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."

Well, that's just totally wrong. You can't fly to LA with a rifle in your briefcase, and you can't take the train to Washington with a bomb in your suitcase, and you can't drive a car until you've proven that your eyesight is OK, and you can't ride a motorcycle in most states until you've shown you know how to drive it and...and...and...

You are not familiar with the word "legitimate" I used are you?

Not yet. But I have no objection to them having to be tested to get their license.

No. I mean tested by you.

In your previous response, you said you would test them if they provided reason or cause, then you would help them overcome whatever the problem is they faced. This is exactly what I suggested the schools do, but instead, you want (as indicated in previous posts) the schools to test every kid upon entering school, let alone kids seeking to participate in extracurricular activities. You then tell me I am out of touch and that even good kids do drugs. So, you are willing to use the arm of the state to enact a policy which you would not impose yourself upon your own kids.

How do you think your kids would react to having a drug test administered by you once a month, or once a week before they are allowed to exit (or enter) your house?

If you enacted such a drug policy at your home, do you think it would change the parent-child dynamic in your household? In what ways do you suppose such a home-testing regimine would change this relationship?

"...Someone ever taking positions such as these should never call herself a Republican and sure as hell doesn't deserve to sit in Jesse Helms' seat!"

If giving Jesse Helm's seat to a Democrat (and Clinton crony no less) is your answer than you are obviously not acting in the interest of North Carolina conservatives (Decorum and Jim Robinson wil not allow what I would really want to tell you...)

Hey, FreeTally. I don't want YOUR kids on the roads doing drugs, and neither do most parents. Sorry.

You start with the presumption of guilt, i.e. that just becuase they are of a certain age, they may be using "illegal" intoxicants and must prove their innocence.

As I pointed out near the beginning of this thread, neither Liddy or you have made any case that there is some drastic problem with "teens" driving around wacked out of their minds on "illegal drugs", not alcohol, causing wrecks.

Well, I don't have the statistics handy, FreeTally. (I just saw this thread this morning!) - I know two people were crushed by a car in my town last year driven by two kids high on cocaine. One died instantly. The other died from massive and painful injuries and loss of blood - within an hour of the accident. He pleaded with those at the site to help his wife and children (and the town and churches have done so) - since he knew he was a goner. One of the kids escaped relatively uninjured. The other lost a leg. If requiring kids to be drug free when they get licenses would save at least two more such people (which of course it will), then I'm for it already. Further, one of my family (or friends) could easily have been that guy who was crushed and bled to death that night.

I know two people were crushed by a car in my town last year driven by two kids high on cocaine.

Two whole people!?!?!?

What was I saying about your lack of making a case about some "drastic problem" in need of government attention?

I fully support dangerous drivers being removed from the road when it is proven that they were doing something dangerous while driving. That's how our legal system (was supposed to)work(s). Guilt is proven by the person who has been violated when the trnasgression is made. Inocence is not proven in advance to excercise a right. You start with the presumption of guilt, i.e. that just becuase they are of a certain age, they may be using "illegal" intoxicants and must prove their innocence.

Again, I agree with removing drivers shown to be dangerous. But where libertarians always miss is in situations where we know that certain freedoms (like the freedom to do drugs and drive) will cause a certain significant percentage of the populace to do so - thus endangering our families. Telling a kid he has to be drug free to get his license does NOT imply guilt. It simply acknowledges that some kids DO do drugs and apply for licenses and that the citizenry thinks that's a bad idea. A kid who doesn't do drugs is in no way told he's guilty of anything. A kid who does will have to make a choice.

If banning guns would save at least two people.........

Banning guns almost always leads to more gun deaths, FreeTally - as I'm sure you know. It also allows governments to become dictatorships. Neither of these is true with the situation we're considering.

Two whole people!?!?!? What was I saying about your lack of making a case about some "drastic problem" in need of government attention?

In my town in one year. Care to guess how many towns there are in my state? In the country?

I (and most everyone else I know) consider it irresponsible for teens on drugs to be driving.

That is not the question on the table. The question is whether the Fed-Gov has a role in addressing this issue or whether the 10th ammendment, among other sections of the Constitution, restains them from doing so no matter how much you think it is a "good idea" for "the children".

I think cold-blooded murder is irresponsible

No, it is criminal. It is harm done, not harm that might be done. And, with rare exception, it is a state issue.

Your sarcasm aside, you have failed to pesuade me that the real difference between you and most democrats is not merely the specific issues that you want a big central authority to exercise control over your fellow citizens.

What I would do is not relevant to this. It's what parents on average do. Many parents have no idea their kids are on drugs, and many, even if they suspect, take no action. I'm perfectly willing to submit my kids to this - so that they and the rest of my family can be safer on the roads.

But where libertarians always miss is in situations where we know that certain freedoms (like the freedom to do drugs and drive) will cause a certain significant percentage of the populace to do so - thus endangering our families.

Oh, good God. "will cause a certain significant percentage". You're hopeless.

Telling a kid he has to be drug free to get his license does NOT imply guilt. It simply acknowledges that some kids DO do drugs and apply for licenses and that the citizenry thinks that's a bad idea.

I just have to laugh at you, YB. It "acknolwedges that some kids do drugs", but "doesn't imply guilt". LOL!!! You should be a lawyer.

A kid who doesn't do drugs is in no way told he's guilty of anything.

Ok, so if the child says he/she doesn't do drugs, then they wouldn't have to take the test, right?

A kid who does will have to make a choice.

Yep, the choice to buy Pur-e-blend and pass the test, then light a doobie in celebration.

"But if you believe that she cares anything about NC values or even knows anything about them, you're fooling yourself"

Respectfully billbears, I don't look at fellow North Carolinians as a bunch of brain-dead hicks. As a matter of fact, I have a greater respect for the wisdom of North Carolinians more so than any others. I can't help it, that's the way I was born. So you can take that bullcrap somewhere else.

The fact is that, like it or not, the political system is a two party system and those that feel they will "send a message" by voting Libertarian or, God help them, Democrat are a glutton for punishment. If you are in the camp that figures you will advance your causes further with Erskin Bowles than with Elizabeth Dole than by all means, give up Jesse's seat to a Clinton Crony Liberal Democrat.

You say the rights are infinite. I say they're not. Find me the one that says you have the right to murder someone. You can't. Therefore the rights are not infinite.

I've seen people try to argue that God cannot be infinite because there are things that aren't God. Or, alternatively, that since God is infinite, everything must be God. Both of these are of course wrong, and you've made the same error.

Consider a set of numbers made up of all numbers higher than 5. Is it infinite? Well, since there's no highest number, you can start counting at six and keep going forever. So yes, it is infinite, even though it doesn't include the number 3.

North Carolina conservatives can do just fine waiting two years to send John Edwards packing and then get rid of Bowles in 2008. If you want me to get blunt, I think Bowles is less liberal than Liz Dole not more so. If I thought control of the Senate depended on this seat - and I don't - then I might reconsider, because the only thing Liz Dole might be good for is casting a vote for Trent Lott. At least Erskine Bowles & Lindsey Graham can work together and with the Democratic Senate to finally get the tobacco buyout program through. So far as I can tell, Liz Dole will be nothing but a figurehead Senator and the last thing my stomach needs is to see her in some nauseating bipartisan gun licensing deal or whatever. Nanny Dole's probably gonna win easy enough anyhow (perhaps by as much as 6%) but I don't have to be happy about it...

In my town in one year. Care to guess how many towns there are in my state? In the country?

So, because there were two in your town, you extrapolate that to mean there are two or more in every town in the country? All without any cites, stats or quotes.

The "high bar" becomes immoral and repugnant when you solicit the "government" to use their guns to force people to live up to your standards.

A lot of "conservatives" champion that very remedy for any number of social "ills". That they generally refrain from parroting the "it"s for the children" mantra while doing so makes it no less dubious than when the otherside looks to the feds to create social utopia..

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.