CDZ Should all Govt staff and officials be drug tested as a condition for employment or office?

[emilynghiem]

One of my friends thinks this policy will clean up govt and expose a lot of problems.
I believe it could also lead to decriminalization arguments, if not legalization.

What do you think?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, I know for a fact that the US Military has been doing drug testing since I enlisted back in 1982, and they were given on a regular basis until I retired in 2002.

If the military has to take drug tests, why not politicians?

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, I know for a fact that the US Military has been doing drug testing since I enlisted back in 1982, and they were given on a regular basis until I retired in 2002.

If the military has to take drug tests, why not politicians?

Thanks ABikerSailor You bring up good points, that can be expanded on.
If we are testing for drug use, can we test for dangerous criminal illness that makes someone a threat to society?
If we can use medical science to screen for dangerous diseases such as Ebola,
why not for pedophilia type sickness and require detention until someone is safely treated or cured?

I was thinking about Israel's policy of 2 years required military service for all citizens.
What if at the age of 18, if people want to invoke rights and privileges as a citizen,
then either 2 years military service or MEDICAL training and service were required?
Could this solve the problems of not enough health care resources for all the demand,
if everyone were required to go through basic training in public health and emergency response?

And if we want our legal defense paid for as part of our due process rights,
what about requiring citizens to sign an oath similar to military service,
agreeing to comply with laws and cooperate with authorities?
Agreeing not to obstruct justice or due process by lying, deceit, misinformation or omission,
and in choosing to take the Fifth Amendment, we waive our rights to appeal decisions that
are made; but if we want the choice of consenting to the decisions, then we sign agreements
to uphold the laws and rights of others, and don't violate due process or consent of others either.
We agree to equal protections of the laws for others as we invoke for ourselves.

And any violations of laws or ethics for which we are responsible,
we agree to pay the costs instead of imposing that on others.

Could we expand on the Selective Service requirement of 18 year olds?
And make this a requirement for civil obedience and test for legal and mental competence?
And if people do not meet or cannot make this commitment to comply with and pay
for legal and financial consequences of their actions, they would require a legal
guardian to cosign and take that responsibility if they want to live in America as legal
residents or citizens? Shouldn't someone take legal responsibility so it isn't all on the taxpayers?

 

[BlackFlag]

One of my friends thinks this policy will clean up govt and expose a lot of problems.
I believe it could also lead to decriminalization arguments, if not legalization.

What do you think?

If they’re good at their job then who cares?

 

[Rambunctious]

I have been saying this for decades....I remember hearing a long serving out going congressional page who's job it was to deliver packages to the senate and house offices....out of all of the medications house members received 75% of them were Alzheimer's medication...

 

[oldsoul]

I voted yes, for one simple reason. It's one less potential way for foreign powers to attempt to persuade/strongarm/blackmail those in our government into doing their bidding.

What a person does on their time, is their business. When it creates a potential threat to our country's security, or infringes on others' rights, then it's a problem.