• 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 mandatory drug testing be required for government officials?

Should mandatory drug testing be required for government officials?


  • Total voters
    14

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
"Driving my train high on cocaine" ("Casey Jones")

Grateful Dead | Casey Jones lyrics

I voted yes. We drug test a lot of American workers whose drug use could cause harm to others. Politicians and bureaucrats can cause a worse train wreck than any of them. Why should they be immune?
 
i dont think so,its my opinion that every time a politician makes a good decision, its 'cause they're stoned
 
"Driving my train high on cocaine" ("Casey Jones")

Grateful Dead | Casey Jones lyrics

I voted yes. We drug test a lot of American workers whose drug use could cause harm to others. Politicians and bureaucrats can cause a worse train wreck than any of them. Why should they be immune?

Yes.They should be subjected to the same rules and regulations as all other tax payer funded employees such as law enforcement, the military and everyone else.Why should those in office be exempt?
 
No.

I already consider drug testing an invasion of privacy if done without cause, so this does not float.

Now if their is evidence of drug use, by all means, this would go for anyone on the job.
 
No, I do not......;)
However, I have no problem with a pre-scheduled pre-employment test....
If you can't piss clean for a test you know is coming up & it is a prerequisite for employment, you have a problem.....
 
Last edited:
I don't support mandatory drug testing for anyone. If an employee exhibits behaviors which indicate he may be using on the job, then fine, but otherwise, innocent until proven guilty based on evidence is my motto.
 
I agree with the posters here who voted no, even though I voted yes.

My ulterior motive is that if they had to be tested then maybe they would stop mandatory drug testing for everyone.

We got along without drug testing for years until the unconstitutional war on drugs/people started.
 
Drug tests, along with eye exams and other physical tests should be conducted for people whose jobs entail work that could jeopardize public safety if they are impaired. Truck drivers, train engineers, airline pilots, and so on need to be screened to be sure that they are physically capable of doing their jobs.

If they fail any of the tests, then that needs to be treated as a medical problem. Failed the drug test? Addicted to something? Medical intervention is necessary. Failed the vision test? No different, just visit your optometrist.

For the rest of us, there is no valid reason to invade individual privacy. It's way past time to end the so called "war on drugs."
 
Instead of drug tests, I would rather politicians were hooked up to a lie detector whenever they're speaking.
 
Instead of drug tests, I would rather politicians were hooked up to a lie detector whenever they're speaking.

LOL! Great idea! Then, lets record the results and put it on the internet for all to see.
 
They want to work on our dime.

They want to impose regulations on us.

Why not?

The federal government should not be allowed to impose drug testing rules on private businesses, but government isn't a private business.


Start with the President, work your way down.
 
At first I thought, “yes, they should be drug tested” then gave thought to what I believe some of the main problems we have today in the United States: Government larger then it has to be and over population. Define government employee. Could that be a mail man, or a lawyer? Yes, people should not preform activities that involve the risk of life or death over others impaired on drugs. Look at your daily activities though, risk is involved every time to drive to work or eat food. Should we regulate every activity of every human being? I know this is a touchy subject, but I would propose some form of population control. Not by killing anyone already alive, but by having an individual understand the risks of over population in the area they live, and choosing weather or not to have a child. In this way you wouldn’t keep treating symptoms of modern life, but create the conditions in which you can hope for a cure.
 
Look at your daily activities though, risk is involved every time to drive to work or eat food. Should we regulate every activity of every human being?

According to many politicians and a good number of citizens, the answer should be yes.;)

I know this is a touchy subject, but I would propose some form of population control. Not by killing anyone already alive, but by having an individual understand the risks of over population in the area they live, and choosing weather or not to have a child. In this way you wouldn’t keep treating symptoms of modern life, but create the conditions in which you can hope for a cure.

It's a great idea in theory, but not workable, because most people aren't intelligent or thoughtful enough to live their lives according to what is sensible and sane. It's a shame, but it seems to be true.
 
If they fail any of the tests, then that needs to be treated as a medical problem. Failed the drug test? Addicted to something? Medical intervention is necessary. Failed the vision test? No different, just visit your optometrist.

For every job that could endanger the public is a very large list, every person taking these tests would require an enormous bureaucracy. Who would pay for it? Who would make sure you couldn't just buy your way around it? I think it would create more problems then it solves. Much like most government feel good fixes today.
 
For every job that could endanger the public is a very large list, every person taking these tests would require an enormous bureaucracy. Who would pay for it? Who would make sure you couldn't just buy your way around it? I think it would create more problems then it solves. Much like most government feel good fixes today.

Maybe, maybe not. It could just be a part of the licensing process. What job that could endanger public safety doesn't already require a license to perform it?
 
It's a great idea in theory, but not workable, because most people aren't intelligent or thoughtful enough to live their lives according to what is sensible and sane. It's a shame, but it seems to be true.

I know, but the alternative is to use force on others or do nothing. Using force is kind of amoral and creates problems like restance and unintended consequences. Doing nothing means our species will no longer be able to support it self and we could all die or have unthinkable consequences like total control over everyone who lives, with the people who make those choices main goal of staying in power and acquiring more power.
 
I know, but the alternative is to use force on others or do nothing. Using force is kind of amoral and creates problems like restance and unintended consequences. Doing nothing means our species will no longer be able to support it self and we could all die or have unthinkable consequences like total control over everyone who lives, with the people who make those choices main goal of staying in power and acquiring more power.

You left out option 3. Let nature take its course, and let people suffer the consequences of their choices at the personal level.
 
You left out option 3. Let nature take its course, and let people suffer the consequences of their choices at the personal level.

Like we did with the housing markets idea that everyone should be able to afford a house regardless of ability to pay? How about with the Government getting involved with the banks to make sure that there would be enough money to buy goods, like oil and gas.

Over population and good intentions are two conditions that could wipe out every man woman and child on Earth. That is a big risk, understanding it and letting others see that risk may lead to solutions, instead of mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Like we did with the housing markets idea that everyone should be able to afford a house regardless of ability to pay? How about with the Government getting involved with the banks to make sure that there would be enough money to buy goods, like oil and gas.

I think you lost me there.

Over population and good intentions are two conditions that could wipe out every man woman and child on Earth. That is a big risk, understanding it and letting others see that risk may lead to solutions, instead of mistakes.

I think such a catastrophic outlook is a bit of a stretch personally. At the individual level, if people are unable to feed and take care of themselves, that will do one of two things: it could make them re-assess their priorities and make a concerted effort to live a productive life, or it could lead to their personal demise. My personal belief is that humans have much more capability than they know, but many have forgotten what they can accomplish and what life requires.
 
My personal belief is that humans have much more capability than they know, but many have forgotten what they can accomplish and what life requires.

The issue is people like you and me who have time to post on debate politics are fairly well off compared to others. We don't know what it is like living on the streets or what daily life is for them. Unless do live that life we never will. We do have good intentions though, we want to feel like we helped in some way and ask for a change effecting those who have no voice. We do this not knowing what that change we are asking for will really do.

Unintended consequences.

Comparing the idea of one person making a choice to be better, acting on that choice, then failing or succeeding based on merit and application is misleading. How is someone sold into prostitution going to better her life? Just to list one example. She can maybe try to talk to the police, but the trend of law enforcement is to punish the crime of sex trafficking in the United States. So her situation is not improved.

Most of all this falls to a supply and demand issue. There are a lot of people, there are few jobs. People with no jobs have a lot of time on there hands and nothing to do. They don't have money so they live in groups. They interact with people and make babies. Babies grow up to be worse then the parent.

Over population. No jobs.

My other point was an idea that government should be smaller and not try to fix everything. When it does they need to fix their fixes like windows tries to fix its updates. The whole process is a mess and it ends up making more things to fix. Job security for those making the laws we all live buy I guess.
 
The issue is people like you and me who have time to post on debate politics are fairly well off compared to others. We don't know what it is like living on the streets or what daily life is for them. Unless do live that life we never will.

I'm not well off, but I do live within my means. I post on this and other forums because I am interested in sharing ideas and getting feedback, positive or negative. Many who live in poorer circumstances have access to forums such as this one, but are not interested in discussing anything.

We do have good intentions though, we want to feel like we helped in some way and ask for a change effecting those who have no voice. We do this not knowing what that change we are asking for will really do.

That's probably one of the differences between someone like you and someone like me. I don't believe I can help with good intentions. I don't try to help except in that I extend understanding, but I do not try to fix the problems that others have, because I believe they need to fix them themselves.

Unintended consequences.

Yes, we must be aware of the unintended consequences of our actions.
They are harmful.

My other point was an idea that government should be smaller and not try to fix everything.

That's exactly what I think.
 
Drug test all those Republicans in congress who want to lock up first time Cannabis offenders and throw away the key. Don't be surprised if one of them has something in his/her system. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom