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."
Baloney, MileHi. Study your 5th grade social studies text. We ELECT representatives who pass laws for us. We can unelect them anytime we want. The law is NOT supreme. WE ARE - we can elect whom we want, and we can even change the Constitution if we want. That's US supreme, not the law.
Some public schools have started instituting random drug tests of the students. Do you support this? If so, would you support a proposal to give CPS the authority to show up unannounced at the home of anyone who homeschools, and demand that their children be handed over for drug testing, just like the public school kids? Why, or why not?
I'll support random intelligence testing of all elected representatives...it should be a good laugh as well as educational. ;)
Regards, Ivan
I disagree (and so does the Supreme Court). I'm fully in favor of testing kids for drugs before they can attend school. Driving, as Hatteras says, as well as attending school, are privileges. Kids on drugs on the road endanger my family. Kids on drugs in school endangers my kids. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of testing kids in school with regard to sports and other extracurricular activities. I say, go to it.
Random? No. With all due respect, "Random" has nothing to do with this issue so the rest of your questions are mute.
The WOD, innocent casualties aside, is one thing. Presumption of guilt is another.
Please re-take English definitions 101.
A poster here argued that we had infinite rights. That's obviously untrue. There are many things in this country you do not have the right to do. And in general, with regard to your question, I am in favor of personal liberty. But I am not when such personal liberty endangers the welfare of others to a significant degree. That's why: I'm opposed to people walking their pitbulls in the park, and opposed to companies hauling radioactive waste through our town, and opposed to people driving drunk, etc. etc. Governments make tough decisions on issues that deal with personal liberty and danger to society all the time.
Oh. That's interesting.
I want to require all Senatorial candidates to reveal if they--or their spouses--have ever pimped or whored for any terrorist groups under the guise of "humanitarian intervention"....
IT IS THE JOB OF PARENTS, YB.
Marijuana is a debatable subject. People who do hard (addictive and mind-altering) drugs should not, I believe, be allowed to drive - just like people who can't see well are not. I have NO problem peeing into a cup to get my drivers license.
SURE IT IS, NINENOT. But that's not the point. Many parents don't do that job and people are killed (as in my town) by kids on drugs who are driving. I don't want kids on drugs driving around my town endangering my family. Sorry if that gums you up.
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...
Then what does drug testing in the workplace have to do with it? Don't workplaces do random drug testing?
Within the restrictions of the Constitution. And the Constitution is specific about what areas concern the fed-gov. Just because the fed-gov ignores those restrictions based on some boundless reading of the commerce clause or general welfare clause does not make the point moot. The fact so many, including you, are ignorant of the plain meaning allows this to occure.
If you "majority rules" understanding of our system of government is correct, why have a constitution at all?
we can even change the Constitution if we want.
Yes, but not with a majority. The founders purposely made it MUCH harder than that to do so.
Study your 5th grade social studies text.
Good idea, let me know what you learn there.
No, reasonable people do not define things anyway they want, that's why I used a published source and provided a citation for my definitions (and why the person I responded to asked for such reference - he was reasonable). A reasonable person would dispute a definition, and provide the rationale for their dispute. You don't do this but in a rather disingenous manner dismiss my points as "axiomatic." You are not being reasonable. You are in fact being defensive apparently because your feelings are hurt or your ego is bruised. I suppose I would feel that way too given how your points of view have been received on this thread.
My post to you was intended to help you understand the politics of socialism in a different light. I can see that my efforts, at least where you are concerned, were a waste of time.
Well, they reflect the intelligence of US. We're responsible for those we elect.
My point, which is correct (even in 5th grade social studies), is that the law is NOT supreme in this country (your point, which is wrong), since we can change it (including the Constitution).
Not so, citizenK! There are million of published works (and references) on 'socialism'. Most in this world would NOT consider the US a socialist state. You may, as per your definition. That's fine. I, and most others, do not.
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.