The Scoop: Old age, hot dogs and drug testing
The woman recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest living person can no longer make that claim. Maud Farris-Luse died earlier this week in Michigan at the ripe old age of 115.
Guinness recognized Farris-Luse as the oldest living human, whose age could be verified, last June. This was done with the help of her marriage license, dated 1903.
Personally, I put the 115-year-old’s world record right up there with the one held by Japan’s Takeru Kobayashi, the man who can eat more hot dogs than anyone else in the world. I say that because I don’t care to own either record.
The hot dog world record is more of an embarrassment. Who really wants to eat 50 hot dogs in 12 minutes? I’m not so sure I want to eat 50 hot dogs the rest of my life.
The same goes for the oldest living person record. While I want to live a long and prosperous life, I do hope it ends before I’m 115.
I bring you the story of the world’s oldest woman because I wanted to lead into an issue the Supreme Court will likely be wrestling with for the next 115 years and that issue is drug testing. I say this because the Supreme Court is currently re-evaluating its 1995 ruling which permitted high school student athletes to be drug tested.
The Supreme Court’s logic back in 1995 was students playing sports while under the influence of drugs could be more easily injured, therefore it’s reasonable to force them to undergo regular urine testing. Drug testing was expanded the next year to include all students who participated in extracurricular activities, because I suppose it’s reasonable to assume a band student who is on drugs could more easily choke to death on a clarinet.
If you ask me, the Supreme Court is way off base because drug testing shouldn’t stop with student athletes and those involved in extracurricular activities. In this war on drugs all students should be drug tested.
I wouldn’t stop there. I would drug test every teacher, every coach and every principal. And I’d go further. I’d drug test every elected official, every real estate broker, every construction worker, every secretary and every reporter. I’d test everyone.
But the Supreme Court doesn’t agree and I don’t see where the logic breaks down. If it’s OK to test athletes because they are at a greater risk of hurting themselves if they are on drugs, wouldn’t that reasoning encompass everything? Wouldn’t it be fair to say a truck driver would have a greater risk of harming himself if he was on drugs? I could argue a teacher on drugs has a greater risk of harming his or her students.
But that’s apparently not sound thinking, according to the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court says it’s unconstitutional to drug test pregnant women because that would constitute unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The ruling put a stop to drug testing at a South Carolina hospital where health officials were testing pregnant mothers for signs of crack cocaine – and discovered 30 of the hundreds tested came back positive.
So under our laws, it’s OK to drug test a kid kicking a soccer ball, but it’s not OK to test a woman carrying human life. Smart thinking. The Supreme Court has also ruled drug testing political candidates is unconstitutional. We can’t drug test our president, our governors, or even our state senators because that’s an invasion of their privacy.
Yet, I could probably find a dozen employers in Warren County who would require me to take a drug test before I was hired.
If I want to get a temporary job through Holland Employment, I better be prepared to take a drug test. But if I want to run for Tennessee governor, my personal freedoms are too sacred to violate with a drug test.
Maybe if I live to be 115, some of this will make sense to me.
(James Clark is editor of the Southern Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at standard@blomand.net.)