• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should politcians be legally required to take drug tests?

Should politicians be legally required to take drug tests?


  • Total voters
    28

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should politicians be legally required to take drug tests?

Yes
No





I say yes they should be tested.What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
Before anyone utters that is a violation of their privacy rights please remeber these are the same people who require all other tax payer funded employees to be drug tested and in some states require welfare recipients to be drug tested as well. These are also the same people authorize the various government agencies to spy on the American people whether they voted for the bill or continue to authorize funding for those agencies.Plus do you really want elected officials to be under the influence while making laws and policies that effect you?
 
No, no one should be drug tested without a warrant or court order. Private companies shouldn't be able to require it of employees. It's none of their business unless the employee shows up drunk or high to work, and then you can fire them for the behavior, not the result of a test.
 
Should politicians be legally required to take drug tests?

Yes
No


I vote yes.




I say yes they should be tested.What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
Before anyone utters that is a violation of their privacy rights please remeber these are the same people who require all other tax payer funded employees to be drug tested and in some states require welfare recipients to be drug tested as well. These are also the same people authorize the various government agencies to spy on the American people whether they voted for the bill or continue to authorize funding for those agencies.

Your reasons are valid.

Plus do you really want elected officials to be under the influence while making laws and policies that effect you?

I'm pretty sure this has occurred multiple times.
 
No, no one should be drug tested without a warrant or court order. Private companies shouldn't be able to require it of employees. It's none of their business unless the employee shows up drunk or high to work, and then you can fire them for the behavior, not the result of a test.

I do agree with what you're saying, but james' "good for the goose, good for the gander" argument carries the day.
 
No, no one should be drug tested without a warrant or court order. Private companies shouldn't be able to require it of employees. It's none of their business unless the employee shows up drunk or high to work, and then you can fire them for the behavior, not the result of a test.



I usually agree with you on most issues, and if "noone" was required to be drug tested, I would say no, but they are so I say yes. I would go even further. I would require that all candidates for national office be required to take the same test that immigrants are required to take to become citizens--I think most of them would fail!
 
Oh, the self-adulation of populists is on full display here.

I suppose this proposal has a certain allure to those who think that the adage of picking the first few hundred names in a phone book to public service is a good idea.....but it's about as foolish.
 
I do agree with what you're saying, but james' "good for the goose, good for the gander" argument carries the day.

Yes, I'm saying it's bad for both the goose and gander and we should stop doing it in general without due process.

I usually agree with you on most issues, and if "noone" was required to be drug tested, I would say no, but they are so I say yes. I would go even further. I would require that all candidates for national office be required to take the same test that immigrants are required to take to become citizens--I think most of them would fail!

That's fine. I don't want the immigrants to be required to take them either. My point was about the immigrants, the welfare recipients, the politicians, and the employees. No one should be required to take a test without a court order or a court ordered warrant.
 
Yes, I'm saying it's bad for both the goose and gander and we should stop doing it in general without due process.



That's fine. I don't want the immigrants to be required to take them either. My point was about the immigrants, the welfare recipients, the politicians, and the employees. No one should be required to take a test without a court order or a court ordered warrant.



I agree but, unfortunately, that is not the way things are these days.
 
Oh, the self-adulation of populists is on full display here.

I suppose this proposal has a certain allure to those who think that the adage of picking the first few hundred names in a phone book to public service is a good idea.....but it's about as foolish.

I don't know about the self-adulation aspect of this thread.
Politicians should be subject to the same rules they promulgate.
Simple concept.....not at all foolish.
 
I don't know about the self-adulation aspect of this thread.
Politicians should be subject to the same rules they promulgate.
Simple concept.....not at all foolish.

Except that it is seen as a way to get back at the politician for perceived wrong-doings to the masses.

please remeber these are the same people who require all other tax payer funded employees to be drug tested and in some states require welfare recipients to be drug tested as well. These are also the same people authorize the various government agencies to spy on the American people whether they voted for the bill or continue to authorize funding for those agencies.

He states this not out of sheer fairness, but rather bitterness.

I would go even further. I would require that all candidates for national office be required to take the same test that immigrants are required to take to become citizens--I think most of them would fail!

I'm presuming this was said merely to be consistent rather than elevate the profile of the average person, or...aspiring citizen to be superior to that of the elected official?

Don't get me wrong, I find drug testing welfare recipients to be a waste of time and effort, but let's not kid ourselves that this isn't done out of the spirit of raising pitch forks and lit torches to go at the elite.
 
Last edited:
Except that it is seen as a way to get back at the politician for perceived wrong-doings to the masses.
He states this not out of sheer fairness, but rather bitterness.

Maybe so, but requiring pols to adhere to the standards of behavior they legislate is fair.
Perhaps a taste of their own bitter medicine would cure that streak of hubris many pols exhibit.





Don't get me wrong, I find drug testing welfare recipients to be a waste of time and effort, but let's not kid ourselves that this isn't done out of the spirit of raising pitch forks and lit torches to go at the elite.

Motivations aside, I just think it's good policy for the goose and the gander.
 
Should politicians be legally required to take drug tests?

Yes
No





I say yes they should be tested.What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
Before anyone utters that is a violation of their privacy rights please remeber these are the same people who require all other tax payer funded employees to be drug tested and in some states require welfare recipients to be drug tested as well. These are also the same people authorize the various government agencies to spy on the American people whether they voted for the bill or continue to authorize funding for those agencies.Plus do you really want elected officials to be under the influence while making laws and policies that effect you?

Why? They should be required to record their every waking minute to be able to later show their innocents in court.
 
Should politicians be legally required to take drug tests?

Yes
No





I say yes they should be tested.What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
Before anyone utters that is a violation of their privacy rights please remeber these are the same people who require all other tax payer funded employees to be drug tested and in some states require welfare recipients to be drug tested as well. These are also the same people authorize the various government agencies to spy on the American people whether they voted for the bill or continue to authorize funding for those agencies.Plus do you really want elected officials to be under the influence while making laws and policies that effect you?

By who? Their only boss is the citizens. I say no. So long as they are able to do their job, I dont care if theyre doing drugs. If they start causing a problem, then the rest of congress can bring them up on ethics charges.
 
I rather see them have to take an IQ test.
 
No, no one should be drug tested without a warrant or court order. Private companies shouldn't be able to require it of employees. It's none of their business unless the employee shows up drunk or high to work, and then you can fire them for the behavior, not the result of a test.

It depends on type of job. I don't think I would want a neurosurgeon, bus driver, pilot.... who may be able to hide their drug use well enough not to cause concern at first glance, put my life, or the lives of others, in danger.
Average politicians are making decisions for us. While that may not harm us immediately, I like to think they should take a sober approach. Would I want all of them drug tested? No. In this case, I agree with you. Unless they show up under the influence, they business is theirs.
A politician, i.e. POTUS, who may have to make life and death decisions on a moment's notice, yeah, I like him/her sober.
 
Should politicians be legally required to take drug tests?

Yes
No





I say yes they should be tested.What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
Before anyone utters that is a violation of their privacy rights please remeber these are the same people who require all other tax payer funded employees to be drug tested and in some states require welfare recipients to be drug tested as well. These are also the same people authorize the various government agencies to spy on the American people whether they voted for the bill or continue to authorize funding for those agencies.Plus do you really want elected officials to be under the influence while making laws and policies that effect you?

Personally, I'd say no - it sounds punitive and vindictive, as laid out in the argument and provides no rationale or historical reference for the need to drug test all politicians. Clearly, there is historical reference and rationale for bus/subway drivers, truck drivers, pilots, etc. who have been caught under the influence while operating dangerous equipment/vehicles that can put the general public in peril. I'd like to see some examples of politicians who have been caught in similar circumstances to justify this move.

I would agree, however, with a law that indicated that if a person holding an elected office, whatever the position, was found guilty of being under the influence while performing their duties they would automatically vacate their seat/position. This is similar to laws where a politician convicted of a felony loses their position and a civil servant found guilty loses their job.
 
I rather see them have to take an IQ test.

On that same wavelength, I often wonder if the electorate should be required to take an IQ test or at least a current affairs/public knowledge test before being allowed to vote considering some of the losers that sometimes get elected.
 
No, no one should be drug tested without a warrant or court order. Private companies shouldn't be able to require it of employees. It's none of their business unless the employee shows up drunk or high to work, and then you can fire them for the behavior, not the result of a test.

Unfortunately, impairment isn't always readily discernible. And some employees go out to the driveway, get into a company vehicle, and head to the job, and in some cases, they are the only one to show up to that particular job. And a host of other examples could be offered. On the other side, some recreational drugs, that could be used on a persons own time and place, linger in the body too long.
 
Unfortunately, impairment isn't always readily discernible. And some employees go out to the driveway, get into a company vehicle, and head to the job, and in some cases, they are the only one to show up to that particular job. And a host of other examples could be offered. On the other side, some recreational drugs, that could be used on a persons own time and place, linger in the body too long.

And unless your performance is actually affected, then it is none of your employer's business.
 
And unless your performance is actually affected, then it is none of your employer's business.

I tend to agree with you on most issues. But we've got some space between us on this one. Perhaps you've never used drugs or alcohol, but the very purpose of their use is that they have an altering effect that increases according to amount of use. And an employer does have a right to ask that people use none, on the job. As I pointed out earlier, that poses a problem for marijuana use.
 
I tend to agree with you on most issues. But we've got some space between us on this one. Perhaps you've never used drugs or alcohol, but the very purpose of their use is that they have an altering effect that increases according to amount of use. And an employer does have a right to ask that people use none, on the job. As I pointed out earlier, that poses a problem for marijuana use.

Yes, they can ask you not to smoke on the job or come into work inebriated. And that is all they can ask. Anything you do on your own time that doesn't affect your performance is none of their business. Ergo, no drug testing, because the test has no way to determine the difference between using on a Tuesday afternoon or the previous Saturday night. So it doesn't help determine someone's capacity while on the job at all.
 
Yes, they can ask you not to smoke on the job or come into work inebriated. And that is all they can ask. Anything you do on your own time that doesn't affect your performance is none of their business. Ergo, no drug testing, because the test has no way to determine the difference between using on a Tuesday afternoon or the previous Saturday night. So it doesn't help determine someone's capacity while on the job at all.

We'll sure I pointed that out. But when testing can determine timeline accurately, it will be effective. And as an employer, I don't want somebody that uses heroin for example, even if its on their own time, if I know, they're not working for me. That said, I've heard of poppy seed buns giving a positive test, lol.
 
We'll sure I pointed that out. But when testing can determine timeline accurately, it will be effective. And as an employer, I don't want somebody that uses heroin for example, even if its on their own time, if I know, they're not working for me. That said, I've heard of poppy seed buns giving a positive test, lol.

Well it turns out that it's none of your damn business what people do on their own time. No more than is it our business what you do in yours.
 
Back
Top Bottom