Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Drugs, politicians, and the testing of eachFollow

#1 Nov 22 2013 at 6:13 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
By now everyone has heard the cringe-worthy stories of Toronto mayor Rob Ford and Florida representative Trey Radel, both of whom were busted buying illegal drugs and admit problems with alcohol. I'll admit I know less about Ford than I do Radel, so focusing on him... after buying cocaine from an undercover officer, Radel was given one year of probation, after which his record is wiped clean; a disappointing outcome for those who hoped he would face the maximum sentence of 180 days in prison. He is not (as of yet) resigning from his position, though he is taking a "leave of absence for an unspecified amount of time."

Now, putting aside whether you believe drugs are teh debil or that drug laws are repressive and just keeping us down, man, does your opinion change when it comes to elected officials? These folks not only are in positions of power, they are the very ones who create and uphold some of these laws. Should they be allowed to continue in their positions if they've been caught using drugs? And considering the push of Tea Party Floridians (Radel is one) to drug test anyone receiving government assistance, what do you think about drug testing elected officials?

Drugs and politicians, man
Get rid of anti-drug laws. I'd be more shocked if politicians weren't on something!:8 (40.0%)
Drug test all the things! And by things I mean elected officials.:6 (30.0%)
Drug testing is overboard, but if caught, officials should automatically be fired.:5 (25.0%)
The situation is pretty much fine as is. Public pressure if caught is deterrent enough.:1 (5.0%)
Other:0 (%)
Total:20


Edit: Also, horrifically fascinating fact. Trey Radel's mother died in 2009 at her son's wedding reception by choking to death on a piece of steak in front of everyone. Less fun fact: Radel tried to use that as an excuse for his drug and alcohol addictions.

Edit2: The reason I mentioned alcoholism is a secondary thought floating through my mind. Should politicians be breathalyzed if they seem to be acting erratically while in their job capacity?

Edited, Nov 22nd 2013 7:17am by LockeColeMA
#2 Nov 22 2013 at 7:19 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
I don't have much of an opinion on drug laws (for hard drugs at least) but if you're an elected official and you got caught doing something illegal you should either get fired or do the right thing and quit.
#3 Nov 22 2013 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
What would you consider "erratic behavior" from a politician? They put the needs of the people before themselves?

I don't have a high opinion of politicos, so one that ***** up doesn't exactly fall too far for me. Lying, cheating, and general asshatiness is kind of part of the resume. So all that's really left is to see how they end up shooting themselves in the foot and hope to get a few chuckles out of it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Nov 22 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Lawmakers should be setting examples of how law-abiding citizens behave. I say test them.

I don't have any great ideas on how to proceed if they don't pass their test.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Nov 22 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:

Edit2: The reason I mentioned alcoholism is a secondary thought floating through my mind. Should politicians be breathalyzed if they seem to be acting erratically while in their job capacity?

If alcohol use while on the job is against policy then yes, they should be held accountable.

They need to follow the rules that are set for them and the laws that are set for all of us. If they break them, they pay the same restitution that anyone else would - firing, fines, probation...whatever.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#6 Nov 22 2013 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Meh.

Realistically speaking, our drug laws are in such a terrible place that all the options are going to be ******. Having no drug policy isn't the answer, and the current one sure as hell isn't. But since it's such a cobbled-together system, there's little overarching order to it. So an overhaul would be a massive investment that no one is going to make, because it's too politically advantageous to scream "FOR THE KIDS" and add another 10 years to basic sentences.

For example (learned this from a public health instructor at Rutgers two weeks ago):

Even if it would have been a misdemeanor offense, most drug charges (in most states, at least) get bumped up to a felony if it occurs in a school zone.

However, school zones do not get decommissioned with schools. So in a city like Newark or Jersey City, there are no blocks that aren't school zones, even if the "school" has been abandoned for decades and is now a derelict building. So you end up with misdeamenor violations becoming felonies and awarding prison time. And most felony convictions are actually a result of this issue - trumped up charges do to a law that's not working as intended (the law clearly being meant to keep drugs away from kids).

This is also a huge factor in why minority populations are most of the inmates in prisons for drug-related charges, even though whites are vastly more likely to sell, use, and possess drugs. Minorities are more heavily represented in cities, and have less controlled, private space (in general) than whites do. A white guy selling drugs might have a back room in his shop he can sell from. The black guy is more likely to be selling in an alley.

#avoidingwork
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#7 Nov 22 2013 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Confusion in the law has nothing to do with it. These politicians are not breaking the law unknowingly.

They're free to do whatever they want. They know what the legal consequences should and could be for their actions. We can't put them above the law.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#8 Nov 22 2013 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
I voted for choice 1, but choice 1 or 2 are equally the best answer really.

I had to take a drug test to get my job, why shouldn't politicians too?
#9 Nov 22 2013 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
You know I'm for the legalization of drugs, BUT that doesn't mean that I think people should be on drugs at work. The more important your job, the more crucial it is you don't have drugs in your system. Drugs (except for moderate nicotine) impair your cognitive processes full stop. Surgeons, doctors, police, judges, politicians, senior public servants, emergency workers, truck drivers, are some of the most important people that should accept random drug testing and be penalized the most heavily if found to be drug positive. I know there's a problem with marijuana lingering in the system, but it's better to ban workers in crucial positions from using it, then risk them coming to work impaired.

People in crucial jobs already accept many lifestyle crimps. They're always on call, they work extreme hours, they can't talk to their spouses or anyone about most of their work, etc. Being asked to go to work drug-free in powerful, lucrative or respected positions should be another compromise they make for their position of trust. Surgeons around the world already get fired if they work while alcohol is in their system.


Edited, Nov 22nd 2013 9:34am by Aripyanfar
#10 Nov 22 2013 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Elinda wrote:
Confusion in the law has nothing to do with it. These politicians are not breaking the law unknowingly.

They're free to do whatever they want. They know what the legal consequences should and could be for their actions. We can't put them above the law.


True. This was mostly my way of saying that there wasn't an option there I was happy with. 1 was closest, but not really it.

By all means, politicians who are breaking the law should be dealt with appropriately. But that doesn't mean I can't also be interested in changing the laws.

I definitely don't approve of drug testing, but when they're caught, you know, buying drugs from a cop...

Regardless, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of politicians are either smoking pot (and I couldn't care less) or abusing prescription pills. Probably not taking anything that drastically affects their abilities to lead.

And if the people didn't have any problem with their leadership skills when they were using drugs, I don't think the use should be a factor.

I'm also biased, because I'm working in that field right now, and the current trend is strongly in favor of scaled approaches. The total abstinence, 12-step, must be 100% sober or else approach is largely seen as being completely out of sync with reality. Treatment for addicts is increasingly being refocused away from abstinence and onto creating functional lifestyles. Abstinence is the best case scenario, for biological health, but most addicts can live fully functional professional/social lives while still using, if they get the proper support.

Right now, the stigma towards addiction is the biggest obstacle to that treatment.

So, from my perspective, the drug testing approach looks indistinguishable from the McCarthy-era treatment of gays.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#11 Nov 22 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Confusion in the law has nothing to do with it. These politicians are not breaking the law unknowingly.

They're free to do whatever they want. They know what the legal consequences should and could be for their actions. We can't put them above the law.


True. This was mostly my way of saying that there wasn't an option there I was happy with. 1 was closest, but not really it.

By all means, politicians who are breaking the law should be dealt with appropriately. But that doesn't mean I can't also be interested in changing the laws.

I definitely don't approve of drug testing, but when they're caught, you know, buying drugs from a cop...

Regardless, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of politicians are either smoking pot (and I couldn't care less) or abusing prescription pills. Probably not taking anything that drastically affects their abilities to lead.

And if the people didn't have any problem with their leadership skills when they were using drugs, I don't think the use should be a factor.

I'm also biased, because I'm working in that field right now, and the current trend is strongly in favor of scaled approaches. The total abstinence, 12-step, must be 100% sober or else approach is largely seen as being completely out of sync with reality. Treatment for addicts is increasingly being refocused away from abstinence and onto creating functional lifestyles. Abstinence is the best case scenario, for biological health, but most addicts can live fully functional professional/social lives while still using, if they get the proper support.

Right now, the stigma towards addiction is the biggest obstacle to that treatment.

So, from my perspective, the drug testing approach looks indistinguishable from the McCarthy-era treatment of gays.
Having an addiction is not the same thing as breaking the law. Certainly addictions should be dealt with, but in the case of lawmakers, I'd say deal with it - then come back and rule the country.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#12 Nov 22 2013 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
It was hard being green. Smiley: frown
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#13 Nov 22 2013 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kermit would agree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Nov 22 2013 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
Having an addiction is not the same thing as breaking the law. Certainly addictions should be dealt with, but in the case of lawmakers, I'd say deal with it - then come back and rule the country.


Yes, but the problem here is that the social understanding of "deal with it" doesn't really match up to the realities of addictions therapy as they exist nowadays.

Reduced-use, not non-use, is the target most counselors aim for with their clients. Very few addicts reach and sustain abstinence, and the cultural perception that they should is well past the point of being more damaging than the actual drug. Counselors have very high success rates getting drug use down to manageable levels with clients. And I'm defining manageable as having no significant impact on their personal or professional lives (assuming use alone doesn't become a factor, like if they fail a drug test and get fired).

It's needlessly stigmatizing a group of people to bar any drug-user from public office. Chances are they were an addict before they were ever elected. If they were capable of getting elected, and were leading effectively, there's no reason they should lose their office just because they use drugs.

That's why I'm equating it to McCarthyism. Most addicts are not going to reach total abstinence and stay there. They just won't/don't. And if the addiction isn't a problem for their work, it shouldn't count against them.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#15 Nov 22 2013 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
They're all on performance enhancing drugs, everyone does them. At least that's what Lance Armstrong told me.

I picked #1 because I'm cynical like that.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#16 Nov 22 2013 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
To be fair Ford hasn't been "busted" purchasing drugs...although he admitted he has bought drugs. A distinction without a difference really.

And no I don't think they should be tested, I personally think whatever one does outside the office is up to them, I think people put to much emphasis on the personal likability of politicians and not their work ethics or their ability to get results (or lack there of). Despite all the negative personal image stuff Rob Ford has done exactly what he promised voters he would do. Toronto has a surplus, he managed to score a political trifecta in dealing with the unions, and he even managed to sell someone Torontos Garbage problem.

And he unwound after being a fiscal hawk with a bowl of Crack.

Fact is Ford despite the drug and alcohol issues in his personal life has been the best Mayor Toronto has had in some time. If this video never came to surface, what would perception of Ford be...well I am sure it wouldn't have changed much from summer 2012 when he was cited as a bullish man who couldn't handle his booze....but damn is he ever a good mayor...and considering just over 25% think he is still a good MAYOR (myself included) after the crack thing id wager Ford would be trucking on route to reelection.

Doing drugs doesn't make one inherently bad or evil, its how they act on drugs and off them....Ford did a good job as Mayor, but a poor job as an addict, and the only people he has to answer to are the voters, and that is the way it should be.

What you don't know won't hurt ya I guess.

Edited, Nov 22nd 2013 11:35am by rdmcandie

That being said! If elected officials are caught doing something illegal its time they got to feel the brunt of the law the rest of us feel. Not just the likes of Rob Ford (who should by rights be charged on trafficking and possession but can't really because you can't incriminate yourself in Canada...yay throwback laws!) but our Senators who have stolen oodles of money, our MP's...and I am sure similar things happen in the US Government with politicians pocketing tax dollars....you know fraud that any of us would get brought up on charges for if we tried it and were caught.

Edited, Nov 22nd 2013 11:40am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#17 Nov 22 2013 at 11:05 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
What rdmcandie said. I don't care what the guy does on his own time, he's a good mayor, one of the best. He's not the best person perhaps but I don't have to eat lunch with the guy so why would I care about his personality, he gets things done, he gets them done right, and he does what he says.

I'm personally in favour of abolishing drug laws and replacing them with education. I see no good reason why any government should be able to tell me what I can/cannot do to my body. Drugs should be treated like alcohol, educate people on their dangers, prevent sale to children who are incapable of understanding consequences but if some idiot wants to ruin his life being coked out all of the time why does anyone have the right to tell him he can't? Drug laws don't solve problems, they create them, especially the selective ones we have now.
#18 Nov 22 2013 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I don't really care what Toronto does with him. I'd take him over the last Mayor we had though. Talk about doing nothing...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#19 Nov 22 2013 at 3:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
To be fair Ford hasn't been "busted" purchasing drugs...although he admitted he has bought drugs. A distinction without a difference really.


I'd say it's a distinction with a huge difference. Hasn't president Obama admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in the past? We can certainly judge someone on their past actions (often depending on how far in the past, of course), but there's always going to be a difference in perception between someone telling you about how they did drugX at a party last year and someone caught buying drugX from an undercover officer yesterday. There's also, quite obviously, a huge legal difference.

It's not illegal for you (or someone else) to say that you used drugs in the past. It's only illegal to get caught using/buying/selling. That may seem like a silly distinction, but it is somewhat important from a legal perspective.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Nov 22 2013 at 11:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
I have a crazy idea. How about we put politicians in prison as soon as their term is over. Saves time, and money. Every single one of them must have done something during their respective reign of terror. Sheet, your regular prole commits 3 felonies a day.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#21 Nov 22 2013 at 11:28 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
I have a better idea. Put every politician in prison for three years before they are allowed to run for office.
#22 Nov 23 2013 at 12:30 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
gbaji wrote:


It's not illegal for you (or someone else) to say that you used drugs in the past. It's only illegal to get caught using/buying/selling. That may seem like a silly distinction, but it is somewhat important from a legal perspective.



Actually it is illegal for someone else to say anything about it...no matter how true it is. Its called defamation of character. It is exactly what the media has been doing to Ford since this Drug use video surfaced, they have been hounding him for 6 months over events that happened in summer 2012. Which is why Rob Ford is now taking people to court.

As for the rest of your stuff.

In terms of topic at hand...it is a distinction without a difference. Regardless of the fact he is going to not be charged (I don't think he should be) the perception of public opinion has drastically shifted. Legality is irrelevant in a discussion about public perception. People hate CEO who give them selves huge bonuses...nothing illegal there...but CEO isn't going to win favorite person of the year anytime soon.

In regards to Barrack...he admitted to drug use in the past...but you can bet your *** he would get @#%^ed hard by all levels of government if video surfaced of him hanging with known drug pushers smoking rock in a drunken stupor.

Which is why mandatory drug testing is stupid...if you get caught smoking crack, you probably won't be back. (Working as intended.)


angrymnk wrote:
I have a crazy idea. How about we put politicians in prison as soon as their term is over. Saves time, and money. Every single one of them must have done something during their respective reign of terror. Sheet, your regular prole commits 3 felonies a day.


Probably wouldn't notice a change...taxpayers still paying for their housing, taxpayers still buying them food, taxpayers still paying their medical care...really I would compare government to being kind of in a prison...confined to Washington, or where ever living in a fish bowl...very much like being confined to a cell in prison....and when you are done you still have a nice pension waiting for ya.

And! You have time to write your memoirs and a book, on a taxpayers computer!

Edited, Nov 23rd 2013 1:45am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#23 Nov 23 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Quote:
angrymnk wrote:
I have a crazy idea. How about we put politicians in prison as soon as their term is over. Saves time, and money. Every single one of them must have done something during their respective reign of terror. Sheet, your regular prole commits 3 felonies a day.


Probably wouldn't notice a change...taxpayers still paying for their housing, taxpayers still buying them food, taxpayers still paying their medical care...really I would compare government to being kind of in a prison...confined to Washington, or where ever living in a fish bowl...very much like being confined to a cell in prison....and when you are done you still have a nice pension waiting for ya.

And! You have time to write your memoirs and a book, on a taxpayers computer!


Ahh, but you missed the best part. After that, they are removed from the society in general, and new blood, presumably, can enter in their stead. So while the old ones would get a nice vacation to think about what they have done, the new ones would be having fun. Maybe we would get more than 4 major political dynasties. sh*t, maybe we would get more parties, as the alliances would shift more often.

A man can dream.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2013 10:43am by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#24 Nov 23 2013 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Quote:
angrymnk wrote:
I have a crazy idea. How about we put politicians in prison as soon as their term is over. Saves time, and money. Every single one of them must have done something during their respective reign of terror. Sheet, your regular prole commits 3 felonies a day.


Probably wouldn't notice a change...taxpayers still paying for their housing, taxpayers still buying them food, taxpayers still paying their medical care...really I would compare government to being kind of in a prison...confined to Washington, or where ever living in a fish bowl...very much like being confined to a cell in prison....and when you are done you still have a nice pension waiting for ya.

And! You have time to write your memoirs and a book, on a taxpayers computer!


Ahh, but you missed the best part. After that, they are removed from the society in general, and new blood, presumably, can enter in their stead. So while the old ones would get a nice vacation to think about what they have done, the new ones would be having fun. Maybe we would get more than 4 major political dynasties. sh*t, maybe we would get more parties, as the alliances would shift more often.

A man can dream.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2013 10:43am by angrymnk


As long as US voting law remains the same, there will not be more than two parties.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#25 Nov 23 2013 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Quote:
angrymnk wrote:
I have a crazy idea. How about we put politicians in prison as soon as their term is over. Saves time, and money. Every single one of them must have done something during their respective reign of terror. Sheet, your regular prole commits 3 felonies a day.


Probably wouldn't notice a change...taxpayers still paying for their housing, taxpayers still buying them food, taxpayers still paying their medical care...really I would compare government to being kind of in a prison...confined to Washington, or where ever living in a fish bowl...very much like being confined to a cell in prison....and when you are done you still have a nice pension waiting for ya.

And! You have time to write your memoirs and a book, on a taxpayers computer!


Ahh, but you missed the best part. After that, they are removed from the society in general, and new blood, presumably, can enter in their stead. So while the old ones would get a nice vacation to think about what they have done, the new ones would be having fun. Maybe we would get more than 4 major political dynasties. sh*t, maybe we would get more parties, as the alliances would shift more often.

A man can dream.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2013 10:43am by angrymnk


As long as US voting law remains the same, there will not be more than two parties.



Beat me to it!. What with all the Gerrymandering and FPTP election system soon there might only be one party! The illusion of choice truly is grand.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2013 11:42am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#26 Nov 23 2013 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
I think drug testing is overboard, for the most part, but hey, what's good for the geese is good for the gander. Whether you agree with the drug laws or not, they are laws, and breaking them isn't a valid way to fight them. I think that politicians should lose their office if caught committing anything greater than a misdemeanor.

Having said that, I'll color outside the lines for a bit and suggest that jail time for any drug offense is not only a waste of public resources, it's pointless. There are countless community projects everywhere that could use more volunteer workers, and I'd much rather see a system of forced volunteer work above and beyond the stereotypical roadside trash collection. Something like, you must report for a minimum of 10 hours service per month, with a service term equal to the charges (maybe 300 hours for petty drug possession, or something like that). If you have no job or other obligations, you could serve more than the monthly minimum and get your service over with sooner, or you could drag it out to the very end. Either way, you're doing a set amount of work for the community and you have some flexibility on when to get it done so that it doesn't prevent you from continuing to improve your life elsewhere (job, family, education, etc.) I think a system like this would work for pretty much any non-violent offenders, including politicians.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 284 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (284)