MKM
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."
You could be right, tacticalogic. But I've know a lot of kids on drugs who begin to despair that they can really break the addiction. This would help them do so. Though many would go back to drugs, all would know that they could give them up if they had to. That's a really valuable lesson for an addicted teen.
MKM
The point is that there's nothing wrong with requiring a teen to meet a drug free condition before getting his license. It's the same for kids who are required to have good grades before joining a sports team or who are required to show they can read before getting a diploma. Set a high bar, and most kids will rise to it.
No, it certainly doesn't. What I find funny is that there are plenty of "home drug tests" that people such as YB and Hatteras can buy and test their kids with if they so desire. But, its not just their children they want to control - its everyone's children.
Any kid who's doing drugs and knows they have to pass the test will just stay clean long enough to pass the test, then go right back to it.
Yep. Just like many aquaintences of mine did when applying for jobs that tested.
Keeping kids away from drugs is an admirable goal, but realistically, this is just an expensive "feel good" idea that's going to have little impact on the problem.
Of course it will have no impact - and Liddy knows it. No one could honestly say they believe it would have an impact.
What is sad is that posters here keep talking about "the safety of their kids and family" as their justification for supporting this, but alcohol is by far the intoxicant which contributes to wrecks - not pot, cocaine, ecstacy or acid. I have heard many "experts" say and seen studies about "causes of teen wrecks", and drugs other than alcohol are not a big concern. Of course, many lump alcohol in with other "illegal" drugs. But other such things like distractions by passengers, horseplay, messing with radios and careless driving contribute to wrecks far more than "illegal" drugs. In fact, its these factors combined with alcohol which are the cause of many teen wrecks.
No, you seem to be supporting a big central government forcing YOUR IDEA of resposible behavior on everyone else. Ignoring the fact that the Fed-Gov has no Constitutional role in this area is ok since you agree with the ends (hence the dem-lite comparison).
...he started fining people for peeing on the streets in public. I guess an essential freedom was taken away...
I guess I missed the federal legislation that outlawed peeing in the streets of NY.
Yes, yes, yes - that's the usual libertarian answer. Those kids should be punished. But no good for the bystanders already killed on the side of the road. When I was a kid, we had NO anti-drunk driving laws. Lots and lots of people drove drunk - and we had lots and lots of BAD accidents in my town as a result. I was run off the road while bicycling by a drunk driver and was lucky to escape relatively unhurt. The passage of drunk driving laws has saved thousands and thousands. - What I don't get about you all is the idea that somehow WE'RE infringing on a teen's rights to insist the he be drug free before getting his license (as if I have no right to have safe and responsible drivers on the road). There's no instrinsic right to be a teen on drugs and to get a drivers license. If lives will be saved by having such a rule (they will), then good.
If they can come in and ace that driver's test while they are stoned, then by all means, give them a license. I'm sure you will feel more comfortable on the road. We're talking about responsibility and trying to steer kids onto the right path by dangling the golden carrot (a driver's license) on a stick in front of them. But we all know, there comes a time when they will be on their own.
"And you bring up another thing when you say "....before I hand you the keys". Many teenagers buy there own cars.
They still need a license to operate that vehicle on the road.
And what about people who never get a license until they are a legal adult?
I hadn't given that much thought, but heck, if the state demands that they, as adults, take a driver's test, why not put a cup in their hand and point them to the bathroom as well?
Should they have to piss in a cup too? Do you think people automatically become responsible when they turn 18?"
See above. Though keep in mind that that some states will only give "junior licenses" to 16 year-olds restricting their driving times and they can't receive a "senior license" until they are 18.
Do you think they magically acquire driving skills at 18? And as pointed out by several posters, nothing stops a 16 year old who doesn't do drugs from testing clean, and starting drugs a year later.
Again, it's not about driving skills, if your kid decides to go out and get stoned and drive then kills a family in a head-on with a minivan, it is his fault and he should be tried as an adult and you should be riddled with guilt knowing that you spent too much time fighting for your child's supposed rights when you could have been teaching him responsibility.
What then? Oops, I don't think I have to ask. Tests for eveyone. Woo hoo!
That's quite a leap, though not unexpected in a forum such as this. Don't look now, but I think I hear black helicopters...
Maybe, but realistically, you're talking about kids who are truly addicted. From what I know about the psychology of addiction, there is nothing you can offer an addict as an incentive to quit until he's ready to quit. What evidence do you have that this would help them break their addiction?
Yeah, you're right in this case. I (and most everyone else I know) consider it irresponsible for teens on drugs to be driving. Why? Because it endagers lives. Endangering lives is pretty irresponsible for most. So those of us who think so (even if you don't) will vote for laws that require that behavior. I think cold-blooded murder is irresponsible and so do most. So we have passed laws forbidding such.
I'm not an expert on addiction. But I know there are all levels of addiction - and that different drugs have different levels of addiction - and that there are different types of addiction (psychological, physcial, emotional, etc.). C'mon. A kid who wants to give up drugs to get his/her drivers license will find a way to do so. Some will do it by themselves. Others will seek help from family and friends, or from professionals.
But you are compromising yourself by voting for Erskin Bowles.... unless of course, you agree with everything he says and ultimately, plans to do.
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.