Senators Consider Drug Testing Candidates in South Carolina

Source: Fox News

COLUMBIA, S.C. — People filing for public office would also have to submit to drug testing if legislators concerned about the fallout of former state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel's admission of cocaine use of have their way.

Senate Republican Leader Harvey Peeler filed his bill a day after news broke that Ravenel had been indicted on a federal cocaine conspiracy charge. The June indictment came just six months after the Republican Charleston real estate developer took office. He has since pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.

"The reason I introduced this bill was in response to my constituents' outcry over our state treasurer and his situation," said Peeler, R-Gaffney, who took a drug test himself to get a commercial drivers' license. "It just makes sense to me that elected officials must first pass the drug test."

"What's good for one man should be good for the next man," Freddie William, 60, said as he sold art on a Columbia street corner. "If it's required for me to take a drug test, why shouldn't a man in a public office?"



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328380,00.html

I think that all who run for public office should be required to submit to drug testing prior to filing, but not only at the local or state level, it should also be done to those running for federal office and should be done at least every 6 months.

The drug testing should be administered by the health departments, and not by private physicians.

Let them learn the results of their tests in the newspaper. Not only those running for office, but test anyone who wants to be nominated for an appointed office. All the Supreme Court judges, ambassadors, cabinet members, etc.

We'll see how which law comes down first: mandatory drug testing or drug criminalization.

When a federal worker comes up positive it isn't advertised, so unless you want to do this to ALL FEDERAL employees to include the members of the US military, it just wouldn't be right.

Besides, if they come up positive they don't get to run for office at the time, and that alone will make people wonder.

Now, if during the next election cycle they show up negative, then they can run for office.

For federal bureaucracy, I'm talking about naming the people who have to be nominated and confirmed - the heads of departments, the high-level names that are usually patronage in some way.

If they're going to make a stink about this - e.g. appointing a Drug Czar or an AG to prosecute under drug laws - then everyone concerned should be tested like the citizens they target. It should be made available to the public which of the intended appointees are guilty of illegal behavior.

...wouldn't it be great to see what drugs he is on...

What will be next, aptitude, intelligence and maybe even personality tests?

Drug testing is--generally--an invasion of privacy, even if it's Repugs
we're talking about. The only people who should be required to get tested
are those whose occupations could place other people's lives in _immediate_
and clear danger (airline pilots, surgeons, firemen, and so on.)

you know, low level, low paying jobs like retail? In my experience looking for a job, it seems that the shittier the job, the more likely drug testing is required. I don't get it.

No facts to argue, but just a hunch.

As usual.

not to mention the milquetoast Dems of the time, who refused to ever make privacy an issue, in any area.

Come to think of it, they still won't.

Sorry, Bush has killed a hell of a lot more people than a stoned truck driver ever could.

Cheers
Drifter

I cannot get a floral designer job without a bckground ck. When the taxpayers are paying the wages & benefits for any public servant job, the background check should be availible for us to view.
Preferrably before its been scrubbed clean, as in the case of GWBush & Laura.

on principle and in practice. However, I feel that if they're going to be inflicted on the rest of the populace, then the least we can do is to subject those politicians who make the laws concerning drug testing submit to the same thing. Whatever they put anyone else through, they themselves should experience first.

Test for impairment, not for metabolites!

What better example to set than to make the rule retroactive and test themselves first?

:headbang:
rocknation

Suuuure. Now they'd do it. :eyes: