Honestly, tacticalogic, it depends. From a legal perspective, I believe its unconsitutional to force states to do this - unless states are collecting federal funds for roads, and this is made a condition of accepting those funds. States have a right NOT to accept such funds, and to not be mandated about this - unless states' citizens want their states to. The fact is, many voters would rather have their state get millions of federal dollars for roads, even if it meant accepting some federal rules. You obviously don't like that. But if the state's citizens are for that, then I don't see what's unconsitutional about it. It's just a deal between the federal and state governments. - On the moral plane, one has to ask the question - how many people's lives or well-being would actually be saved by such a measure. If you told me that 10,000 kids' lives would be saved by such a measure over the next five years - that would be far, far different from saving 1 kid's life over five years. As I said above, liberarians never understand that some freedoms are inevitably abused - causing death or horrible injury - and that laws meant to prevent such have to be weighed against freedoms taken away. The government (at all levels) does that all the time. We're forced by law to wear seat belts in my state - and thousands of lives (including those of children) have been saved, on average. That's anti-liberatian - but the vast majority of citizens in my state approve, because they know that many lives are being saved. - There is NO inherent constitutional right to not wear seat belts or to be on drugs and get your drivers license. Sorry about that. (NO, actually, I'm not!)
Yep, same argument Dolt used when pushing to force the states to accept the seat belt law and same argument she used for airbags. If I want to fly through the windshield in a car accident, that's my choice. I've never worn a seatbelt and I never will
You do realize that you're a statist, don't you?
Should the gov't do something about the fact that I, and many others, drink too much coffee?
Well, at least you do see a constitutional issue. The only reason the federal government has money is because we, the individual citizens, give it to them. The federal government has the authority to collect taxes to raise the funds necessary to perform it's functions. The question becomes, is bribing the states to enact particular laws or policies a valid federal government function, and are they justified in taking the lion's share of the available resources to that end? I also don't understand why opposition to any program or law aimed at drug abuse is automatically seen as a libertarian "pro-drug" position. Is there some unwritten rule that says if it involves drugs, the end justifies the means?