If so and they test positive, should they be removed from the roles, or office or given one chance at entering a rehab program at their own expense?
2007-01-02 05:47:49 · 24 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
many jobs require this, so why shouldnt we as tax payers demand this type of accountability for our tax dollars?
2007-01-02 05:48:37 · update #1
Yes, most definitely. Elected officials are servants of the people and should be held accountable. Welfare recipients are "living" off of tax money and should also be held to the same standard. Our tax money needs to work for America, not drug habits.
2007-01-02 07:56:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nobody should be tested against their will. Mandated testing without probable cause is in clear contradiction to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
However, whether unconstitutional or not, those who enact and enforce such laws have an ethical (if not moral) obligation to be first in line for testing, including alcohol testing.
Public officials are the employees of the people and should be held to the same standards, if not higher, as those who put them where they are.
.
2007-01-02 06:19:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Interesting idea
Generally I am for less government meddling in peoples' lives, but I think this could work out very well. It makes sense in both of these cases - elected officials are servants of the people and welfare recipients are being given free benefits. Why shouldn't they take drug tests?
2007-01-02 05:52:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No one should be forced to take drug tests... its an invasion of privacy... I'm not an elected official or on welfare, but what I do in my home is my business... If I want to come home and relax w/ a joint after a hard day at the office... That's my business... Just like the guy that wants to relax w/ a glass of wine...
2007-01-02 05:51:47 · answer #4 · answered by goodtimefriend 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No.
what a person does with his/her body is his/her business and nobody else's.
Now, while on the job an elected official should be treated just like anybody else, he should be qualified for the position, he should be tested for drug use and come out negative, there should be a board overseeing him/her and remove him/her if the circumstances require this. While the congress today has that power it is not used as it should be because it becomes a political issue, the body in charge of doing this should not be politically influenced. How can this be accomplished? I don't know.
2007-01-02 05:51:12 · answer #5 · answered by r1b1c* 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Awesome question. I'm not so sure about the elected officials. If they did drugs it was probably just while they were in college. The welfare recipients should absolutely be drug tested. If they want to buy drugs they should get a job and use their own money.
2007-01-02 05:50:03 · answer #6 · answered by Abu 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes I think both should be tested and both should be removed. If you are on welfare you shouldn't have the money to use drugs and if you have been elected into a position by your community you should be the wonderful human being you portrayed yourself to be to get elected.
2007-01-02 05:58:57 · answer #7 · answered by puzzled 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
..I am not sure about this. You know on one hand I am always sympathetic to the poor, so drug testing on someone who's already at the bottom leaves them further down in a hole.. elected official are employed so I would lean towards that strongly..including the president and his cabinet.
2007-01-02 06:00:30 · answer #8 · answered by JC McDooglehowzer 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No. Even in the case of jobs, people have been known to test urine for other things...like pregnancy. Invasion of privacy. Sounds good, though.
2007-01-02 05:58:10 · answer #9 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. But, we should consider mandatory idiot tests for elected officials.
2007-01-02 10:23:08 · answer #10 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋