2007-03-10 23:08:52 · 11 answers · asked by joe1 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Because they make the laws and they'd never subject themselves to such an invasion of their privacy. Oh, excuse me... I forgot the real reason. They're not subject to drug and alcohol testing because we can tell by their "voting records" and their "character" whether they're doing a good job.
2007-03-10 23:14:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question! We make our military take test regularly they serve the public why not politicians. Probably because half hide behind some religion to mask there darker side. Making politicians take sobriety and drug test would probably wake up the country as a huge number of politicians would probably fail. What a nice treat this would be!
2007-03-10 23:15:14 · answer #2 · answered by Alright! 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Good idea, if it;s good enough for the rest of us than it should surely be good enough for them, after all they are the ones we are trusting to do what is best for the whole country..
Ted Kennedy would have been a history lesson a long time ago.
Let's do this for welfare recipents too. I don't see anything wrong with that. I have to have one as terms of employment, and to keep my job, makes sense that those who are benefiting from my employment should also have to submit themselves to the same thing I do in order to keep their benefits. Just one way of keeping those who really need it as opposed to those who have made it a lifetsyle.
2007-03-10 23:21:09 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have asked this question on here myself.I think it needs to be done,if we are subjected to them,why shouldnt they?I know a Senator that is still in office for getting drunk and driving off a bridge and killing a woman,who was not his wife,who waitied for hours before he called for help just to save his stinking political butt,yet the fine people of Massachusetts continues to elect this drunken killer.He has been on the Senate floor drunk and this is acceptable?Not in my book.
2007-03-10 23:55:18 · answer #4 · answered by jnwmom 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No . it particularly is extra exciting to be certain later, that they are all #@*^#ed up . ;D How could maximum comedians make a residing , if sanity replaced into the order of the day? playstation maybe we could continuously try the voters.^ a minimum of those that are completely "in - the - bag" , for a political candidate, or team of politicians. ;D
2016-11-24 20:04:48 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see what would be wrong with it since all other employees in both public and private sectors have to do it. They should not be exempt. They are servants of the people and not above the law either!
2007-03-10 23:13:46 · answer #6 · answered by ShadowCat 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That thought never crossed my mind. You are absolutely correct on this one. Star for you.
Imagine that! Wow. Wouldn't that cause a ton of caos? ah. They'd find a way around that too. They could always pay somebody off for it.
2007-03-11 07:13:05 · answer #7 · answered by Me2 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Great idea. It should, at the very least, be a requirement to run for office.
2007-03-11 01:22:54 · answer #8 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because a large number would register positive.
2007-03-10 23:18:05 · answer #9 · answered by Ferret 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is a very good idea. We should.
2007-03-10 23:19:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋