Suspended for saying no to drugs

Rachael Greer, druggie (not)

You read that right. Here is how you can tell when zero-tolerance policies have officially screwed a system up past all sense of reason: when a seventh-grader finds herself suspended from school, not for taking drugs or bringing them to school, but for saying “no” to a girl who offered her prescription meds – and placed an offending pill on the student’s palm to show her.

Rachael Greer said it happened on Feb. 23 during fifth period gym class at River Valley Middle School when a girl walked into the locker room with a bag of pills.

"She was talking to another girl and me about them and she put one in my hand and I was like, ‘I don't want this,' so I put it back in the bag and I went to gym class," said Rachael.

The pills were the prescription ADHD drug, Adderall. Patty Greer, Rachael's mother, said she and her husband are proud of their daughter for turning down drugs, just like she's been taught for years by DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) instructors at school.

"I'm proud her conscience kicked in and she said, ‘No, I'm not taking this. Here you can have it back,'" Patty Greer said.

But just saying no didn't end the trouble for Rachael. During the next period, an assistant principal came and took Rachael out of class. It turned out the girl who originally had the pills and a few other students got caught. That's when the assistant principal gave Rachael a decision.

"We're suspending you for five days because it was in your hand," said Rachael.

[…]

According to Greater Clark County Schools district policy, even a touch equals drug possession and a one week suspension.

"The fact of the matter is, there were drugs on school campus and it was handled, so there was a violation of our policy," said Martin Bell, COO of Greater Clark County Schools.

Of course their policy was violated; it’s completely fucking ridiculous. It’s one thing to punish a student who brings drugs on campus; but to equate any and all contact with drugs to instant drug possession, and then discipline offenders for it, is downright retarded.

By that logic of [any and all contact = possession], I suppose must now be charged with possession of child porn, as I came across a few images a while back trying to find out just how hard it really was to come across (out of pure curiosity and nothing more, I assure you – and, it was much easier than you’d think). I should also be accused of possession of illegal weapons, as I once held a hunting/army knife in my hand that my brother had “acquired” from his friends. I’ve also come into contact, directly or indirectly and at one point or another in my life, with contraband cigarettes, marijuana, a little crack baggie, and enough porn when I was still underage to put the Playboy mansion to shame.

Shall I be hauled off in chains to a tribunal in the Hague, now? Or thrown to the KGB to be broken? Or perhaps just a local precinct, until they sentence me for all those counts of criminal possession of illegal substances and materials?

Or, maybe, is the idea that any and all contact with something illicit equates to possession, just a little bit insane? Just as with any other “zero-tolerance” policy, for that matter?

(via The Agitator)