Okay, I'm baffled, why do you object to these?BuffNaked said:I object to any RIDE program or "Saftey Blitz".
Illegal drugs are not the responsibility of the school, that is the job of the police department. When cops are searching lockers it tells me that the administration recognizes there's a problem that needs to be dealt with.BuffNaked said:A few grams of pot and mushrooms does not make an unsafe enviorment any more than a mickey of everclear does. This is not a saftey concern. This is about a school who can't or won't perform it's duties.
You know what it tells me when you have cops searching through lockers at a school? It tells me that the adminstration has lost it's authority there and is letting someone else perform it's responsiblity.
While it seems reasonable that most parents would indeed to anything to keep their kids safe at school, the crunch always comes when they are asked to pay for it through their property taxes. Given the recent school shooting, I would love to see the mayor or a city councillor with the stones to propose an increase in taxes to pay for metal detectors and increased security personnel at schools. I have my doubts it will ever happen. How much is it worth to parents to increase the odds that their children won't get shot at school?slowpoke said:Most parents would allow themselves to be strip searched and boiled in oil if it meant their kids would be spared. I'm a parent and I'd do anything to protect my kids. But they won't always be kids. They'll grow up to be replicates of you & me. So let's keep our sticks on the ice and NOT give away the store because somebody got killed. We should be able to install metal detectors at school entrances since it has already been done at our courthouses and we can x-ray luggage because that is routine at airports. We can also search lockers whenever we feel like it etc. But at some point you'll have to stop and ask yourself if the cure isn't worse than the disease.
I'm using that slippery slope argument in more legal terms. I'm not a lawyer but it seems that allowing one type of search can be used as a legal precedent for allowing another "equivalent" type of search. The sniffer dog is only sampling odours floating around in a public space but what about those inaudible sound waves emanating from the privacy of your house? Once they escape the confines of your house, they're bouncing around in public space too. Why not use ultra sensitive listening devices to eavesdrop on private conversations. What about other sophisticated sensors to detect items hidden under your clothing and so on. That's why this sniffer dog thing is going to the supreme court. Because it has larger implications for the rest of us and needs to be addressed. Instead of "slippery slope" substitute "dangerous precedent".frankcastle said:Okay so what problems can arise from this? Can you do this without a slippery slope argument like "next thing you know there will be random house searches."........
the parents might agree, but do they have the right to consent on behalf of their children. if so, at what age do they lose that right?frankcastle said:You're right this could have happened anywhere. But it should not be at a school. This is a place where people send their kids to improve themselves and gain opportunities. I think most parents would agree that they would like their kids to be in a place where measures are taken to reduce the chances of exposure of drugs or violence to their kids.
On the child’s eighteenth birthday or when they are legally emancipated by a court order, whichever comes first.red said:the parents might agree, but do they have the right to consent on behalf of their children. if so, at what age do they lose that right?
is that the law or what you think it should be?Aardvark154 said:On the child’s eighteenth birthday or when they are legally emancipated by a court order, whichever comes first.
Actually radar detectors are banned in both Virginia and the City of Washington. New York and Illinois ban their use in large commercial vehicles. Additionally U.S. federal law bans their use in vehicles weighing over 10,000 pounds.dcbogey said:Maybe in Ontario. In the US the airwaves are "owned" by the public and anyone has a right to receive those airwaves, for whatever purpose.
I think that is the crux of this case as well. The SCC will have a difficult decision - as if any of their deliberations are easy! There is arguably a public benefit to the use of sniffer dogs - searching for drugs or explosives - that has to be weighed against the rights of the individual.slowpoke said:I'm using that slippery slope argument in more legal terms. I'm not a lawyer but it seems that allowing one type of search can be used as a legal precedent for allowing another "equivalent" type of search. The sniffer dog is only sampling odours floating around in a public space but what about those inaudible sound waves emanating from the privacy of your house? Once they escape the confines of your house, they're bouncing around in public space too. Why not use ultra sensitive listening devices to eavesdrop on private conversations. What about other sophisticated sensors to detect items hidden under your clothing and so on. That's why this sniffer dog thing is going to the supreme court. Because it has larger implications for the rest of us and needs to be addressed. Instead of "slippery slope" substitute "dangerous precedent".
The law.red said:is that the law or what you think it should be?
interesting. but there must be more to this than that. can a parent consent to a medical procedure to which the child objects?Aardvark154 said:The law.
However the age does vary between Provinces. Eighteen is the age of majority in: Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, PEI, and Québec. The age of majority is 19 in: B.C., New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and the Yukon Territory. As in all matters I certainly wouldn't make legal decisions based on TERB, there may be apropos case law in Ontario.
As a minor your parents have legal control and legal responsibility over and for you unless you have been declared an emancipated minor by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Now you get into a slippery & grey area of the law. Although it is greyer the other way around the parents withhold consent and the child wants the procedure. There are a number of issues such as: how old is the child, are there amicus briefs, is this a larger public policy issue, is the life of the child threatened etc. . .red said:interesting. but there must be more to this than that. can a parent consent to a medical procedure to which the child objects?
a k9 dog allowed on school property is the start of accomplishing this.dcbogey said:I agree that getting drugs, not to mention weapons, out of the schools is a good thing. But if the police were really interested in getting the "big fish" why not identify the school yard dealer, track him and get his supplier? Or is that not practical and too much work for the over-worked police in Sarnia?
