will or should win. Your examples would have criminal charges filed, so please compare apples to apples. Are you one of these employees that slip and fall at work, then sue because they should have made sure you didn't slip. There are so many people out there like that, it is sickening! Inquiring minds want to know. I am sure Walmart will be found at some fault, maybe not because they may settle out of court. What I am saying is how everyone likes to scream and shout and start pointing fingers, but dang, that TV on sale, I just had to have!

Movethen, no, I've never sued anyone although my body bears many scars from work related injuries, falling included. Wal-Mart has a responsibility to its employees as well as its customers. There were other people injured in the melee on Long Island. There are simple crowd control measures that could have been taken that would have ensured that everyone was safe. Those measures would have cost Wal-Mart several hundred dollars and a company interested in more than maximizing profits would have taken those measures. This isn't rocket science. This isn't a case of career law suit happy people suing over a twisted ankle. A young man with his whole life ahead of him died here. This is an obvious case of corporate negligence. Wal-Mart has a habit of locking its employees in their buildings on the late night shift also. Someday one of these Wal-Marts will catch fire and people will die and I suppose you'll be the first to defend Wal-Mart in that case too. There's no excuse for the behavior of the crowd, but having been caught in several violent mob situations myself I know that when a crowd looses control there's a group panic mentality that takes hold. The responsibility of Wal-Mart was to prevent that mob mentality to take over in the first place.

If you read a few posts back, I put a quote in where Walmart said they worked with the local police, put up barricades, ropes, etc. What I am getting at, is how much is a company supposed to do, if you cannot completely forsee what is going to happen. Again, hindsight is 20/20, I am sure in the future things will be done differently. I am sure Walmart will be found to have some culpability in this. I am saying some of this lawsuit happy society is a little rediculous. People sue because the roads were not sanded. Hello, we live in Maine! Why do we just assume that we should be protected from everything out there, and sue when not. It is very tragic this person lost his life, I agree, money will be paid out, I agree. I am fed up with all the screaming and fingerpointing at the person with the most money. A car runs into us, no injuries, no lawsuit. A Budwieser truck runs into us, no injuries, but o my, we are going to sue the pants of Budwieser. Then the person that saw the accident sue's, because he/she is traumatized. Give me a break. Everyone (maybe not everyone) loves Walmart when they keep costs down and have really great deals, as soon as something unforseen happens, they become the Devil, until the next big sale, those these people can spend money the don't have. Before you go there, I have no problem with how people spend there money, I just have a problem with the ones that spend it on crap then cry because they don't have any left. Spend it how you want, don't cry about it, simple as that. The lazy one's don't have to worry now though, Obama is going to give them the money that the not lazy ones make. Ok, enough ranting

Movethen, there will always be someone who will abuse the system, any system, pick one. What you did was malign a family that has made a legitimate claim. By the way, the "lazy ones" are the billionaires who sit on corporate boards and figure out ways to maximize profits while minimizing the costs of providing a safe workplace.

Bob, that is your opinion. You may believe it is a legitimate claim. Opinion only

Of course. I'm glad we agree.