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."
There's no reason anyone applying for a license should think they have the right get one while doing drugs. There are many, many kids who would have to get off drugs to get their license. Even if temporary, it would show them that they can go drug free. It would also make our roads safer for everyone. I'm all for this.
< sarcasm > Why don't we make possession of a driver's license as stringent as that of a private pilot certificate and as costly to acquire. With two-year medicals and 90 day currency standards and inspections of highway vehicles as stringent as that of aircraft, we really could cut the number of legal drivers by about two-thirds. We'd then save millions of barrels of oil, pollute the air considerably less, and have fewer highway fatalities.< /sarcasm >
But then, big brother has always demonstrated he doesn't know where to stop his hand.
Uh AAA you left one fact out. Darth Sidious was openly campaigning for Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles.
It is so funny watching you all go nuts over a minor thing(but good politics on Doles part)and by the way if you all hate Liddy Dole so much your hate must also be directed at Ronald Reagan who gave her her start in politics.
Let that overwhelming portion of the populace that likes to throw it's money down the toilet pay for it then. Let the people that realize what a sorry rate of return they are getting for their investment opt out.
A true big brother would not let his little brother or sister drive while on drugs.
AMEN!
With short sighted knee jerk responses like these can anyone say a Daschle Senate.
You don't have that option in this democracy, where the majority of the populace (yes, thru representatives) rules. You can always go to another country.
Just a minor adjustment there....
Get real. A person on drugs is unfit to be driving and endangers everyone - just like a person whose eyesight is poor or a person with uncontrollable epilepsy.
Actually, she's suggesting a federal law. The federal government would then likely extort the states into supporting it by withholding federal highway funds.
If Dole wanted to proposed this law at the state level, I'd say she should go for it. But I'd prefer not to pay for a North Carolina senator's lamebrained ideas.
Wow, your first posting to this thread isn't discussion, but slander and name calling. Pitiful.
Here's a link to actual polls on the subject that philman_36 turned me on to. Funny, it doesn't support your claim of American's love of the Drug War.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/timep.politics.pot.tm/index.html
Drug issues aside, it is the same get-along-with-the-socialists crap that he husband sheperaded through congress on behalf of demogogues like Nixon.
If we are going to try to use these old failed names as fronts, we are going to have to give them the play-book and not let them talk without a hand-puppet operator.
Geeze, talk about lowered expectations.
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.