Student who lent inhaler faces expulsion hearing By TERRY KLIEWER Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle A Montgomery County teenager barred from class for the past two weeks faces an expulsion hearing today for lending his prescription asthma inhaler to his girlfriend on campus, Caney Creek High School Principal Greg Poole said. The 2 p.m. hearing at the high school will give the 15-year-old boy, who lives near New Caney, a chance to explain his side and provide school officials the opportunity, as Poole put it, "to show what people are telling us should be `common sense.' " He was referring to the controversy kicked up Thursday after a news story about the case was published in which the teen's mother, Theresa Hock, contended her son, who has asthma, simply wanted to help his girlfriend cope with her own asthma attack. Theresa Hock could not be reached for comment, but a cousin, Vanessa Hock, corroborated the mother's representation of events in the story. "He was just trying to help her (the girlfriend) out," said Vanessa Hock. "It happened like Theresa said." But what the Hocks characterize as a sympathetic good deed quickly became more complex when school officials stepped into the picture. Poole said they were compelled by the state's "zero tolerance" anti-drug law to expel the teen from school and turn the case over to Conroe school district police for criminal investigation as a drug violation. Poole said the hearing today could clear the way for the boy's return to class as soon as Monday or, at the other extreme, could result in a yearlong removal from the school. But the hearing will have no bearing on the drug case, which rests with the Montgomery County juvenile prosecutor's office, according to school district attorney Carrie Galatas. The teen and his girlfriend, also 15, are freshmen at the high school, Poole said. "Neither is any kind of problem student," he added. The affair became a lively radio talk-show topic Thursday morning. Poole said he fielded phone calls from as far away as Germany. Vanessa Hock said the boy's grandmother initially alerted media to what the family perceived as an injustice. Poole acknowledged that is the prevailing local perception: "It's getting all sorts of attention as a `good Samaritan gets punished' story, but there's more to it than just that," he said. "I've had to field a lot of calls and e-mails. They all wonder what we think we're doing out here." Poole said Galatas, serving as the hearing officer, will take testimony and decide whether the expulsion order that removed the teen from classes two weeks ago should be continued and for how long. "Expulsions can range from a day to a year," she said. Poole said the girl in the case is in no trouble. He said the incident unfolded during the school day on Sept. 23 after the girl, feeling ill, went with her boyfriend to the school nurse's office for medical attention. While there, the boy lent his girlfriend his prescription inhaler -- an action prohibited by state drug law. "He did this in view of the school nurse," said Poole. "Two days earlier, she had warned him about the same thing when he tried to get a junior high student to use his inhaler. The junior high student refused to take it, so that didn't become an issue beyond him getting a warning." However, Poole said the school nurse was bound by state law to report what she witnessed in her office. School district police, in turn, were required by state law to take the teen into custody, he said. Galatas said the inhaler is deemed a "dangerous" drug under state law because it employs Albuterol, which can cause side effects including palpitations, a fast heart rate, elevated blood pressure, tremor and nausea. Throat irritation and nosebleeds can also occur. Poole said he could not discuss details of the girl's medical condition because of privacy constraints. "But I know that she went to the nurse's office for a headache and not a breathing problem," he said. "The nurse saw the girl use the inhaler. That put her in the position of having to determine what the girl had taken. (Afterward) she had no discretion about calling officers. "She could have closed her eyes," Poole added. "But how would you feel about having your child taking a drug prescribed for someone else and the nurse ignores it?" Poole said he hopes the controversy will diminish after the expulsion hearing, although he did not say what he hoped or expected its outcome to be. "I just know that, so far in this matter, our hands have been tied. We have no discretion to ignore possible felonies. It shows how zero-tolerance looks good until it happens." I found this to be an interesting story mostly because I recall when I was a kid, there were times when a student would forget his inhaler and some other kid with an inhaler would share his. It never even occurred to anyone that would be a big deal. As a matter of fact, I've had instances where my son and his cousin have taken one inhaler out with them instead of them each carrying their own, because the prescription is exactly the same. I never even knew my ten year-old son and his eleven year-old cousin were committing a state drug law violation. Of course, I don't think any kind of "zero tolerance" rules are good because there are always instances where tolerance is the right course of action. I didn't realize I was such an outlaw. Letting my son use his cousin's inhaler, driving with a tolltag partially blocking the word "Texas" on my license plate. I'm just daring the law to hunt me down and put me away.
It's ridiculous. They expect a nice 15 year old kid to make absurd value judgements. Laws like this make us look like a backward country to much of the rest of the developed world... and rightly so.
So are you implying that 15 year olds aren't capable of making intelligent decisions? The way I see it, he put his girlfriend's life in danger. And I would be a bit more understanding if this was the first time and he was ignorant of the zero-tolerance rule, but he had already been warned that sharing your inhaler with others was not allowed. He knew the rule before he broke it, there's nothing to suggest that the girl's life was in any immediate danger that would warrant "drastic" action such as breaking school policy, and if nothing else, if the girl's life wasn't in danger before, it certainly was after he shared the inhaler with her. I wouldn't blame the war on drugs for this. The war on drugs is a noble one. If you don't try to fight drugs, they're not just going to go away. Teenage kids, with their lust for experimentation, will try just about anything to get "high", including any and all types of pills or what may be viewed as "harmless medicine". While this is deplorable, you can't do much about it. The best you can do is try to keep the drugs out of the schools, where they can be more widely circulated.
the fact that we suspend 15 yr olds with inhalers, while everyday i see kids smoking weed in high school bathrooms thats wats so backwards about it.
Here's the interesting thing, though. Technically, if the girl was having an attack and did not have access to her own inhaler, would the boy still be drummed out of school for helping by offering his inhaler? I mean, zero tolerance, means zero tolerance. Even if the inhaler would save a person's life or otherwise prevent harm, it would be against the rules to take that action. Of course, under a zero tolerance policy, he would be in equal trouble for giving his girlfriend an aspirin, if all she truly had was a headache (the girl is not quoted in the story, so it's his word - that she was having an attack - vs. that of the nurse who said she had a headache). For all we know from this article, the boy's quick thinking saved this young lady's life or otherwise prevented her harm. His claim is that she was having an asthma attack. (And maybe it's just me, but I think a zero tolerance policy should punish the girl, too, since she did willingly take the drug that was offered to her).
but school nurses suck, i fractured my finger and they said i bruised it and sent me back to class with an ice pakc, a week later i find out its fractured
The school nurse at my high school when I was there pretty well took the job because none of the local doctors or hospitals would allow her to work for them. She had briefly worked at the big hospital in town, but they asked her very politely to never, ever come back. Of course, all any school nurse was allowed to do was take temperatures and give out ice packs. They couldn't even dispense aspirin. I'm not sure that most school nurses are any more qualified to give medical advice or treatment than your average teenager. Of course, my posting of the original article was because I had no idea that the state considered it illegal to share inhalers, something my niece and son do from time to time, and something kids in my school when I was growing up did fairly frequently (certainly worked better in dealing with asthma than the sandwich bag treatment that was usually offered). And I don't think any zero tolerance policy is a good idea because there are always times (and this one may or may not qualify) when the punishment is too extreme for the situation. Educators and administrators (and, dare I say, parents) should have leeway in dealing with the issues that come up in their schools.
Last time I checked, mar1juana was against school policy as well. If you really want to get drugs out of the schools, you can't say "Well these drugs are ok because they aren't as dangerous". The fact that kids are smoking in the bathrooms is wrong, and if they were caught, I don't know about your school, but they would be duly suspended and most likely kicked out of my school district. Recently, some members of our band were passing around alcohol on the bus ride back from an out of town football game. The kids who were drinking were kicked out of the school district and aren't allowed to return until next year. So is it bad that the kids are smoking weed? Yes. But does the inhaler also pose a health threat? Yes. Therefore, wherever we encounter drugs in schools, they should be eliminated, no matter what the drug may be.
The war on drugs is directly responsible for this as well as a HUGE list of other problems in our society. We need to fight to get drugs out of the hands of children, but we need to do it intelligently by changing our tactics and doing away with things like "Just Say No" and "zero-tolerance," as well as the other failed policies of prohibition. Teenagers have much better access to drugs now than they would under a policy of strong regulation. You are right that some kids will do just about anything to get high, which is the primary reason that we need to regulate the industry. If we are able to take out the black market, we will have much more success taking drugs out of our schools, and most importantly, out of our kids hands. We can win the war on drugs if we change our tactics and approach the problem intelligently.
and people say that the dutch drugs policy is stupid but cohen do you want to expell a boy because he doesn't know that it could be dangerous?? he was just trying to help his girlfriend.
How is the war on drugs responsible for drug use? Obviously, drug use was a problem prior to the war on drugs, or we wouldn't have needed to declare "war". I don't think it's very fair at all to accuse the war on drugs of being responsible for society's problems without a warrant as to why that's true. Alright, that's fine. But how? That's the question we need to be worried about. You don't like "Just Say No" or zero-tolerance, but what alternatives would you suggest? You mention bringing down the black market. Do you realize how improbable that is? If it was at all possible, we would have done it already. The demand for drugs is too high, and you can't stop them from coming into the country. For every drug lord or pusher that is arrested, two or three take his place. You can't stop your kids from coming into contact with drugs when they leave your sight. The best you can do is to educate them so that they'll make the right decisions when the choice does come up.
I for one, never said the Dutch policy was stupid. I think it should be looked at closely. As for the boy, yes, his act shouldn't go unpunished. What he did was dangerous. It shouldn't be that much of a punishment, like a permanant expelling would be ridiculous. But him, his parents, and others, need to be aware of the non-benign nature of Rx drugs.
You obviously don't know the history of prohibition, nor have you been in this forum long. There was a thread I started last week that highlighted research showing that the anti-drug ads on TV have the opposite of the intended effect, those ads actually make kids MORE likely to use drugs. There were problems with drug use and abuse before the "War on Drugs," but those problems have been exacerbated, not alleviated, by prohibition. The "War on Drugs" is a cause of many problems in our society today including, but not limited to: Increased violence More incarceration than any other nation Racist application of the laws Bans on things like industrial hemp and medical mar1juana Easy access to drugs by teenagers Enriched criminal organizations Politicizing of a health care issue Legalized slavery in the for-profit prison industry Disenfranchisement of convicts Corruption at all levels of drug enforcement Reduced civil liberties Lies and misinformation by government officials Asset forfeiture Involvement in civil wars in Bolivia, Columbia, and Peru Mandatory minimums Militarization of police forces HIV and Hepatitis epidemics I agree that education is the best way to keep people (not just kids, but all people) to avoid drugs. We need a healthcare and education based drug policy to replace the criminal justice based policy that we have now. In a thread a while back, I detailed a workable policy that would kill the black market, nearly eliminate the availability of drugs to kids, and reduce overall drug use. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63243 Half of our children have used illegal drugs before they leave high school every year since the "War on Drugs" was started. it is the most expensive failed policy in this nation's history and needs to be retooled to accomplish it's goals rather than "sending messages" that don't work. We can reduce drug use if we attack the source of the problem rather than a symptom.
