Why doesn't Dole just join the democratic party? 
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."
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...
What about your kids (if you have them)? You make them wear seat belts?
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.
Why doesn't Dole just join the democratic party?
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?
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.
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.
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.
A true big brother would beat the hell out of a little brother or sister for even mentioning "drugs."
I agree 100%.
So you admit kids who do drugs and drive should be a government concern...
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?
I agree 100% also. To bad Tom Daschle is blocking such a proposal in regards to the Homeland Security bill.
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.
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?
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.