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."
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.