Buzzby

Elected Officials Asked To Submit To Drug Testing
Some say it shows leadership; others call plan a gimmick
Crystal Bolner | Statesman Journal | 05/26/2005

You have to take a drug Test if you want to flip burgers at most fast-food restaurants. Now, Marion County wants elected officials to do the same thing.

The county is endorsing a plan to test the mayors and city councilors in its 20 cities, hoping the effort will help stomp out drugs and send a powerful message that no one is immune from testing.

Organizers also hope that the effort will encourage businesses that aren't testing employees to do so.

The request is causing a stir among some politicians, who say such testing infringes on personal-privacy rights and would have little or no effect on efforts to root out the use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs.

Woodburn Mayor Kathy Figley said her City Council has not made a decision about the request. Figley said she would rather see the county put its resources toward drug education and law enforcement.

"For the purpose of meth prevention, I think the idea of drug testing public officials is gimmicky and I think it's useless," Figley said.

The mayor, however, said she and her City Council probably would agree to the tests if only for proving that "we have nothing to hide."

The Marion County Public Safety Coordinating Council, which brought the idea to the commissioners in the fall, is made up of law enforcement, health, child-welfare, school and business groups. The council has made presentations about the testing to the mayors and city councils in more than half of the county's 20 cities.

At those meetings, reaction has been mixed.

Keizer Mayor Lore Christopher said she thinks it's appropriate because she thinks voters hold her to a higher standard as an elected representative.

"They expect you to be drug-free. If you are, then you have no reason to hide that or be ashamed of that," Christopher said.

Other officials aren't as enthusiastic.

City of Donald officials expressed qualms about drug testing.

Council President Bill Richards said he doesn't see a need to test elected officials.

"We're volunteering our time. We don't get paid," he said. "We feel that the money it would take for us to get drug tested is better spent on apprehending the meth dealers and cookers."

Only one of the three county commissioners, Patti Milne, has taken a drug test. She didn't think the request was unreasonable.

"We felt that it was very important to take a leadership role," she said. "If you want to effect change in the community, you have to be willing to step up to the plate yourself."

The Salem City Council received the request this week, and Mayor Janet Taylor said she is more than willing to participate.

"So much of reducing drug use is public awareness. Doing proclamations and requiring employees and elected officials to take drug tests all raises awareness," Taylor said. "You can't solve the drug-use problem just with enforcement. You absolutely have to attack it on all levels."

Representatives from the League of Oregon Cities said they knew of no cities that drug test elected officials.

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring candidates for public office to pass drug tests before their names appeared on ballots was unconstitutional.

That's why Marion County is requesting voluntary tests.

However, drug testing of any kind is an invasion of privacy, said David Fidanque, the executive director of the ACLU of Oregon.

The county's request puts politicians in the position of having to prove their innocence, he said.

"I would consider this nothing more than a publicity stunt and one that unfortunately is going to send exactly the wrong message," he said. "The wrong message is that if you give up your constitutional rights, you're going to be fighting the War on Drugs."

Although he said he's concerned about the potential for inaccurate drug tests Silverton Mayor Ken Hector said he's willing to take one.

"Let's assume a false positive comes out. There are political ramifications to that. That's the risk you're running in agreeing to do something like that," Hector said. "But I'll take my chances because I don't do drugs."

Grant Beardsley is a clinical toxicologist at Oregon Medical Laboratories in Eugene, one of two federally certified drug-test laboratories in Oregon.

He said it is rare to get false positives when drug tests are performed correctly.

"There is generally an initial screening test, and in the event that initial screening test shows a positive, it must be confirmed by a second testing method before it's ever reported," Beardsley said.

Most tests are 99.9 percent reliable, he said.

Other states have tried similar measures to fight the war on drugs, including New Mexico, New York and Pennsylvania.

In New Mexico, where several politicians resigned last year because of drug use, one lawmaker proposed voluntary drug testing of candidates for public office.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Steve Komadina, R-N.M., said the proposal never got out of committee.

"Why is it OK for a kid working at McDonald's to have to take the test but not his dad, the mayor?" he said. "It's just crazy."

He called the lack of accountability for elected officials "appalling."

"It can't be mandatory because of civil rights, but then why can it then be mandatory for policemen and firemen and people who work for McDonald's?" Komadina said.

A Pennsylvania lawmaker is proposing a similar bill.

In New York, state Assemblyman Brian Kolb wants state employees and elected officials to submit to drug tests.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander," he said. "Once we're elected -- even if it's a symbolic gesture -- we should be doing it ourselves."

Many cities in Oregon already drug test job candidates before hiring, including Salem, Keizer and Woodburn, city officials said.

"We're certainly not going to ask our new hires to do something that we won't do," Figley said.

Marion County eventually plans to release the results of the politicians' drug tests to the public, but a timeline has not been determined, Milne said.

"We know these are sensitive issues," Milne said. "We're not demanding that anyone take the test, but we are asking them to at least consider it."

cbolner@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 589-6967

__________________

Phyxius

This is awesome. I hope it goes through.

Unfortunately, this is true.

Welcome to the club!

These are the people that have an influence on these policies. If they see firsthand how unreasonable they are, maybe we'll have a chance at changing them.

reggie_the_dog

why do you agree that it is better to use money busting meth cookers than drug testing people? If meth were legal it would be made in labs that would pay taxes and would have to be withing certain purity regulations like any pharmacutical product. If they would end the war on drugs and change the system from prohibition to regualted legalization you would do away with all drug testing as drug users would no longer be doing something considered illegal. there will no longer be an excuse to persecute "druggies" (mostly us reefers), drug testing will cease to exist. Drug producers/consumers will either pay taxes which could be used to support a new system of nationalized universial health care or in the case of plants, grow their own plants.

To me drug testing to find drug use is as absurd as telling adults what they can put in their own bodies.

Over here in France we have prohibition with decriminalization of personal use (fines not jail version of decrim.) but we do not have drug testing. They dont really drug test in the UK either.

Buzzby

Legalizing marijuana sometime in the foreseeable future is a real possibility. Legalizing all drugs is a Libertarian fantasy. It just ain't gonna happen unless the world turns completely upside down.

If all human being were capable of controlling themselves in relation to highly addictive drugs such an idea would be feasible. The truth is they can't even control their credit card spending.

Theoretically I agree with you. Practically, it's pretty blue sky.


Does that apply to all drugs or just cannabis?


I just answered a drug-testing post from a Brit...

SkyTripper

It is pretty sad that the US Supreme Court decided in 1997 that it was unconstitutional for elected officials or those involved in politics to be "exempt" from drug testing.
Once again, it only shows that "certain" individuals are not held accountable for their behavior...on or off the job, when the vast majority of companies thesedays require a drug test for nearly every job or activity related to school or sports participation. "These" people are in essence....above the law and the Supreme Court says so.

Either EVERYONE be forced to take drug tests....or no one, IMO!
Unless you are self-employed or operate a small business and CHOOSE to not have your workers tested.....then so be it. That decision should only be left for the owner of the company and not be pressured by insurance cos., law enforcement or politicians to comply with their wishes.

The sad fact that the majority of positive drug test results apply mostly to the use of marijuana is what really is most upsetting!
The one substance that is the least harmful than ALL the rest.....including alcohol and cigarettes.....stays in your system the longest and is so detectable. And with the reality that the vast majority of illegal substance users in this country.....using pot exclusively and losing out to positive UA's for it....is just not right when the coke user or meth user can continue their drug use and know they will probably pass a drug test if given some advance notice....just by avoiding that drug for a few days or so.

Drug testing....really IS marijuana testing. Its a company's way (or whoever else's) of determining WHO is NOT participating in or even associating with those who do an ILLEGAL activity and therefore...WHO is more trustworthy I would guess.

Sorry.....there are a LOT of people in this world who DON'T use drugs or even associate with anyone who does....who can be the biggest embezzler or thief or unsafe person in the world and just as easily hurt a company or anyone else!

Drug testing IS unconstitutional and should possibly ONLY apply to certain felons or parolees.......maybe....those in the transportation field and ONLY if it is determined that they "may" have a substance use/abuse issue or at the time of hire. Remember that Amtrak train crash in Maryland back in the 80's? Death of NBA star....Len Bias (cocaine OD)?
That's when they took drug testing to the level it has become today.....by capitalizing on that crash and his death (Reagan admin.), by instilling paranoia and fear into the political, insurance, sports occupations and workforce industry by creating what has become nothing more than a witchunt today.

__________________
SkyTripper

Plainsman1963

Ok, I'm confused. What you just said that I quoted...Doesn't that mean that they aren't exempt and have to?
Or did the Supremes rule that it was constitutional to be exempt?

Sorry, everything else I understood perfectly and agree with (except the everyone or noone, I just go with the noone).