Trading away privacy
For children who take part in extracurricular activities at school, our government wants to spend $23 million to conduct suspicionless searches of their urine for illegal drugs. This is legal due to the Supreme Court's reasoning that these children have a lower expectation of privacy. Does this mean that adults who took part in these activities during their school years also have a lower expectation of privacy? Or will the children's expected level of privacy increase back to a protected level once these children either finish school or drop out of extracurricular activities?
This is nothing more than the government trying to achieve a long-term goal of lowering everyone's expectation of privacy. By getting citizens to lower their expectations as children, the government can then later claim that we, or our children, established ourselves as having a lower expectation of privacy while growing up.
While ultimately it should be up to our children to decide whether or not to trade their privacy rights to play school sports and so on. I think every parent is obligated to discuss with their children the possible long-term legal ramifications that may result from their choices.
To some, four or five years of extracurricular activities in school may not be worth the risk of losing their rights of privacy for the rest of their lives.
Mark Chuitt
Lewiston
Pre-emptive strike
An open letter to state Sen. Gary Schroeder, Moscow:
It seems to me that as a private citizen, I should not have to encourage you to do your duty.
As you and all in the Legislature know, the Idaho Supreme Court has already ruled on second-hand smoke. It said (among many other things with tobacco) that all places of private enterprise, business or industry shall be exempt of all state-enforced bans. The compromise, although more complex, is separate, well-ventilated smoking areas. Yes, you may restrict larger areas for the majority. But you must have at least one easily accessible smoking area.
And that is the federal stand. As you and the rest also know, the Idaho State Constitution was created over some decades as a compromise between the fundamentalist puritanical church, whoever they may be, and the rest of the state.
As well, the U.S. Supreme Court used said document as a template for the "tobacco settlement."
What I see nationwide is an outright disrespect for our Constitution and the Supreme Court, why? I think it's because the puritans refuse to accept their part of the bargain, while at the same time forcing me to mine. As you know, the Constitution overrides the majority to protect the weak of mind, spirit or body. And it seems to me that that is not what my leaders are giving me.
Now, why would they invite the ACLU in such a way? I say it's a diversion from President Bush's attempt to limit class-action lawsuits, the same kind they used to force the tobacco settlements. This is called a pre-emptive strike. There has been no time for the settlement to take effect concerning second-hand smoke. ...
James Noble
Moscow
Bill coming due
Several years ago I started, kiddingly, telling my friends that based on what I was seeing in this country, I was glad I was as old as I was. Now based on what President Bush has done and his published plans, I'm no longer kidding. Good luck, young people.
Burton Luvaas
Lewiston