1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP

Proposed bill aims to direct young drivers away from drugs

  1. The Doors
    This is ridiculous and would violate the constitution even more, but hey... it's for the good of the people!:(

    source:
    http://media.www.dailyvidette.com/m...g.Drivers.Away.From.Drugs-2720530-page2.shtml
    Proposed bill aims to direct young drivers away from drugs

    Autumn McReynolds

    As proposed by state Rep. Roger Eddy, House Bill 262 states that an applicant for an instruction permit who is under the age of 18 must undergo testing for controlled substances and cannabis and must be found to be free of controlled substances and cannabis before he or she may receive an instruction permit. If the proposal makes it through legislation, Eddy said he believes it will help sway young drivers away from drug usage.

    "I think this will give them a good, acceptable reason to say no is in situations where there is peer pressure. Maybe they are 14 or 15-years-old when they are working to get their permit and they can be in social situations where peer pressure is a real force. For them to be able to say, 'I'm taking my drivers test in a week,' maybe that was the one time they needed," he said.

    "This is especially true with meth. It is highly addictive and once or twice using it could get you addicted. If they can stay away from it for that one time, it would be a good deterrent."

    Another thing Eddy said the proposal was intended to enforce was that driving is a privilege.

    "There is no better time for drivers to learn that than when they are getting their permit," he said.

    When the bill was originally introduced, some had a problem with the 100 percent assumption of guilt, so the drug testing would be random.

    "That was not the intent to assume that everyone is guilty, but if that is something they are concerned about, let's do it randomly. Let's find a random percentage that is reflective of what drug usage might be in that age group," Eddy said.

    While Eddy is hoping the bill will pass, others disapprove.

    Pete Guither, a faculty advisor for Students for Sensible Drug Policy at ISU, does not believe that the bill will be effective.

    "I think it is ridiculous, silly, inappropriate and ineffective. Here's the issue. Really what you need to be dealing with when it comes to driving is impaired driving. Drug testing at the time of permit or license has absolutely nothing to do with that. What it does is simply go out of its way to target young people who have used marijuana, regardless if it has anything to do with their driving," Guither said.

    "The drug test would probably be very specifically targeted at marijuana because its metabolites can stay in the system for days, so that is what can be tested. It would be silly to say, 'We're going to test people that have had a drink of wine two days ago. That is a reason for them not to be drivers.'"

    Kirk Ijams, assistant chief of Support Services at the Normal Police Department, said although he does not know a lot about the bill, he does not believe it would be very effective if it were only given once and at random.

    "People could start a habit after they get their license and could be in danger. Also, if you're giving a test, test everybody and treat everybody fairly," Ijams said. "It might catch a few but it probably won't be as effective as if they tested every time a person got renewed or something like that."

    "Maybe we should do it more than once, maybe we should do it with everybody, I don't know. I think we should be a lot more concerned with the people driving, not under the influence of alcohol, but under the influence of narcotics," Eddy said.

    According to Guither, every study done has shown that alcohol is the more dangerous factor when it comes to road safety.

    "It is not even a close consideration with marijuana, which is somewhat in the same area as cell phone usage and being tired," he said. "It's really just a way for Congress to act tough. It is just not constitutionally a good idea."

Comments

  1. kalishakti
    How common such garbage legislation has become is a perfect example of just how illegitemate this government has become. Presumption of innocence, indeed? Hell, if they can make you piss in a jar to get a job, why not to drive, right? I mean, We the Sheeple don't have RIGHTS, these are just priveleges, doled out at the whim of the State and its beureaucratic minions (nevermind we foot the bill for it all via our taxes), So-called sacrosanct "Law" reduced to naked skinnerian conditional tools of punishment and reward for compliance (or lack thereof).

    Time well past due to dissolve these united States, and reassert autonomy, sovereignty, accountabilty, and respect for innate human rights at the State and local levels. The federal (feral?) gangsters in the District of Criminals simply are no longer relevant to good governance. In fact, they are the greatest impediment to it.

    Peace & Divinity
    Baudeaux Machs
  2. kalishakti
    Or respectively, the Canadian federal criminal gang, operating out of Ottawa (or any other nations of oppression)

    Peace & Divinity
    Baudeaux Machs
  3. Riconoen {UGC}
    The worst laws are always passed out of good intentions. and what do they say about good intentions....
  4. kalishakti

    Ah yes the old politician mewled, "..but we had only the best intentions at heart in dreaming and scheming this law. How could we have a clue that we'd give these drug using children any alternative than to turn to career crime for survival? We only had the best intentions when we denied them the privileges of driving, education and employment! See what drugs will do to you kids! Oh, if only They had conformed and followed the rules! Why surely you can't hold Us responsible for this mess we created, can you?"

    Funny how politicians can use the best intentions excuse to absolve themselves of the consequences of their own failed policies (and the wreckage measured in massive human suffering) by saying that. Tell that to a judge the next time you get in trouble, see how far that'd get you. "Sorry, the worm your honor, I had only the best intentions of communing with my God, and of improving myself, in the privacy of my own home, without harming so much as a flea, so I don't understand why your ninja turtle Gestapo kicked down my door, terrorised my family, and dragged me off to this gulag".

    Best intentions seem to be behind every act of state terror, war, torture, and intitutionalized injustice. I can't believe anybody would fall for it anymore, but as P.T. Barnum once said.. "There's a Sucker..." nyuk nyuk nyuk Opportunistic poly-tick-ians, bleh!

    Peace & Divinity
    Baudeaux Machs
  5. Riconoen {UGC}
    Yeah, who needs free will, the government will tell you what you can't and cannot do with your own body to make it less confusing for you, becuase free will is complicated, too complicated for the layman.
  6. zera
    Huh? This makes absolutely no statistical sense. Presumably the point of this bill is to impose some externality cost on those who use drugs. To do this you want to have E(Cost of using drugs) = Social Cost of Using Drugs, your expected cost is just the chance that you get screened multiplied by the imposed cost of being caught (I guess delaying a license).

    The number of people you want to randomly screen is the ratio of the social cost to the imposed individual cost (assuming the parties are risk neutral), which has absolutely no relation at all to the prevalency of use in the population.

    Frankly I don't know what concerns me more the fact that pretty much everyone has accepted that kids have no constitutional rights, or that the people who make policy have absolutely no understanding of basic economics, statistics and logic.
  7. The Doors
    The way I see it, it's just another way to "market" the "say no to drugs" campaign and to scare/keep kids away from drugs... It imposes an ultimatum to people, which is bullshit and anticonstitutional.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!