Dole Links License To Drug Test

Charlotte Observer ^ | October 30, 2002 | Mark Johnson

[MileHi]

My point, which is correct (even in 5th grade social studies), is that the law is NOT supreme in this country

I understand your point. You are just wrong, that is all, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

[yendu bwam]

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.

C'mon, citizenK. I'm not a dunce. Of course the US has some socialistic policies - though most, honestly, would not consider the US a socialist state. We're arguing about the definition of socialism. You want me to believe that something is socialist or not. Anyone can define socialism any way they want. It's not really relevant. Let's argue about whether certain policies are constitutional, or whether the benefits of certain policies outweigh the detriments thereof.

[tpaine]

Not so. Read the 9th amendment. It states exactly the opposite. A question. - Why are your posts always slanted in favor of ~limiting~ our inalienable rights? This is authoritarian behavior, not conservative.

A poster here argued that we had infinite rights. That's obviously untrue.

You are misstating what he argued, - that is the truth. - You lie, - far to often, just to make a point.

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.

Yep, states/localities can make reasonable regulations & law. - As long as they follow constitutional guidelines. You want majority rule to trump individual rights, and argue this point ad nauseum. -- Admit it.

[yendu bwam]

My point, which is correct (even in 5th grade social studies), is that the law is NOT supreme in this country

I understand your point. You are just wrong, that is all, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

If WE can change any law, then the law is not supreme.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Yes, guilty unless you prove your innocence. Nice, Dole, nice.

[orfisher]

>>I'm all for this.<<....How about urine tests for gun licenses? Are you for that too?

[yendu bwam]

Yep, states/localities can make reasonable regulations & law. - As long as they follow constitutional guidelines. You want majority rule to trump individual rights, and argue this point ad nauseum. -- Admit it.

No I don't, tpaine. I want the individual rights in the Constitution upheld. Requiring a kid to be drug free to get a drivers license does not infringe on those rights.

[philman_36]

I liked your (marijuana aside) caveat. Just which drug/drugs do you think will be targeted with these teen tests?

[Wolfie]

There's no such thing as "marijuana aside" when it comes to urine testing. In fact, urine testing is only likely to find marijuana. Any kid dedicated to the cause will know to switch to the hard stuff that'll clear in 48 - 72 hours.

[ninenot]

Let's use your strawman argument, faulty as it is.

So under the proposal, any kid found to have used hard drugs doesn't get a license. OK.

The kid gets his license because he did NOT do hard drugs. With license in hand, he gets in the car, shoots up a bunch of H, and proceeds to drive.

Exactly where did this Statist Wet Dream work to prevent druggies from driving???

[tacticalogic]

Let's argue about whether certain policies are constitutional, or whether the benefits of certain policies outweigh the detriments thereof.

Good. I think that until the first question is argued, and the answer found to be in the affirmative, then we don't have any business arguing the second at all.

[philman_36]

If WE can change any law, then the law is not supreme.
Ever hear of supra majority?
Something for ya...
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/repdem.pdf
Adobe PDF Conversion by Simple Form
Just copy and paste that pdf in there and "find" supra.

[citizenK]

Good point, the "drug test for license policy" forwarded by Liddy Dole is not placed in the context of urgency with relation to kids or anyone else driving around wacked on drugs. In fact, local law enforcement in many communities already deals with this in terms of special DUI patrols, roadblocks, and other programs.

This proposal made by Dole only relates to the overall effort to reduce drug use in our society. We must do anything, anyhow, to stop the scourge of drugs! Who cares if the policies do not even do what they are intended to do, hold unintended consequences, how much they cost, or who pays?

If Dole were concerned with reckless driving by teens, or kids driving while on drugs, a host of alternatives to drug testing for licenses exist. Fewer than 30% of kids even report that they use drugs in a given month. This drug testing thing treats every kid who wants a license like a criminal, and forces them to prove their innocence. I think it's like a field of dreams - you build it, they will come. If you treat teens like criminals, you are bound to get criminal behavior (or disrespect for the law at the very least) in return.

[ninenot]

I certainly hope old YB was not extolling socialism--because it is axiomatic that "one cannot be both a true Catholic and a true Socialist" (Pius XI or maybe Leo XIII.)

[philman_36]

I'd like to know what yendu bwam thinks the teens will be tested for.

[yendu bwam]

I certainly hope old YB was not extolling socialism--because it is axiomatic that "one cannot be both a true Catholic and a true Socialist" (Pius XI or maybe Leo XIII.)

I'm not advocating socialism (nor am I OLD). I'm advocating not having kids on drugs getting drivers licenses.

[yendu bwam]

Good. I think that until the first question is argued, and the answer found to be in the affirmative, then we don't have any business arguing the second at all.

We agree.

[yendu bwam]

Exactly where did this Statist Wet Dream work to prevent druggies from driving???

If policies which didn't fix everything weren't allowed, we'd have no laws. The point is, such a law would prevent some kids on drugs from getting licenses, and would force some kids to get off drugs. I'm for that.

[yendu bwam]

I liked your (marijuana aside) caveat. Just which drug/drugs do you think will be targeted with these teen tests?

Whatever the representatives we elect decide.

[yendu bwam]

Yes, guilty unless you prove your innocence. Nice, Dole, nice.

Wrong. No guilt is assumed or stated. The policy says that if you're shown guilty, you don't get a license. The purpose is to keep kids on drugs from getting their license.