Dole Links License To Drug Test

Charlotte Observer ^ | October 30, 2002 | Mark Johnson

[yendu bwam]

But giving pee tests to every adolescent is not the government's business.

If a lot of kids are driving around under the influence of drugs and killing people (like happened in my town last year), it IS the government's concern. (Just like snipers walking around killing people is the government's concern.) There's still space for you in this universe...but it's a long way back...

[philman_36]

Politicans only pander if there are a lot of people to pander to!
Oh yeah, there are a lot of people in "special interest groups", PACS and "minority groups".
Think about it...

[yendu bwam]

If I want to fly through the windshield in a car accident, that's my choice. I've never worn a seatbelt and I never will

What about your kids (if you have them)? You make them wear seat belts?

[B Knotts]

I'd like to see random I.Q. tests of U.S. Senators.

I don't think Liddy would last long, if that were the case.

If I lived in N.C., I really don't know what I'd do.

[William Terrell]

Unless they're given random drug tests, they can just clean up before taking it. It's a foot in the door. Guiding a motor vehicle on the public highways is conditioned as a "privilege", therefore anything can be required to get it. Now, it's just teens and parents can sign a waiver. Later it can be just teens, but no waiver. Eventually it will be everybody with random drug tests paid for by the driver. Precedent always seeks to expand from the comfortable to the painful.

Why doesn't Dole just join the democratic party?

[Joe Driscoll]

There is NO inherent constitutional right to not wear seat belts

You do realize that you're a statist, don't you?

Should the gov't do something about the fact that I, and many others, drink too much coffee?

[unixfox]

Elizabeth Dole wants to require all teenagers to pass a drug test before getting a driver's license.

Me thinks that ALL public officials, ALL governmnet employees, ALL teachers, ALL judges, ALL law enforcement employees and any other alphabet soup agency should have to piss in a cup. If they fail the drug test, they should be fired IMMEDIATELY on the spot.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander !!! These effing hypocrites make me so sick I think I'll go smoke another doobie.

[clamper1797]

It is perfectly possible to smoke a joint or two on a Friday night and to drive to work safely on the following Monday morning. You would fail the drug test though.

Absolutely .. and soon (not soon enough actually) it may be LEGAL to smoke that joint. Dole wants to test kids for the moment ... later it will be everyone ... whenever they want.

She's just another special interest driven Nazi dressed up as a Republican.

[Wolfie]

Does the Constitution guarantee you the right to raise your own children?

[yendu bwam]

I'm not pro drug by any means but this is just another step in her taking over control of my car

Government can pass any law it wants to with regard to your car. If citizens don't like it enough, they'll vote for representatives who will change those laws.

[philman_36]

...it IS the government's concern.
L-O-C-A-L government's concern.
Think about that too!

[A2J]

A true big brother would not let his little brother or sister drive while on drugs.

A true big brother would beat the hell out of a little brother or sister for even mentioning "drugs."

[yendu bwam]

Me thinks that ALL public officials, ALL governmnet employees, ALL teachers, ALL judges, ALL law enforcement employees and any other alphabet soup agency should have to piss in a cup. If they fail the drug test, they should be fired IMMEDIATELY on the spot. What's good for the goose is good for the gander !!! These effing hypocrites make me so sick I think I'll go smoke another doobie.

I agree 100%.

[FreeTally]

Your mentality is quite frightening.

[yendu bwam]

L-O-C-A-L government's concern. Think about that too!

So you admit kids who do drugs and drive should be a government concern...

[philman_36]

It's amazing that she came out with this right before an election. You'd think she was trying to blow her chances of winning.
Hmmmmm...

[A2J]

Honestly CD, I hadn't heard about this one but wheee, we get to vote for her against Bowles(who actually wants to research it before he comes out with a harebrained scheme like this) because the RNC foisted this woman on the voters of North Carolina. BTW, what's this woman got against people with cars? Does she even want us to drive them?

So, billbears, would you vote for Dole or Bowles?

Is such a small issue, which would probably not be passed anyway, worth the loss of the senate?

[Dane]

Me thinks that ALL public officials, ALL governmnet employees, ALL teachers, ALL judges, ALL law enforcement employees and any other alphabet soup agency should have to piss in a cup. If they fail the drug test, they should be fired IMMEDIATELY on the spot,

I agree 100% also. To bad Tom Daschle is blocking such a proposal in regards to the Homeland Security bill.

[putupon]

But I DO believe that a kid doing drugs has no business getting a drivers license, and I don't want kids doing drugs endangering my family on the road.

Nobody wants stoned kids driving cars. Spending a ton of my money making them pee in bottles at the DMV stands about as much of a chance of stopping them from doing so as peeing the ocean at Nags Head does of raising the sea level in Hong Kong.

[tacticalogic]

Honestly, tacticalogic, it depends. From a legal perspective, I believe its unconsitutional to force states to do this - unless states are collecting federal funds for roads, and this is made a condition of accepting those funds. States have a right NOT to accept such funds, and to not be mandated about this - unless states' citizens want their states to. The fact is, many voters would rather have their state get millions of federal dollars for roads, even if it meant accepting some federal rules. You obviously don't like that. But if the state's citizens are for that, then I don't see what's unconsitutional about it. It's just a deal between the federal and state governments.

Well, at least you do see a constitutional issue. The only reason the federal government has money is because we, the individual citizens, give it to them. The federal government has the authority to collect taxes to raise the funds necessary to perform it's functions. The question becomes, is bribing the states to enact particular laws or policies a valid federal government function, and are they justified in taking the lion's share of the available resources to that end? I also don't understand why opposition to any program or law aimed at drug abuse is automatically seen as a libertarian "pro-drug" position. Is there some unwritten rule that says if it involves drugs, the end justifies the means?