General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe The people: Demand immediate Drug Testing of Congress
How do we know this isn't some tip of the iceberg problem. Was this individual voting while intoxicated? If so, who else? This may sound like a cutsy tit for tat, But i am fucking serious. How many are voting, important matters affecting lives, doing it BUZZED?
Booze made him do it? Mixing booze with illicit drugs? This may be more of a problem than we realize, could explain the insane behavior, no?
Is this too much to demand of our elected officials?
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)hardcover
(255 posts)onethatcares
(16,165 posts)agree.
and they have to submit to random testing whenever a constituent of their district requests it.
Yes, I support this 100%
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)medical marihuana or legalize pot altogether should be allowed to smoke pot. This would sure speed up a Federal bill to legalize it!
questionseverything
(9,647 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)wish we could do too for elected officials.
-p
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)performed on each member of Congress before voting.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)But I'm anti-drug testing unless you are exhibiting signs of intoxication on the job. Otherwise it's an invasion of privacy and no one's business.
DearAbby
(12,461 posts)I felt I made that point clear. I don't feel its too much to ask they be sober while they handle laws that could adversely affect my life, or the lives of my children. Why belittle my point?
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Drug testing is facsist bullshit. It's no one's business what you do in your private leisure time.
As long as you're not drunk or high at work, it's irrelevant.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)why not apply the same laws to them so they can see what an invasion of privacy it is and maybe recant? I just want a level playing field.
R. P. McMurphy
(834 posts)Johnny Ready
(203 posts)Response to PeteSelman (Reply #7)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #28)
Post removed
spartan61
(2,091 posts)if someone is not intoxicated or high at work? Pilots and flight attendants are often randomly drug tested at the end of a flight as they walk off the aircraft. They even have to avoid eating lemon/poppy seed muffins because that could show up as a drug. I think random drug testing or a breathalyzer before a vote is an excellent idea. Why the double standard? Their votes can directly impact the American people and I don 't want a congress critter voting while under the influence. It's time for them to realize that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)At work. On the job.
rock
(13,218 posts)To those who make the law, I expect a higher degree of moral authority and expect that this testing would be voluntary. Each member of Congress should be glad to show how principled he is.
(Am I being tongue-in-cheek as well? Oh, that's right the OP is serious. Well, I guess I am too.)
PS. I'm betting our guys can whip their guys pretty badly.
rudolph the red
(666 posts)they should be held to the same standards that they want ti imposr upon the rest of us.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Random surprise drug testing for any member of Congress who has voted for the drug war in any shape or form.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)they should be subject to random surprise body cavity searches. I'm willing to call them off if they leave women's reproductive rights alone.
erronis
(15,230 posts)Can you imagine sticking a wand up Boner's cavities? He's probably got lots of undeclared lobbyist's "gifts" stashed away.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The federal courts consider a drug test a search under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It needs to have a warrant or at least probable cause. Random, suspicionless drug testing by government is a no-no.
Private employers are a different story. The Fourth Amendment doesn't protect you from your private boss. You need your union to negotiate drug testing policies for you. What, no union? So sorry.
quakerboy
(13,919 posts)congressman's voting record and public statements and find inexplicable, erratic behavior and apparent lapses of cognitive function that might reasonably cause one to suspect on the job substance abuse?
Buns_of_Fire
(17,174 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Senators, Congress persons, contractors, employees, anyone who gets a dime of tax payer money. Personal discomfort and privacy be damned!!! If it's one, it's everyone!
Avalux
(35,015 posts)It's not so much about drug use (they can take prescription drugs and be buzzed), it's about willfully breaking the law, since illicit drugs are illegal..and lying goes along with that.
These people are elected to serve the people, do what's in our best interest, and make laws. And blaming alcohol for using drugs as if that makes it ok?
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)Buns_of_Fire
(17,174 posts)Give the congresscritters all the drugs they want. Hell, put free pill dispensers on the House and Senate floors, for all I care. Install booze dispensers at their seats. It's not as if it's going to markedly reduce their productivity any.
Within a few days, C-SPAN's ratings will reach the level of Comedy Central's -- especially during the times they're broadcasting debates. If Congress can't manage to work for us, at least they could provide some entertainment.
erronis
(15,230 posts)Conium
(119 posts)Each time they cast a vote.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)rationales.
Tit for tat is silly. If we are demanding anything it should be for some fucking privacy of our own from the robberbarons.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)exactly.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)have liquor cabinets in their offices. It's well known that the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, is an alcoholic of the non-recovering kind. I think when they are in session and actually working on the business of the people they should be tested for alcohol and drugs on a random basis if there is a suspicion of them being under the influence. When they are in their second offices raising funds for themselves they can drink and bong away for all I care, but when they are doing our business on our dime, they should have to follow the same rules the rest of us do on the job.
azureblue
(2,146 posts)no Congressman or woman should be working drunk, stoned or pilled up. There should be a breathalizer test taken every time one of them walks on the floor.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)erronis
(15,230 posts)Most of them are addicted to power, money, and sex (booze, drugs, and fine dining seem to be prevalent also.)
Let's make sure that all these critters are non-megalomaniacs. Oh, wait - that'll eliminate all politicians.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)and lower class folks when they are applying for benefits. I see no reason not to use this as a case-in-point for the argument that maybe we actually should drug-test congress as a condition of their holding office. I mean the job does pay well, and has great bennies- they are sucking the government teat harder than anyone collecting a few food stamps to feed their family ever did.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)be subjected to drug and substance abuse (e.g. alcohol) testing at least annually. The expense of these tests must be borne by the employee.
If they test positive the results along with their photos must be broadcast on television, named on the radio and published in newspapers throughout their jurisdiction.
This might curtail the nonsense of them asking recipients of public assistance who have done nothing wrong to be tested.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is a gross invasion of privacy. "Impairment testing" - non-invasive - should be allowed for appropriate occupations.
thatgemguy
(506 posts)shraby
(21,946 posts)other countries, all businesses isn't an appropriate occupation, I certainly don't know what is.
Well, hells bells, the Speaker of the House is a known alcoholic! Ha! I bet you if they did drug testing right now, as we speak, that the House Majority would also be the majority inebriated, be it alcohol or other mind-altering substances. Life is a beach, don't ya know, when you have an (R) behind your name and you're swimming in Corporate cash!
countmyvote4real
(4,023 posts)ReRe, this is as good as I can get to recommending your response.
"Life is a beach, don't ya know, when you have an (R) behind your name and you're swimming in Corporate cash!"
Phlem
(6,323 posts)long overdue in my opinion.
-p
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)erronis
(15,230 posts)I'm not sure what kool-aid these housers are sipping but I also suspect that the kochers are placing the nimwits in the chairs so they can more easily pull the strings.
There's nothing more irritating than spending a half-million on getting some half-brain to win a seat. And then discover that said half-wit still has a functional bit that tries to ask rational questions.
Response to DearAbby (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hawaiianlight
(63 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)to see if that is where their heads are.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)random drug tests as a condition of employment. As someone up thread said, these folks are voting (when they do) on legislation that affects our lives. Yes, bus drivers are entrusted with a precious cargo every day, the lives of children.
Well, aren't these folks entrusted with matters affecting lives?
Shouldn't they be told before they are sworn in that the job comes with a random drug testing clause?
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Going in for a drug test tomorrow and knowing that I will fail because I smoke medical marijuana for various ailments, I purchased the "Quick Fix Plus." Synthetic urine. The job I am going to to apply for is very low paying with no benefits but its the only game in town. Drug test the top people in important jobs and leave us damaged and disabled people alone.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)[img][/img]
Good luck on landing that job.
gopiscrap
(23,747 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)I read this whole thread and laughed my off.
But seriously, shouldn't we require them to make no law that they will not abide by themselves?
If employers all over America require a blood test as part of a job application, "you know who" gave them the permission to do that, don't you? I wonder about the Constitutionality of it. If we have a Constitutional person aboard DU, maybe they can jump in and explain if the law has ever been challenged.
Thanks for the timely OP!
Warpy
(111,241 posts)I would imagine most of the wingnuts are half in the bag at all times, you can't be that loony without some chemical help. I'm sure the lobbyists are supplying whatever their shriveled little hearts desire.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)sarcasm
Johnny Ready
(203 posts)I am surprised congress is not tested. I assumed they were.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)Everyone is allowed to speak regardless of what they blow but the reading will be projected on the bottom of the C-span screen.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Response to DearAbby (Original post)
Conium This message was self-deleted by its author.