The Locally Owned Voice of the Capital Region

Gazette polls

Should all students attending proms be required to submit to alcohol testing?

Click here to read the related news story.
Yes 53% 167 votes
No 46% 146 votes
Total Votes: 313

Note: This is not a scientific poll.


April 20, 2011
9:14 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
WordWiz78 ( WordWiz78 ) says...

Absolutely not. It's a clear civil violation - it's presuming guilt until proven innocent. Aren't we supposed to be teaching high school students the Constitution? You know, that great piece of Americana that clearly impresses upon us that we MUST presume individuals INNOCENT until proven guilty?

Ah, I see: it's do as I say, not as I do.

If a student is giving probable cause to be given a breathalyzer - slurred speech, unsteady gait, odor of alcohol, etc - *then* give them the test. Or, better yet, do what the law requires and call the police to administer the test. Last I checked, this was not a police state.

April 21, 2011
6:21 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
robbump ( robbump ) says...

I also agree that there should be probable cause, AND if otherwise, then just what are we teaching young people?

April 22, 2011
6:42 a.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
SchenectadyScott ( SchenectadyScott ) says...

These students should be drug tested on a random basis during the school year for the protection of the students and teachers. Since when do minors have adult rights concerning the welfare of others. When a child is dead because of the intoxication of another will that be too late to address the need for a broken parental system of responsibility. Who is liable in these situations? Who is going to foot the bill when there is a death? This is a legal mess. And the ones that will pay are the ones who will be at the loss of death of the child and the tax payers supporting this system.

April 22, 2011
11:34 a.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
WordWiz78 ( WordWiz78 ) says...

Scott: When did teachers get the right to be cops? Minors have the same basic rights as every other citizen. If you look at the Constitution, it does not specify, "You have these rights, provided you are 18 or older."

I get where you're coming from - in many cases, minors are prevented from doing many of the activities adults may, including some which are seemingly Constitutional rights (a basic example being that a minor cannot - in most states, anyway -own a gun, no matter what the Constitution says about the right to bear arms). What you're talking about, and what the poll is discussing, however, goes beyond this. It is the presumption of guilt, regardless of cause.

If you'll note, I say that if there is probable cause for a student being intoxicated, by all means, we should go through the PROPER legal channels and prevent the student from attending the prom. Proper channels meaning that the police are called and the student may not enter the prom unless they pass a Breathalyzer test performed by the police. If they fail, they get taken to holding by the PD to wait for mommy and daddy (or whoever their guardian may be).

You talk about responsibility. My first answer is that parents bear the responsibility of teaching their kids not to drink. Now, we all know that kids will sometimes rebel against parents, and that no parent can control their kid - particularly their teen - 24/7. But why does it then fall to the teachers? I suppose the better answer is that the responsibility lies with the child to not act irresponsibly, but reality shows us that teens don't always make the best decisions.

You are looking to use a system of punishment before crime. You want us to teach kids that we are innocent until proven guilty, but then treat them exactly in the opposite manner. How do you expect them to grow up to learn the rules of fair play and, your favorite word, responsibility, if they are shown that, once you become an adult, fair play and responsibility go out the window in favor of gestapo action?

More to the point, put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if you were walking into the grocery store and a cashier pulled you aside and searched you? You haven't entered the store yet, there's no evidence that you stole anything or have a weapon or anything, but it's "just for the protection" of the cashiers and shoppers. How is that just? Answer: it's not.

I'm an EMT. I see intoxicated youths all the time (though, admittedly, we deal with far more intoxicated adults than youths). I also do not wish to see any more teens dying alcohol-related deaths. However, I also don't wish to see their civil rights die in order to accomplish this. Prom isn't the only place kids get drunk or do drugs, nor is school. What are we going to do, start pulling kids randomly off the street, from their back yards and homes, to drug test them?

April 22, 2011
1:23 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
robbump ( robbump ) says...

(OMG, Wordwiz, after our contentious exchange a few months ago, we really do agree with each other most of the time.)

I guess by the count (now 139:135, those favoring a police state leading) that a lot more people favor a nanny-government and abdicating parental responsibility (and rights). I see where this is headed:

"Show me your papers!"

April 22, 2011
3 p.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
SchenectadyScott ( SchenectadyScott ) says...

Where did I state Teachers should be cops? And responsibility IS on the parents 24/7 that is the responsibility they have taken on when they decided to have them. Children are children and if they do wrong, who is responsible? I don't know where you are coming from . Since when do children vote and are legal to purchase alcohol. Who is providing the alcohol and drugs to these children. Are we that far gone in society where it is acceptable for adults condoning this action. Then lets go your route and legalize it all and let everyone of any age get blasted. I did not think I am condoning a police state. There are laws and they need to be enforced since the honor system is not doing to well with the laws. That cashier should be pulling these kids aside, it is the law. And I am not disagreeing with you. This is a police state if you haven't noticed. See where this is is already gone. And probable cause is the results of when the graduation rate at the city high school is brought up to a reasonable standard, at least 55%, we would be saving a lot of money with the extra privileges they have been handed. There is no standard or reward in the country, it seems to be all expected without working for it. Where is the incentive to do good?


columnists & blogs

Log into

Forgot Password?