* * * Drug Testing for Politicians...Huh...say what? * * *

Theese guys are rich and in power, I think they could easily get around a drug test.

They are our employees and the rules right now are to "just say no to drugs." We need to find out on a regular basis if they are complying with the rules of their employment. Maybe that will give them incentive to change the rules.

I'm all for it. It would probably eliminate 50% of the nice politicians. Right off the line.

Oh come now, of course they don't want to be tested like the rest of us! Then their little secret would be out! (all sarcasm intended) (It would be an interesting can of worms to open!)

taking medical exam.

But for mandatory testing of controlled narcotics addiction? There may be some room for agreement. However, because issue of narcotics invariably brings up the question of a sound mind, fit for impartial judgment and management, hovers around the question of someone's psychology, the actual application becomes highly questionable. If we were solely to set out to test what chemicals are in ones' body, in not only reveal narcotics, it reveals all sorts of data-person's diet, life-style, life-span, signs of other ailment, etc.

But really, with drug tests, because the underlying intent really is to determine whether one can carry out the defense of the Constitution with sound mind, we're talking psychology here, at the end of the day. It's not just so that we can see what chemical a politician decides to inject into his/her body.

However, while psychology has its place, actual science of psychiatry is still being debated. We still have ZERO idea how the brain really works, where memory is stored, where our consciousness come from, etc. Besides, since the days of Max Plank, if one were to be absolutely honest, there are no certainties in science, only probabilities, most likelihood, and theories. There are no "LAWS" in science, as the common misnomers go.

While there have been many neurological studies done, as to how the brain is wired, and how it can be traumatized, nothing is for certain. Besides the old adage of "use it or lose it" may not pertain to brain at all. Latest studies are suggesting that the neurons continue to make links; they do not stop making links past puberty, in fact they continuously make links throughout one's lifetime. As there are many case studies of people who have physically damaged brain, ie. gunshot wounds, cut out after cancer, etc. in which, the part of the brain that was previously thought to control certain functions, when destroyed, substituted the function by activating another part of the brain to compensate.

The locale of brain function is NOT locked in as many erroneously believe. One of the best books on this is by a neurologist named Dr. Norman Doidge, MD. I highly recommend his book, "The Brain that changes Itself."

Besides it's utterly arrogant and presumptuous of modern establishment scientists who are basically nothing more than grant-whores, and rarely have anything to do with seeking the truth, to take a false a-priori cause-effect assumption of, whatever lights up under a MRI or CAT scanner must be the portion of the brain controlling that specific function. What nonsense!

So as much as I would love to institute and declare neoCONs and Bush as lunatics, let's face it, at least by current common sense and medical standards, they clearly are, I cannot agree to it based on unsubstantiated evidence and violation of privacy, to involuntary act as being immoral and illegal, not to mention unConstitutional. Exactly for the same reason, why I utterly detest the criminal mandatory testing of children solely to dole out corporate welfarism behind prescribing psychotropic drugs to minors in public schools. As well as the weak ground in which psychology/psychiatry is used to convict the accused in a court of law. It's a flawed science, if that is what it can actually be considered, through and through.

Though, it's been tested that while flawed, for the sake of conversation, if we were to judge the soundness of the mind by currently accepted psychological standards, it has been tested that high-risk prone A-type personalities, more specifically tested subjects such as Michael Schumacher, the 7-time Formula One World Champion driver, politicians, a CEO, and soldiers all displayed the same or similar brainscan of known socio-paths.

Now how about that??

perhaps if mandatory testing on certain drugs applied to them....they would be a bit more likely to remove prohibition. Give them some personal incentive, yeah.

Nobody should be tested in my opinion. Its a personal choice. Drug use does not mean you are incompetent. If someone has a drug PROBLEM it will be very obvious to even the most untrained eye. Drug addiction is a medical problem. NOT a crime.

On the other hand, if i gotta do it, so should they...

If they are going to test me ALL persons working for local ,state, or fed should be made to take the same drug test they require of others.Including teachers and police.

so this is a moot point

seems what's good for the goose? .....