Posted on 10/31/2002 4:57:12 AM PST by Wolfie
Dole Links License To Drug Test
Elizabeth Dole wants to require all teenagers to pass a drug test before getting a driver's license. Dole, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate and a former transportation secretary, has promised to push for a federal law pressuring states to enforce such a measure. "Wouldn't that help them understand how important it is to be drug free?" Dole asked at a recent campaign stop in Washington, N.C. "It's not cool (to abuse drugs). It kills."
Then-President Bill Clinton proposed a nearly identical measure in 1996 while campaigning against Dole's husband, former Sen. Bob Dole, and offered federal grants to states the following year. Campaign officials for Elizabeth Dole said they were unaware of the Clinton initiative.
Dole included the pre-license drug test as part of her "Dole Plan for North Carolina" this year, proposing that teens who test positive must complete a drug counseling course and pass a subsequent test before getting a license.
The test could be bypassed. Parents who don't want their children to take a drug test could just say no and waive the requirement, said Mary Brown Brewer, Dole's communications director.
"You can't solely address illegal drugs from the supply side. You have to address it from the demand side," Brewer said. "When you turn 16, you look so forward to getting that driver's license ... This is a pretty strong incentive not to do anything that would prevent you from getting that driver's license."
Dole has made "less government" a campaign mantra, as have many Republicans, which makes it striking that she would embrace an invasive expansion of government duties and authority. Last year, nearly 62,000 N.C. teens got their first driver's license.
A spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he was unaware of any states enacting such a program after the Clinton push.
Dole's opponent, Democrat Erskine Bowles, said he would like to talk with law enforcement officials, parents and teenagers before proposing such a measure.
The testing presents practical obstacles and legal questions. State motor vehicles administrations would suddenly face the costs of processing drug tests through a laboratory, not to mention the idea of testing youngsters who haven't been accused of anything. U.S. courts, though, have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of drug tests.
Several states have zero tolerance laws on alcohol use, requiring that teens lose their license if caught driving with any of alcohol in their blood. The alcohol tests, though, are administered after a youth has been stopped on suspicion of drinking.
Substance-abuse experts said drug testing works as an incentive to keep youths from abusing drugs but likely only until they pass that checkpoint.
"Drug testing has always been a false promise that it would help us somehow by threatening people and make them stop so they wouldn't get into trouble," said John P. Morgan, a physician and City University of New York medical professor who has studied drug testing for 15 years.
He said the vast majority of positive drug tests detect nothing stronger than marijuana, and occasional smokers need only stop for a couple of weeks to pass.
Carl Shantzis, executive director of Substance Abuse Prevention Services in Charlotte, said prevention policy requires follow-up.
"Once teenagers get a license," Shantzis said, "the question is what kind of other incentives are there to keep them from abusing alcohol or other drugs."
When it comes to political courage, Lizzy Dole (and, it would seem, Dane) make Trent "Vacant" Lott look like Leonidas at Thermopylae.
She is just showing that she is anti-drug and will not kowtow to the drug lobby(Soros & Co.)
Like I said before this thread was posted for one reason only, to gin up the pro-drug Libertarians.
Good luck. Did you have a fallout shelter in your back-yard when you were a kid?
Any parent who didn't strongly consider measures to protect his family would be derelict. Sorry if that bothers you so much. And actually, my mom & dad stockpiled food during the Cuban missile crisis (when I was about 3), and took some prudent measures in case there might be a nuclear strike (not so outside the realm of possibility in those days). Today, we have food, water and medical stuff in our garage in case we're hit with a terrorist strike. We're not nutsoids, just prudent parents who love their kids. In the last terrorist strike, five families in my town lost their fathers - and two of my personal friends escaped death only through the most amazing of circumstances. As for kids driving around here on drugs - why would I want that? I love my kids.
Today's homework assignment: Write 500 times:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
You know... You are about as conservative as Hitler was. Or Joe Stalin. MA or MD Republican. Maybe VT or OR.
Right! I'm a Stalin or a Hitler because I don't want kids driving around town on drugs and endangering my family. Come back to this universe, there, The Other Harry!
What's wrong with enforcing the laws we have now????
I am a firm believer that a kid shouldn't drive high until he owns his own damn car.
Today's homework assignment: Write 500 times: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
The United States is one of the foremost decmocracies in the world - and yes, we are also a constitutional republic. They are not mutually exclusive. (I guess I learned that in 4th grade.) We are a democracy because we vote for our political leaders at all levels of government. We are a republic because we (like EVERY other democracy in the world) vote for representatives to represent us in government. And yes, we do indeed have a constitution, which helps guarantee our democracy. But all of this is irrelevant anyway. If the majority of people in this country want a particular measure passed (and it is not unconstitutional), they'll vote for representatives who will pass it. Nothing complicated there. On the whole, in sum, we are a country governed by the majority of ourselves. That's a democracy.
What's wrong with enforcing the laws we have now????
I'm not aware of any laws that prevent a kid doing drugs from getting a drivers licence. Are you?
If it is a "major concern" and "politically popular," you have to conclude it is a "major concern" to "most people."
Of course, that's not good enough for the likes of you. You'd prefer an "enlightened despotism" ruled by, say, Emperor Harry Browne, the notorious anti-American.
Look out Bill, it's coming!!!!
Uh no she is stating that the obvious that drugs in the US have had a devastating effect on the country.
97 posted on 10/31/2002 7:07 AM PST by yendu bwam
It would also make our roads safer for everyone. I'm all for this.
21 posted on 10/31/2002 5:52 AM PST by yendu bwam
And if you can't get it enacted at the state level, are you willing to support getting it by federal mandate?
Is she perhaps kowtowing to the anti-drug lobby called the federal government?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.