Even though many feel that drug testing is an invasion of privacy as long as we are subject to drug testing and it is allowed by law shouldn't the president, since it is the biggest most important job in America submit to a hair strand test? Is the president better than the rest of us?
2007-12-11 03:55:23 · 12 answers · asked by Enigma 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think some of you missed the part where I specified a "hairstrand test"
It does not lie and shows past use. Wouldn't it make you feel differently about a candidate to know that they had used illegal drugs in the past?
2007-12-11 04:12:05 · update #1
Actually, it's even more important that the elected officials be subjected to an even stricter standards of testing. Background checks, psychological tests, physical fitness tests, and the occassional random drug test.
Heck, if the person is at the helm controlling the fate of millions of people, he or she should better be able to handle it.
2007-12-11 04:05:46 · answer #1 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a silly question. First off, privately held corporations are not beholden to the Fourth Amendment (the basis for privacy in the United States). Secondly, if you truly believe that any president could find the opportunity to take or find illegal narcotics without anyone finding out you've got a lot to learn about the Presidency. The President's day is scheduled to the minute and is in contact with people almost 24 hours a day. Besides, where could a president even source his drugs from without anyone blowing the whistle? A story like that would be worth quite a bit to the Mainstream Media. Not only in cash but in fame. There's no way it'd ever be possible.
Perhaps you are letting your feelings toward the current president cloud your judgment?
2007-12-11 04:01:59 · answer #2 · answered by Judge and Jury 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The President receives regular full medical check-ups, including drug screens, from the Doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
Until the Clinton presidency, the Presidents medical condition (including any evidence of illegal drug use) was considered to be a matter of national importance, and the Presidents before Clinton signed waivers to allow his Dr to convey anything important to the Senate. Clinton put an end to that.
It's a sad reflection on our current times. When Kennedy was President, he was taking very strong narcotic painkillers through much of his term in office, and was frequently in so much pain from his back that he would attend cabinet meetings lying on his back on the floor. The press never commented on this, feeling it was his own private business. Heck - Franklin Roosevelt got through his entire Presidency with most of the country NEVER knowing that he was in a wheelchair!
Richard
2007-12-11 04:09:27 · answer #3 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No hes not better. But the supreme court ruled in 1993 or 4 that the elected officials in the us. A democratic congress and senate shall not be tested. It was ruled unconstitutional just like doing drug tests on welfare recipients.
2007-12-11 04:01:23 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have not have been given any issue with that, notwithstanding it would be executed in this kind of way as to not be exploited for political purposes. as an occasion the guy who's undertaking the pattern should not be responsive to whose pattern that's, through fact in the event that they knew it became one particular applicants urine, the guy sorting out the pattern could exchange the pattern so the outcomes pass one way or yet another based upon their political leanings.
2016-10-01 09:01:49 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The people of the United States elect the president. If the people didn't think the person they voted for wasn't qualified why did they vote for him. The majority always wins regardless.
2007-12-11 04:01:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What good would that do? Do you honestly believe that the President can't afford to buy some clean urine from someone?
An adminsitration that will lie about the reason for going to war will lie about the condition of the President's urine.
2007-12-11 04:02:02 · answer #7 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have no problem with random drug testing. And I think all Presidential Candidates, and indeed candidates for any elected office, should be drug tested, All elected officials too.
2007-12-11 03:58:43 · answer #8 · answered by Leah 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I disagree. Post employment random drug testing shows a lack of trust in the character of employees. If we do not trust our president, we should not elect him. If he does something after being elected to lose our trust, we should impeach him. Beyond that, we should give our full trust and support to highest office in America and to the man that occupies its' seat.
2007-12-11 04:02:43 · answer #9 · answered by David M 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that Presidents should be subject to full psychiatric testing before they're even allowed to RUN for office !
2007-12-11 03:59:33 · answer #10 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋