Posted on 10/31/2002 4:57:12 AM PST by Wolfie
It's the same trick played by the feds with regard to the national 21-to-drink crap, which Nanny Dole played a role in. That resulted in booze-soaked riots on college campuses, because prohibition encourages binge drinking. Simple facts like that are always lost on statists.
Not true at all. I was on the thread when it happened, I saw everything. He broke no posting rules and was polite. He got banned because he indicated he was voting for Foreskin & Bowels in protest because he felt Liberal-Libby was a RINO carpet bagger.
Pass this on to "Dane-bot the Bearer of False Witness" when you get a chance, as I don't respond to blockheads.
The 'presumption of innocence' (even though this is a license matter, not a criminal matter) didn't seem to enter her alleged thought-train.This "libertarian" arguement is so transparent as to be absurd.Get real. A person on drugs is unfit to be driving and endangers everyone - just like a person whose eyesight is poor or a person with uncontrollable epilepsy.
When fiscal conservatism collides with habitual drug use, you get a libertarian. "Just leave me alone so I can get high." Pathetic really.
Since drug use is illegal, especially for minors, this seems to be a reasonable step to help kids be drug free. Teenagers need to learn that there a consequences for their actions and I'd rather not have the consequences be traffic deaths due to driving while intoxicated.
Yeah, for now....kind of like that nice initiative seat belt option back in the 80s. It was 'voluntary' for about a year
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
ROTFLMBO!!! You mean the same woman that pushed for federal requirement by the states to enact seat belt laws, the same woman that pushed to maintain and require the states to maintain lower speed limits, the same woman that pushed for the requirement of the car industry to install airbags and third brake lights which in turn helped to push up the price of cars for consumers? Yep, she's for lesser government. And I'm the King of England
Honestly CD, I hadn't heard about this one but wheee, we get to vote for her against Bowles(who actually wants to research it before he comes out with a harebrained scheme like this) because the RNC foisted this woman on the voters of North Carolina. BTW, what's this woman got against people with cars? Does she even want us to drive them?
So are you saying I shouldn't have been allowed to get a drivers license because I drank alcohol a week before my driving test. Pot can show up in a test a month after someone smokes it but they aren't still high.
Be the way, I was 23 when I got my license so it was legal for me to drink.
His support of Bowles was illogical which was one of the reasons why I figured he was saying it for other reasons.
This has nothing to do with drugs or the "drug war". She has lots of connections to labs, I am sure, through her days as head of the Red Cross. Read the old Bloodgate threads sometime.
To connect the current dots, however, one could probably just check her campaign donations...
He wasn't banned for refusing to vote for her. He was banned for numerous things in that thread but the one that really got him was the fact he said he was voting for corrupt, clintonoid Bowles. Try to get it right.
Oh, BS. You don't know what you're talking about.
It is perfectly possible to smoke a joint or two on a Friday night and to drive to work safely on the following Monday morning. You would fail the drug test though.
She's just another Nazi dressed up as a Republican.
Because every gawddamned thing we do is now a federal matter.
How about:
"When fiscal conservatism collides with a disgust at seeing black clad troops giving midnight knocks on the door with a battering ram"
or
"When fiscal conservatism collides with a fear of the government turning law enforcement into a profit-center through civil forfeiture"
or maybe even:
"When fiscal conservatism collides with a belief that free people should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as they don't harm anyone else."
Since most drugs clear from the body quickly (maybe a couple of days), the only drug a test on a prescheduled date is likely to pick up is marijuana. Should a person who is stoned drive? Absolutely not! Is a person who smoked some a couple of weeks ago a danger? No.
Now maybe the federal government can put a sensible restriction on drivers licenses, such as having to be a citizen or legal resident to get one? No, that would make too much sense.
Mandating testing at the federal level is not reasonable at all. Who do you think pays for this stuff?
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.