Drug Testing MP's

[iamnotacop]

http://newsbreak.com.au/related/a891159

 

ONE of the Prime Minister's close confidants has challenged politicians to set an example to the sporting and wider community and submit to random drug testing.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander," Senator Bill Heffernan said yesterday. "If it is good enough for us to push footy heroes, what about us?"

I agree

 

"If there's evidence that, you know, there's a problem with politicians then they should be treated no different from anybody else," Mr Howard told the Ten Network.

What happened to Use=Abuse. Just bcause they, like the majority, do not have problems associated with drug use, does not mean that they should be able to go under the radar.

 

"I'm not against it but ah, perhaps a few performance enhancing drugs wouldn't be a bad thing for politicians," Mr Abbott told reporters outside his Sydney home today.

That is a stupid comment from a federal parlimentarian. I reckon if they consumed some Cannabis, they could open their eyes to the real problems developing in this country.

 

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said as far as he was aware, there was no evidence that politicians were popping pills.

Gee, if there was only a way to tell for sure </sarcasm>

[WantDaChronic]

politicians are a huge bunch of druggos i personally think they should be held the the highest standards possible being the leaders and representatives of australia and all, ie. zero tolerance to any and all drugs, legal or otherwise and they should be tested on a daily basis without any favours being given like privacy.

[Indycar]

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander...

 

While others are being tested with various work careers, politicians should've gone to the top of the list. Lead by example as they say. If their not prepared to do this, no one else should be subjected to testin'.

 

After all, i'd imagine the gov gave companies the go ahead to screen their workers...

 

[Ruen]

one cannabis doesnt open peoples eyes to anything

 

two anyone who says that we should hold politicians to a standard we don't believe should be enforced upon ourself is a hypocrite

 

companies themselves decide if they are going to screen workers is it against a bunch of privacy laws and that is why you have to sign a document allowing them to test you and if they fire you for not signing the form you can go to court and argue about invasion of privacy. the only time it should ever actually affect whether you get employed by that employer or not if it is a preemployment test.

 

 

if you want cannabis legalized and you disagree with the concept of putting people in jail or treating them badly instead of treating drug addiction as a medical problem then you can in no way support MP's being drugged screened without being a hypocrite.

[AussieBudsRoxs]

Politions, Law Enforcements, Welfare, and as the saying goes

GOOD 4 ONE GOOD 4 ALL

[Frazz]

Waste of time Drug testing the mongrel politicians , the Public servants would tell them a week in advace of proposed testing ... just like they tell the cops

 

maybe random test them for alcohol and prolly half would register positive LMAO ....

 

[Ozzy420]

If there was on the spot cheacks it would catch a few of em out as having drugs in there system, and i wonder what lame bull shit story they would come up with to explane it away...

[Indycar]

Nice opinion you have there Ruen, but i think your not looking deep enough into the subject.

 

To the best of knowledge, no one in Australia is forced into a particular work career within Australia. That's the individual's choice, if they want to be a fruit picker, so be it. There's a fair chance no one is gunna be drug tested for that particular job. Mainly because it's a low risk job.

 

But if you have intentions of being a politician, that makes decisions that effect most of the nations people. Well, you'd wanna have your shit together for the benefit of fellow Australian's.

 

Some careers should require drug testing. The Mining industry is a good example, because of it's high risks involved. If your down a shaft with co-workers, you'd want your workmates to have their shit together in case of an emergency evac. Hopefully by now, you can see the difference of high and low risks jobs.

 

So considering job details of a politician, decision making, signing off on legislation etc.. that effects a nation. Why should they not be subjected drug testing?

 

I myself, would never chase a career that requires drug testing. Not because i'm worried that it'll prove a positive for cannabis ( previous jobs i have admitted to bosses that i smoke cannabis, but have also reassured them that i'll never allow it to interfere with the hours i dedicate to the company). But because of the invasion of privacy. Because of my beliefs, there's certain careers i have to turn my back on.

 

People who enter into politics's choose to do so of their own free will, and if drug screening was part of it. Then they should have no problem with it. If there like myself, choose another career if they can't deal with it.

 

Where's the Hypocrisy in this opinion of mine?

[I believe]

I couldn't care less what they use, but it's the fact that they have the nerve to think that it's ok for them, because they can handle it, but it's not ok for the rest of the peasants out there, this is the issue. This kind of paternal 'it's for your own good' attitude, makes these kind of people the worst.

 

I also heard in the latest UN drug report that opium production in Afghanistan is soaring. He, he, what do these idiots expect? I love the idea of how this coalition for stupidity in Afghanistan works. On one hand you'd got US and friends trying to secure Afghanistan for oil, so to fight them, the Taliban grow poppies to sell to the people in the very countries that are at war with them. The funny thing being, the poppies would be worth bugger all without the war on drugs. So effectively, the US (Britain and us) are financing the people they're fighting. Brilliant!

Edited June 29, 2007 by I believe

[Ruen]

indycar what does that fact that a person recreationaly takes drugs and thus would return a positive result on a drug test have at all to do with being high at work? if someone is intoxicated at work then there should be repercussions. testing people for drugs and punishing them for taking them in situations which don't impede on on their job such as have a cone with dinner or a glass of wine with dinner which would return a positive result on some drug tests of up to a month is not grounds for removing someone from employment.

 

do you personally believe that people that take drugs are pathetic unreliable scum that are always high and never follow through with any commitments nor do they take responsibility for their actions. If this is your opinion of everyone who takes drugs then you are not being a hypocrite. if this is not your opinion of everyone that takes drugs as i very strongly hope it isn't then you are being hypocritical