Driving a car under the influence is more dangerous than participating in extracurricular activities in that state. Additionally, driving consistently is defined by all levels of government as a "privilege, not a right".
So what if the Feds or a state decide that anyone who wants to drive a car must submit to mandatory, random urinalyses? Will people still be saying "Hey, if you don't want to abide by the conditions set by the authorities, fine--just don't expect to receive full priviliges."?
Actually, this already exists to some degree. According to the implied consent law, if you are driving, you have consented to be tested for driving under the influence. If you are stopped,the police have the right to test you for alcohol through a blood, breath or urine test. If you refuse, you can lose your license, even if it is later found that you were not under the influence. That is because you agree to being tested as a condition of getting your driver's license...