Meeting Persephone

I'm going to make this very quick but certain things occur to me after publishing a post that I just don't feel right about adding to once it's already out there.

I'm curious why, when they claim that drugs are harmful (blah blah blah) and they're looking out for children's safety, they don't choose to test those kids that are taking shop classes (wood shop, metal shop, auto shop etc.)? Obviously these are classes that require the use of machinery and tools that can be very dangerous and if these drugs actually cause harm that they're fearful of, wouldn't they want to be certain that kids taking these classes were especially safe? I recall a metal shop teacher of mine in jr. high school who was missing a large part of a finger as the result of a machine accident and while I don't know whether or not it was a drug related mishap, it would stand to reason that if drugs really do lead to dangerous situations, they'd want to test under these circumstances far more than those kids singing in the choir.

OR - do they not really care about safety at all? OR - do they know that they've already crossed a line testing kids taking "co-elective" classes and realizing that this alone is a waste of money and they're already cutting classes, programs, and teaching positions, they probably shouldn't waste a great deal more money in testing these kids than they've already deemed necessary?

Personally I'd rather the school focus on improving curriculum, taking care of teachers, providing air conditioning in all of the classrooms so our children aren't roasting in 100+ temperatures, and expanding those programs that work - as opposed to continuing to adopt those programs that have already been proven not to work.

The Trash Heap has spoken.