Enda Kenny, the young 'wans and drugs.

Carolus Magnus

The story from the Examiner:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=49691-qqqx=1.asp

Quite frankly he's gone off his trolley with this proposal. In fact, it has so incensed me that I have decided to pen letters to all of my local T.D.s as well as De Paper itself and I'd not be above asking those who shared my views to write in as well. He talks of 'voluntary' codes which are in practice not voluntary at all (i.e. with the 'consent' of pupils): in reality, unless one is entirely abstentious then one could be getting A grades, and not be a threat to any of one's peers, but could still potentially kicked out of secondary education for having taken a single ecstasy tablet in close proximity to any such test.

Surely intoxication itself is not something one can be charged with? There are public order offences arising from behaviour likely to be committed while intoxicated, and one certainly can't drive under the influence, but it would seem we are aiming to test and criminalise those who are not guilty of an offence but who merely have traces of a drug in their system or on their person. It seems to me to be an unwarranted search as even if positive results are yielded, they confer no criminal charges. It's nobody's business at that point. Furthermore, drugs can be used sensibly: it would be as ridiculous to breath test for alcohol and nicotine but it seems that some drugs are socially acceptable while others are not.

Then again, this is probably a part of Kenny's big 'tough on crime' push and intends to capitalise on the recent malaise over Justine Delaney Wilson's sensationalist tome on cocaine use. 'Won't someone think of the children!' indeed, and that's before one appreciates that the vast majority of schoolgoers don't take drugs and how this represents an unwarranted and paternalistic infringement of their personal rights.

Wishbone Ash

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

Surely intoxication itself is not something one can be charged with?

If in a public place!

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994

4.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person to be present in any public place while intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.

(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána suspects, with reasonable cause, that an offence under this section or under section 5 or 6 is being committed, the member concerned may seize, obtain or remove, without warrant, any bottle or container, together with its contents, which—

( a ) is in the possession, in a place other than a place used as a dwelling, of a person by whom such member suspects the offence to have been committed, and

( b ) such member suspects, with reasonable cause, contains an intoxicating substance:

Provided that, in the application of this subsection to section 5 or 6, any such bottle or container, together with its contents, may only be so seized, obtained or removed where the member of the Garda Síochána suspects, with reasonable cause, that the bottle or container or its contents, is relevant to the offence under section 5 or 6 which the member suspects is being committed.

Time Magazine

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

Surely intoxication itself is not something one can be charged with?

Intoxication can only follow from possession.

it seems that some drugs are socially acceptable while others are not.

That is the way it is. It's socially acceptable to drink but not to take ecstacy.

ballooba

TBH I don't think drug testing in schools is one of the better Fine Gael policies. I'm not sure if they just keep pushing it to be controversial.

Carolus Magnus

The Criminal Justice Act does seem to make it clear though that it is only if one presents harm to one's self or others that being intoxicated becomes an offence. Not only are these proposed tests random; but merely traces of a substance in one's system in any quantity (that is how I'm reading 'intoxication' in this instance, to make that clear) can hardly be grounds to proceed to convict. So the search is surely unlawful, as it establishes nothing which can be considered the purview of the state? That is of course quite apart from the fact that they have no reasonable suspicion, if these are to be 'random' tests.

The Law wrote:

'while intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity.'

Intoxication can only follow from possession.

Of course, but has there ever been a conviction of someone for possession through the fact of them merely having used? I should imagine that people have been arrested for having a drug in their possession in a hard, unconsumed form, or for committing public order offences whilst under the influence but not for having simply consumed it beforehand.

The hypothetical stituation arising out of Kenny's proposal that raises a grim spectre for me is of the sensible student, who was able to enjoy drugs sensibly over the weekend, (not that implausible, surely?) being hauled over the coals and suffering academically for being found to have even a minute trace of the substance in their system. With the random test of course assuming guilt and proving innocence, it seems to just generally go against the spirit of the law much as Kenny's party would make themselves out to be a party of law and order.

Time Magazine

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

Of course, but has there ever been a conviction of someone for possession through the fact of them merely having used?

Perhaps not but this does not provide a robust reason to argue against such a measure, either.

the sensible student, who was able to enjoy drugs sensibly over the weekend

Should there be a limited time-frame for the analysis of wrong-doing?

Certainly there's an argument that possession and consumption of certain substances should be legal. This argument does not usually extend to minors and is, at the very least, a tangental point. Your argument is akin to suggesting a rapist should only be pursued if caught in the act.

flogen

They suggested this before the election - although it wasn't so much random drug testing as it was giving a principal the right to drug test students he or she suspects of being on drugs.

I presume he'll support members of the Oireachtas and Civil Service being subjected to similar random drugs tests too?

DublinWriter

flogen wrote: »

They suggested this before the election - although it wasn't so much random drug testing as it was giving a principal the right to drug test students he or she suspects of being on drugs.

I presume he'll support members of the Oireachtas and Civil Service being subjected to similar random drugs tests too?

Yes, I got a feeling of deja vu when I heard him today.

Good point on doing the same in the Public Service.

Basically Kenny is playing to the gallery; the country is almost falling apart with alcohol related problems and he comes out with this particular stunner.

It's a shame we don't have any credible opposition anymore.

Carolus Magnus

Your argument is akin to suggesting a rapist should only be pursued if caught in the act.

I'm afraid I don't follow

As it is we do not arrest people who have overdosed on illicit substances once they exit hospital. This leads me to wonder whether or not we do have any laws that make it illegal to have simply consumed the substances in question. And possession, it occurs to me, is also pretty difficult to deduce from consumption. There is reasonable doubt about how it got there for starters; in most cases. They could have ingested it unknowingly or accidentally, they may have been plied with the substance etc. But it may also not have been their's but they may have been offered it: does that then make it their's?

It is sort of a tangent though, I agree. I suppose my real problem with this proposal is the infringement of personal rights it seems to represent, re: the right to be free from a search conducted without reasonable suspicion which this would be if it is to be 'random'. It presumes guilt where it should presume innocence. A truly 'voluntary' scheme as Kenny describes, between parents, pupils and principals should allow any party to veto. As we all know, that won't be the case. Boards of management will lay down the law, and anyone who disagrees will have to go to another school and bog off for want of a better word.

Taking it outside of the realm of the letter of the law as well, it seems pretty silly that we should punish anyone, nevermind minors, for the consumption of any substance when it does not have a negative effect on anyone around them. The substances are hardly inherently evil. Some carry more risks than others, but no drug is much different from another in principle. The hypocrisy of it is pretty galling, and more so is the potential that could exist in this scheme for the education and reputation of many bright young people to be irreparably damaged on account of discrete drug use.

The hoodies business and now this. The more FG expose their reactionary instincts, the harder I find it to take them seriously.

eoin5

If this setup was ever introduced it wouldnt be beyond students bearing a grudge to abuse it. Even if one kid failed because he/she was spiked with a small amount of illegal substances it would be totally unworthwhile and wrong.

Dirk Gently

FG spouted this out before the election too but it was quickly buried (probably ridiculed by Labour). I put it down to reactionary desperation to find something to distinguish them selves from FF but now after the election it just looks like good old fashioned right wing social conservatism. I wonder if the boot camp idea will re-surface too. Looks like FG are at least looking to be different. A silly proposal but for the sake of democracy I suppose it will be good if FG do distinguish themselves over the next few years as an alternative entity, even if It is in the opposite direction than what I would be likely to vote for.

foxface

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

The story from the Examiner:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=49691-qqqx=1.asp

Quite frankly he's gone off his trolley with this proposal. In fact, it has so incensed me that I have decided to pen letters to all of my local T.D.s as well as De Paper itself and I'd not be above asking those who shared my views to write in as well. He talks of 'voluntary' codes which are in practice not voluntary at all (i.e. with the 'consent' of pupils): in reality, unless one is entirely abstentious then one could be getting A grades, and not be a threat to any of one's peers, but could still potentially kicked out of secondary education for having taken a single ecstasy tablet in close proximity to any such test.

Surely intoxication itself is not something one can be charged with? There are public order offences arising from behaviour likely to be committed while intoxicated, and one certainly can't drive under the influence, but it would seem we are aiming to test and criminalise those who are not guilty of an offence but who merely have traces of a drug in their system or on their person. It seems to me to be an unwarranted search as even if positive results are yielded, they confer no criminal charges. It's nobody's business at that point. Furthermore, drugs can be used sensibly: it would be as ridiculous to breath test for alcohol and nicotine but it seems that some drugs are socially acceptable while others are not.

Then again, this is probably a part of Kenny's big 'tough on crime' push and intends to capitalise on the recent malaise over Justine Delaney Wilson's sensationalist tome on cocaine use. 'Won't someone think of the children!' indeed, and that's before one appreciates that the vast majority of schoolgoers don't take drugs and how this represents an unwarranted and paternalistic infringement of their personal rights.

if i was a pupil when that law was in, i would have stuck by it until i did my leaving cert.. and then gone ten times crazier than i actually did when i was in school.

screams of trying to get parents onside. if hes so serious about drugs why wouldnt he be targetting the source?

Big Brother syndrome. PS im new to these parts, so forgive if my argument is a tad messy and perhaps uninformed)

Morlar

eoin5 wrote: »

Even if one kid failed because he/she was spiked with a small amount of illegal substances it would be totally unworthwhile and wrong.

Cant say I agree with your take on this - if a policy like this (which aims to cut down on drug fatalities) inadvertently has a negative effect in even a single instance that that would invalidate the whole policy? The possibility of one person somehow getting spiked and wrongly accused throws the whole idea out the window ? That seems a bit extreme.

You could also look at it the other way if it prevents one single overdose/brain damage/fatality then it should be mandatory for all.

I think a more sensible approach would be somewhere down the middle - in limited circumstances it could do some good.

I wouldnt consider this to be knee jerk reactionism, in my view the knee jerk reaction would be to casually dismiss it as a policy out of hand or on some kind of idealistic principle with no consideration to the real life consequences.

Dirk Gently

out of interest what does Mr Kenny propose happens to the pupils caught by the tests? Worth mentioning too that the idea is under consideration by FF according to the article.

sovtek

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

The story from the Examiner:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=49691-qqqx=1.asp

Quite frankly he's gone off his trolley with this proposal. In fact, it has so incensed me that I have decided to pen letters to all of my local T.D.s as well as De Paper itself and I'd not be above asking those who shared my views to write in as well. He talks of 'voluntary' codes which are in practice not voluntary at all (i.e. with the 'consent' of pupils): in reality, unless one is entirely abstentious then one could be getting A grades, and not be a threat to any of one's peers, but could still potentially kicked out of secondary education for having taken a single ecstasy tablet in close proximity to any such test.

Surely intoxication itself is not something one can be charged with? There are public order offences arising from behaviour likely to be committed while intoxicated, and one certainly can't drive under the influence, but it would seem we are aiming to test and criminalise those who are not guilty of an offence but who merely have traces of a drug in their system or on their person. It seems to me to be an unwarranted search as even if positive results are yielded, they confer no criminal charges. It's nobody's business at that point. Furthermore, drugs can be used sensibly: it would be as ridiculous to breath test for alcohol and nicotine but it seems that some drugs are socially acceptable while others are not.

Then again, this is probably a part of Kenny's big 'tough on crime' push and intends to capitalise on the recent malaise over Justine Delaney Wilson's sensationalist tome on cocaine use. 'Won't someone think of the children!' indeed, and that's before one appreciates that the vast majority of schoolgoers don't take drugs and how this represents an unwarranted and paternalistic infringement of their personal rights.

It's amazing to me when politicians propose policies that mirror some of the worst that America has. It's astounding that they think some major different result can come of it? Or are they just as cynical as the minority that benefit from failed policies in America.
I hear a lot of people whinge about how bad America is (and rightly so sometimes)...do you really want some of the worst aspects of our culture? Cop on people!

Hotblack Desiato

What the likes of Kenny don't know (or don't care about) is that drug testing has serious flaws. E.g. it is possible to test positive for opiates after eating poppy seed rolls. Travelling on certain Dublin Bus routes could possibly lead one to test positive for cannabis. Some drugs dissapear from the system in hours, others are detectable for weeks or even months. Drug testing in prisons is reported to have encouraged heroin use over cannabis - because cannabis is detectable for a much longer time and therefore an occasional user is much more likely to fail a test. Among teenagers, drug testing will encourage inhalants instead of a joint. Problem is, inhalants are many times more dangerous.

At the end of the day though, a school isn't a prison camp and shouldn't be run like one.

The more FG keep playing this card, the more their core support will love it and the more everyone else will be alienated from them. IMHO they are making a big mistake going into the next election with Kenny, he's already blown the best chance he's going to get.

GreeBo

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

the sensible student, who was able to enjoy drugs sensibly over the weekend

Having access to a lab to perform a full analysis to ensure the drugs are not cut with rat poison or disprin?:rolleyes:
How exactly do you take un-regulated drugs sensibly?

zepp

Funnly enough i start a petition about drug testing the Dail when this first came out. http://www.petitiononline.com/Dailtest/petition.html

FTA69

Ibid wrote: »

That is the way it is. It's socially acceptable to drink but not to take ecstacy.

Taking illegal drugs is quite acceptable amongst large swathes of our society, what you mean is that it isn't "legally acceptable".

Time Magazine

FTA69 wrote: »

Taking illegal drugs is quite acceptable amongst large swathes of our society, what you mean is that it isn't "legally acceptable".

I'm aware of what I mean, thanks. Just about everything is acceptable to certain sections of society. My granny would smile if I said "I went for a pint last night." What do you think she'd say if I said "I had a few ecstacy tabs last night"?

eoin5

Morlar wrote: »

Cant say I agree with your take on this - if a policy like this (which aims to cut down on drug fatalities) inadvertently has a negative effect in even a single instance that that would invalidate the whole policy? The possibility of one person somehow getting spiked and wrongly accused throws the whole idea out the window ? That seems a bit extreme.

You could also look at it the other way if it prevents one single overdose/brain damage/fatality then it should be mandatory for all.

I think a more sensible approach would be somewhere down the middle - in limited circumstances it could do some good.

I wouldnt consider this to be knee jerk reactionism, in my view the knee jerk reaction would be to casually dismiss it as a policy out of hand or on some kind of idealistic principle with no consideration to the real life consequences.

I agree with you in that in limited circumstances it could do some good, but the law should be limited accordingly. Leaving the law so open as was suggested gives too much potential for law abuse. If theres one thing thats worse than drug abuse its law abuse. So yes, somewhere down the middle please, and lets not punish our kids unjustly.