• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance

Primus said:
So they were right to suspend her but should have given a different reason to the media?
Click to expand...
No, I do not believe she warranted suspension. Yes, I believe she should have received some kind of punishment which emphasized the potential dangers of giving medicine to another person. But by giving you these opinions, I am exercising judgment! Which is exactly what zero-tolerance policies prevent, quite intentionally.
Hellbound said:
Just to add a bit to this (and I can't speak for anyone else), but our school has a policy about posession of any medications. If the child needs medicines, even OTC meds, they should be brought to the nurse by a paarent along with instructions for use. If the child needs the medicine, they go to the nurse to get it. That's part of their policy, and helps prevent any issues of misuse by the child, as well as making sure the parent knows what the child is taking. It also helps to make sure the medicines are stored properly.
Click to expand...
That is actually quite sensible policy. But I do have a question: If the child is found with medicines, in violation of the policy, is he treated the same as being found with illegal drugs?

If the answer is yes, then I would have to drop the "sensible" part.
 
Mark6 said:
No, I do not believe she warranted suspension. Yes, I believe she should have received some kind of punishment which emphasized the potential dangers of giving medicine to another person. But by giving you these opinions, I am exercising judgment! Which is exactly what zero-tolerance policies prevent, quite intentionally.

That is actually quite sensible policy. But I do have a question: If the child is found with medicines, in violation of the policy, is he treated the same as being found with illegal drugs?

If the answer is yes, then I would have to drop the "sensible" part.
Click to expand...

Prescription drugs usually have much more chance of causing harm than illegal drugs. Cannabis and ecstasy haven't got much scope for long term damage when misused but a lot of prescription drugs can do some serious damage. If anything it would make sense to crack down on people handing out prescription stuff harder than illegal drugs.
Also aren't most drug addicts in the US hooked on over the counter drugs rather than illegal anyway. Another reason to keep an eye on kids giving them out.
 
Mark6 said:
That is actually quite sensible policy. But I do have a question: If the child is found with medicines, in violation of the policy, is he treated the same as being found with illegal drugs?

If the answer is yes, then I would have to drop the "sensible" part.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. Our daughter go tin trouble for it once, because despite us telling her not to take stuff, she carried some cough drops in her backpack. She went to the principals office, had a stern talking to, and "got her stick moved" (she was in second grade, they used a stick hanging on a peg to track behavior: if it got moved to the third peg by the end of the week, you didn't get to pick a prize form the prize chest), and we were informed (and she was grounded at home for a bit, because we had found them in her pack the day before and removed them, so she was in trouble for disobeying). So yes, punishment fits crime, and no, it isn't suspension.

I have no problem with zero tolerance in the sense of "if they do this then they are in trouble". I think the problem is not so much that type of thing, but in the zero tolerance that says "any offense in this category is a mandatory punishment of X".

In other words, I don't think the issue is so much zero tolerance as it manadatory sentencing: zero proportionality.

When you can't discriminate between the second grader who gives his study group partner a Tylenol and the guy selling crack in the corner of the playground, there's something wrong.
 
Last edited:
Primus said:
Prescription drugs usually have much more chance of causing harm than illegal drugs. Cannabis and ecstasy haven't got much scope for long term damage when misused but a lot of prescription drugs can do some serious damage. If anything it would make sense to crack down on people handing out prescription stuff harder than illegal drugs.
Also aren't most drug addicts in the US hooked on over the counter drugs rather than illegal anyway. Another reason to keep an eye on kids giving them out.
Click to expand...

You're misapprehending the term "over the counter", as no one's likely addicted to the stuff you can get off the shelf in the aisles at Boots. That's over the counter (OTC)... aspirin, cough drops, sore throat lozenges, diarrhea and upset tummy medications, etc.... What you're thinking of is prescription versus black market/illegal. And many illegal hard drugs are prescription medications if properly used. And the answer to that part is that, yes, there's a much larger problem with abuse of prescription drugs than there is with the illicit, IIRC.
 
TimCallahan said:
A kindergarten boy was expelled for kissing a girl, because of the schools zero tolerance policy on sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

It's been mentioned before but this situation has nothing to do with zero-tolerance policies. He was suspended for sexually harassing a girl after he sexually harassed her, repeatedly and consistently.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You're misapprehending the term "over the counter", as no one's likely addicted to the stuff you can get off the shelf in the aisles at Boots. That's over the counter (OTC)... aspirin, cough drops, sore throat lozenges, diarrhea and upset tummy medications, etc.... What you're thinking of is prescription versus black market/illegal. And many illegal hard drugs are prescription medications if properly used. And the answer to that part is that, yes, there's a much larger problem with abuse of prescription drugs than there is with the illicit, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Sorry I did mean prescription and not over the counter. Mind must have been wandering when I was typing!
 
squealpiggy said:
It's been mentioned before but this situation has nothing to do with zero-tolerance policies. He was suspended for sexually harassing a girl after he sexually harassed her, repeatedly and consistently.
Click to expand...

I've pointed this out to the OP already and it's been ignored so far. He'd already been warned multiple times as well as punished at least once for it as well so it hardly counts as zero tolerance regardless of whether deserved the punishment or not.
I bet the parents of the poor girl wish the school did have a zero tolerance approach to pupils being sexually harassed.
 
Primus said:
I've pointed this out to the OP already and it's been ignored so far. He'd already been warned multiple times as well as punished at least once for it as well so it hardly counts as zero tolerance regardless of whether deserved the punishment or not.
I bet the parents of the poor girl wish the school did have a zero tolerance approach to pupils being sexually harassed.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't ignored that one. I'm saying that all the others aren't like it. You might check out "This is true" for other stories. Here is his Zero Tolerance archive. Consider this one, courtesy of the TSA. Here is a story of what happened when people fought back against a twit principal.
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
So, one bogus story makes all the others false?
Click to expand...

The Midol one was nothing like you described as well. That's 50% that are bogus so far and I don't have sources for the other two to check them out.
So with half bogus and half anecdote so far you'll have to excuse me for not buying your argument.
 
Primus said:
The Midol one was nothing like you described as well. That's 50% that are bogus so far and I don't have sources for the other two to check them out.
So with half bogus and half anecdote so far you'll have to excuse me for not buying your argument.
Click to expand...

That's a different story. Here is the Midol story I was talking about. Here is the ]story about the straight "A" valedictorian whose high school diploma was withheld because she said the word "hell" in her graduation speech. This story is not bogus.
 
Last edited:
I love zero tolerance! It provides a constant stream of entertaining news stories.

Here's my favorite case from 2013, the pop tart gun:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...26c878-1bf6-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

Hey, everyone was rattled about Sandy Hook, right? And we can't do anything to stop a gun nut mom from arming her mentally ill kid, on account of the 2d Amendment and all, so let's crack down on pop tart chewers. Surely it's better than doing nothing.

What I don't understand is why "zero tolerance" applies only to 7-year-olds. Let's expand it to the adult world, starting with traffic violations. 45 in a 35? You lose your driver's license for a year.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I love zero tolerance! It provides a constant stream of entertaining news stories.

Here's my favorite case from 2013, the pop tart gun:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...26c878-1bf6-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

Hey, everyone was rattled about Sandy Hook, right? And we can't do anything to stop a gun nut mom from arming her mentally ill kid, on account of the 2d Amendment and all, so let's crack down on pop tart chewers. Surely it's better than doing nothing.

What I don't understand is why "zero tolerance" applies only to 7-year-olds. Let's expand it to the adult world, starting with traffic violations. 45 in a 35? You lose your driver's license for a year.
Click to expand...

Seems too lenient. Let's aim higher: the death penalty.
 
Mark6 said:
No, I do not believe she warranted suspension. Yes, I believe she should have received some kind of punishment which emphasized the potential dangers of giving medicine to another person. But by giving you these opinions, I am exercising judgment! Which is exactly what zero-tolerance policies prevent, quite intentionally.

That is actually quite sensible policy. But I do have a question: If the child is found with medicines, in violation of the policy, is he treated the same as being found with illegal drugs?

If the answer is yes, then I would have to drop the "sensible" part.
Click to expand...

Students found with illegal drugs are expelled; not suspended. So no - the punishment is not the same.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
I seem to recall that the one about the midol was that the girl was actually suspended for giving the drug to another student. Which is an entirely different issue from mere possession.
Click to expand...

Well I know I lay awake at night worrying about the rampant Midol Cartels setting up shop in schools.

Crossbow said:
If I may interject ...

Only doctors and/or other medical professionals who have been given the proper training are supposed to give drugs to someone else.
Click to expand...

Was this girl prescribing it?

Have you never recommended to someone a common medicine when they complained of an ailment? And if they asked for it would you refuse?

Hellbound said:
Because this introduces the possibility of harm. The giver is not a caretaker of the other student. People can be allergic to some OTC medications (NSAIDs, for example, which Midol contains). Many OTC medications can interact poorly with other medicines, both OTC and precscription. Or the reciever may have already been given other drugs in the same family at home, so may end up with a higher dose than needed. Quite frankly, it's because children are not authorized to give medical treatment.
Click to expand...

Except that this misses the point. Midol can be bought in any store. And no one there is going to check with the girl to make sure she should be taking it. They'll gladly just take her money and watch her leave.

But another girl giving her some Midol for free! Well that is just intolerable.
 
Travis said:
Except that this misses the point. Midol can be bought in any store. And no one there is going to check with the girl to make sure she should be taking it. They'll gladly just take her money and watch her leave.

But another girl giving her some Midol for free! Well that is just intolerable.
Click to expand...

Because the store does not have a responsibility of care for the child. The school is legally responsible for the welfare of the child.

If my child accepted medications from a classmate, or I found out they were buying them on their own without telling me, they would also be in trouble by me.

I don't see the school acting any differently than I would.
 
Last edited:
Schools don't do this stuff because they enjoy it. It is because litigious parents like suing schools for frivolous stuff as they see it as free money. If you find a way to stop parents rinsing the schools for cash for stupid stuff then you this sort of overkill won't be required anymore.
 
Primus said:
Schools don't do this stuff because they enjoy it. It is because litigious parents like suing schools for frivolous stuff as they see it as free money. If you find a way to stop parents rinsing the schools for cash for stupid stuff then you this sort of overkill won't be required anymore.
Click to expand...

We've been through this in a couple of other threads. It's not actually the "schools" unless you are using that as all-encompassing to include their Boards and the City Councils or County organizations that fund them and approve their rules.

Some of those administrative/legislative groups are driven by the CYA policy. It's similar to getting carded at 50 y.o. to buy a beer at Shea Stadium. If the owners can say they card 100% of the people and have a thousand anecdotes on line and in news clipping to show they actually do so, no one can hit them up for a negligence suit for not doing due diligence when a kid bought a beer and fell off the top tier of the stadium.

But there are school boards out there with an agenda, politically. It would be silly to think otherwise. ZT is not an uber liberal bugbear. It's in all sorts of blue states/districts and red states/districts. Some of the policies are distinctly progressive. Some are not. The ZT of trooping gang colors and insignia crosses into all political territories, for instance.
 
Hellbound said:
Because the store does not have a responsibility of care for the child. The school is legally responsible for the welfare of the child.

If my child accepted medications from a classmate, or I found out they were buying them on their own without telling me, they would also be in trouble by me.

I don't see the school acting any differently than I would.
Click to expand...

I would expect a school to maybe tell the girl to make sure she can take Midol. I would not expect them to ruin the life of the girl that was only trying to help a friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom