"Common Sense vs. Claire Ebel"

 

Recently, several schools and police departments in the area have started offering free drug test kits for parents concerned about their children possibly doing drugs.  These are the same drug tests that you can buy in Wal-Mart or any other store with a pharmacy.  These kits can test for nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine, meth amphetamines, morphine and barbiturates.  If you have a suspicion about your child's "activities", you can have them pee in a cup and find out for sure.  The tests cost from $15 to $30, but not all families can afford to pay for them - which is where the schools and police departments are stepping in.  I, for one, think it's a great idea.  Claire Ebel, head of the New Hampshire American Civil Liberties Union, does not. 

 

According to Claire, "We don't frighten kids into not using drugs, we don't threaten them.  We give them every shred of truth about drugs and we empower them to make the right decision.  Are they always going to make the right choice?  No.  Do we always make the right choice?  No.  The box on the counter isn't going to make a scrap of difference.  Are there any instructions on how to restore the trust with your child after you've asked him or her to pee in a cup?"

 

I've re-read her statements many times over and I can't help but want to strangle this woman.  Let's make sure we understand her position: we don't frighten or threaten our kids.  We simply tell them the truth which "empowers them" then we hope they make the right decision.  Since WE don't always make the right decisions, it's OK to let them screw up their lives by doing things we KNOW will screw up their lives.  Even if WE'VE gone through horrible ordeals in our lives due to drugs, we'll just let them go through it too and hope they come out alive.  This woman needs a solid kick in the head.  The line forms behind me.

 

Regarding her "box on the counter" comment, however, I agree - if you don't suspect your child of doing drugs, there's no need have a drug test lying around.  I don't believe that most parents of honor-roll-children are too concerned about their kids smoking crack.  I also don't believe that the schools and police are trying to "set up" these kids for criminal prosecution - Ebel implied that since the police have the power to arrest, handing out these tests may be a precursor to rounding up drug-users.  I tend to doubt that it's a "sting operation", but the reality is that doing drugs is illegal.  In essence, Claire Ebel feels that children having the freedom to choose is more important than enforcing the law.  But that's no surprise, coming from the head of the New Hampshire ACLU.  When's the last time you read about the ACLU defending a victim?  Right.  Only if the "victim" was a burglar who hurt himself while robbing your house.

 

If you still can't see Claire Ebel's ignorance, try out this quote, straight from the horse's ass: "The drug company that gave the test kits to the school, it's a lot like tobacco companies giving away cigarettes. They did that in order to create customers - they want parents to use them and the next time the parents will buy the test kits and the company will make millions."  This woman is out of her mind.  Free drug tests for parents is akin to free cigarettes?  These test kits are a tool for concerned parents to exercise some "PARENTAL CONTROL" over their kids.  It's not a secret plot for drug test companies to make millions.  It's not conspiracy by the police and schools to arrest children (though if they're buying/selling/doing drugs then perhaps they should be).  Can somebody tell me why the ACLU still exists?

 

Kids need guidance, yes.  Kids need to make mistakes, yes.  Kids also abuse their parent's trust with the same frequency that they eat: constantly.  Most parents want to trust their children but again and again have it stuffed in their faces (by those same children) that they cannot.  With most kids, if you give an inch they'll take a mile.  Most kids, if you leave them to their own devices, they will get hurt, hurt someone else, or get into trouble.  We need to guide them, reassure them, but we also need to have some semblance of control over them.  Often, that control is gained through fear and threats.  Ms. Ebel may not need to threaten her children (if she has any), but most parents do.  "If you don't do X, then you cannot do Y."  That's a threat.  Children respond to fear and threats much better than pleas and "empowerment".  We're talking about children, Ms. Ebel, not adults.  Kids have an "us versus them" mentality, or don't you remember that?  Who's side are you on, Ebel?  Parents or kids?  Law or crime?  Right or wrong?  Maybe if you stop thinking like a child and get your head out of your ass, you'd see things a little more clearly.