Why or why not?
2007-10-11 04:48:59 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That would be a big NO.
What if their lithium levels are off. What if their Rysperadal makes them like a zombie. What if they Don't take their meds. The possibilities are just scary.
I work with juvies that are on meds. Trust me - you just don't want to go there with anyone in power on those things.
If someone is not stable enough to handle stress they should not be in a position of power.
2007-10-11 04:55:34 · answer #1 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm not sure if it contributes to the dumbing down (the public schools do that without the help of medication), but what it does is to mask the symptoms of antisocial behavior. I believe it also creates a tolerance or addiction to the medication. The day the kid doesn't take his medication is the day he brings a gun to school and starts shooting everybody. Let's examine that idea. The people who are behind the medication of the kids are not stupid. They are brilliant. Whatever is occurring, is exactly what they want to occur. They, after all, are the experts. That's what they tell us. So if kids who are dependent on these drugs go berserk when they don't take them, why would anyone want to get them taking them in the first place? Could it be that someone wants them to commit violent acts? Again, if they don't, why do they continue to prescribe them? When I went to school, the school nurse couldn't even give a student an aspirin. Now, the schools administer drugs that turn troublesome kids into zombies. Are the public schools responsible for the violent outbursts? I think so. I think the main reason that the public schools produce such a poor quality education is that it is government run. I worked for the government for over twenty years, and I always tried to do the best job I could. I was happy with my pay, my working conditions and benefits, and I tried to give an honest day's work for my pay. But I saw a lot of people who did almost nothing. The didn't get promoted, but they never got fired (or almost never). I am not criticizing the teachers, many of whom are doing the best they can, but the cirriculum, the text books, and school policies are all contibuting to the dumbing down of the kids. Certainly, mind altering drugs are not helping.
2016-04-08 03:05:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the criteria should always be professionalism and job performance, so it doesn't matter to me what kind of drugs they are on, as long as they can do the job and do it in an ethical manner. This can most accurately be judged by previous performance. I know at least two people who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia and need to take anti-psychotics on a regular basis, who are brilliant and highly effective at their jobs (one of them is a psychiatrist). Having said that, I think they are the exception, and it is generally harder for people who have mental health issues or are just druggies to get to these positions. Then again, considering who we have holding positions of power in government, it seems you can be a crackhead and a drunk and still become President.
2007-10-11 05:04:00 · answer #3 · answered by teenhamodic 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Taking a drug for drepression is okay, but I do question someone who has had psychotic breaks with reality holding gov't office. Drugs only work if you take them and I understand that those anti-psychotic drugs cause people to feel sluggish and not like themselves so they are apt to go off them so they can feel again. Not good for people making decisions in gov't.
2007-10-11 04:56:53 · answer #4 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why not? They get to vote!
We live in a society where the majority of the population is on some sort of mood regulating drug. The leadership should represent the majority, right?
Thinking of a song lyric: "Majority rules don't work in mental institutions"
2007-10-11 05:00:48 · answer #5 · answered by freedom first 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm, tough question to answer.
On the one hand, considering what's at stake, I'm compelled to expect that persons in positions of great authority would keep sober during the execution of their duty. If they are unable to function rationally without the aid of chemicals, they should seek other career opportunities like, air traffic controller or something.
On the other hand, it might be worthwhile for some of these ying-yangs to try some LSD or something so that they might come to realize there are regions of the brain they are not using. :-)
2007-10-11 06:50:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well yes,
from experience and I am off the posion a lot of bad things happened and some people were hurt. My job requires a certain degree of fear projection and having said that they need me.
2007-10-11 07:09:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends on what drugs and the cause for needing them... I mean... if someone is a schizophrenic then they really shouldn't be in a position of power.... but if someone is just a little depressed or has a bit of anxiety.. then it's really no big deal.
2007-10-11 04:56:08 · answer #8 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Medication for mental conditions such as depression or anxiety can be just as helpful as medicines for physical ailments. As long as they are monitored, they're likely helping the person make more rational choices and decisions.
At the moment, we don't know what meds our elected officials are taking.
2007-10-11 04:55:35 · answer #9 · answered by katydid 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
in the Senate, sure why not. One or two people on anti-depressants should not matter.
other positions - I guess that would depend on the persons duties and what drugs they are on and why.
2007-10-11 04:58:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋