Should they submit to a Drug Test Before Running For Office? OR Should they at least submit to a drug test before taking office?
The majority of us working folks have to submit to a drug test as
part of a stipulation to our jobs. Many employers also do random drug tests after employment.
Most companies today it is mandatory to submit to one if you have been injured on the job.
Now, many states are now requiring those seeking public assistance to submit to drug tests.
How many of those politicians that voted for public assistance drug testing have a problem themselves?
We, Americans however don't seem to care about drug screening those seeking to take political office in this country. At least if we do we don't make a big stink about it. Are we that complacent? Do we just not care whether or not they have a problem with drugs?
Now I know their job of dressing in a nice suit, going to the big capitals, setting in big rooms and discussing us their constituents isn't like those who work in factories, on construction sites or operating tools and machinery, or working high risk job duties BUT who pays them for their work? We, the taxpayers.
In researching the Internet I found an interesting piece on the subject. In 1997 the people of Georgia tried to pass a law requiring drug screens for those taking office in their state. Apparently the 4th Amendment was applied to politicians. Words like, suspicion less testing, reasonable searches, privacy, ensnare and intrusiveness only apply to our politicians according to the writings of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is what Info-please has to say about the subject of drug testing politicians:
- “By requiring candidates for public office to submit to drug testing, Georgia displays its commitment to the struggle against drug abuse. The suspicion less tests, according to respondents, signify that candidates, if elected, will be fit to serve their constituents free from the influence of illegal drugs. But Georgia asserts no evidence of a drug problem among the State's elected officials, those officials typically do not perform high risk, safety sensitive tasks, and the required certification immediately aids no interdiction effort. The need revealed, in short, is symbolic, not 'special,' as that term draws meaning from our case law … where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicion less searches calibrated to the risk may rank as 'reasonable'—for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings … But where, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicion less search, no matter how conveniently arranged.”
- “Under normal Fourth Amendment analysis, the individual's expectation of privacy is an important factor in the equation. But here, the Court perversely relies on the fact that a candidate for office gives up so much privacy—'[c]andidates for public office … are subject to relentless scrutiny—by their peers, the public and the press,' …—as a reason for sustaining a Fourth Amendment claim. The Court says, in effect, that the kind of drug test for candidates required by the Georgia law is unnecessary, because the scrutiny to which they are already subjected by reason of their candidacy will enable people to detect any drug use on their part … The privacy concerns ordinarily implicated by urinalysis drug testing are 'negligible,' … when the procedures used in collecting and analyzing the urine samples are set up 'to reduce the intrusiveness' of the process. Under the Georgia law, the candidate may produce the test specimen at his own doctor's office, which must be one of the least intrusive types of urinalysis drug tests conceivable. But although the Court concedes this, it nonetheless manages to count this factor against the State, because with this kind of test the person tested will have advance notice of its being given, and will therefore be able to abstain from drug use during the necessary period of time. But one may be sure that if the test were random—and therefore apt to ensnare more users—the Court would then fault it for its intrusiveness.”
Our politicians are our law makers. They create the laws that we Americans have to live by.
It is not a crime to suffer an addiction to any drug. However, It is a crime to possess illegal drugs.
Why is okay for them to break the same laws that they create?
Why do we allow a double standard?
If we the working person refuses to submit to a drug test, we don't get the job clear and simple. Why then do we have to pee in a cup to prove we are suitable candidates for the job?
I bet if you wrote your politicians asking their opinion on this subject they would have all sorts of reasons why you should be tested and why they shouldn't. Just saying.
Drug use and abuse muddies the mind and the thoughts and we often can't think straight. Why should our politicians be allowed to create laws that possible drug use and abuse could potentially be affecting their rational thinking and thoughts?
So, I'm wondering what your thoughts are,
List of Politicians Who Have Admitted to Using Marijuana Some on the list have admitted to using other illegal substances such as crack and cocaine. How many on the list and not on this list abuse other substances? How many just like millions of American's either abuse or are addicted to some prescription pain killer?
Politicians Take Drugs Too
Please Post Your Comments Below!!!!
How to post a comment:
You don't have to have a google account or a blog to place a comment. Click the "Comment As" in the comments and scroll down to Anonymous to enter your comment. If you wish to leave your name or initials you can. It isn't a requirement.
You are also more than welcome to enter your name or initials in the NAME/URL or Open ID if you wish
Thank You to those reading! You guys are amazing!
pic from wiki
Info for this post from: The Supreme Court: Testing Politicians for Drugs