Random drug tests for candidates? Bring 'em on

"You can't judge a book by its cover, we agree;
How can you judge a man by looking at his pee?"
-- David Owens, Delapo'luxury

So you think legislators spend their time coming up with laws that make little or no sense?"

Up in Columbia, South Carolina lawmakers are finally debating what appears to be a good, forward-thinking idea. State Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, a Republican from Gaffney, wants all candidates for public office in the state to take a drug test.

This is really a reactive bill, after newly-elected state treasurer Thomas Ravenel was indicted on felony cocaine charges. Ol’ Tom lost his state post, eventually pleaded guilty, and now faces up to 20 years in the slams, making for a real short political career and becoming the butt of a lot of bad jokes.

The bill was brought up for debate last week, and Peeler – who had to submit to a drug test to get his commercial driver’s license -- was informed that the bill was probably against the state Constitution, so it appears he’ll go that route to get it passed. This means a) clearing a two-thirds margin in both the state House and Senate, and b) passing muster with voters come November. Which, well, is bucking the odds.

Thomas Crocker, a teacher specializing in constitutional law at the University of South Carolina School of Law, says that it’s the state Constitution, not the legislature, that sets the rules for office seekers. He also believes that suspicionless, that is, blanket drug tests violate search-and-seizure provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, so this raises the ante quite a bit more.

“The citizens think it’s a great idea, but once you get to Columbia, people start picking it apart,” a miffed Peeler told the Associated Press.

Whatever happens here, this is something voters everywhere should watch. Recently, the U.S. Congress hit an approval rating of less than 25 percent, putting it below Bush’s rating. If there’s a Mendoza Line for political approval ratings, Congress is probably below it. So there’s the public trust issue.

Workers with many companies are required to take a drug test as a condition for employment, and other companies have a policy demanding that employees pee into a bottle after any on-the-job accident. Shipping companies for sure have that provision – once, back in my cab driving days, I waited for an hour for a seaman to make it off the ship so I could take him to the local clinic. The reason? He was taking a drug test, and it took that long – plus two bottles of water – to work up a sizeable stream. The shipping company paid me for my waiting time.

I’m not a great fan of drug tests. A supervisor with half a brain and the willingness to treat his workers as something more than faceless cogs on an assembly line can tell pretty quickly who’s “using,” anyway.

It stands to reason, though, that a legislator makes decisions affecting a lot more lives and a lot more assets than, say, an assembly line worker. Even more than a truck driver. Even more than an airline pilot. So if mandatory drug tests should be the thing, what likelier class of workers should be targeted than those in public office?

Being the sporting type, I’ve taken a few drug tests for jobs and passed every one of them (which I mention only for the sake of some of my readers who may have any questions). I didn’t even have to study hard for these tests.

Some years ago, the City Council of Bullhead City, Arizona, considered implementing a policy requiring random drug tests for all city employees. To this day I don’t remember whether the measure passed (did I mention I passed every single drug test I’ve ever taken?), but I do remember Councilman David Duvall, a former Marine with a Santa-sized beard, was totally in favor of it. He wanted to extend the policy to include the mayor and City Council members, as a symbolic measure. Duvall was so eager to have that part approved that he was ready to be tested right away, in front of the council, audience, and press. I’m sure if there was an empty coffee cup nearby, he would have used it.

Given that the Bullhead City Council had a history of making highly questionable decisions and was such a local joke back then – forget about being re-elected; just trying to make through a four-year term without being recalled was enough of a feat – this one was just too good for me to pass up. At the time I was writing for the Bullhead City Booster, which later became the Mohave Valley Daily News.

“This is a great idea,” I wrote of the Duvall amendment in my column. “How about (testing) before every council meeting?

Now, more than 15 years later, on the other side of the country, in a land of Spanish moss instead of saguaro cactus, I still think it’s a great idea. And for the same reasons.