• Pros and Cons of Drug Test for Politician

    Many countries in Southeast Asia have been accustomed to conduct drug testing for politicians before elections. Western countries, however; believed otherwise and considered drug testing for politicians as unconstitutional. As of the present, only the state of Florida requires drug testing for welfare.

    Nevertheless, the fact simply shows the differences of constitutional beliefs among the countries around the globe. But whichever it should be, the prevalence of drug addiction is a concern that needs to be addressed by the leaders of the country which are the politicians and the people who are greatly concern about the ongoing issue.

    To provide a balance of arguments, below are the pros and cons of drug testing for politicians.

    PRO 1

    Illicit drug use is considered to be misconduct and is punishable by law. Holders of public office are leaders of the society, hence; they should set a good example by showing to the mass that they are not breaking the law. The people has the right to hold leaders to a higher standard and  a good check and balance starts with knowing whether or not they have followed the law themselves.

    CON 2

    Despite drugs are illegal misbehavior in their private lives should have no bearing on their performance in the office. Drug testing invades the right to privacy of every individual. The political campaigners for drug legalization should also be an exemption to this.

    PRO 2

    Drugs are noted to be dangerous to health and worst, change the individual’s point of view, impair the capacity to think, and affect normal behavior and decision making. Since politicians are responsible of holding the people’s money. Before anything unexpected can happen, it is the people’s responsibility to anticipate drug addiction among politician, which can cause scam and scandals in the future.

    CON 3

    Drug testing affects four types of people. First, it affects politicians who are not taking drugs but need to be intruded upon by testing. Second, it may put politicians who seriously taking drugs as medication for a certain illness that is ought to be confidential, into jeopardy. This may cause the people to doubt their capacity to work, despite their good performance.

    PRO 3

    It is important and understandable that people should know the politicians background so that they may be guided with the right decision of who is the right person to hold the public office. Likewise, it is also important to know the source and reason if there are any misconduct within the politics that triggers jeopardy to the mass.

    CON 4

    US law considers testing without grounds for suspicion as an unwarranted intrusion that fall under “unreasonable search”. This is a violation of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Right’s section on privacy.  By then, it would more likely to scare or provoke young people from joining political activities and running on a position in the public office.

    PRO 5

    The process of drug testing today is much more reliable.  If initial test shows a positive result, a confirmatory test is done to ensure an honest result. By then, there is nothing to worry about being caught up into false positive result and getting liable for some penalties when politicians are not using drugs at all. In fact, the sincerity to endorse oneself into drug screening only proves that no one is guilty of using any illicit drug or trading them.

    CON 5

    Drug testing can result into false positive which may result into positive drug use among politicians who are merely taking drugs for medication. Meanwhile, false positive can also occur during passive inhalation wherein, holders of public office may exhibit positive drug use due to exposure from secondary sources, for instance; when they have unknowingly come near other people who are using drugs.


    Categories: Drug Testing

    Tags: , , ,

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *