as stated in the derby topic i dont believe this policy really prevents kids from drinking. i think kids drink thinking they wont get caught. once they get caught, that can change their mindset they they are untouchable. but, if they are done for the season, what incentive do they have to stop? i am personally opposed to this policy because i do not think "dropping the hammer" on kids should be the goal of punishments. i think changing behavior should be the goal and i think a less severe penalty offering a second chance is better for everyone and is just as likely(if not more) to change the behavior of the student.
wrestle007, LancerM who recently wrestled at a Shawnee Mission high school disagrees with you as to how effective this policy is at deterring Shawnee Mission athletes from drinking. Here is part of what he posted on that issue in another topic.
.....These policies are in place to serve as an absolute deterrant to kids drinking alcohol while they're in high school and I believe that the thought of missing an entire season is a little more daunting than missing a week of practice. As a result of that, I believe that less kids will end up drinking. And isn't that the point of these policies to begin with? To stop underage drinking?
....At Shawnee Mission East I know plenty of kids who make a great effort to not only abstain from drinking alcohol, but to distance themselves from it completely and that is because of the severity of the punishment. And as I already stated, that's the point of these policies in the first place.
I agree with LancerM. I think that if wrestling is important enough for a high school athlete that signing this Shawnee Mission agreement before the season and knowing that it is going to be enforced would prevent a dedicated wrestler or athlete of any sport from using alcohol. I believe it has already had that effect for many athletes in the Shawnee Mission area over the years.
