Ever hear the line...Give em an inch and they will take a mile?
Well, in the case of government, it's ALWAYS... Give em an inch and they will take a thousand miles !!
Where do YOU draw the line?
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."
What I would do is not relevant to this.
I am afraid that it does have every relevance to the topic at hand. You appear unwilling to test your own kids, unless you hold suspicions, but you want the state to test my kid just to enter school, play sports, or get a driver's license. Further evidence of your disingenuousness in the discussion of this topic.
Why don't you currently test your kids for drugs? Why don't you make their participation in fun things outside the home like sleepovers or going to the movies (or even inside the home like wathching their favorite TV show) dependent upon their passing a drug test? If you say they are too young at this point - well wouldn't that be the best time to start testing them, so they get used to it before they are really able to protest? Why don't you test your own kids? You must have some reasons, let's hear them.
Ever hear the line...Give em an inch and they will take a mile?
Well, in the case of government, it's ALWAYS... Give em an inch and they will take a thousand miles !!
Where do YOU draw the line?
Come back to this universe, citizenK. I don't believe my kids endanger anyone - but I know that other kids endanger mine. I'm willing to have them ALL tested to prevent such danger - including my own. That's perfectly consistent. And actually, I'd be happy to have my kids have to be tested - then I can know they're drug free without having to confront or question them.
She's 66 years-old, she's bound to be loose in a few places atleast. Now, Bob Dole, that's different. I'm sure he's pretty much loose all over...
*Grin*
So, what happens when every parent says what you just posted? "Its not MY kids, its those OTHER kids".
Its always "the other kids".
The fallacy is in assuming that if the kids had passed a drug test before they got their license, none of these events would have occured.
Tell me, did you hook driver's ed today so you could post that comment?
Yep, just like with her seatbelt law. First, not mandatory, then it is. First, they say people will never be stopped for just a seatbelt, now there are all sorts of initiatives to stop drivers.
You honestly don't think this wouldn't be mandatory, with expulsions from school and criminal pealties, in a few short years, do you?
And may God have mercy on us, for we know not what we do....
It's not "hyperbole", it's a fact of life. The greens with the help Clinton administration turned a subdivision in my county into a ghost town. First they said they only wanted 7,500 acres and only from "willing sellers". Now they have 70,000 acres and are in the process of condemning all remaining "willing sellers".
Just to the north of there is another sub division where they're using the exact same business model. Not only are we being completely ignored by our useless scumbag RINOs (I've gotten used to that), but they are actively promoting this abomination of justice so they can continue to bed the super rich watermelon land barons.
Why do you think the Klamath/Darby convoy drove 5,000 miles at their own expense to come here? To participate in my "hyperbole"?
When I say every single GOP politician in my chain of representation (from county commissioners all the way up) is taking part in the total destruction of my community, I am not overstating it. Every single solitary one is, there is not a single one that's not.
Sorry AP, I don't do "hyperbole".
LOL Not sure if I agree with you wholeheartedly or not(though I think I do), that has GOT to be the funniest phrasing that I've seen in a long time!
You just switched from private companies with requirements for employment to "public law" placing a stipulation on the the natural right to travel. A private business has every right to make rules which people who volunarily work for them must follow. The key word is voluntarily. I don't have a right to have a specific job; likewsie, I can start my own company and make my own rules.
Because "drugs" are illegal and there are "laws" covering a driver's license, there is a presumption of guilt if one is required to prove they are not engaging in some activity that is "illegal" to acquire the license. A private business is not the State(government) and has no police power.
The difference is huge.
You don't get it do you?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?
You have not answered a key question either - how would your drug testing your kids (yourself) impact your relationship with them?
They wouldn't like it would they? They would resent you for it too, wouldn't they (especially if they passed)? What sort of message does it send your kids if you force them to be drug tested? Don't you think there are issues of trust at play here? Don't you think they would wonder why you don't trust them?
Do you not think the same psychology plays into the society as a whole, with respect to the relationship between the government and our coming of age citizens?
You are hiding behind the government and asking them to do for you what you are unwilling to do yourself where it comes to raising your kids. It's no wonder you don't think our government is socialist, you are a socialist yourself. (BTW, only take that as an insult if you want to, it's just an observation.)
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.