Outrageous! This story is the latest example that the war on drugs is in reality a war against individual liberty and the Constitution. The idea of forced drug testing in our public schools is disturbing enough, but the fact that parents have no veto power over this program is downright anti-American. Larry Tannahill's courage to stand up for what is right is no easy task in a climate that vilifies anyone who dares to "just say no." Jessica Zigler, Klamath Falls, Ore. [continues 111 words]
I was outraged to read that a parent filed suit over a drug testing policy. I never gut into trouble and was a straight-A student from elementary through high School, but that didn't stop me from experimenting with drugs, which led to a five-year battle with addiction and an even longer time to get my life back on track. I wish my school had had a drug testing policy. I might have been spared a lot of heartache. [continues 77 words]
Your editorial (A-J, 8-24) endorsing the Lockney schools' revised drug-testing policy makes arguments that appear to me to be unfounded and disregards the fact that constitutional rights are infringed by this policy. Certainly, participants in extracurricular activities must meet relevant requirements, but not at the expense of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches -- those without probable cause. This right means that an individual's observed behavior, not a random and invasive test, must first provide probable grounds for suspecting drug use. Participation in athletics may be an exception to this, because drug use may have an immediate effect on athletes' health or safety or on the results of an athletic contest. But this is not generally true of extracurricular participation. [continues 119 words]
I wonder if parents in Lockney who support drug testing ever heard of "witch marks." That was one of the tests ostensibly good Christians were required to submit to in an earlier time. Drug testing children is a modern-day chemical witch hunt. Thomas Jefferson understood well the tyranny of religious oppression. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others," he wrote. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." [continues 230 words]
BECAUSE STUDENTS MAKE the choice to engage in extracurricular activities, there is nothing wrong with requiring participants to submit to drug tests. That's why in February, while condemning a Lockney Independent School District policy requiring mandatory drug tests for junior high and high school students, we expressed support for "mandatory and random drug testing for students who choose to participate in extracurricular activities such as athletics, band or choir, UIL events, work programs or clubs." That's also what we meant in April, when we said, "random drug testing has a place in public schools." [continues 130 words]
Revised version bans students who don't consent to tests from school activities LOCKNEY, Texas - School officials were told at a Thursday board meeting that they may be able to expect a ruling in October or early November on the constitutionality of Lockney's mandatory drug-testing policy. Meanwhile, the drug policy remains in force in this small West Texas community's schools, although a revised version suspends students who fail to consent to the tests from extracurricular activities rather than requiring a full suspension from school and mandatory drug counseling. [continues 521 words]
LOCKNEY - A school board member confronted a filmmaker working on a documentary about mandatory student drug testing moments after a school board meeting ended here late Thursday. Mark Birnbaum was taping a documentary for the Dallas public television station KERA-TV when he was approached by school board member Dan Smith. "He said, 'Get the camera out of my face,' " Birnbaum said. "He raised a fist right in my face." Smith, a former mayor in Lockney, acknowledged Friday that he was frustrated, but said he never raised a fist nor intended to harm the filmmaker. [continues 318 words]
LOCKNEY, Texas -- Residents in this small West Texas community are upset that a mandatory drug testing policy their school board passed last year had to be revised in the wake of a lawsuit filed by a parent, who claims the policy violates his son's constitutional rights. But even though disappointed by the board's move to lessen the punishment against those who refuse the mandatory test, many in the farming community are glad that, for the most part, the policy remains intact. [continues 650 words]
Bookmark: MAP's shortcut to The Lockney Policy items: http://www.mapinc.org/lockney.htm When The Local School Tried to Make His Son Take a Drug Test, Larry Tanahill Filed Suit A farming community of some 2,300 in the Texas Panhandle, Lockney might seem at first glance far removed from the drug problems facing larger cities. So Larry Tannahill was surprised last January when his son Brady, 12, came home with the news that the town's schools would be requiring every student from sixth grade up to submit to routine urine tests. What disturbed Tannahill, 36, was the presumption of guilt: Parents were warned that if they didn't sign a form consenting to the exams, their children would be treated as if they had tested positive and punished with in-school suspension and a temporary ban from extracurricular activities. "It's not right," says Tannahill. "It's going against everything they're teaching these kids about government." [continues 651 words]
LOCKNEY, Texas -- The Lockney Independent School District has revised its mandatory drug testing policy in an effort to come to a compromise with a father who sued the district, saying the policy violated his son's constitutional rights. "Sometimes you implement a policy and look back at it and say this should have been done this way," Lockney Superintendent Raymond Lusk said Wednesday. The revision is a change of course from a board decision in March. The panel then decided not to act on a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to eliminate or refine the policy. [continues 472 words]
LOCKNEY - The Lockney school board revised its drug-testing policy last month in the wake of a lawsuit that charges the policy violates a Lockney student's Constitutional rights, a lawyer for the school district said Wednesday. Austin attorney Don Henslee said the policy was "fine-tuned" at a regular board meeting to affect only seventh-through 12th-graders because school activities usually start in the sixth grade. The policy revision also stipulated that students whose parents have not signed a permission slip will be subject only to drug counseling and will not undergo in-school suspension or be barred from extracurricular activities, Henslee said. [continues 425 words]
Fight For Your Right Not To Party Jordan Lambert is a rangy 18-year-old with the kind of face you don't see much outside Texas. It's a hard-bitten face, with a squint that seems fixed by generations spent working in sunny fields. Lambert's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all farmers in West Texas, a hard life that's getting harder. But Lambert is a senior at Texas' Lockney High, and, right now, Lambert pretty much rules. [continues 4836 words]
Father Says Policy Violated Son's Rights LOCKNEY -- The Lockney Independent School District has revised its mandatory drug testing policy in an effort to come to a compromise with a father who sued the Panhandle district, saying the policy violated his son's constitutional rights. "Sometimes you implement a policy and look back at it and say this should have been done this way," Lockney Superintendent Raymond Lusk said Wednesday. The revision is a change of course from a board decision in March. The panel then decided not to act on a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to eliminate or refine the policy. [continues 519 words]
LUBBOCK - The Lockney Independent School District's mandatory drug-testing policy will not be enforced for the student named in a lawsuit against the district until the lawsuit is settled, lawyers said Tuesday. Brady Tannahill, who will enter seventh grade in the fall, neither will be forced to take the drug test nor will he be punished for refusing to do so, according to a stipulation filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Division of Texas in Lubbock. [continues 280 words]
This letter is in response to the person who I suppose thinks he doesn't have enough rights (A-J, 6-7). Lockney did a very smart thing concerning drug testing. It's for the safety of the kids. I am proud of them and wish every school in the nation would do the same thing. Our schools are not nearly as good as they were when the school board's word was final. A police force in our schools? Now, isn't that progress? [continues 112 words]
Regarding Steven Chapman's column "Schools to prison" [Opinion, June 6], as a volunteer working with incarcerated juveniles, I have learned that there can be fathers who introduce their children to illegal drug use and smoke with them too -- surreptitiously, of course. Therefore, I suggest that if the Lockney school district is serious about their school policy of mandatory drug testing for all of their students, let them drug test the parents first. If the drug test is positive, then drug test the kid. Otherwise, leave the kid alone. In my opinion, the father's rights in this particular case preempt the rights of the school district. Patricia K. Gaunt, Tustin [end]
Drug Policies Become More Draconian, Deny People's Basic Rights American public schools tend to resemble prisons more all the time, and the trend is especially conspicuous in the small rural town of Lockney in the Texas panhandle. When the parents of one sixth-grade boy refused to go along with a new drug policy, his prescribed punishment was a three-day, in-school suspension, during which time he would have to wear - I'm not making this up - an orange jumpsuit. [continues 631 words]
Testing Schoolchildren Without Cause American public schools tend to resemble prisons more all the time, and the trend is especially conspicuous in the small rural town of Lockney, in the Texas panhandle. When the parents of one 6th-grade boy refused to go along with a new drug policy, his prescribed punishment was a three-day in-school suspension, during which time he would have to wear--I'm not making this up--an orange jumpsuit. Lockney appears to be one of only two school districts in the country (the other is in nearby Sundown) that have instituted mandatory drug testing for all students. While some schools require such tests for kids who play on athletic teams or participate in extracurricular activities, Lockney does it for every single youngster--and not just in high school but in junior high. Anyone enrolled, from the 6th grade on, has to submit to a urinalysis for drugs, and is subject to random tests afterward. [continues 638 words]
Several weeks ago I watched a television interview with William F. Buckley, one of the prime spokesman for conservative causes for a half-century. Among other subjects in the interview was the "war on drugs." Buckley has championed the decriminalization of some outlawed drugs. He said that the debate has been stifled because if people propose doing away with some drug laws, they are labeled as "pro drug use." Merely taking the decriminalization side of the debate should never label one as pro-drug. The arguments should stand for themselves and not reflect on the debater. [continues 674 words]
LUBBOCK, Texas - The Lockney Independent School District on Tuesday said their mandatory drug testing program does not violate the constitutional rights of a sixth-grader whose father filed a lawsuit against the policy in March. Brady Tannahill's father, Larry, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brady after the district said it would punish him for not taking the test. Larry Tannahill had refused to sign the consent form allowing the test. The lawsuit said the across-the-board policy violated Tannahill's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by the Constitution. The policy states that "any refusal by the student and/or parent to sign the consent form will be treated as a positive test." [continues 280 words]
