'); } -->
‘Orwellian’ drug plan
The proposed (and by now de facto) program of random, mandatory drug testing of students at Coast Union High is a misguided and possibly illegal attempt at behavior control by school board members whose sense of political power has evidently run away with itself.
There is not enough space here to address all the relevant issues such a program evokes: the use of coercion instead of reason as the principle means of persuasion, the implicit and sophistic suggestion that those with nothing to hide have no cause for fear or objection, and the Orwellian consequence that such methods make suspects out of every single student, just to name a few.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year (See Safford Unified School District vs. April Redding) is instructive. The case involved the strip search by a school administrator of 13-year-old student Savana Redding in an attempt to find drugs. Such searches must be reasonable and warrranted in each specific case; this one was not and was found to be a clear violation of her Constitutionally protected rights.
The random extraction of student’s bodily fluids to determine what they’ve been ingesting strikes this writer as even more invasive and perverse than a strip search, not to mention unwarranted. Furthermore, mandatory, preemptive drug testing of randomly chosen students as a means of modifying their behavior is not only unjustifiable, it sends the message to those students that they cannot be trusted, or even encouraged to reason for themselves.
To suggest that this tactic gives them a “way out” in the face of peer pressure cannot be construed as a rational justification. Instead, kids should be encouraged to exercise their own autonomy over and against “pressure” from any group.
An essential objective of education in a free and prosperous society is to encourage children to think and reason for themselves, rather than merely bow down to the authority of anyone who presumes to wield it.
Steve Skelton
Morro Bay
Stopped, enjoyed
On Aug. 15 our beautiful daughter was married. Their names are Terry and Esperanza. They married in a lovely bed and breakfast in Placerville. Cambria made a direct impact on the celebration.
Miss Ruth Fleming worked for eight months, teaching me to sing at the ceremony. Erika at the “Gourmet Gift” provided 150 pieces of “Blessed Fudge.” (I’ll leave that story at the shop.) Woodies Pizza provided me with fresh tortillas so I could make dozens of tacos and enchiladas. Mike from Soto’s Market introduced me to smoked turkey which travels, and is yummy.
The “mama of the bride” wore clothes from The Porte House, Exotic Nature and The Place.
The most remarkable experience was that so many diverse folks of all ages, all backgrounds, stopped and enjoyed and allowed this charming couple to influence all of us who have ever been in love. “Ain’t Love Grand.”
Take a breather, relax and remember a joyful celebration. Thanks to all of you who allowed me to sing to you anywhere and all over town. Your neighbors, still in love after 38 years,
Natalia Calderón and Lawrence MacDonald
Cambria
Buck stops here
Regarding John MacKinnon’s Viewpoint in the Aug. 20 Cambrian (“Town supports — not subsidizes — business”), we all know about Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), but the point about the Cambria Community Services District subsidizing motels and vacation rentals that feature Jacuzzi tubs is valid. Every tub full reduces our finite aquifer at a frightful rate.
Your own closing remark that “we all pay for the water we use” is a little misleading. As you know, when a motel or vacation rental exceeds the expected allotment of water, you simply raise the rates charged to tourists to cover you costs. This is an advantage not shared with me or the rest of Cambria’s residential water ratepayers.
Your penultimate statement that “We all conserve” begs the questions: how does one conserve water with a motel full of Jacuzzi tubs?
Dennis Ortenburger
Cambria
SanLuisObispo.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. See our full terms of service here.
Here are some rules of the road:
You should also know that The Tribune does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "report abuse" button to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at webmaster@sanluisobispo.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.
If you submit a comment, the username of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them, but you may ask our staff to retract one of your comments by sending an email to webmaster@sanluisobispo.com. Again, make sure you note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us your profile name.
About comments
Reader comments on SanLuisObispo.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Tribune. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.