When Elected Offficials Get Caught, They Find God And/or Go Into Rehab. Shouldn't We Require Random Drug Testing?!?

[marlan43]

It appear that our elected officials make laws that apply to every person but them. When they get caught in the act they uncover God and/or go into drug or alcohol rehab. Wouldn't it be much better for the American individuals to call for that each individual who seeks elected workplace be required to undergo mandatory drug testing just before they can run for office, and be topic to mandatory drug testing for the entire time they are in workplace?

[Neason]

[Conlan]

[Chin-Mae]

I don't see how drug testing has anything to do with this. Drug testing would not have prevented any of the major(and non-local) political scandals of the last ... oh ... 300 years.   Wikipedia has a pretty good breakdown of the scandals:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States   I can think of four big drug issues in the last 20 years:   1) Marion Barry.  He was caught red-handed.  Drug testing may have revealed this earlier on but would it have mattered?  They re-elected him anyway.   2) Bork.  His drug use came up without testing.  He "got borked".   3) Bush.  His cocaine usage was apparently during his younger days.  Testing wouldn't have revealed it.   4) Clinton.  Even if the usage hadn't been 30 or 40 years ago ... it would have been undetectable since he never inhaled.  I believe him.   The rest of the scandals would not have been prevented by mandatory drug testing.   All mandatory drug testing would do is add additional expense to an already expensive election process, give the press something to talk about and strip American's of another liberty(maybe electing a drug addict to office it dumb - but we have the right to do it - see Marion Barry).     Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States   csharp's Recommendations Scandal: How "Gotcha" Politics Is Destroying America Amazon List Price: $24.95 Used from: $9.50 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5(based on 2 reviews) Advice and Consent: Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork and the Intriguing History of the Supreme Court's Nomination Battles Amazon List Price: $23.95 Used from: $0.01 csharp 85 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Brentin]

No Most white collar jobs don't require it, so I don't think officials should have random testing.  After someone is caught in the act, I don't see a problem with testing them, but I believe people are Innocent until proven guilty, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions too quick(like what we tend to do with terrorism and infringing on our civil liberties) nicko.013 85 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Karina]

No. People will alway find an excuse for their shortcomings. Drugtesting won't help. Electing people who want to govern and not be a lifetime politician will help. Elect citizens, not politicians. Sources: My Opinion awarulz 85 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Ezera]

Drug testing would not have prevented any of the major(and non-local) political scandals of the last ... oh ... 300 years.   Wikipedia has a pretty good breakdown of the scandals:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States   I can think of four big drug issues in the last 20 years:   1) Marion Barry.  He was caught red-handed.  Drug testing may have revealed this earlier on but would it have mattered?  They re-elected him anyway.   2) Bork.  His drug use came up without testing.  He "got borked".   3) Bush.  His cocaine usage was apparently during his younger days.  Testing wouldn't have revealed it.   4) Clinton.  Even if the usage hadn't been 30 or 40 years ago ... it would have been undetectable since he never inhaled.  I believe him.   The rest of the scandals would not have been prevented by mandatory drug testing.   All mandatory drug testing would do is add additional expense to an already expensive election process, give the press something to talk about and strip American's of another liberty(maybe electing a drug addict to office it dumb - but we have the right to do it - see Marion Barry).