TheAgitator.com
No Blood, No License
Wednesday, February 6th, 2008A Maryland legislator wants everyone under 21 to pass a drug test before being given a driver’s license.
Via Trevor Bothwell, who explains some of the logistical problems the noble public servant neglected to consider.
Me thinks that the legislation should be tested first.
That’s a hoot.
Great find Mr. B
Many thanks to Radley for giving this absurd bill much more recognition than I ever could have on my own.
I really hate my state, and thanks for turning me on to Trevor’s blog. Nice to find out there are more like minded folk in The People’s Republik of Maryland.
True Maryland story, Montgomery County edition:
A couple weeks ago, it’s around 2 in the morning, I’m working on website thingies and need coffee. It was cold, so I jump in the truck and head to a new 7-11 near me (there are other ones, but they don’t have the ginseng coffee… also, I really like the new 7-11…. it’s a self-employed thing.)
Anyway, heading back, a cop starts following me. I’m doing exactly the speed limit, signaling lane changes, etc. And we slowly head down 355 to my house. Finally, he pulls me over at the entrance to my little townhouse community. I ask him what for, mentioning that I live there.
He says, I swear, “you can’t have those hanging down”–meaning the little parking tags on the rear-view mirror in my truck, without which, the community will tow me (and which, by the way, everyone has.)
Under other circumstances, I’d've freaked out on him, but of course I’d split without my wallet, and didn’t have ID, so had to be somewhat polite as he checked me out. Now, a few years ago, I’d been pulled over, repeatedly, for failing to wear my seatbelt, but even then, they let me slide on the parking tags. I’m not sure that’s even something you can pull people over for, but he was clearly trying to check me out without probable cause.
/For the record, I drink like a fish, but only when traveling to book festivals, as it’s impossible to get good beer in Montgomery County, and of course, I don’t drive afterwards.
Oh, it’s something you can be pulled over for. Along with just about any other excuse the cop wanted to gin up. As people have said on this site: It’s impossible to drive 100% within the letter of the law. And even if you could manage it, they could pull you over for being ‘too careful’ or whatever they wanted. It’s really a sad state of affairs.
Being a confirmed teetotaller, but also someone proven willing to defend the Constitution and this country with his life (US Army, 1982-88), and one who believes that those who propose such laws should lead by example, I would like to offer my services to perform the necessary phlebotomy on the legislators who vote in favor of this rank idiocy.
I promise I will do my level best to find the smallest veins necessary to reduce any possible disfiguring to them, no matter how much I have to move the needle around inside to find them …and not inject any air bubbles which might lead to an embolism. And no, I was not a trained medic; my job was to create casualties, not minister to them, so my level best may not be up to snuff.
Perhaps…they should just forget the whole idea? Hmmmm? I’m willing…
The problem I see is not that he wants to drug-test license applicants, but that he wants to do it only to those under 21. The law should be equal and everyone applying should be tested, if at all.
There is nothing wrong about requiring this, as far as I can see. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.
Nando, I agree that this would be discriminatory policy, notwithstanding the fact that it should never become policy. But I have to disagree with you when you say driving is a privilege. We are all entitled to freedom of travel, and it should hardly matter how that travel occurs so long as we do no harm to anyone else in the process.
I would love to say that I am glad I no longer live in Maryland. However, now I live in Ohio.
Alcohol only stays in your system for a few hours. Honestly if you are SHOWING UP to your drivers test under the influence of alcohol then you are likely so dumb and/or drunk that you won’t pass the test to begin with. That someone thinks this could possibly keep drugs users off the road, is even dumber!
“Don’t forget teenagers, just don’t smoke weed 30 days before your test and stop using coke and booze a few days prior!”
I can almost feel the safety!
Driving is not a right! Free speech is a right; voting is a right; the practice of your religion is a right.
You know how you decide between rights and privileges? Something that you can do from the day you’re born until the day you die is a right. If you must be granted permission by the government (i.e. a license), then it’s a privilege.
If driving were a right, everyone could do it without the need to pass a test. You don’t take a test to see if you can get up on a podium and speak your mind, do you?
Toddlers can vote too? Cool, I’ll have to sign my kids up.
If only there were a test so that all those stupid people couldn’t vote – then life would be grand.
Detective: You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have your face kicked in by me. You have the right to have your balls stomped by him.
Fletch: I’ll waive my rights.
Umm, Nando? I declare that I am expressing my right to free speech by declaring that my RIGHT to drive is paid by my taxes. Those are not take by privledge, those are demanded by my country by my mere existance now. Even if I dont have a job, I’m required to file taxes. My inherent inalienable rights are now being usurped and supposedly “given” back to me. I live in a free country, supposedly, and have the freedom to come and go as I please whether I walk, rollerskate, fly or drive. I will follow the rules of the road and signal by whatever fashion is required but I’ll be dammed if I’ll fund another tax increase that will presupose guilt of any kind in it’s haste to “save the children” in yet another asinine blanket way that insults ALL of our intelligence.
And yes, maybe there should be a test to see if someone is smart enough to speak from the podium or if you should just speak from their ash. Where your tests end, someone else will pick it and take it the extra mile, and the next guy, and so on….
Nando, you couldn’t be more mistaken. We “must be granted permission” by government to drive on the roads we pay for?
I dismiss out of hand the entire concept that the government has the right to loot our paychecks and levy endless fees, fines, and licensing requirements so it can subsequently impose monopoly ownership on the roads and the enforcement that goes along with it.
You have it exactly backwards. The government cannot “afford” or “grant” us rights that we have derived naturally — like, for example, freedom to move about with constant monitoring and harassment by the state.
Sorry.. withOUT constant monitoring and harassment by the state. Government can only usurp them.
Trevor,
I can agree with you on some points, like the freedom of movement (which courts have upheld time and time again), but those of us who do not have cars end up paying for roads just the same, even if you never use them.
I guess we can agree to disagree. I don’t believe driving to be a right and you do. We’re not the first ones to discuss this and we won’t be the last. Good points and arguments can be made on both sides (as evidenced by a quick Google search).
Either way, testing some part of the population and not another is not right.
I’m gonna have to side with the “driving should be a right” club.
To the extent that the government maintains that it is a privilege, they continue to abuse their power.
One of these days mini-cams in cars will be standard. At that point police might finally get the message that might does not equal right.
Nando,
You’ll come around! You just said yourself that you have to pay for roads you don’t even use. How absurd is that? Of course, that’s the order of the day when the government retains a monopoly on the use of force, which allows it to levy taxes and fines so it can create and maintain monopolies and cartels to protect it from competition.
If roads, like anything else, were privatized, we’d obviously only have to pay for the services we use. More importantly, we *wouldn’t* have to have our property confiscated and wasted to pay for those we don’t use or have no interest in using.
Government does not exist to “protect” us, as the popular canard goes. It exists to control us.