In several cases, the courts have ruled that random drug tests of employees are legal. They also have ruled that the requirement for pre-employment drug testing is allowed under the law.
So consider this:
Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein are seeking employment as president of the United States. They also are seeking employment for their seconds-in-command, Trump opting for Mike Pence and Clinton going with Tim Kaine.
Now I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that the offices of president and veep are far more important than the position of burger flipper at Mikey-D’s or dough kneader at Pizza Hut.
Isn’t it more than reasonable, then, to require that the candidates and their sidekicks undergo “pre-employment” drug testing before we decide whom to “hire”?
I, for one, would like to know if someone who wants to be the leader of the free world is toking, shooting, downing, snorting, or otherwise “using” any chemical substances other than caffeine or sugar, let’s say, wouldn’t you?
The last thing we need is a president who is under the influence of or/and dependent upon legal Rx’s or other drugs. Much as I loved JFK, there are many who believe that if in 1960 the voters had known about his Addison’s Disease, reliance on steroids, and related, he would never have been elected, his potentially drug-affected judgment having been a serious question.
Go back to the two terms of President U.S. Grant. Although a Civil War hero, Grant was a legendary tippler or, by today’s standards, an alcoholic. His administrations were racked with scandals and “favors,” much of which occurred per his inattentiveness. In essence, we put a drunk in the White House.
Wouldn’t you like to know if any of our current slate of prez candidates is a stoner, one way or another? I sure would.
Something to think about before you vote.
Michael C. Westlund