Is there a random drug testing policy for members of Congress and the President and VP?

[duforsure]

If not why is that? They work for us , don't they? We have a right to know if they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Some do act like they are , and would explain their actions and comments. Same thing for Supreme Court Justices.

[elleng]

1. Why not?

Why ever would they so subject themselves??

[Haggard Celine]

2. Drug tests, like taxes, are for the little people.

[Akacia]

3. I often argue this when people champion drug tests for welfare benefits.

Why not Congress? After all the policies they enact can affect my well being much more than feeding poor children.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

4. They won't do it, just like the coke-head GM's...

... at two of my previous employers never had to get tested like the rest of us.

[raccoon]

5. I totally agree, they should be. But as other posters have said,

That won’t happen.

[SheltieLover]

6. They should be tested frequently!

[Captain Zero]

7. And we should keep harping about it every chance we get, and not just here

Use it as a distraction for anything you don't want to deal from your favorite reich winger.

[SheltieLover]

11. I agree!

And the results should be auto uploaded to a PUBLIC & free website!

[Effete Snob]

8. Who do you want to put in charge of that?

I’m sure there are plenty of people who would like to be the one in charge of the office that can fire the president. What could go wrong?

[StarfishSaver]

9. What would they test for?

And what would be the consequences for a positive test?

[OldBaldy1701E]

10. Well

If they were to go about it like your typical police force, they will test for what they can easily detect. This is why they are still fighting about legalizing cannabis. The effects last anywhere from a few to maybe 8 hours. The detectable presence of it can last for 30+ days. Easy money! Alcohol is also pretty easy to detect, but we don't want to piss off Big Booze, so that one is usually kind of waved away. As to consequences, I suspect they are hoping that such a disclosure would create its own consequence in the form of impeachment and removal of anyone the public deemed undesirable. The issue is, the drugs they are gonna test for are not the ones I am betting are more commonly abused. Like opioids and anti-depressants. Those will get a pass, because they are not illegal, and therefore despite the potential abuses by the politicians, no one is gonna do anything about it, because they will just spew out a myriad of reason as to why they take it. And they will have the 'proper' prescription... they always do.

[StarfishSaver]

12. A few more questions

Is your concern that officials are breaking the law by using illegal substances? Or that they are taking substances that cause them to be impaired, regardless whether they are legal and/or prescribed?

Do you test for alcohol and certain prescriptions or over-the-counter medications that are legal but are banned from consumption in most workplaces during or within a certain timeframe before work hours? Or would the tests just flag jcontrolled substances that weren't prescribed?

How do you manage this for a government official who doesn't have on and off work hours? When do you do this "random" testing? The morning after a State Dinner where the President offered toasts and drank wine? If he tests positive for alcohol, then what?

Or what if the Vice President tests positive for alcohol on a Thursday morning after a quiet Wednesday night that wasn't spent at a State Dinner but just chilling in the family quarters at the Observatory. Does she have to explain what she had to drink and why and justify that it was ok for her to have a drink at that time?

If a Member of Congress eats an edible on a Saturday night in her home state where it's legal, what happens if she test positive for THC on Thursday when she's back in DC?

I'm not asking these questions to be argumentative. Just illustrating that while this may sound like a good idea in the abstract, it's very difficult and likely completely impractical in application.

[OldBaldy1701E]

21. I appreciate the discussion

I am actually not in favor of any testing because I feel if you can do your job as well if not better on something than off of it, why deny it to them? Also, I understand that some substances are not for everyone, but because of what would be a very small percentage of the general population potentially having an adverse reaction to the substance, no one should be allowed to use it? My problem is that the laws pertaining to this topic are only pursued to the extreme when it is not some 'upstanding individual'. If they are going to ruin lives over a freaking joint, then they can do so across the board, not just to those who cannot afford to legally defend themselves. My problem is the double standard that keeps getting applied to the uber-wealthy over the general population... while perpetuating the illusion that they deserve special status. And, I am really tired of watching certain members of Congress, which is at this moment 57% millionaires or above, acting like they are 'like us' when clearly they seem to be on a pedestal compared to us plebes. You ask really good questions. I have a few in return. Why are your hypotheticals only an issue in this context? Shouldn't they apply across the board? Shouldn't every issue you mention be a problem with anyone in that situation? Because I can assure you, if I were to be caught with a controlled substance in my system or having a few drinks while at work at pretty much any job, I would be summarily removed from my position. And, there would be no debate as to whether or not I had taken it days before, or whether or not it was just alcohol or whatever. Why should this not happen to them?

(You know, I have recently read that there are now contracts for jobs that include clauses that dictate your behavior... outside of the workplace... on your time... amazing, eh?)

[StarfishSaver]

22. I think we're in agreement

I don't have a problem with people whose jobs involve safety or whose performance can be negatively impacted by substance use being tested. But I think it's outrageous that people - especially low income Americans - have to submit to drug screenings for jobs and benefits.

I had to undergo occasional random drug testing when I worked for the government and, although I thought it was kind of pointless, I didn't mind it. I just saw it as part of the job and I figured it wasn't a big deal for me, as a government official, to do the same thing a low-income woman has to do to get food stamps for her kids. But it did keep me from going to some concerts I wanted to attend ...

As for my hypotheticals - they were limited to this particular situation because that's what we were discussing.

But I can do hypotheticals all day long, if you like. They're some of my favorite things ...

[OldBaldy1701E]

23. I think we are as well.

I do love a nice hypothetical in the morning...

[StarfishSaver]

25. :-)

[Klaralven]

26. Consequences? First offense, ground Air Force One for a month and confine the President to DC.

Congress critters: no junkets for a year.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Yes. That makes sense

[thucythucy]

13. I suppose I support random testing in some cases,

for instance, airline pilots and air traffic controllers.

And as other posters have pointed out, I doubt Congress or the members of any elected body will impose such rules on themselves.

Instead of trying to enact this as policy, I think any politician who supports the right of any employer to use random testing, and certainly the testing of recipients of public assistance, should be challenged at every opportunity to submit themselves to random testing.

Let them try to explain why it's good for some, but not for them.

[StarfishSaver]

14. This makes more sense than imposing testing on government officials

As I explained in another post, it sounds appealing, but it's just not practical in real life.

[pwb]

15. The pukes seem like bunch of mean drunks.

Legislating while impaired.IMO.

[rickyhall]

16. You saw how some reacted to gun scanners.

[Marrah_Goodman]

17. Nope, drug tests are for peons

If you apply for McDonalds or Walmart you can be sure to be tested. The most powerful jobs in the country....nope.

[Hotler]

18. Make it a hair test not a whizz quiz. That way they can't fake it.

If we made Drug test the House and Senate a trend on social media it would be enough to piss them off, which is fun to do.

[MichMan]

19. What would be the penalty for failing?

Fines, suspension, removal from office?

[Elessar Zappa]

24. Probably fines.

[womanofthehills]

20. Yea - just keep testing those low income moms

And take away their food cards so their kids will starve if they take a toke to lower their stress. So many Republicans are fine with this on Facebook but could care less if Junior is raging on cocaine or Trump is shitting in his pants from Adderall.

[BannonsLiver]

28. Sounds like something I've heard from RWNJs over the years.

[Klaralven]

29. How about a random drug testing policy for candidates? Failure is punished by disqualification.