Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dole Links License To Drug Test
Charlotte Observer ^ | October 30, 2002 | Mark Johnson

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: bigdruggietears; copernicus2; dopeuberalles; drugtesting; hippiedoperrant; investingstocks; northcarolina; obeyorpay; oldnorthstate; rino; unhelpful
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-443 next last
To: 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.

241 posted on 10/31/2002 9:35:23 AM PST by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: citizenK
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.

242 posted on 10/31/2002 9:37:13 AM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
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.

243 posted on 10/31/2002 9:38:15 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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

244 posted on 10/31/2002 9:38:23 AM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Yes, guilty unless you prove your innocence. Nice, Dole, nice.
245 posted on 10/31/2002 9:39:11 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

246 posted on 10/31/2002 9:39:19 AM PST by orfisher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
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.

247 posted on 10/31/2002 9:40:13 AM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
I liked your (marijuana aside) caveat. Just which drug/drugs do you think will be targeted with these teen tests?
248 posted on 10/31/2002 9:41:07 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
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.
249 posted on 10/31/2002 9:46:02 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
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???
250 posted on 10/31/2002 9:49:34 AM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
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.

251 posted on 10/31/2002 9:50:46 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
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.
252 posted on 10/31/2002 9:51:20 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
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.

253 posted on 10/31/2002 9:52:09 AM PST by citizenK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: citizenK; 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.)

254 posted on 10/31/2002 9:52:17 AM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; yendu bwam
I'd like to know what yendu bwam thinks the teens will be tested for.
255 posted on 10/31/2002 9:53:33 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: 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.)

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

256 posted on 10/31/2002 9:54:27 AM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
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.

257 posted on 10/31/2002 9:55:34 AM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
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.

258 posted on 10/31/2002 9:57:40 AM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
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.

259 posted on 10/31/2002 9:58:32 AM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
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.

260 posted on 10/31/2002 10:00:05 AM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-443 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson