Sponsor of Florida Bill to Drug Test Public Workers Says Being An Elected Official Is Totally Different
It's hard to know who to root for in a case like this; a potential bill in Florida would allow all public workers to be drug tested (tight budgets permitting) —except, that is, members of the Florida state legislature, one of whom just happens to be the sponsor of said bill.
According to the Huffington Post:
Rep. Jimmie Smith (R-Lecanto), the bill's sponsor, said he supports drug testing for lawmakers, but requiring them to pee in cups like everyone else would violate their constitutional rights. In an email to The Huffington Post, Smith cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Chandler v. Miller, which struck down tests for political candidates in Georgia.
While he "strongly" supports drug testing for legislators, Smith said, "being elected to office is completely different from being hired by a company or agency."
Some of Smith's Democratic colleagues think his bill would set a double standard. "I firmly believe we have to lead by example," Rep. Joe Abruzzo (D-Wellington) said last week, according to the Miami Herald. "The day that I have to go take a [drug] test as a state representative is the day that I'll support this legislation."
Discouraging everyone from working in government is tempting, but the usual tedious hypocrisy of this kind of bill applying to everyone except its sponsors and passers kind of diminishes the schadenfreude of pestering small-time government employees. (Chandler v. Miller, by the way, was brought before the court by members of the state Libertarian Party.)
2011 saw more than 30 attempts (mostly by Republicans) to pass bills which would drug test people applying for various forms of government aid. A handful of admittedly awesome Democrats responded with attempts to mandate drug-testing of legislators, most memorably in Georgia.
Smith has some legal precedent in his arguments, and he's even man enough to take the piss-test himself if it comes to that:
"To this date, the Supreme Court has only heard two cases relating to drug testing employees, and both of these were held constitutional," Smith said. "The Supreme Court is the ultimate law of the land, and, to date, drug testing of state employees has not been found unconstitutional."
Nevertheless, Smith stressed that he's not opposed to taking drug tests as a member of the Florida Legislature.
"In fact, just last week at the demand of some constituents, I gladly paid $40 out of my own pocket to take a drug test and passed this test," he said. "I will continue to make these results available in my office to any constituent who is interested in viewing them. My constituents are my boss, and if asked, I will gladly take a drug test."
Many people who object to the potential legislation say it's wrong and more to the point, it's likely to be instantly killed by lawsuits. Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) already issued two executive orders which were stopped by lawsuits (including one by the Florida American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the Fourth Amendment violation angle) last fall. One of those was the controversial bill to test every single welfare applicant in the state.
Reason on drug tests, Jacob Sullum in 2002 on why people suddenly became so jazzed about drug tests (follow the money, as usual, is part of the reason).
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Rep. Jimmie Smith (R-Lecanto), the bill's sponsor, said he supports drug testing for lawmakers, but requiring them to pee in cups like everyone else would violate their constitutional rights.
In lieu of drug testing I say lawmakers should pee on the state constitution and if they give it the clap then six more weeks of winter.
On a personal note, I think I speak for everyone when I say there's no longer any reason to sneak your posts in the middle of the page, Ms. Steigerwald. Go ahead and nudge Cavanuagh off the top spot. He's probably just writing about some property he can't unload anyway.
If she keeps up alt text like this I'm gonna propose.
Feckin' A! Drink! Arse! Girls!
Aw, thanks. I'm not changing my last name, though.
Fuck you, Lucy. You're not one of us.
Your last name is better than mine anyway.
It's not the drug testing of legislators that's constitutionally problematic, it's the consequences of failing the test. Ordinary employees would presumably be fired or disciplined, but the state and federal constitutions are (rightly) very restrictive in the ways that elected officials can be removed.
Why should an elected official face removal for testing positive? His constituents hired him, it is up to them to fire him. However the politician's continued employment should offer no special protection for his door frame or dog.
I'm all for drug testing all public employees. If they don't like it they can seek employment elsewhere.
I don't know how any of the various state constitutions handle removal of elected officials, but it would probably require being found guilty of an actual crime.
And depending on the job, I don't really care all that much if Willie Nelson is working for the state as long as he does his job. I'd much rather have legislation that makes it easier to fire people who have given actual cause for getting fired, not because they smoked a joint over the weekend.
At the same time, I don't see why (if every public employee is being tested), legislators shouldn't be tested periodically, with the results made public, but no direct consequences. If the voters want to fire them on that account, that's their business.
I don't see why ... legislators shouldn't be tested periodically, with the results made public
"Periodically", of course, meaning "daily, at their personal expense".
Surely it represents--under current law--a crime, usually a felony (and one that most of these blow hard assure us is very serious, indeed).
So hoist on their own petards.
What other obstacle remain before beginning impeachment proceedings?
Well, to be pedantic, I suppose that testing positive is not a crime per se but rather evidence of one, but the question remains...
Most legislative houses have the power to remove members, seems they could make it a rule of the house.
Or, just make it a habit. If a member fails a drug test, he gets removed.
Somewhere down the line an exception hypothetically could be made, but they would probably be wise not to ever do it.
Good buy.
You bet they're different:
"SEX TAPE STUNNER in NADIA LOCKYER CASE"
Seems Bill Lockyer (D), elected state treasurer of that oh, so fiscally-responsible state of CA marries a 'trophy wife' (one of the posted comments said the trophy wasn't for first-place).
He decides speed-freak wife needs something to do, uses *his* campaign funds to get her elected to County Supervisor, which doesn't take much; she's (D) also.
Seems, however, she's in rehab during the election, which fact may not have affected (D) voters anyhow, but she starts shtuping a fellow re-habber.
And, well, it goes downhill from there:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....1NC8OV.DTL
Should elected officials be drug tested? Naaah. They should be fired.
Ha! I had to laugh at that one. You must be enjoying the Mirakirimi family circus as well. I had to take a peak at the comments on The Gaurdian for comic relief. Trying to defend their Progressive wife beater is pretty hilarious.
It's saddens me to see a decent meth head get mixed up with such scum.
Sounds like a rock solid plan to me dude, I like the sound of that man.
http://www.Gone-Anon.tk
It's kind of shocking to me how many people on a libertarian site support drug testing of public employees.
Don't people have a right to bodily privacy?
Shouldn't people be judged on actual job performance, not what they do in their off hours?
Isn't drug testing explicitly biased toward abuse of alcohol and other drugs that do not show up in the tests?
Drug testing by private employers is an ugly trend, but it's their right. In the public sphere, where we have a say, we should support peoples' right to privacy.
Didn't California's Prop 19 limit private sector employee drug testing? As i recall, people here seemed to be okay with that restriction.
It's also shocking to see so many libertarians support a trend that will likely cultivate more crony capitalism. Are so many states adopting these drug-testing regimes out of sincere concern over public safety, or because the drug-testing corporations are lobbying for these laws? Sorry if I'm not as excited as some on here about potentially another industry wedded to the government, rather than competing in the marketplace.
This is not to say that I'm entirely against drug-testing, and it only seems fair that state employees are subject to what so many employees in the private sector are subject to in their jobs these days. However, unless the legislators also submit to drug-tests and make the results public available, I will not support such a measure.
It's kind of shocking to me
Not really. Its a goose/gander kind of issue. It unfortunately comes up all the time.
Libertarians in theory support freedom of contract, yet many support right-to-work laws.
Same for supporting gay marriage instead of opposing state marriage licensing.
robc|2.28.12 @ 8:41AM|#
"Same for supporting gay marriage instead of opposing state marriage licensing."
You might be mistaken for an intelligent person if you didn't use false dichotomies to support your bigotry.
Don't people have a right to bodily privacy?
Sure. And if the gov't wasn't busy trampling on that right for the citizenry, then I would support that right for our overlords as well.
But since they don't, I don't.
yea but what about fatty mcpillpopper rush limpballs who controls the repuglicans??!?!?1 he needs to be jailed for failing drug tests! HIPPOCRITS!
It's already been proven that the cost of the drug tests themselves is more than the states would save by weeding out the .001% of welfare recipients using drugs.
The jobs should go to those who fail the tests, especially when it comes to cops. Hiring cops that have never used drugs ensures that they will never question the morality of the drug war. It's like putting fanatical Muslims in charge of the liquor control board.
I wouldn't mind if Legislators had to test positive for THC. Imagine how many unnecessary laws would go unpassed while they were busy on CoD or WoW.
Jimmie Smith lied about the "exception" for the legislature.
See the analysis here:
http://blog1990a.blogspot.com/.....-lies.html