Majority of Georgia voters favor drug-tests for lawmakers

Poll: Majority of Georgia voters favor drug-tests for lawmakers

The poll indicated that 64% of voters in Georgia
agree with drug testing for people asking for financial assistance.

79% also say drug testing for elected officials is good !!
And, 66% think drug testing for CEO's of companies receiving government money is a good idea.

I say yes for sure to testing elected officials.

How often are we seeing legislators and other officials
talking crazy and seemingly making insane decisions ?
(especially at the Federal levels lately !)
Quite often I think

I also think it may not just be illegal drugs.

Many prescription and over the counter medication can alter thinking.

Lawmakers need to "recuse" themselves voluntarily if a mind affecting medication is present.

There is a Georgia bill that is addressing some of this.

A recent poll of Georgia voters says that while 64 percent of those surveyed favor drug-testing for individuals applying for public assistance, a whopping 79 percent support drug-tests for lawmakers and other elected officials. The poll, conducted by the progressive organization Better Georgia, also reveals that 66 percent of voters support testing of CEO’s of companies that receive any form of government money.

The poll was inspired by Georgia House Bill 677, proposed by State Rep. Scott Holcomb (D-Atlanta), that stipulates that all members of the Georgia State Assembly should be tested for drugs before they can continue to collect their government paychecks. Holcomb proposed his bill in response to Senate Bill 292, introduced by State Senator Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) and other Republicans, a measure that mimics Florida Governor Rick Scott’s decision to drug-test all applicants for welfare benefits.

Applicants would be forced to pay for the tests out-of-pocket, but some may qualify for reimbursement through the state Medicare system. Republican lawmakers who favor the bill seem undaunted by the fact that Florida’s plan has revealed a startlingly low number of positive test results and has ended up costing the state considerably more than it saves.

Test 'em All ?

oh super!! now we are coming into the age of suspicion. YOU'RE ALL ON DRUGS, right? only one way to prove it.
give me all your identification. then after, when we find out you are on drugs, we will publically shame you, then fire you and remove you from the gene pool entirely. do not collect $200, do not pass GO.

this craziness over drugs has to end.

In Florida the great governor Scott proposed and enacted the same drug testing policy for people on assistance. I said then that if the public can be randomly tested because they are receiving assistance then we definitely need to start testing our elected officials.

Jefferson said that when a man assumes public office he should consider himself public property. I agree with this statement and truly believe that we have a right to test elected officials. It should also apply to judges, these people are some of the most powerful people on the planet and need to be watched.

reply to post by xuenchen


The only problem I see is that these types are high, but they are high on power.
This needs no test as we can see it daily, but I guess it is legal...

Originally posted by yourmaker
oh super!! now we are coming into the age of suspicion. YOU'RE ALL ON DRUGS, right? only one way to prove it.
give me all your identification. then after, when we find out you are on drugs, we will publically shame you, then fire you and remove you from the gene pool entirely. do not collect $200, do not pass GO.

this craziness over drugs has to end.

With the way humans act and behave I don't see how this is a bad thing. If you have nothing to hide they should have no problem complying. You know, the same argument people are subjected too everyday. Holding a position of power should have more rules and regulations than your average citizen. They are doing a job. Most jobs do drug screenings. Why are people higher up on the totem pole believe they should be exempt is beyond my comprehension.

Its a win/win situation and I really don't see the downside to it unless people are afraid they will be affected, which would mean they have nobody to blame but themselves and they should reap what they sow.

If ANYONE should be drug tested, it should definitely be elected-officials.

Most of our elected-officials are stupid enough when they are SOBER.

Or, here's an outlandish idea... how about we legalize all drugs. As for drug testing elected officials, well they're high on money. That's what we should be fixing. At least then they might not have all the extra funds for their coc aine addictions.

Guarantee you that there's more of these crooks on dope than welfare recipients. Why? They've got the money to support a habit.

reply to post by yourmaker


Normally I would agree with what you are saying, however drug testing for public representatives im ok with. I am subject to random drug screening, I dont see any reason why our other public servants aren't?

Whether its law enforcement, fire department, emergency medical services or our elected leaders, all are able to to cause major damage, more so than the public at large, as well as their actions affecting an entire group / city of people.

Public servants and privacy has been taken up by the Supreme Court. They have ruled elected officials have a lower expectation of privacy than a private citizen because of the nature of their job. Personally speaking, and this is probably another thread all together, I support drug testing for anyone who received public assistance (im talking across the board - any type of public assistance).

I have to pee in order to keep my job and earn a living...
I dont see any reason why people shouldn't have to pee in order to receive it.

if this goes through and begins to spread among states, you will suddenly, as if by magic, see many drugs being decriminalized or reduced to misdemeanors across the board. they'll give it a catchy phrase, we have re thought our policy on the drug war and feel we should treat it as a health issue instead of a criminal issue.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
if this goes through and begins to spread among states, you will suddenly, as if by magic, see many drugs being decriminalized or reduced to misdemeanors across the board. they'll give it a catchy phrase, we have re thought our policy on the drug war and feel we should treat it as a health issue instead of a criminal issue.

I dont think it would be as simple as that. Don't forget we still have Federal drug laws on the books and we know what happens when a state law is in conflict with a federal law. In order to get your scenario to play out we would also need to deal with federal laws.

Im not in favor of legalization however the drug laws we have now need to be looked at to find what works and does not work. We also need to look at punishment verses treatment verses legalization.

reply to post by Xcathdra


i agree, but 1 guarantee you if legislators and judges start having to be drug tested, things will change much more quickly into the health issue, it should be. i would be willing to bet a decent amount of money that many "officials" are using legal and illegal drugs on a regular basis.

I think the entire country should demand ALL government officials be on a random drug test scheme!

Just like us lowlife commoners....