Candidates and Drug Testing

Are the candidates running for elective office willing to be drug tested?

Norman harps about everything.

Norman
Why does someone else's action have to dictate yours ?
You should set the example and then request others do as you DID not do as you say.
But then again maybe you don't expect to win and don't want people to see what your drug test turns up. You should stand up to the examples you expect of others. Or are you exempt from what you expect of others?

Dear List;

This is an interesting issue and resulting dilemma. On the one hand it would be very simple to make it an issue to run for office you must pass a state mandated drug free testing standard. Then the corruption would begins, which lab gives consistently accurate results. There are errors in testing even in the best of labs, by officials and law enforcement Id est O J Simpson blood evidence. Its an egregious abrogation of our freedom to be required to be tested for anything and a freedom dear to we who are drug free as well as daily users. It would be very proactive and "christian" to do as a leader would do and be tested before running and make it a standard to follow. In the end ones reputation is a dynamic fluid thing and influence is easily swayed by word and body language, hence the system we have today and all its shortcomings but FREEDOM? Otherwise we would all be mindless sheep following the whim of what test to take today from the socialist Machine and its dictates.

Is drug use a problem with candidates seeking public office in Pocahontas County? This discussion is the first I ever heard of it.

Why not add a loyalty oath? And maybe swear you don't beat your spouse or animals? Or cheat on your taxes or drink and drive. The point is, all these things are happening in Pocahontas County. I don't think any of these behaviors are any worse than any of the others. So, if we test for one we should test for them all.

Bill Minion

That isn't standing up and being counted, that's an invasion of privacy.

Bill Minion

Do "Public Office" and "Minimum Standards" go together?

Here is an e-mail I just received which is apropos of this topic:

Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes & the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem).
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT----doing drugs while I work.
Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!
Something has to change in this country - AND SOON!
P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!

Come down to the office or spend a day in Court or talk to the Sheriff and you will see that this drug problem is serious business and leadership on this issue is important. It is not "a solution in search of a problem". There needs to be a bastion of drug free leaders and officials that the community can stake a claim on. Hiding behind "constitutional" privacy concerns evades responsibility for standing up. I, as a lawyer, respect the law and the rights guarded under the law, but I do not think this is a rights issue....it is a leadership issue.

With due respect for those who believe that our elected officials should be drug tested, I agree with the viewpoint of Mr. Feretti: I would not hold these elected representatives in higher esteem if their urinalysis were on display. Drug testing for some types of occupations is in order for protection of the public ;drug testing for welefare recipients would appear to be a way to belittle them: what happens if they are found to have drugs in their body? Do you then stop assistance? What about their children?What about false positives? Does this test include liquor and beer? cigarettes? Who does these tests in County Pokie?

Marty, I don't live in Pocahontas County. I don't know how bad the drug problem is there. But in no way is it worse than my home county, Berkeley. You can talk to the federal drug task force for verification of that.

If the issue is as you say, one of leadership on a problem that is pervasive in Pocahontas County, then what about the other common problems that are likely just as pervasive. Children out of wedlock, spousal abuse, child abuse, cheating on taxes, absenteeism from work. Shall we require all politicians to produce tax filings, family court records, divorce files, criminal records, employment files and health records? Will you agree to "lead" on those issues as well? There are privacy rights attached to those documents but do we insist on waivers from politicians for access to these personal records? I would submit that someone's work history with other jobs is just as valuable a predictor of expected job performance as drug use. And by God if you cheat on your taxes you are just as likely to cheat the public when handling public funds. If the idea is to have "leadership", then we should insist on leadership on all fronts, not just with drugs.

I point this out to highlight the fallacy of the contention that submitting to a drug test ensures leadership. I don't need a negative drug test from an elected official to know that drugs ruin lives and are illegal. I don't need verification that my politician has no speeding tickets to know that I should not speed on the highways. I don't need a review of the family court docket checking on my elected official to convince me I should not hit my wife. I don't have to hear from politicians that I should not poach deer or pour Clorox in a stream to get trout. And nowhere in our state or federal constitution or West Virginia Code is it indicated that a qualification for the job includes a negative drug test. If you want to ensure leadership that the law is followed, there it is.

I don't look to politicians regarding issues of social values or personal health. I don't elect you to "lead" on the campaign against drugs by publicizing your health records. This is, I believe, where politicians get in trouble and set themselves up for failure. I delegate to you the responsibility to administer tax dollars to plan and engineer development, ensure utilities are provided, provide law enforcement, fund and oversee county agencies that do the work collectively that we as constituents cannot do individually. I expect leadership on social values and health concerns from my church, my doctor, and my family. And in balancing the issue of rights to privacy versus public good, there are a heck of lot of people I encounter every day that I hope are drug free more so than politicians. Politicians are way down on the list, below my doctor, my accountant, my pastor, and people I entrust my children to.

And finally, I don't find it persuasive in an argument over rights to have someone say, "well, I will gladly sacrifice my own for the cause. I have nothing to hide". Would you give up your right against warrantless searches and seizures by your government because your neighbor professes he will because he has nothing to hide? If Walt Helmick announced tomorrow that in the fight against terrorism he is going to allow the FBI to search his home computer, his personal papers, and his home without cause or warrant because he has nothing to hide and he wants to lead on the fight against domestic terrorism are you going to put out the welcome sign on your home for the feds? Your willingness to be drug tested and your "challenge" to others to do the same creates a Hobson's choice for other office seekers. Do I sacrifice a privacy right when the law makes no such demand or do I insist that my rights be respected and that the law, which requires no drug test, be followed, thereby risking the implication that I am on drugs. I question that kind of leadership.

Martin, I guess we just differ on what kind of leadership elected officials should provide. I want my elected officials to fulfill the job requirements. If drugs are a problem in Pocahontas, then make sure the sheriff' dept has the resources to do its job and notify the State Police. If drug use in County government is a problem, let the criminal justice system address the problem. Provide law enforcement officials with your suspicions and agree to cooperate as a witness. Challenging all office seekers to submit to a drug test when it is not required by law is in my eyes pure political grandstanding. It is akin to the loyalty oaths of the '50's.

If I was running against you and you did your public drug test and I refused, claiming it was not a requirement for the job, what would you say about me? Would you say I am just exercising my rights to be free of an intrusion or would you maintain that I must be a drug user? I am curious as to what someone's refusal to take a public urination says about the individual?

You are dodging the question counselor. Let me ask it this way. Why would you not vote for someone who refuses to take a drug test?

Mr Ferretti
"submitting to a drug test ENSURES leadership." This is a false assumption to start your logical debate. No one has said it ensures leadership. No one has insinuated that it did.

"I expect leadership on social values and health concerns from my church, my doctor, and my family."
But all you need do is look at the current politicians who were voted into office to see that they are taking those leadership values away from the places you look to get those values. Granted a drug test in and of itself would not weed out many of those now in power. But I point this out only to say that diminishing politics as if they are not effecting the other areas of your life is burying your head in the sand.
For example;
Politicians have taken God out of the schools and everything else that they can.
Politicians have with the passing of health care taken control of your doctor and what care you are going to get.
Politicians in W.V. control your children as wards of the state.

Your arguement that drug testing should not be done is like telling someone to go dig a hole but refuse them any tools with which to dig the hole.

Personally as a previous business owner I would want to drug test ANY and ALL my employees to make sure that I am getting the best possible return on my dollar for who I hire.
Politicians are nothing more than hired hands. They are just hired by a large group of people.

If you want to say that drug testing is for safety purposes that is fine. I would definately prefer that the person who is in control of the 'red button' be drug free. Or the people who pass laws that effect my everyday life be drug free.

Drug testing is just another item of information available to attain the best possible employee. The more information you have from candidates the better informed you are. This enables you to make a better judgement on who you want to hire to affect your everyday life.

All we need do is look at our present office holder Obama. We don't know squat about his background. And look what that has gotten the country into. Did he take drugs? He claimed he did. Is he still taking drugs? Who knows? He claims he isn't. Do you just want to believe this man on his word alone? Even from his recent history we see lie after lie. Are those lies a part of drugs altering his decision making? Who knows? He hasn't been drug tested. He hasn't even provided a health report to the American people. But the scary part is he has the 'red button' following him around daily.

People have to choose to run for office. If a drug test is part of the qualifications for that office it is not a privacy nor prejugdicial matter. It is the candidates choice matter.

This is nothing more than when I require a drug test to hire someone. I let them know that up front and it is their choice if they want the job to get the test. I think that would be called freedom of choice.

Roger, one more response and then I have to get back to work.

Your thoughts: Politicians have taken God out of the schools and everything else that they can. Politicians have with the passing of health care taken control of your doctor and what care you are going to get. Politicians in W.V. control your children as wards of the state....

I don't want God in my schools, unless my kids are in a private, religious school of my choosing. Our teachers have enough trouble teaching math and science. I want my family to find God in our church community and at home and then to practice what they learn whereever they go.

My doctor had no control over his services or care provided to me for years now. They are called insurance companies.

As for my children, I don't know what you mean. The state only makes sure I provide them with the basic necessities of life and that I don't abuse them sexually or otherwise.