Members of the U.S. Armed Forces do it.
High school athletes and students who participate in extracurricular activities do it.
And, if a Missouri legislator gets her way, so will the elected representatives from the Show-Me State.
Rep. Maria Chappelle-Nadal proposes drug testing legislators just like high school athletes and military service members. Under the bill, she is sponsoring in the House, the Democrat from St. Louis wants lawmakers to submit to drug tests prior to taking office and every two years after that.
Some officials suggest that kind of testing could violate their privacy. That seems reasonable to me. I’ve never been a fan of mandatory drug testing, and have on many occasions during my time serving Uncle Sam had to submit to them myself. They can be an uncomfortable and — when done under direct observation — somewhat humiliating. Soon after publishing the story online, it became clear, Globe readers are all for canvassing Jefferson City for enough chamber pots to do the job. Here’s how the comments stacked up Thursday at joplinglobe.com.
“I am all for it! Drug test local law enforcement and people who work in the local court systems. Why not random drug test anyone who claims unemployment, disability or any other type of government funding? It’s not that I don’t approve of people who depend on government money to survive, but at least stay clean while doing so.”
— J.
‘Trashy people?’
Missouri’s legislators are not the only folks Globe commenters say should be forced to submit samples of their bodily fluids.
“I also think that people receiving money from the government (welfare) should be required to take a (urine) test before they get their money every month.”
— Anonymous
“Glad people support drug testing recipients of government money. I lost my job in September and I am a full-time college student now. When I go to the employment office, I see a lot of trashy people that don’t want to do anything about their situation. I have searched and applied for jobs, but no one is hiring right now. I would have been happy to pee in a cup to get my unemployment benefits!”
— J.
“By all means, let’s think of more and more ways to spend taxpayer dollars on nonsense!”
— nu2den
“Nu2den, would you mind sharing with us how much in taxes you actually pay annually? Have you ever done illegal drugs? Do you have any ‘visible’ means of support?”
— meme
“Well, nu2den, actually it would be cheaper to drug test people and refuse services to the ones that fail, as opposed to doing nothing and supporting drug habits. That’s the way I see it, and a lot of money would be saved and maybe used towards something useful.”
— J.
‘Cultural, societal scourge’
A couple of folks who commented on the story also suggested the list of those required to belly up to a chamber pot be expanded to include more than just the state’s politicians.
“I am required to take pre-employment drug screens and random drug screens by private employers, and our public officials should be subject to the same.”
— James Hall
“J., I especially agree that all lawmakers at all levels, law enforcers, attorneys and all court officials or in other words, anybody in government including city councils and Chamber of Commerce folks, should not be exempt from random drug testing. ... I’ve never done illegal drugs, and am extremely opposed to them — they are today’s cultural and societal scourge, especially in and around Joplin. By the way, regarding your comment, if you murder or rob somebody and get out of jail you can get welfare, but if you’ve ever been convicted of illegal drug use, the law will not allow any kind of welfare or government help. Does that sound reasonable to you or anybody else?”
— P.T.
“J., how do you afford full-time college if you’re unemployed? If you didn’t have some kind of financial support, and remain unemployed long enough, you’ll be trashy, too. Then, using your logic, others will say you will want to do nothing about your situation? ‘We all should know that diversity makes for a rich tapestry, and we must understand that all the threads of the tapestry are equal in value no matter what their color (or station in life).’”
— Trashy person
“‘Trashy person’ writes: ‘J., how do you afford full-time college if you’re unemployed? If you didn’t have some kind of financial support, and remain unemployed long enough you’ll be trashy, too. Then, using your logic, others will say you will want to do nothing about your situation.’ As a response to this, I am bettering myself and going back to college. After losing my job in September I chose to finish my education. I am a full-time student and I work part-time. I do not draw unemployment right now and I applied for grants and scholarships to pay for my education. So, I have done a lot to better my situation and I support myself. I am not trashy, nor will I ever be. I chose not to sit around all day and wait for my unemployment check. So, who is the ‘trashy’ person now?”
— J.
‘A higher standard?’
While Rep. Chappelle-Nadal says she is willing to settle for a voluntary system to ensure Missouri’s lawmakers are clean of illegal substances, she still believes they should be held to a “higher standard.”
“Don’t waste anymore moneys on drug testing, it’s too easy to beat. From what I see, the ones that are clean and can pass a background and a credit check are the ones doing all the stealing and underhanded dealings in the nation.”
— Jerry Hawkins
“I don’t know about drug checks, but most politicians could use a reality check. What is it about going to Jeff City or Washington, D.C., that causes folks to totally lose it?”
— Big Easy
“’Politicians are held to a higher standard???’ Define higher standard!”
— Farmer Ted
Dave Woods is new media editor at The Joplin Globe.
