2007-01-03 03:19:22 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
If no, should he (and other admitted past users who hold office) be subject to random drug tests?
2007-01-03 03:26:39 · update #1
I would like him drug tested now. His lack of experienced is a much bigger issue. I also have heard he is not a favorite amongst African Americans either. What do they know that we don't.
2007-01-03 03:22:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 3⤋
He should not be able to run for President. There should be mandatory drug test on anyone holding a public office. You can not even be a cop if you have used drugs before so why should he be able to run the country after he admitted using cocaine!!!
2007-01-03 06:16:13 · answer #2 · answered by d3midway semi-retired 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sen Obama has admitted to experimenting with pot and cocaine as a extreme college student. there has been lots written approximately President Bush's arrests for drunk using and cocaine possession -- nicely previous his teen years. i do no longer have confidence the two one in each and every of them nonetheless makes use of cocaine, yet are you able to teach to me that President Bush does not? Please clarify the style you may bypass approximately proving a damaging.
2016-11-26 00:41:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't think it should keep him out of office b/c people do things and then realize their error and don't do them anymore. i would have an awful life if i was penalized for past indiscretions.
i think it's awesome that he admitted to it and owns it and is big enough to say that he doesn't anymore and leaves it in the past.
we all make mistakes and that's what life is...it's lessons learned. i don't want a perfect president. i want a president who is real and has similar views as myself.
as for random screenings...that's not a bad idea. convicts on parole have to go through random screenings and check ins, so why not monitor a pubic office holder who admits to past drug use. i think that's a good idea. random drug screens happen in numerous jobs in the country, why not public office??
take care.
2007-01-03 03:31:58 · answer #4 · answered by joey322 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Given that it was a long time ago this single fact shouldn't deny him the ticket. But it should be consider with everything else we know about him and then people should form an opinion based on all of their knowledge about Mr. Obama.
2007-01-03 03:26:12 · answer #5 · answered by sfavorite711 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I personally disagree with the use of cocaine as a recreational substance, but I don't really care that Obama did. As long as he didn't drive under the influence and didn't violate anyone else's rights while under the influence, what chemicals he enjoys putting in his body is his own damn business. Only Prohibitionists and authoritarians would argue that government has a right to tell us what chemicals we can possess and ingest recreationally. If you fit either of those descriptions, you are anti-American and not fit to be a citizen of a free republic. You can move to Iran, I'm sure the mullahs would love your views.
Drug testing is an outright admission that the idea that "drug users perform worse than sober workers on the job" is false. Why would you have to test someone for recreational substances? Wouldn't the quality of their work and their general appearance immediately prove that they're drug users? If you need a piss test to tell you that, your argument that drug users aren't as good is a total crock.
2007-01-03 03:25:39 · answer #6 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 1⤊ 7⤋
Bill didn't inhale, maybe Obama didn't either.
Actually, I think all candidates should undergo current drug testing. What he did as a kid is less relevent than what he is doing now. As long as he is clean now, then past use of drugs should not deny him the nomination.
2007-01-03 03:22:43 · answer #7 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
I would say it's not an automatic disqualification. It depends on the circumstances.
I say no to random drug testing. If you don't trust someone enough to give you his word on this, you should definitely not elect him president!
2007-01-03 03:55:56 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No he should not be able to run, look at Bush you want another coke head to run this country?
He should not be able to run anyway, He is not a full blooded American. He is getting to run from a technicality, his dad banged Barracks mom in college. His dad was not a US citizen, but his mom was. Should that make him legal to run this country? After all what plans does he really have for this country, since he still has ties with his fathers family in Africa and middle east. Who are Muslim and involved in "things" there.
2007-01-03 03:31:27 · answer #9 · answered by κύριος κτίστης 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Yes he is a national security risk because he can be bribed by the drug cartels.
2007-01-03 03:27:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋