Drug testing in our schools

[Sam Slater]

Mike wrote:

[quote]The most socially destructive substance abuse is alcohol. You don't comment on this?[/quote]

Mike, until now I wasn't asked about my thoughts on alcohol abuse. I've been referring to 'drug testing in schools' which was the topic you started. I've mentioned 'drugs' as being a problem in class, and how it's spoiling a lot of our kids's education. You've skirted around this problem by trying to take the disscussion away onto other subjects.

Comparing alcohol to 'most' illegal drugs is an issue I would happilly disscuss, but I just want your opinion on the problems teachers face everyday with kids coming to school 'high'. What message would 'legalising' drugs send to the children already 'using', and causing problems for others within our schools?

Thanks,

[Sam Slater]

SB,

You can't call sugar a drug! Natural sugars within our carb intake are essential as our brains only feed on our 'blood sugar'. Our brains cannot use 'fats' or 'proteins' for fuel. Only 'sugars' will do. This is why reducing your carb intake over a long period will give you big headaches. Starches are ok if you're a small brained herbivore, but a human with an absolute 'sugar free' diet will lead to coma and death.

I agree with you on 'marketing' high sugar foods to kids. Diebetes and obesety kill more teenage girls in one year than anorexia does in ten years. (yet problems with anorexia & teenage girls is all we here about).

Sugars main purpose though, is to give energy. People get fat (from fat) for consuming too much fat in their diet. People only get fat & diebetes from too much sugar because..................well....................'we're lazy bastards these days!' Pure & simple!

Exercise burns off sugar too quickly for it to accumalate in the blood stream, which would otherwise cause diebetes. When your body gets used to exercise it starts burning more fats than sugar, but then your body saves the sugars as 'glycogen' within the muscles, to be used as energy when needed. Again, it doesn't then accumalate in the blood stream.

So a dissagree with your views on sugar. It's a good, essential food source. It's only our lifestyle thats killing us.

[strictlybroadband]

You're right that our bodies produce natural sugars. We also produce opiates and other drugs naturally - which is why we are geared to enjoy morphine, opium and heroin so much. We are chemical beings. Tiny amounts of chemicals can completely change our personalities for good or bad. But for political reasons, just a few chemicals are banned by our governments.

As a keen cyclist, I enjoy an endorphine buzz (endorphin is an opiate) on a regular basis, completely legally. But if I put other opiates into my body I can be locked up. Where's the sense?

[Sam Slater]

Ahhh, cycling!

I used to love cycling in my teens. Being in Sheffield it's great to be a cyclist! Buxton, Bakewell, Castleton, Holmsfirth on a summers day, ahhh magic! Much better than a 'line o charlie' in the bog, or a spliff in a stinky old council flat eh?

Only drug I've used for performance is creatine, but you get that through diet anyway, so not really a drug. I dunno much about the political rights & wrongs of making certain chemicals illegal, but I do know that if drug testing in schools improves grades, then so be it, & I'm all for it!

Thanks for jogging my memory, I might go out & buy myself a brand spanking new bike this week!

[Big Ears Pix]

>Crap - that would be illegal.
There's no law that prevents a company from sacking a worker. Of course you can take it to an industrial tribunal but can't say I've met anybody who won one but I know a few who lost.
You have a thing about the french. Being sent for couselling is once again a standard clause in any multi nationals employment contract. The problem is that you seem to be getting your info from the Daily Mail while I have worked a lifetime (40 yrs) in large/multi national companies (British, French) and know first hand how they treat/mistreat their workforce.
You still haven't explained your dual standards. You support workers/school kids rights to take whatever substances they like but you don't want any of them to turn up at your place and do a job of work for you. How do you know that the bloke from the gas working on your boiler isn't a junkie? Could it be that the clause in his contract of employment about random drugs testing gives you confidence that he's not going to blow your place up.

[eroticartist]

Sam,

As I pointed out before you cannot talk about what the effects of certain substances are because you will never know. Usually the motivation is pleasure and and an aesthetic experience. Some substances encourage creativity and that is why the Sixties Revolution produced such an explosion of cultural creativity.

All substances are not bad and if alcohol is legal why should anything else be illegal?
Mike Freeman.

[randyandy]

Only a complete and utter idiot would put a British PM in with those 3.

Complete and utter BOLLOCKS.

Keep smoking the good stuff strictlybroadband it's doing wonders for you!

[Sam Slater]

And as I've pointed out, 'you're changing the subject, and skirting around the original topic to try and win an arguement'.

Certain drugs do make the mind wander which may result in more creativity, but when drugs become a problem with 13-16 year old school children -hampering theirs , and others educations- then drastic measures need to be taken. Drug testing in schools may not be the best option, but at the moment it's a step in the right direction, and no-one's bothered to come up with a better idea.

If drugs are so creative then why don't 'junkie's' get together and come up with a genious idea on how to solve the problem, instead of being paranoid about 'unjust wars' and 'police states!' You're continually 'bangin on' about infringing our childrens rights, but you don't seem too enthusiastic when I point out that there's a drug problem within 'most' secondary schools, that needs to be addressed!

I'm waiting on a possible solution from you Mike, show me the power and I'm converted!

P.s You replied to the wrong post.......................you on drugs or something? !wink!

[Sam Slater]

You don't need to be an idiot randyandy, just a little 'stoned' !oops!

[strictlybroadband]

Big Ears Pix wrote:
> You still haven't explained your dual standards. You support
> workers/school kids rights to take whatever substances they
> like but you don't want any of them to turn up at your place
> and do a job of work for you.

Correct. There's no contradiction.

> How do you know that the bloke
> from the gas working on your boiler isn't a junkie?

My plumber is a mate of mine, and we've shared the odd spliff. But I wouldn't let him service my boiler after smoking one.

> Could it be
> that the clause in his contract of employment about random
> drugs testing gives you confidence that he's not going to blow
> your place up.

I have faith in him not to do a job drunk or stoned - he's a professional. Doesn't mean he can't get drunk or stoned when he's finished for the day.