Suspected Drugs...

[Engineer61]

Behavior contract? Talk about sticking your heads in the sand...up to your ankles.

 

Both of my school districts (Elem and HS) have published Zero Tolerance policies to drugs, alcohol and firearms. Every other district I have come in contact with has the same policy...it's been that way since the 70's.

 

State Law in my state basically suspends Civil Rights on search and seizure on school grounds. Many other states have the same laws.

 

Your talking about illegal drugs and children ... how can you possibly justify that? Does BSA have the license to act as some kind of drug halfway house?

 

Scouting isn't school?

 

No kidding...I figured that out already. But funny, I was under the impression that Scouting was something of a higher moral standard than public school. At least that's what you guys seem to keep banging the drum on... Scout Law, Scout Oath. Or is this just a collection of words to get membership?

 

So when that kid with the meth or the joint gets some 11 year old hooked on drugs, exactly what is the stance of BSA then?

 

Oh let me guess, that's the parents responsibility to somehow protect their kid from someone they really don't even know because the troop is "boy led", never mind that they were expecting (with all the YPT stuff) that the adult leadership was doing that.

 

I learn more everyday....thanks.

 

And no, I didn't say what I really think...I held back.

 

 

[Engineer61]

No Beavah...it was not a joke.

[Beavah]

Yah, E61, then you're not understanding what your school district is actually doing. School officials can do some sorts of searches of student belongings because they are not law enforcement. Law enforcement can be asked to search school property, like lockers. But law enforcement can't search student property without probable cause. Yah, and state law cannot suspend civil rights, eh? That's why they're called rights.

 

IMO, the presence of law enforcement in schools is excellent evidence of incompetent educators and administrators.

 

As for da rest, there's a balance, as always. When your son is the victim of an anonymous rumor about drug use, how do yeh want people to respond? Ban him from the trip that he's worked hard for because some indignant parent thinks your son might get his kid hooked on meth? Send out letters to everyone lending credence to the rumor? Or something more thoughtful?

 

dScouter15, no need to repeat yourself. We just disagree is all. I agree that what you're saying isn't the same as a behavior contract. I don't have da same negative reaction to it that I have to behavioral contracts. I just don't think it accomplishes anything, and runs a risk of doing some harm (beyond just da overhead cost of tracking down lots of pieces of paper). Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

"And if the lad is not trustworthy or morally straight, what value does a written behavioral contract have? People who aren't trustworthy or straight violate contracts all the time."

I agree. This is impeccable logic.

"A scoutmaster is a mentor, and a mentor is like a parent. We don't write contracts with our kids. We don't hand 'em books of policies. We behave like adults who believe in things, and have da courage of our convictions. That's how they grow up to have character and courage themselves."

Again agreed.

 

"Yeah, there's a lot of us who can say 'there but for the grace'..."

Got THAT right!

 

Thinking back to those yearbooks with the X mark on the aerial photo of the school saying "Drop bomb here" - Back then it was a joke to everyone. Today who knows, it might bring in homeland security. I'm thinking about the honor student who recently lost his scholarships and admissions to college because he was temporarily unencumbered by the thought process - he made one of those drink bottle 'bombs' and took a big hit for it.

 

I add that I also agree with the 'constant vigilance' comment, the watchful eye of an adult mentor. It helps to take the time to really get to know the boys, each of them individually, if you can. After a while, for some of them, I can tell just by the way they carry themselves that they might be on the way to making a thinking error of some kind - some kind of mischief (most often involving matches and fireworks). But it helps to watch their 'mood' and behavioral patterns. You can sometimes tell when something out of the ordinary is going on. Sometimes it's good to just have a friendly chat...they'll tell you what's on their mind. One thing I like about children is that they haven't yet developed enough guile, usually, to hide their lies.

We've had situations that involved drugs outside of scouting activities and in each case the troop and the families in the troop understood that there is little to be gained at this age, by thoughtless condemnation and incarceration.

This might even be one of the best things that can happen, as a matter of fact, if the child is young enough. A boy who makes a really bad decision gets caught - and then learns: 1) that the community really cares about him and 2) there are serious consequences for these kinds of bad decisions, and 3) PTI is a chance for him to wise up and demonstrate to the community that their faith in him was not misplaced.

 

I have often said that sometimes a child can be put onto the right track by making a mistake like this early enough that the damage is not permanent. They can learn from the mistake and potentially gain from it without being shackled to a criminal record for the rest of their life.

[Scoutfish]

Any of you ever make wine in science class?

 

We did, but it wasn't a big deal back then. It was just a part of science class and learning about fermentation.

 

Of course, as just the right amount time went by, we'd come to school and find the experiment gone. Teacher said an "unfortunate accident" happened. Cleaning crew must have "knocked" the experiment on the floor and ruined it.

 

Try it today and you have broken who knows how many school and federal rules in the ZERO tolerance policy.(This message has been edited by scoutfish)

[John-in-KC]

My contract with my attorney during some regrettable business a decade back? A handshake.

 

A gentleman's word should be his bond. His handshake should stand for something.

 

The time for that starts when a young man is a Boy Scout.

 

Enough said. My $0.02

[IM_Kathy]

I'm going to share my thoughts on this...

 

first as a person in recovery that was practicing in my teen years... 1) there are all kinds of drugs that can be smuggled in, kept hidden, and not be seen when used. 2) depending on the drug and how much you are around the boy to be able to tell what they are like when they are on drugs and not on them, it is completely possible that the boy is always on them when you are around and you just accept his personality while high as his normal personality.

 

now as a leader and parent... if I am responsible for the safety of this scout and the others on the trip then I need to know that all the boys are going to make it home safely, and anyone being on drugs does make this harder to accomplish.

 

we have not had this issue with my son's troop or even my daughter's GS troop, but if we did I would do what my old church youth group did which was informing the parents that gear would be searched before we left and if drugs/alcohol/tobacco was found they would not be allowed to go, and if their child managed to sneak some by and was found that the parents would have to make arrangements at the drop of the hat to come get their child from where ever we were.

 

unless you want police charges brought out through this I don't think you will want the drug dogs - I can't see being able to get a search dog without informing the police of the situation. And with the information that you've shared here I would say this is more of a possible thing than a for sure thing, which I would keep more "in house"

[Engineer61]

It's a simple solution Bev.

 

You search everything, and if you find it, the kid is gone. I don't care "how much he's worked for it". That is the most lame excuse yet.

 

In addition to the relaxed search laws for school personnel (cause not required, only a reasonable expectation of finding an illegal substance or item), my State Law on drugs in school is simple...

 

13-1411 Possession, use, sale or transfer of marijuana, peyote, prescription drugs, dangerous drugs or narcotic drugs or manufacture of dangerous drugs in a drug free school zone; violation; classification; definitions

 

(F) All school personnel who observe a violation of this section shall immediately report the violation to a school administrator. The administrator shall immediately report the violation to a peace officer. It is unlawful for any school personnel or school administrator to fail to report a violation as prescribed in this section.

 

Not much gray area there.

 

All this secrecy, "keep it in the family" crap is what caused the Oregon problem.

 

Meth can and does addict (or kill) in one dose. And, by chance, if one of those medicated ADD/ADHD boys gets a dose it will be lights out almost immediately.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, so to be clear, yeh want me (or law enforcement) to strip search your child and all of his possessions whenever another kid in his class passes along an anonymous tip about possible drug use?

 

Keeping in mind that the only way to really find personal-use quantities of illegal substances is to strip search, dismantle electronics and other possessions, etc.

 

Really?

 

Given how protective yeh are of your wife's son, I'd be really surprised if you didn't go ballistic if someone did that to him.

 

Beavah

 

[Vicki]

OK, so if I were to agree with your approach, Engineer, which I think it's obvious I don't, let's review what you posted, specifically, "All school personnel who observe a violation of this section."

 

No one has observed anything. So far we have hearsay and innuendo.

 

Vicki

[evmori]

You search everything, and if you find it, the kid is gone. I don't care "how much he's worked for it". That is the most lame excuse yet.

 

And what if you find porn in another kid's sack! And a bag of bullets in another kid's sack! And the watch you lost last month in another kid's sack!

 

This isn't a school so all the "school rules" don't apply. And there is no evidence anything illegal exists. And the BSA doesn't have a zero tolerance policy (in my opinion zero tolerance policies are stupid).

[CalicoPenn]

Zero Tolerance = decision making for those without intelligence.

[Stosh]

Don't cha think it's kinda strange to have zero-tolerance rules at a school that goes to great lengths to promote diversity? What's the message our kids hear?

 

Some of these schools do things the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and Black Panthers wouldn't even dare to try and pull off.

 

Stosh

[evmori]

Zero tolerance and diversity are completely different things. Zero tolerance, like Calico posted, is decision making for morons while diversity is the same as political correctness.

[dScouter15]

Now what's the problem with zero tolerance policies. I personally have zero tolerance for certain behaviors - fighting, bullying, hazing, use of addicting and dangerous illegal drugs by minors - I cannot think of a situation where I will tolerate any of these behaviors on a Scouting activity or function. All of the Scouts I work with are aware of this, and I will ensure that any of these behaviors that do occur are addressed. Rarely does my response to a situation involve sending a scout home or calling the police (though, for me anyway, both are options that are on the table for certain situations), but I always do intervene when behavior develops that I cannot tolerate.

 

So, are zero tolerance policies the problem, or are over-the-top reactions to violations the problem?

 

Signed, an unintelligent moron.

 

(As a side note, could we maybe try to set the bar a little higher for the quality of the debate here? Only four pages into it and already accusations of "incompetence," "coward," "unintelligent," and "moron" have been made, with guest appearances by the KKK and neo-Nazis. Ad hominem attacks generally don't make very good arguments.)