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."
Fair enough, tpaine. I'm in general agreement with you (for one of the first times I can remember). The thing is - I do not agree that doing drugs and getting a drivers licence is a fundamental human right (just like the other examples I gave - peeing in public, driving over the George Washinton Bridge with radioactive materials, etc. etc.). Where we are talking about fundamental human rights (and liberties contained therein), I'm with you.
I'm with you, citizenK, with most all of what you say above. However, in the specific instance that we've been discussing (getting a drivers license while doing drugs - and more generally, going to school while doing drugs), I do see things differently. Rights and freedoms should not be limited by government - unless those freedoms encroach on other people's freedoms. Kids who do drugs driving around town encroach on my right to have a generally safe driving environment. Kids who do drugs and drive endanger MY family, my friends, and my fellow citizens - and the same with kids who do drugs and go to my kids' school. Such kids set a horrific example for my kids, the work to entice my kids into doing really BAD things to themselves and they indicate to my kids that the powers-that-be don't care enough about drug use to remove that perniciousness from the place where my kid is supposed to be studying history and geometry. I believe allowing kids to do drugs in my kids' school is really, really BAD for my kids - in every way. So in these instances, we have a clash of rights. My right to a safe road and a safe and wholesome school for my kids comes at the expense of someone else's right to their personal freedom drug-wise. In these instances, governments (and school boards) need to make a decision. There is no other alternative. Either allow kids doing drugs to get drivers licenses or not. Same in the schools. If kids want to do drugs in the privacy of their homes, and smash their brains out doing so - I feel sorry for them - but that really is their and their parents' business. When that practice seeps out and harms my kids, then I have a big problem. More generally, freedoms clash all the time. Courts and governments have to deal with such issues all the time. They are empowered to do so by the Constitution through the legislative process. In the drug cases discussed, it is not an arbitrary abuse of power we are discussing, but a clash of freedoms that needs to be adjudicated.
C'mon, dswusmc. I was not arguing that people's rights are finite - only that those enumerated in the constitution are. That's exactly what the ninth amendment says - that the rights listed in the Constitution are finite - while acknowledging that the people have many more rights than are listed.
Great. -- Now why do you wish to limit our 'list' of rights? From 392:
"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." - 392
Life, liberty, and property are mentioned in the constitution as our rights, along with all unenumerated others, "retained by the people". Pretty all inclusive, I'd say.
NO-where is there any mention that "The rest of our rights or non-rights are determined by our legislatures."
Where did you come up with this bizarre idea?
I like that idea! A lot.
*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".
My comment was a statement of belief about my kids. However, I would NOT make such a statement to other parents. By all agreeing to have our kids tested (which, as I've indicated, I'm very, very willing to do), we would all know that our kids are attending school free of the pernicious effects of drugged out kids in our kids' presence. Also, kids doing drugs so identified would hopefully be helped by their parents.
Well, I use my personal 'resaonableness' test - which is what everyone else does as well. For me, it's perfectly reasonable for kids to be shown to be drug free to have the privilege of attending school, or to have the privilege of getting a drivers license.
Um, there is no "voluntary agreement" in Liddy's federal mandate program. And when you say "By all agreeing", that means ALL - every single parent. Not 51%. Not 75%. Not 99.99999%.
Now you are just off your rocker. The "priveledge" of attending school!? That's funny! I have never heard of a "priveveledge" that entails people being jailed if the "priveledge" is not attained.
Nice chatting with you.
If these are your words (and they are), one tiime or the other you were lying. Which is it? Post 403 or the previous one? FYI, MY RIGHTS are NOT subject to a vote of anyone, period, dot, end of story. If something is subject to a vote, it is, by definition, NOT A RIGHT. My RIGHTS stand alone. They need no one's permission to be exercised, nor do they require anything from anyone else except to leave me alone to exercise them... provided I grant the same to others in their exercise of their rights. Try again, you can't get any MORE wrong than you are already.
You're wrong, dcwusmc. Legislatures are us. We (through our representatives) can pass any laws we want, regarding anything, as long as such laws meet Constitutional muster. Your freedom can be proscribed at any time by democratic means through our legislatures (as long as such legislatures don't infringe the Constitution). We (through our legislatures) determine what is lawful and what is not. Your rights may stand alone - until Congress or your state legislature determines that something you want to do is unlawful and therefore proscribed. Your right to murder may stand alone, but we, acting through our legislatures have made that unlawful. Your right to pee in public may stand alone, but we, acting through our legislatures have made that unlawful. Etc. etc. etc. You say the Constitution limits government as to what it may or may not do. Sure, it does. But after that, we, as a democracy (yes, I know, it's a republic - but it's still a democracy) may make any laws we want - and it's those laws which determine what you can and cannot do in this country, and in your state, and in your town. In my town, I may not walk pitbulls through the park. That's the result of a law passed by our town council which was democratically elected by the townspeople. I no longer have the right to walk a pitbull through the park. That's fine with me. As I've been saying through this thread, some freedoms have to be proscribed so that other freedoms (like the one not to have your kid mawled by a pitbull in the park) are not. Freedoms clash all the time, and governments, through legislatures and courts, have to make tough decisions. I'm perfectly happy with my kid having to be tested for drugs before getting a license so that there be fewer druggie kids on the road. Such a proscription of freedom (the freedom to get a drivers license while on drugs) is not unconstitutional (especially if passed by a state legislature) and is perfectly acceptable to me. You may say your rights stand alone, but when the legislature passes such a law, that right no longer exists.
I believe kids on drugs should be told they can't come to school until they're off drugs.
In a democracy, it's the majority that counts. If she succeeds in advancing this idea into law, it's because a majority of citizens voted for her (knowing that she was in favor of this). That's how democracy (and yes, a republic) work. I'm willing to join the majority to pass a law requiring that kids be drug free before getting a drivers license. That's my prerogative.
Somebody has to make the rules (laws). IN our country, we elect representatives democratically to represent us in legislatures which make those rules (laws). That's not a tyranny - where citizens have no say. Sure, a majority may want something that you do not - but there's no better alternative! You want minorities (in numbers) to make the laws? That would be undemocratic and tyrannical.
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.