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."
And that is a recipe for anarchy and or revolt.
It is certainly an unreasonable, petty 'regulation'. - Just one more stake in the heart of our free republic. Dream on that such political nonsense is valid law. - Its effect is just the opposite. It breeds comtempt for such fiat 'law'.
It may be petty in your mind. It's not in mine (and in the minds of many other parents). And unless shown to be unconstitutional (it won't - since it involves money transfers with string attached to states), it perfectly valid law.
Actually, the rationale that the court used to ok the drug testing of kids is the fact that they do not have rights as do adults (at least Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas take this view). Others on the court support testing because they are collectivists (especially Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens). You appear to agree with latter- that there is a collective interest for the society to keep kids who use drugs out of the chess club.
On the face of it, testing kids who participate in extracurricular activities sounds like a great idea - yay! a drug free environment for kids! The fact is, most kids who participate in extracurricular activities are on a college track, get good grades, and are not in general trouble makers. So, if this group of kids fail to exhibit problems related to drug use, or problems in general, why test them in the first place?
It's just like looking for terrorists at the airport - the blanket approach means the blue haired grandma gets the same scrutiny as does the angry Middle Eastern male aged 20 - 40. When you look at everybody, you don't see anyone in particular. Another example: managers who send out memos and create policies affecting entire departments or companies because of the transgressions of a single person. It's bad management, it happens all the time, and it's a bad formula upon which to deal with kids on drugs at school. Teachers, counselors, and administrators know the kids they interact with and they could do more to help our society by focusing on kids with problems rather than testing the kid trying to join the debating team or Key Club.
None that I am aware of, or I probably should say none that I have worked for. But again, the performance of my job would not put others at risk such as an airline pilot or bus driver, etc.
This issue is about putting drug testing in place at the "point of entry". Much the same as the issue that came up with the security checks at the NC State Fair. It is unconstitutional to pull people out of a crowd at random to search bags and purses but you can set up a screening point that all patrons would have to go through when you enter the fair grounds.
The enormous difference, Swarthyguy, is that kids on drugs driving endanger my family. Kids with nutritional deficiencies do not.
It's a false premise. I know (personally) of lots of kids who do extracurricular activities (in particular sports) who are troublemakers, who do drugs, and who endanger my kids. My older son goes to a private high school with very privileged kids. Drug use is common. I do NOT want the kids who influence my kids to be doing drugs. A lot of parents agree with me. A lot of us will vote for drug-testing in schools.
So, you are going to vote for Erskin Bowles? I guess it won't matter because any other vote will be the equivalent of a vote for Erskin William Jefferson Bowles...
You're acting like my kid who didn't want to vote for Bob Dole in the student elections because he heard Bob Dole was in favor of school uniforms. I urge you to look at the overall picture.
If you think the 'good' kids don't do drugs, you're in an outer universe somewhere, citizenK. But that's beside the point. There's no harm to a kid required to pee in a cup. And if we could detect and get rid of terrorists by having everyone pee in a cup, I'd be all for it.
In school, I'd favor random drug tests with a regularity such that kids know they could well be tested.
Too simplistic. Change what law? Highway speed limits? When in history do recall a change in the body of the Constitution? We CAN change it but never have. The only thing that has changed is that more and more, with the blessing and support of many like you, the limitations onf the Fed-Gov embodied in the Constitution are ignored for the sake of expedience.
Thanks! I try.
Baloney, citizenK. Kids want drivers licenses - badly. You raise the bar for them to get those licenses, and they will rise to the level of that bar. (Just like when you require kids to learn to read before graduating...) We turn two-ton killing machines (cars) over to 16-year olds with nary a thought... Driving's a privilege, not a right.
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.