I'd rather have a president/ Congress person/etc who has done drugs then not.

why when they write the laws or vote on the laws that put ordinary citizens in cages. they are NOT above the law. maybe mandatory drug tests for elected officials will force congress towards legalization.

Depends on the drug. I'd like to see somebody who has experimented with psychs working on policy and see what their stances are. Probably more humanitarian than any platform of the past 20 years

Joe Rogan failed to get Tulsi Gabbard high. Out of respect for her position, no doubt.

That's not the point. The point is we citizens who have to drug test for most jobs and are prosecuted for drugs while the rich politicians still sit back and collect your money and spend it on their own drugs.

Drug test are decided by the company we work for. Not politicians. But if we drug test politicians Who do you think will pay for it ? Not them.

Many countries have laws banning employers from requiring drug tests. The US should do the same

Your response is exactly what the wealthiest people on this earth trained you to think your entire life.

Have done is very different from actively doing

And by random..we mean all of them!

They will probably have hits for ‘roids too:

“Hell yeah, I’m on Vitamin S! Now it’s no longer as exhausting to steal all this money AND spend it, THEN cover my tracks, before FINALLY blaming someone else!”

Meanwhile I’ll get my drivers license (for which I spent a large part of my savings) removed for drinking FUCKING ORANGE JUICE before driving.

Not even joking btw. Orange juice showed up as alcohol in my blood

Same happened to a friend because of menthol cigarettes and a empty stomach. Never heard of a false positive from OJ.

breathalyzers at sessions and hearings

I'd prefer it if that they'd all take the test to determine if they're psychopaths or sociopaths or not and disqualified from serving if they failed, but that's too much to hope for and too much like common sense.

This is an easy BS bill people want simply because they might get tested. I'd much rather we pass a bill that doesn't allow anyone to serve our government if they're on any medication for mental health vs pot, or don't allow if they've served in/for any other government.

Would you trust the outcomes though?

i wouldn't recommend that

No, but good point -- how could we guarantee that?

If it showed what I want yes. If not no

We should out law them all together. Its creepy to have someone take your urine.

Congressmen could literally have hard drug habits that would lead them to make even worse deals with lobbyists or foreign entities to fund said habits...at the expense of the American people. They don't call cocaine the rich man's drug for no reason...and you can never have enough

How about instead we just legalize all the drugs and erode patent laws that pharmaceutical companies use to enrich their selves.

Would be nice, but then what gives incentive to invest millions of dollars into the research behind medications?

Altruism

Wishful thinking. The research can be outsourced and done by separate startups that have agreed only to look for drugs but are contracted to not sell the drug except through the drug company.

So capitalism distorts our production capability’s gotcha!

Corporatism. Capitalism is inherent in nature. Can’t escape it.

Capitalism promotes profit over sustainability, how does profit show how successful you are if what you’re doing isn’t sustainable and therefore not ethical?

“Can’t escape it” I’m sure the lords and monarchs during feudalism said you can’t escape it either it’s human nature to dominate or be dominated by your fellow man based on inheritance.

Capitalism in its current form is barley 250-300 years old, to say you “can’t escape it” is extremely ignorant.

Sustainability is part of profit if the government isn’t providing welfare.

Why do we use finite resources like fossil fuels over renewables like solar? Other than profit?

Have you never learned the history of the steam engine

Hopefully nothing? The pharmaceutical companies can dry up and blow away ^{and a boy can dream}

Oh like Portugal's success with removing the criminal aspect of consuming 'illicit' drugs and just treating the addiction as a medical condition? I'm cool with that but just legalize all things cannabis as there's too many success stories associated with cannabis/hemp products.

Nah, legalize everything.

Unemployed drug dealers would immediately turn to crime for income. How would you deal with that problem?

Wait until they realise that actual crime doesn’t pay (as opposed to dealing with contraband, which is kind of a fake crime). I read somewhere that you’ll struggle to make $30k/year as a burglar, and that’s doing a few houses every week. People aren’t for the most part addicted to sustaining themselves via illegal activity, it just happens to be easy and lucrative to deal in substances at present.

People with criminal records will find it harder to rejoin the straight economy.

Sure, but apart from dealing drugs, what’s left to do? Especially for the type of person who’s only good at dealing drugs.

Exactly. They'll be desperate and either look for alternative criminal enterprise (cons, scams, and hacks can be lucrative) or shape up and sell cookies at the farmer's market.

Slippery slope fallacy, out of work drug dealer turns to crime , why? Because it fits a narrative. I have met many a drug dealer in my day , and almost all of them had jobs they worked in addition to dealing. If they can work those jobs they can make due with not dealing drugs.

The thing is, I'm not sure they would have the choice. It would be crime or starve.

Aren't they already committing a crime

Retroactive amnesty for nonviolent drug crimes; jobs through infrastructure improvement projects.

WHAT? Drug dealers turning to crime?

What HAS the world come to!!??

completely agree , demand is always gonna be there . Whether you take adderal, snort some coke , smoke some weed, or take a Xanax, it’s all the same thing. People having been using recreational drugs for a longgg time , why are we criminalizing it

Yep. It's crazy to me how people think suddenly there'd be a huge rise in use if drugs were legalized. There isn't exactly a supply shortage as it is. When I was a kid I remember alcohol being a bit of a pain in the ass to get (by which I mean it wasn't just "on tap" like nearly every other drug was) because you either needed a fake ID and enough guile to pull it off, or know someone who'd get it for you. Before I could legally buy cigarettes I knew someone who would deliver the harder drugs to your house (they ran like a store; they "opened" at 8am and closed/turned the phone off at 8pm. They sold black, white, and crystal. This was like 2003-2007ish). I just don't see the point in fighting it anymore. The drugs are as American as apple pie at this point, they aren't going anywhere. We should be focusing on damage control and harm reduction instead of punishment and abstinence.

Sorry for the wall of text. The drug war is my soapbox. It has been a very important issue to me for a very long time.

I mean you’re right though . Drug laws honestly aid the poverty cycle. How do you think a rich person with a good lawyer versus a poor person with an overworked public defender is gonna fair in court? Poor people get the shit end every time , with jail time and conviction rate. Also, yeah weed was always easier to get than alcohol in high school .

You people forget we actually had full legalization before, and it led into prohibition because people got sick of opium dens. Singapore is the only model that will fix the issue. This includes cracking down on legal painkillers being prescribed by pill mills to feed addicts

Or was it cause opium was a Chinese drug, just like a marijuana was illegalized because it was considered a Mexican drug. Hell alcholol withdraws are deadlier than opioid with draws. Why is it that you can buy one dangerous drug and not another? Yeah alcohol is probably safer because it’s regulated , but im sure it be more dangerous if it was manufactured under prohibition conditions.

Stupid argument, alcohol is a food stuff, it has been since we discovered agriculture. It is used in cooking, it can act as an antiseptic and has other health benefits. Other drugs including weed do one thing get you high and kill brain cells.

You have no idea what you’re talking about . I try not to be rude on social media, but alcohol is not food stuff, it’s alcohol, they are classified as two different things. Marijuana has medicinal properties, that is a fact, and it doesn’t not kill brain cells. I guess what ever your consume or surround yourself with kills brain cells.

Alcohol has been a staple food since Sumeria where a primitive beer was used to supplement calories, the Egyptians gave a beer ration three times daily to the workers, Rome and Greece were dependent on three foodstuffs, bread, wine and olive oil. Alcohol saved civilization by allowing humanity to expand where water was unsafe, it supplemented us with B vitamins and trace nutrients. It imbues flavor and fragrance to food all over the world. You can deny the historians, the plethora of historical documents dating back to ancient Egypt, and modern scientific studies but that would make you a stereotypical stoner whose source of information is High Times

Now lets look at weed, it's good for getting you high and antiquated rope. Any medicinal benefit is ruined by the fact you burn it, unless you are going tell me you smoke willow bark for a headache or roll up and light moldy bread for a bacterial infection. I really don't want to post the thousands of scientific papers about what smoking marijuana does to your cognitive functions, how it can cause schizophrenia (I can give anecdotal personal testimony to match the scientific literature), or how inhaling burning smoke and ash is in any way beneficial to delicate lung tissue.

I will be rude, ignorant addicts like you completely detached from reality, give recreational users and people seriously advocating for the study of marijuana to break down it's componants for medical use.

And you completely ignored all the medicinal qualities of marijuana. Again. and that alcohol related death is higher than gun deaths. And beer was used because they didn’t know how to purify water.

Also you got all that information from the propaganda documentary “how beer saved the world” I’ve seen it to. Do you also look at the the negative effects alcohol has on cognitive function, cause it’s verrrrry negative. Or how it kills more people than marijuana once again , what’s a higher number 88000 or zero? Cause that’s alcohol deaths to marijuana.

So every negative you listed , is also worse for alcohol consumption. I could look up who alcohol consumption affects mental health too,

Once again more alchol addicts than marijuana affects . So keep selectively reading man

No I didn't, any medicinal properties should be extracted in a lab and put into a more effective form. The rest is just you rambling trying to vilify something because you don't want to admit you are an addict. And no I got my information from reading historical text Pliny would be a good place to start, but then again you probably believe Pliny was a pro-wine propagandist who wrote his descriptions to suppress the truth MJ will balance your humors and make you immortal man!

Really you also failed to mention that the alcohol content the ancient beer was extremely lower, like less than 1%. Context context

Calling a marijuana smoker an addict whole then promoting alcohol, the most addicted substance in the US. Idiot .....

Ita the CBD thats good not the THC or smoke when smoked thats bad for you.

Think you missed the point

Better: Train the public to manage their health without pharmaceuticals. (It's much, much better out here I swear..)

Won't work. They'll block it under unreasonable search and seizure.

Just vote.

I think it would be more productive to have a short test that they'd have to pass before they're allowed to vote on a bill.

12 multiple choice questions. 4 written by the Republicans, 4 by Democrats and 4 by a non-partisan (actually might be a good use of AI). If they don't know enough about what a bill does to pass the test then they shouldn't be voting on it.

If I have to take a fucking piss test to answer phones at Xerox they sure as shit need to as well. I'm betting on cocaine and benzos beingb their drugs of choice

Let's not forget good old alcohol lol

So nothing would get done, just like normal.

I think they should have to blow a breathalyzer before every vote a senator or congressman makes

How about just a simple quiz on what the law they are voting on is about?

Can we add IQ tests for anyone running for public office?

DT is pointless. You can literally buy fake piss, you just add water to it and heat it up. Voila, drug test passed.

Username checks out.

Because I know that drug testing is a scam?

Mac Miller died of a drug overdose.

I don't think he was taking drug tests.

Good one

Also have lawmakers blow before every sessions starts. Shouldnt be drunk and making laws

I firmly believe that all public servants such as police and politicians should have their vehicles fitted with breath alcohol ignition interlock devices.

Here here!! I have thought this for years.

Now, think about who that leaves.....

100% behind this.... but Change.org? You can't be serious... SMH...

Why do people still think random online petitions do jack shit? Nothing ever comes of them.

How bout we make drug test illegal by constitutional amendment. Fuck that shit my body my choice. Making a substance illegal to adults is a first amendment violation in my opinion. I believe self talk needs to be protected. I have the right to safely alter my consciousnesses.

Elected officials and judges, fine. Leave their staff out of it.

Right after they drug test the voters.

"What, you voted for [Nancy Pelosi | Paul Ryan] again???"

We can sign it all we want, shit ain't gonna happen.

Petition gets overwhelming support. Congress responds--by deciding to raise their salaries.

A petition for mandatory testing of Congress members on the content of the bills they intend to vote on would be more effective. Most of them don't even read the thousands of pages long bills they vote on that will be enforced on us. They just vote one way or the other depending on which lobbyist groups have bought their votes for it or against it. This would be an effective solution against corporate financial control over our legislative branch. If they don't read the entirety on the bill and fail the qualification test, they will be ineligible to vote on it. If they fail several tests consecutively or in the course of a year they are terminated from their positions for dereliction of their duties. This is how our educational institutions operate. There's no reason our members of Congress shouldn't be held accountable to the same standards.

The President would still be classified under Nat. Sec. in case he would (or not) be taking drugs for illnesses. possibly a FOIA could be requested but only much later.

You know, every time an elected official talks about the opioid crisis, they lament that "This is not a black issue, a white issue, a rich issue or a poor issues. This is a problem that has affect all Americans at all ends of the spectrum..." which everybody understands to be polite code for "serisly guyz, white kids in the suburbs are dying now." But this piece of legislation would really display that they're taking the issue seriously and leading by example, because "no one is exempt." I fucking love it.

I support this mainly because I think it'll lead to addressing to war on drugs. Personal choice outside of work hours should be free. If someone wants a coffee, a beer, a joint after work, that should be fine. Fuck enforcing drug laws but the people keeping them around, should live under the rules they're creating/supporting.

I love this. But that website is a scam. “Before we count your signature, share this” “skip” “you skipped but here are 10 recommended other petitions”

Just let me fucking sign

this is racist

How about a petition to legalize all drugs instead? Then we'd have far better chance of judging people far more accurately based on their actual behavior instead of an arbitrary list of "shit I don't like."

Even if they did. Who’s gonna enforce it. I’m sure they’d probably pass drug tests tho anyways

Is there a test for adrenochrome?

Fuck this bullshit, all it does is attempt to turn regressive attitudes towards drug use towards Congress. We don't need to ban Congress from using drugs, we need to clear out every one of the fucks and end the war on drugs against ourselves.

You guys realize that if we, the little people, were actually able to get our law makers to craft a law that scrutinizes them then they're just going to say, "Fine! We'll drug test all of you too and get you fired from your job when you test positive!!"....oh wait...

And physicians- just an fyi, even if your state medical board says they run background checks on MDs applying for state licensure- none of them actually do. And then places of employment rely on the state medical boards. So basically: to get a job in fast food you get a criminal background check and a piss test- if your job is to sign pieces of paper committing people to mental institutions & have the power to diagnose ppl with whatever you want- no background check, no drug test. Politicians who make the laws related to all that and every other law: no drug test either. -Do a background check on your doctor. No one else has done it for you.

Seriously needs to be done. Federal jobs that are in positions of trust require random drug screening. I’m pretty sure our three branches are “positions of trust” too, since they’re all elected because we trust them to act in our interests (in theory).

Nah this is dumb let em do drugs. Drugs aren't a big deal at all.

People with criminal records will find it harder to rejoin the straight economy.

Joe Rogan failed to get Tulsi Gabbard high. Out of respect for her position, no doubt.

The thing is, I'm not sure they would have the choice. It would be crime or starve.