Americans Want Congress Members To Pee In Cups To Prove They're Not On Drugs
Take the Poll:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/drug-testing-congress_n_4373472.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

WASHINGTON -- While most Americans like the idea of drug testing for welfare recipients, they LOVE the idea of drug testing for members of Congress.

According to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, 64 percent of Americans favor requiring welfare recipients to submit to random drug testing -- a measure pushed by Republican lawmakers in recent years -- while 18 percent oppose it. But an even stronger majority said they're in favor of random drug testing for members of Congress, by a 78 percent to 7 percent margin. Sixty-two percent said they "strongly" favor drug testing for congressional lawmakers, compared to only 51 percent who said the same of welfare recipients.
The House of Representatives passed legislation this year that would allow states to require food stamp recipients to pee in cups to prove they're not on drugs. In 2012, Republicans pushed for drug testing of people seeking unemployment insurance benefits when they lose their jobs. At the state level, GOP lawmakers across the country have sought drug testing for an array of safety net programs. (Politicians sometimes refer to means-tested government benefits in general as "welfare," although the term is more commonly a nickname for the relatively small Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.)

Democrats have frequently suggested that if drug tests are good for people getting a hand from the government, then they're good for people running the government, too. Republicans usually don't go along with that idea -- the Kansas state legislature is one recent exception -- but voters heartily approve.

While drug testing for both welfare recipients and lawmakers received support across party lines in the new poll, the congressional proposal was the one more likely to bring Americans together. Eighty-six percent of Republicans, 77 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of independents said they want drug testing for members of Congress.

Republicans felt especially strongly about drug testing of welfare recipients, with 87 percent favoring it and only 9 percent opposed. Among Democrats, 50 percent favored and 28 percent opposed drug testing of welfare recipients, while independents were in favor by a 64 percent to 16 percent margin.

If a member of Congress is caught using illegal drugs, as Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.) was in late October, Americans expressed little inclination to show mercy. Sixty-six percent said that a member of Congress convicted of possessing a small amount of cocaine should be forced to resign, while only 14 percent favored allowing the convicted member to serve out the remainder of his or her term.

Americans consider drug testing to be a no-brainer under a variety of circumstances, according to the survey. Seventy-two percent said they support random drug testing for members of the military, and 87 percent supported it for airline pilots. Seventy-one percent said they support random drug testing for professional athletes.

What is good for the Goose ought to be good for the Gander!

Those who make the rules will always win.... just look at the obozocare exemptions if in doubt of that

when it comes to peoples jobs, Id like to see numbers showing how drug testing has improved anything

I don't see the point except wasting money,, personally


if someone is doing their job correctly, I don't care whats in their system

if they don't do it right, I don't care what ISNT in their system


Im an advocate on keeping jobs about job performance and not other choices and actions in peoples lives


with the exception of jobs that are responsible for life and death, like doctors or military,,etc,,





just my opinion though

I don't believe drugs should be illegal at all, but that said, I believe the FDA should be taken out of the pocket of the Big Pharma companies, and anything they mfg should be tested much more thoroughly than they are now. When the cure can have side effects up to and including death, it doesn't say much for the testing done!

We are tested for consumption just for merely applying for a job, not to mention keeping one. DC should be no different..... they are NOT above the law or anything they impose on us.... as they seem to think they are.

DC is a known cesspool, and they supposedly work for us. As their employer I believe they should be tested as well, as we are, under their own mandates and regulations.

Most drugs induce a form of paranoia, the list of those on psychotropic drugs involved in recent events speaks volumes on that subject.

Gun laws are useless since criminals could care less about laws. Throw in drugs that alter your reality and WAH LAH.... YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR DISASTER!

It's the laws that are flawed, and it's congress who rights the laws!

They should be tested, and frequently!

Me too. I'd like to see them truckers be able to do Meth and get them products delivered pronto. Bus drivers too.Them construction workers that dig up gas pipelines could enjoy a reefer while diggin.
Health care workers and pharmacist, shoot what does it matter if they get a dose or two wrong ? Ain't no thang!
Politicians could do no worse high than what they are doing to our country now.

Supposedly the DOT had "RANDOM" drug and alcohol testing at one of my jobs.

I was single and it was widely known there was a bar I frequented after work. They must have thought my middle name was RANDOM because I was tested more times than not.

It didn't bother me though, I didn't drink excessively and didn't consume drugs so passing the test wasn't an issue. Even if I had tested positive for drugs I would have been offered a choice of termination or rehab the first time. The second time I wouldn't have had a choice.

As far as it being a waste of money to drug test, I can see a couple of reasons it isn't a waste of money.

1) If you have a substance, no matter how minimal, in your system it can effect your abilities. A person may function well while under the influence of a substance most of the time but if that employee causes injury to a customer the company is liable for damages caused by the employee. One law suit can cost more than several years of drug testing.

2)People who respect and follow the rule of law would probably be more inclined to respect and follow company rules. Employees not following rules and procedures cost the company money in the long run and so it possibly makes drug testing cost effective.

I think I specified jobs that involve life and death,,,

again, when one is driving a vehicle, they are in a life death situation as vehicles can KILL quite quickly and easily and accidentally,, requiring an alert driver is the same as requiring an alert police officer or doctor,,,'


drug testing for that type of profession makes sense, because not doing the job there can end in actual DEATHS

the same is true with anyone working with dangerous chemicals, or materials



again, common sense is important,, and jobs that have peoples actual LIVES At stake, are different than cashiers, or waitresses, or office workers,,or politicians,, etc,,,,

Just how do most of these people who you don't think need to be drug tested get to work and go home? Do they drive? Driving whether it's done professionally, recreationally or traveling to and from work can cause actual DEATHS.

give me a break,,,,some people take buses, some take carpools, some walk, people get to work in any number of ways



and there are STRICT laws in place for those idiotic enough to drive while under influence, that's why police and patrols are paid




a whole OCCUPATION Devoted to observing how people are driving on the roads






not something that is the EMPLOYERS concern, unless they are employing people TO DRIVE specifically,,,

Employees going to work high or going to work coming down from a high is very much an employers business, regardless of field.

Personally, you are so all over the board with your opinions I don't think you know where you stand....until Obozo tells you.

hats all over the board about drug testing being used where it applies to the SAFETY of others,,,,,?













as in , your job requirements put you in a position to actually ENd MY LIFE,,,

and yet, we survived DECADES Without a need for employers to concern themselves with what was in a persons system,,,,

You mean like legislators who pass laws telling us how to live and druggies on welfare they want to enable by giving the hard earned money of people who are tested to?

All over the board!

what are you talking about? which of those things had anything to do with causing someones DEATH?



talk about over the board









again, my answer CONSISTENLY AND NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND OR WAVIERING






except in positions where someones actual JOB REQUIREMENT involves being in a position where someone can DIE from their sole and independent action,,,,,,it is only their job performance their employer should be concerned with and not what is in their system


let me add this is my opinion of how it SHOULD BE





while completely understanding the unfortunate litigious culture we are in where employers can be held responsible now for individuals



I understand their actions in concern with that reality, but it SHOULDNT be that way






an employer should only have to concern themselves with the employees job performance, and if the employee messes up the employer should not be responsible UNLESS They take no action to correct the situation with the employee




how it should be,, not how it IS

Legislators pass laws that effect the lives and well being of EVERY American.

From one side of your mouth you say NO from the other you preach YES..... but I'm all over the board?

one more time and done, no legislator by their SOLE AND INDIVIDUAL Action of signing documents, will cause someones death




legislation is a NUMBER of people who have to have some consensus,,,,





I think an employers job performance should be an employees concern unless that INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE has in their job responsibilities the authority to INDEPENDENTLY caue someones death




IM not talking about 'affecting peoples lives', IM TALING ABOUT< if I Fall asleep behind the wheel I WILL PERSONALLY KILL SOMEONE




IM talking about, If I hit the wrong spot near this pipeline I WILL PERSONALLY CAUSE DEATHS

IM TALKING ABOUT , IF I react too quickly with this gun and badge to a child running behind me I COULD KILL THAT CHILD


IM TALKING ABOUT< if I clip the wrong place during this surgery I COULD CAUSE A PATIENTS death




if one cant see the difference , life and death difference, between those situations where an employees stability or instability can cause THAT EMPLOYEE to cause deaths,











and the situation where there is a GROUP OF HUNDREDS, needing to come to a majority decision about a document


I don't know what else to say,,,,

I bet if Obama declared by "executive order" that all American had to be drug tested you'd defend him like a good little girl.

Who knows....maybe drug testing is mandated in the AHA but it's buried so deep no one knows it's in there yet.

So again, from one side of your mouth you complain about equality, but you want one group of people to be preferred over another.....

Perhaps someday you'll make up your mind