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."
The Constitution guarantees what the founding fathers considered our essential rights. The gave the power to Congress and to states to write laws determining what we may or may not do in other spheres.
Then you have no problem with the liberal's tactics of reducing everything to an emotional level, and ignoring any constitutional restraints on the federal government as long as we "feel good about it"?
Okay, I retract the statement that you called Liddy Dole names. But I will not retract that the side you sympathize with has called her names.
Do you feel better now?
Sheesh talk about hypersensitive.
I never heard this but is irrelevant. Darth wasn't banned for a single post.
Let's see. I've stated several times on this thread that I'm opposed to having this done from a federal level. But I don't believe it's unconstitutional when strings are attached to money given to states. (I wish it were, but it's not.) Both liberals and conservatives appeal all the time to emotions (all successful politicians do this). And, I don't want kids doing drugs driving around my town.
Super!
More importantly, I think we can all agree that the Federal Government will contintue to grow beyound the current Leviathan that it is, to one day control every minute aspect of our (or our children's) daily lives. Said growth may occur at various times by way of Democratic or Republican impetus (and, of course, both at the same time), and will no doubt be supported by the faithful in each camp.
If you disagree, I'd like to hear what you think would stop it from happening.
Besides, these pit bulls are good for my health, and I demand special medical dispensation.
Granted. They also take money from special interests to influence their votes, and use their position and perks to maintain an overwhelming advantage over any challengers at election time. The question is, is it right, from a politically conservative standpoint, to use emotional appeals to try and garner support for federal laws and mandates that are unconstitutional?
Well considering it's money given to the states to maintain 'internal improvements' such as roads, it is unconstitutional. But you'd have to bring that up with Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton. That's another story though..
Why was he banned then?
The fact of the matter is that socialism deals not only with the ownership and running of the means of production, but also has everything to do with the ownership and running of the means of distribution in the economy. The sad fact is that the US is a socialist/corporatist state, albeit one with a facade of freedom. Too many people in this country think that freedom equates to running down to Walmart to participate in the latest consumer fad. Based upon what you have written (and you are not alone), I fear that you are trapped in this thinking too. I have recently commented on corporatism and socialism on another thread, and take advantage of hypertext to link you to it instead of copying it or trying to summarize what I have already written. Basically I provide an explanation of why viewing socialism simply as an economic system is inaccurate. You may also benefit from reading the posts that lead up to the post above to which I linked.
Your view of socialism is limited and naive. Perhaps if you are able to gain a greater appreciation of what socialism is, you will come to understand that Liddy Dole is a socialist extaordinaire. If you are able to rationalize socialism because you are concerned with the "general welfare," or that overhanded government policies (like drug testing teens as a requirement for drivers licenses) are ok because they are for the children(as you have indicated throughout this thread), or for whatever reason, that's fine. But then don't try to kid yourself or others into believing you are something that you are not.
BTW, being anti-socialist does not mean one cannot support a regulated society governed by just laws. Socialism and corporatism are about the politics of government deal making between special interests, and using the force of the state to establish and maintain the relationships politicians forge between special interests. Some of the examples you give (shooting guns over crowds of people, raising tigers, transporting radioactive waste, etc.) sound like reasonable measures to protect society. However, you should come to understand that most laws written are done so to protect the interests of special groups in our society, not for the protection of the general public (welfare) as you apparently believe.
Also, I have in fact followed this whole discussion (as yet some 200 odd posts) and I although I take issue with your view of socialism and your view of that the US as a democracy, I must admit that I too do not want kids driving around on drugs. However, we must not lose site of the forest for the trees. Drug testing is a terrible policy and will not work as a means of keeping kids off drugs or teen drivers off drugs as proponents want it to. Drug testing in this manner runs against the grain of our time tested principle of justice "innocent until proven guilty" and forces people (yes, even teens are people, even if they don't have rights according to SCOTUS) to prove their innocence. Drug testing in this manner is a slap in the face to the purported freedoms our country espouses. Drug testing is good for drug testing companies and the polticians who garner their favor by making such tests mandatory. The fact is, driving around on drugs (for teens or anyone else for that matter) is already illegal. Why must you insist on supporting Dole's proposal? Why not punish people who actually do drive around on drugs (especially teens) by revoking their driving licenses as someone suggested in one of the first few posts on this thread?
Others on this thread are right, you are being sold a bill of goods that play into your emotions. Alternatives always exist where it comes to public policies and laws. Many of us on this thread think drug testing is the wrong approach because it does not mitigate the risk with driving per se, it only deals with people who may have taken drugs in the recent past. I argue that suspect drivers (i.e., people weaving down the road, driving erratically, etc.) be tested for impairment and/or intoxication. Testing everyone for prior drug use is a shotgun approach that is not indicative of a free society, in which we supposedly live.
First, you can define anything anyway you want. If you define as what we have as socialist, then we're socialist. That's axiomatic. Most people in this world would not call the US a socialist state (because they use a different definition from you). The examples I gave are reasonable measures that a government can take to prevent harm to others (even at the expense of some personal freedom). The two are frequently opposed - and governments have to grapple with that. (Only true libertarians do not realize this.) I fully recognize that many laws are written to protect special interests - and to a degree which I abhor. But that is also in the nature of a democratic state. Groups of people (through their right of free association) organize to lobby governments to do what they want. If they go to far, citizens can pull their representatives any time they want. Finally, I NEVER stated that most laws are for the protection of the citizenry!!! However, many laws are indeed passed with that in mind, and many of those do work.
A) Why shouldn't kids have to take drug tests? If an adult wants to work for a living, they are subjected to drug tests, why should we treat kids with (pardon the pun) kid gloves? In the workplace, ALL adults are "considered guilty" until a drug test proves otherwise. Why coddle the kids. I have worked with young teens as a coach and teacher in the past and if you think your kid's a saint, maybe YOU should be taking random tests...
B) As the father of a "soon-to-be" driver, I want as many hoops for him to jump through as possible. Driving is a privelege, for heaven's sake, make them earn it.
C) The issue is not a campaign breaker on my radar screen and if this is what the real RINOs (Darth, etal...) have as ammuntion against Elizabeth Dole then they probably wouldn't have voted for her anyway for some other personal reason.
D) I considered the one and only alternative to Elizabeth Dole and the slime that bastard is spewing is pure Bill Clinton. Those outside of the state who have not seen the Bowles advertising would not believe the crap this sleaze bag has come up with. He's pulling plays out of the Clinton playbook. Talking out of both sides of the mouth and downright lying through his teeth. The good news is Dole finally ran the ad I have been waiting to see. She's comparing Bowles' bullcrap to his former boss'. Side by side pics of Erskin and Bill. Pure and simple, a vote for Erskin Bowles is a vote for Bill Clinton and the former Darth Sidious and all those that feel they have to make a "protest vote" can kiss my @$$.
Jim Robinson is correct, you have to look at the entire picture, this is good versus evil and if you let the alternative win, Republicans AND Libertarians will lose. There is no other option, it's candidate 'A' or candidate 'B'. Republican or Bill Clinton. As a conservative Tarheel voter, you have that choice, no other.
Which is why the founders created a Constitutional Republic, wherein the law is supreme and the whims of the majority are secondary. A lot of so-called "conservatives" on this forum fail to get that so long as they are in agreement with the fed-goves latest dictate.
I just want kids on drugs not to be able to get drivers licenses - just as I want kids who can't see not to be able to get drivers licenses. If that's socialist by your definition, so be it. If I want laws passed that help protect my children from evil in society, and that's socialist (it isn't), so be it! C'mon, citizenK, get some perspective!
The funny thing is, neither Liddy nor anyone else has made a case that there is some current drastic problem with "kids", or anyone else for that matter, driving around wacked out of their mind. So there is no one to punish. She wants to create a "class" of people that can be punished, not for being a danger to the public, but for having an unaccepatble chemical trace in their body. Its just another elitists "everything you do in life is a priveledge, and we decide the stipulations" mentality. People such as Liddy are so drunk with power that they have no place in a free society and are a danger to all.
Testing everyone for prior drug use is a shotgun approach that is not indicative of a free society, in which we supposedly live.
Ah, but he already told us that the "government" can make whatever laws it wants, and if "we" don't like them, we have to vote them out. We are at the whims of "the majority" he says. This poster is not a reasonable person by any stretch of the imagination. Even says the Constitution is a finite list of rights. The most politicaly ignorant poster I have ever come upon - has no idea what socialism and democracy are. Scary stuff.
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.