Should they be required to submit to random testing?
Drugs and booze are easy to cover up for some people.
2007-07-18 09:28:10 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oh, Dr. J. I agree that there are many talented and reliable people who are alcoholics. But, this is a disease. Shouldn't the public know if a candidate has a disease? Fred Thompson came forward with his cancer.
2007-07-18 09:47:10 · update #1
Sure, if people have to submit to random tests to work at Home Depot, they should have to be tested for positions of the highest responsibility. The problem is that the people at the top of the ladder make the rules, and then they exempt themselves.
2007-07-18 09:32:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton tried it, but he 'didn't inhale'. You do the math on that one!
Winston Churchill was arguably the finest leader in the 20th century. He was an alcoholic. Would England, France, and the U.S. be speaking German today under the Nazis if England had forbidden alcoholics to serve as prime minister?
Obviously, this is NOT an simple issue.
2007-07-18 16:37:43 · answer #2 · answered by Doctor J 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well we don't know until it comes out after they have been elected! But personally I could care less if my president smoked pot. I think that with the way that Bush's presidency has gone, drugs are the least of my worries. And plus, I know some crackheads who are smarter and more capable than him.
2007-07-18 16:32:50 · answer #3 · answered by emmajean 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As evidenced by the current President...
No, I don't think they should have to submit to random drug testing. Once they're in office and in the employ of the American people, then yes, I think they should be.
2007-07-18 16:36:45 · answer #4 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
do you really think we would not know if they were? With all that goes on in the media, if they had that kind of dirt, it would be all over the world within hours. Someone would talk if they knew of a candidate with that kind of habit.
2007-07-18 16:45:46 · answer #5 · answered by doctdon 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Anyone who gets paid by the taxpayers should be subjected to periodic testing.
2007-07-18 16:33:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that invades their privacy.
you can't really test for alcoholism, its out of your system in with-in two days and presidents are allowed to drink when they have some recreational time
I don't think candidates should have to disclose their health. its personal
2007-07-18 21:01:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We should know. The American public and the media sure missed it with our current president.
2007-07-18 16:36:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
More have been than haven't been in history.. we've had more good ones than bad ones.. as long as that continues to be the trend then I really don't care to be honest.
2007-07-18 16:33:25 · answer #9 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agreed.
As public servants, they should submit to drug testing as we demand.
2007-07-18 16:32:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋