Trog has a great idea about who to include on that list before he’ll agree to submit to such a test.

But let’s think about this for a moment.

The libertarian in me says we need less intrusion, not more, but I understand the premise: people on the government dole should be held to the same standard as their benefactors.

We tax payers  are the 53% so by default we are their (the people on welfare and or food stamps) employers. It’s a shame their job description is so undemanding, really. It’s actually non-existent if you think about it, aside from a set-up appointment and a few phone calls the monetary benefits far out-way the miniscule effort/reward ratio. And really, who can resist government cheese? Certainly not the entire class of people the left has trained to suckle the government teat over the last 50 years. So, I’m in agreement, in principle.

But as long as we’re tossing around ideas…

Let’s require drug tests for Congress and all public employees

by randomly chosen, non-union labs,

or no tests at all.

For anyone

except by the requirements of their employer and even then they should be performance driven.

The point is, Congress should be subject to every condition and requirement for employment they legislate upon the people they supposedly serve. That goes for public employees as well.

That’s not asking too much, is it?

  • theCL October 17, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Trog didn’t think this one all the way through. Give even the slightest inch more on guns, no matter how seemingly harmless it first appears, then we give up even the remaining charade that we’re freemen anymore.

    Mark Steyn had a terrific quote I picked up from Country Thinker:

    Oth­er­wise, what the hell did you guys bother hav­ing a rev­o­lu­tion for?

    Same with welfare. Give them money or don’t. But once you declare the bureaucracy can dictate the recipient’s lifestyle … Hey, you know how politicians and bureaucrats love precedent.

    There is no such thing as “efficient” big government or “conservative” big government. You either have the welfare state or you don’t. It can’t be tweaked. Take a look at our history … those “tweaks” grow the size and scope of government every bit as much as the programs that “need” tweaking themselves.

  • robot October 17, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    I’m in full agreement with you here, CL. There’s as much chance of Congress drug testing themselves as Obummer resigning. Neither one is going to happen. But think of how many replacement elections we’d have if they did test congress. We wouldn’t need term limits, I can almost guarantee you that.

    • theCL October 19, 2011 at 11:05 am

      What I’d like to see are independent criminal investigations of each member of congress and the executive branch. My guess is all but maybe 10 people would go to jail.

  • Trestin October 17, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    I’ll add one more. Congress should not be allowed to opt out of Social Security if we cannot. Even when I was serving in a combat zone, I was not exempt from paying into Social Security, but Congress is.

  • Opus #6 October 17, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    I love it! Test those congress critters!

  • Gorges Smythe October 17, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    You realize, of course, that law would have to make it through Congress.

  • You're about 30 yrs late. October 17, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    You’re about 30 yrs late. The Congress people held up a cut of yellow liquid and said that that was their offering and no one called their bluff. So you were headed off at the pass 30 or so years ago.

  • Mark in Spokane October 21, 2011 at 12:08 am

    Hello. I see that you are following my blog and I wanted to introduce myself. I am glad to see the good work you are doing here — if you are interested, I would be happy to provide a link to you on my blogroll. A reciprocal link would be most appreciated!

    Meanwhile, the idea of drug tests for gun buyers is likely a non-starter for me until we expand the list of things that people need to be drug-tested for. Like say, drivers licensing and voter registration. The second amendment is a right, alongside that of voting. As such, it outranks something like a drivers license, which is a privilege.


    • robot October 21, 2011 at 11:13 am

      Hi Mark. Good point on privilege vs. rights. Like you and the CL, I’m against putting any restrictions on gun ownership. That is truly a slippery slope.
      I’d be pleased to exchange links with you. Consider it done.


  • Mark in Spokane October 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    Thanks! I’ve got a link to your blog posted as well! Cheers.

  • […] Numbed Robot: Drug Tests for Gun Buyers?      […]

  • […] I would occupy Traverse City. It’s beautiful up there.) Dewey: Ennui On Wall Street Bot: Drug Tests for Gun Buyers? FCBZ: Queen Elizabeth Nearing “Fuel Poverty” TBA: Amazing […]

  • Anna B. November 1, 2011 at 3:29 am

    I agree! Congress should be subject to everything that the citizens are! They should either pay S.S. or not get it! Only those who pay in to it should get it. What ever happened to voting for the good of the country? They are ruining our country to fill their pockets. The founding fathers would be embarrassed of Congress and the greed and bribes. If I were in Congress, I would take a pay cut to reduce government spending, but I’m sure no one in Congress would ever vote that in.

    • robot November 1, 2011 at 8:24 am

      True dat, Anna. Thanks for stopping by!

  • Say it. Don't Spray it!

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.


Subscribe via email
December 2022