Dole Links License To Drug Test

Charlotte Observer ^ | October 30, 2002 | Mark Johnson

[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."

[swarthyguy]

Actually this discussion has inadvertently turned up the solution - home based no less.

Instead of fobbing of a parental issue on the schools, make parents responsible for their kids being drug free.

Parents can admininster a state/federal certified test themselves at home or being a clean chit from some lab to the school on opening day.

No state responsibility; just a rule stating that only drug free proven kids can attend and start school.

[azhenfud]

I can't stop laughing from reading that! Priceless!!!!

[citizenK]

No state responsibility?

The state would have to enforce the policy in some way.
This idea is dumber than Liddy Dole's idea of drug testing for a license. (No offense.)

[swarthyguy]

Actually, no reponsibility, it's a simple rule setup by the state. That way, everybody gets to drug test their own families.

All the state has to do is check the validity of the drug free documents.

No offfense taken. I came up with an idea dumber than Liddy's. Think i'll run for some elected office.

[dcwusmc]

The Constitution does have a finite list of rights

Read the ninth and tenth amendments. Our Constitution is a list of limitations on GOVERNMENT. It contains a finite list of legitimate functions of GOVERNMENT, not a finite list of RIGHTS. Our RIGHTS are virtually LIMITLESS, bound only by our mandated respect for the EQUAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS (ninth amendment). The powers not enumerated to the Federal government are reserved to the states or the PEOPLE (tenth amendment). The GOVERNMENT is bound and limited by the Constitution. NOT THE PEOPLE. You and your kind want to say that if the people are not specifically permitted to do something, then it can be banned or prohibited. That is turning the whole concept on its head. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers for the views of the Founders.

You are either grossly misinformed or a statist like Dane and Roscoe, et al.

[Rebelbase]

You must like horse meat because that position has been beat to death around here.

If Dole loses its her own damn fault, not mine because I chose not to vote for her.

So long as you and others follow blindly like sheep, sniffing the rearends of the Republican party "annointed" Nothing is ever going to change in American politics; Take what they give you and never, never dissent if you tow the line to their satisfaction you'll make a good bot.

[Rebelbase]

"The woman is a statist liberal masquerading as a Republican."

Bump.

[FreeTally]

Parents can admininster a state/federal certified test themselves at home or being a clean chit from some lab to the school on opening day.

Let me guess, then the parents are jailed for truancy since their kid can't go to school. Now you are a felon because your kid smoked pot; now the state must make sure you don't own any firearms. Maybe they can just confiscate your home, car and all of your possessions too. Anything to make sure kids aren't doing drugs(although I'd bet half the people in government use or are alcoholics).

Got to agree with citizenK on this one, buddy.

[swarthyguy]

OK OK. Original suggestion was tongue in cheek. THought it would be obvious by flipping the tables onto the parents instead of the schools.

Appy pologies to all who took me seriesly.

Just making the parents do what some are advocating the state and schools should do.

[azhenfud]

Our new state motto under Dole will be "To seem, rather than to be".

The political environment of our country is enough to turn the stomach of a maggot, and the sheeple fall in line to swallow the castings without question.

So to those, the ideal voter will just shut up and take it....

[Hatteras]

I went back to the post you responded to and I'm not too sure what you're referring to. My question was that since you won't "compromise" yourself for Dole, than obviously there is another candidate (Erskin or whoever) that you totally agree with 100% and voting for them will not compromise any of the values you hold dear. I'm curious as to who that candidate is that is so perfect. Unless, of course, you intend to sit on your hands come election day...

[yendu bwam]

The GOVERNMENT is bound and limited by the Constitution. NOT THE PEOPLE.

I agree. But the list of rights ensured by the Constitution to the people (which are limitations of government) is finite. The rest of our rights or non-rights are determined by our legislatures.

[yendu bwam]

You and your kind want to say that if the people are not specifically permitted to do something, then it can be banned or prohibited. That is turning the whole concept on its head.

I'll speak for myself, thank you! But the government can pass laws limiting you from doing things any time it wants (provided such limitations are not unconstitutional) - and it does so all the time. You can't build a factory in this part of town, you can't carry radioactive materials across the George Washington Bridge, you can't pee in public, etc. etc. etc.

[citizenK]

No offfense taken. I came up with an idea dumber than Liddy's. Think i'll run for some elected office.

LOL

Swarthyguy - I thought the original idea was a bit over the top (in fact I was thinking this is something Himmler would have come up with), but based on what we've been hearing on this thread from the Liddy - test my kid for drugs - Dole supporters on this thread, you never know what's for real and what's not.

Your sarcasm cuts right to it though - people are asking the state to take over parental responsibilities in a big way with this proposal. The people on this thread who are all for it don't even know, care, or understand they are in turn advocating the "it takes a village" ethos of the liberal socialist dems like Hillary! on this one.

FreeTally - the worst part of these policies is that after something like this is enacted, and you think they couldn't do anything worse in terms of public policy, the big government types actually find ways to take it further. Like you said, fail the drug test, go after the parents, their money, their firearms, and their property.

[dcwusmc]

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Doesn't seem too finite to me. Nor does it say anything about them being determined by ANY level of government. Can you point out that clause for me? I can't seem to find it anywhere in this document. Perhaps it was an oversight on the part of the founders. I'm sure glad you pointed it out to them.

Of course, this purports to limit government powers, also:

AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Another oversight, perhaps?

[citizenK]

Was it Madison or Hamilton who was hesitant to add the BOR to the Constitution because of the fear that people in the future would believe that those rights enumerated therein are the only rights we have? One of the essays comprising the Federalist Papers makes this point.

The BOR is meant to limit the government, not spell out our rights. The rights of every human being are God-given. Legislatures don't determine our rights, the only thing they do is take away our rights. The purpose of the government is supposed to be to protect the rights of the individual. But from the day the Constitution was signed, the anti-federalists have worked diligently to thwart individual rights in favor of some perceived societal interest. Such societal interests are determined by political, not legal or Constitutional, processes. Lessons from history should tell us to be wary of political solutions - like tyranny, statism, communism, and even democracy itself, which is analagous to five wolves and three sheep deciding what's for dinner. The founding fathers knew this and that's why they designed the our form of government as they did. But now (well actually in serious effort over the past 100 years) our modernity and material success has fooled us into thinking the Constitution is an old-fashioned document, "living" nonetheless and ammenable to societal whims.

Thinking about the ideals of the Constitution along with the government we now have and the society we have become makes me sick to my stomach. Maybe I can add more when this wave of nausea passes.

[tpaine]

"the government can pass laws limiting you from doing things any time it wants (provided such limitations are not unconstitutional) - and it does so all the time. You can't build a factory in this part of town, you can't carry radioactive materials across the George Washington Bridge, you can't pee in public, etc. etc. etc." - YB

You seem to be deliberately arguing that the delegated powers to regulate we've given to government, -- can serve to 'limit' our basic human rights. - Why?
- You must realise it only serves to make you look foolish on a site dedicated to restoration of constitutional values. - No?

[Rebelbase]

From the state message board, courtesy of goosie:

goosie: I just received this important email from Jim Parker for anyone who is not sure about Elizabeth Dole.

U.S. SENATE CAMPAIGN UPDATE FROM JIM PARKER, MD

Parker endorses Dole

Since this will be my one and only post-primary press release, I'd first like to thank all my supporters and the nearly 9000 people from across the state who voted for me in September.

Elizabeth Dole won the Republican nomination with a whopping 80% of the vote. Before the primary election, I was openly critical of some of her past policies and campaign tactics. But now, I want everyone to know that I firmly support Mrs. Dole in her bid to defeat Erskine Bowles.

I do not make this endorsement lightly or in blind allegiance to party loyalty. I recently met one-on-one with Mrs. Dole in my home and discussed several issues that were important to me and to my supporters. Specifically she voiced her support for the Second Amendment and expressed a true change of heart on issues like concealed carry laws, even referencing the criminology work of John Lott as bringing about a change in her thinking on this issue. She also has acknowledged that restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" have had little or no effect on crime. She remains a fan (as does the NRA) of the Instant Check System, a program that makes people feel good (at taxpayers' expense), but in my opinion, does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, who simply obtain their guns (surprise!) unlawfully. It's important to keep in mind that while Mrs. Dole received a low but passing grade from Gun Owners of America, Bowles received an "F". I believe Mrs. Dole's grade on the Second Amendment will improve, and I will go on record right now as predicting that she will become a reliable "pro-gun" vote in the U.S. Senate.

Other issues we talked about included social security, health care, and education. I agree with the approach Elizabeth Dole will take on these and other issues. I have listened with an open mind to her opponent, Mr. Bowles, and to my understanding he is a typical left-wing socialist who must be defeated. My past disagreements with Dole pale in comparison with the giant chasm that separates my political beliefs from Bowles.

Unfortunately, Bowles has a huge campaign budget and sophisticated campaign managers. Dole will need all the help she can get to defeat him. This is not the year to boycott the elections or make a protest vote. I urge you to support Elizabeth Dole with your vote on November 5th.

Sincerely,
Jim Parker, MD
Former Candidate for U.S. Senate

Thanks goosie. This answers a lot of questions for me.

[goosie]

Thanks Rebelbase for posting this. I find Jim Parker to be a principled and honorable man and his word means a great deal. He didn't have to do this.

I hope everyone gets a chance to read this. I was always planning to vote for Elizabeth Dole but this eases my decision to vote for Jesse Helms replacement.

[Copernicus]

Quote of the day.

You are very kind. Unfortunately I am not the orginator of the phrase.

Best regards,