Drug Policy

Libertarian Quiz: Would You Drug-Test Lawmakers?

|

That's what a couple of Lake Arrowhead residents are trying to get onto the California ballot:

Because there is no such thing as running this pic too much

Dorothy Cummings and Gary Ellis have been approved by the secretary of state to try to qualify a ballot measure that would require all state legislators to be tested for the illegal use of drugs and the "habitual use of alcohol."

The idea is to prevent any lawmaker who tested positive from getting paid as – or even acting as—a legislator until he or she completed a substance abuse program. And the lawmaker would have to foot the bill. Anyone who tested positive a second time would forfeit the elected office.

I think most of us here would agree that if you mandate drug tests for anybody, lawmakers should go to the front of the line (particularly lawmakers who mandate drug tests for anybody else). But is the juvenile satisfaction worth the bar-lowering?

Link via Rough & Tumble.

NEXT: How Do Drugs Cross the Border? Easy to Understand Slideshow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Since we can’t easily get adult satisfaction in the drug arena, I would happily settle for the juvenile kind.

  2. No. I prefer a constitutional knowledge test.

  3. But is the juvenile satisfaction worth the bar-lowering?

    Yes.

  4. “But is the juvenile satisfaction worth the bar-lowering?”

    Yes, absolutely yes. I so hope this passes.

    Good point, Mike in PA. Who would grade the test? My choice would be Randy Barnett, but I’d settle for Scalia or Thomas.

  5. Sure. This would go along with my plan to treat any and every “lawmaker” like a criminal from the get go. You get elected. Step one could be the drug test. Then you don your orange jumpsuit with your lawmaker number on it. You are led in shackles to your heavily surveilled room in the Capitol dormitory, all of which is heavily surveilled. The next day you sign over all of your possessions and assets to the state so that you can get ready for your first day of lawmaking.

  6. I’ll take juvenile satisfaction from my lawmakers. I’m not getting any other kind at the moment.

  7. This is a horrible idea, and any juvenile satisfaction you might get will be very short-lived. This will encourage teetotaling lawmakers to insist that everyone must suffer just like they do. You’ll get self-righteous speeches about how good Americans don’t use drugs (more than now). Forcing politicians to get drug tested is a strong incentive for sanctimonious bullshit.

    You’ll also discourage drug-using politicians, which can only lead to a more ham-fisted drug war.

  8. The juvenile satisfaction is splendid. If anything we should be even more juvenile. All members of the legislature should be followed by a film crew 24/7. If they so much as jay walk they should be subjected to the stocks. For felonies they should get flogged. And for corruption they should have they should be drawn and quartered.

    I don’t see how this “lowers the bar”. The bar has already been cast aside.

  9. not worth going against what i belive in. Since i think no one should be tested, and they should be legalized, i can not support the testing of anyone, even if it is nancy pelosi.

  10. Violating the rights of those who violate the rights of others is what justice is all about.

  11. Hell yes!

    And not the bullshit one time, or annual, testing either. I’m talking testing on assuming office and random testing at intervals thereafter.

  12. Yes. And their staffs. I want legislators to know what it’s like to lose a talented worker because they, y’know, have some fun during their off time.

    Random and witnessed (no whizzanator for you, chief of staff). It should work out to an average of one piss test per year.

  13. You’ll also discourage drug-using politicians, which can only lead to a more ham-fisted drug war.

    Right because David Vitter is an advocate for legalizing prostitution, and Larry Craig is an advocate for gays and Mark Sanford and John “Promise Keeper” Ensign have never been ones to beat the drums about the sanctity of marriage.

  14. It should work out to an average of one piss test per year.

    Fuck that. It should be like an industry setting, a piss test after an accident… or in their case after they fuck over liberty with a new law. If they can take the time to piss to piss in our mouths, they deserve to have to aim a little bit of it into a cup.

  15. I am in favor of this. Maybe then they’ll legalize pot for recreational use (and challenge the Feds for a change) to avoid failing a test because they smoke once in a while.

  16. I’s rather them have an IRS audit than a drug test.

    Joe_D is absolutely right. If you want to end the drug war you need more drug users in office, not less.

  17. SF, have the test be set up to coincide with all votes on the floor. Their vote machine doesn’t register unless the piss passes, and it would be all shown on public access. I would think very few votes would ever come to the floor.

    Come on CA, make this one hurt these sons o’ bitches.

  18. It doesn’t have to be discouraging to drug users. Whatever you admit to taking before you get tested isn’t held against you. This more about truth in advertising than anything.

  19. Some similar ideas: Tie legislative salaries to average income. (If the average is a bit too low at the start, make it average income +$20K or whatever.) For Congress, they cannot use a car allowance for any vehicle that gets less than the CAFE standard. And, of course, any state or national health care plan must replace that of any legislature that votes for it.

  20. I’s rather them have an IRS audit than a drug test.

    Who needs one or the other? Throw everything at them they throw at us.

  21. Politicians should be fucked over in every way possible and then some.

  22. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…or shut the fuck up.

    Municipalities drug test the guy cutting the grass with a CDL and don’t drug test the guys with guns and drugs. Go figure.

  23. drug tested? no.

    anally probed? yes.

  24. SF, have the test be set up to coincide with all votes on the floor. Their vote machine doesn’t register unless the piss passes, and it would be all shown on public access. I would think very few votes would ever come to the floor.

    Nick, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  25. I might support this if there were no consequences for a positive test besides the results being published. People have the right to know what their elected reps are up to and what kind of hypocrites they are, but I don’t think that any sort of activity should disqualify someone who is duly elected. If people want to elect an axe murderer, they should be able to do so.

  26. RuthenianCowboy, I don’t have a newsletter but you can vote for me when I run against Chuck Schumer for Senator of NY.

  27. IIRC, the US House and Senate had a voluntary piss test back in the 90’s. Out of 535 members of our US Congress, I believe that less than 10 participated. I can’t find anything on line to back me up, so this is strictly memory.

    Military and federal contractors are forced to pee for their jobs, I think that all elected officials should be glad to give up their liberty just like everyone who has sold out for a job. Anyone who wants to tell others that drug testing is OK by collecting a government paycheck should have urine tests, blood tests, hair tests and everything the athletes in the Tour De France has to endure. All prescription drugs should also be reported to the voting public so crazy people on prozac, etc. don’t get to legislate.

    Maybe turning the volume knob for the war on some drugs to 11 and breaking off the knob will make things so outrageous and ridiculous that the war on some drugs will just fail from its own singularity of stupidity.

    /I hate drug testing for employment with a white hot hate, so I say nuke it from orbit with the scorched earth of maximum overkill, it’s the only way to make sure.

  28. Too bad there isn’t a test for the one drug they all jones for in huge doses: power.

  29. I’d rather support a bill forcing all politicians to enroll in the “public option,” should it exist.

  30. “I don’t see how this “lowers the bar”. The bar has already been cast aside.”

    I fully concur. I had to drug test for my current job. Why should these fuckers be exempted?

  31. I would support mandatory testing to ensure that politicians are on drugs. If congress was full of nodding junkies they’d leave us alone.

  32. “nodding junkies”

    Good band name.

  33. But is the juvenile satisfaction worth the bar-lowering?

    Not only yes, but hell yes with highly polished brass knobs on.

    And frankly, I resemble that remark. Why does demanding a drug test from the very people who pass the laws become ‘juvenile satisfaction’? That’s just good business sense.

    Too bad there isn’t a test for the one drug they all jones for in huge doses: power.

    There’s no chemical test needed. The first law they pass is the test, and almost all of them fail.

  34. I think a better campaign would be drug and steroid testing for police. Make sure the boys in blue are clean…

  35. Ya goddam right they should be tested. They should be subject to every single fucking law they impose on anyone, anywhere. In spades. With bells on. And no lube.

  36. My sarcasm detector isn’t working very well today, so I hope you all are joking.

    I believe on principle that employment drug test screening is wrong and bad, particularly when mandated by government (and I think most people here agree with me). This principle applies even to people with stupid ideas (and not all legislators approve of drug testing).

  37. Libertarian Quiz: Would You Drug-Test Lawmakers?

    Yes, but it would be a written test. 1,000 pages. Just to see if they’d read it.

  38. “and not all legislators approve of drug testing”

    Can you provide us with a list? If that is true they must be like the good cops who won’t cross the thin blue line to stop bad cops. I would like to know why they aren’t doing something about some drug testing.

    By their inaction they are no better than the legislators who love drug testing and are failing to protect citizens from this arbitrary and capricious practice.

  39. My sarcasm detector isn’t working very well today, so I hope you all are joking.

    No. I mean, I get your principles and all that. But let’s now take a look at reality. When the very people who pass laws (and pass judgement) are exempt from those laws (and above those judgements) it is a righteous application of democracy to force those applying the laws and judgements to be subject to same.

    If they can’t or won’t be subject to the laws and judgements they apply to their subjects, especially if those laws are already deemed to be unjust, then those laws and judgements will be held in higher relief.

    The drug war is expanding volumetrically. Pay no attention to a few minor compromises you’re seeing at the fringes. A legislative rollback of the drug war is nigh unlikely. It’s time to push back.

  40. I think a better campaign would be drug and steroid testing for police. Make sure the boys in blue are clean…

    Ron Coleman police officer and 6 times Mr. Olympia.

  41. This would go along with my plan to treat any and every “lawmaker” like a criminal from the get go.

    … [Someone] went to prison to see the prime minister [].

    ‘Why did he have to go to prison?’

    ‘We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don’t you?’

    ‘Why?’

    ‘It saves time.’

  42. If I can’t get high, why can my leaders? This bill will never pass because those it would most negatively affect (the lawmakers) have the most say in what happens.

  43. Keep Dope Alive!

    It’s bad enough that Police officers, judges, procecutors,legistlators, and the such enjoy the benefit of ‘professional courtesy’…also known as the ‘GET OUT OF DWI FREE’ card.

    When these people are pulled over…they always seem to get a pass.

    THIS IS WRONG.

    It’s either illegal for everyone…or for no one.

  44. Nobody drives 55mph in a 55mph zone.
    Nobody really knows what the speed limit is.

    Cops like to wait at the bottom of a hill in a 25mph zone and give tickets…to people that are NOT COPS…that is.

    We should eliminate the highway patrol for speeding

    They should only pull people over for reckless driving and check for DWI/DRUGS. And everyone … including cops/prosecutors should be charged when guilty.

    Speeding to be given to EVERYONE via Cameras. This way, NO ONE gets to enjoy the so called ‘PROFESSIONAL COURTESY’.

    You’ll see! Once the EVERYONE gets a ticket doing 56 in a 55…The speed limit will be raised to a reasonable limit.

  45. This law would be unconstitutional. Georgia used to have just such a law. The Libertarian Party of Georgia took the case all the way to the SCOTUS and got it struck down. I can’t remember the name of the case but they study it in law schools.

  46. …And, When Police officers, Judges, Lawymakers, etc…get hauled off to jail after sharing a bottle of wine with their wife at dinner because of the .08 limit…you’ll see the limit go up as well.

  47. “I don’t see how this “lowers the bar”. The bar has already been cast aside.”

    It lowers the bar for the aristocracy, down to the bar used for peons.

    “This law would be unconstitutional. Georgia used to have just such a law. The Libertarian Party of Georgia took the case all the way to the SCOTUS and got it struck down. I can’t remember the name of the case but they study it in law schools.”

    Goddamn libertarians. What the fuck is unconstitutional about forcing legislators to obey the same laws everyone else has to?

  48. And can we please require (a) all Congresspersons to prepare their own tax returns with nothing but some pencils, a calculator, and the IRS 800 number; (b) the President, all Congresspersons children to be on the front lines of any foreign invasion.

  49. But is the juvenile satisfaction worth the bar-lowering?

    Yes… Allowing politicians to exempt themselves from the laws they make is a huge step towards breaking ‘Government OF the people, Government BY the people’… The third is unlikely to survive that..

  50. >> I’d rather support a bill forcing all politicians to enroll in the “public option,” should it exist.

    http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=391591

    Socialist take:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/15/13142/9395

  51. nice post…
    ___________________
    Britney
    The best place for the best ENTERTAINMENT

  52. I can see liberals handing poppyseed muffins to their conservative “friends.” Here you need a good breakfast in the morning.

    The sheer number of false positives would be devastating.

  53. “The sheer number of false positives would be devastating totally awesome and hilarious.”

    There, FIFY.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.