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."
I understand your point. You are just wrong, that is all, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not advocating socialism (nor am I OLD). I'm advocating not having kids on drugs getting drivers licenses.
We agree.
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.
Whatever the representatives we elect decide.
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.
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.