Mandatory Drug Testing for Lawmakers?

A press release arrived today from California’s Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, that read like something in The Onion. It announced the approval of an initiative to require drug and alcohol tests of all members of the state legislature. Among other things, the statute would “prevent a legislator who tests positive from performing his or her official duties or from getting paid until that legislator completes a substance abuse program.”

Fly can practically hear the conversation that led to this effort: “I think they’re all high on glue.” “What are they, smoking crack?”

So here’s a question: Is this campaign further evidence of just how cynical government-bashers have become? Or is it proof that the proponents have a pretty good sense of humor?

Potentially telling detail: The proposed law “provides exception for use of medicinal marijuana.”

The text of the press release follows:

Drug and Alcohol Testing Initiative Enters Circulation

SACRAMENTO – Secretary of State Debra Bowen today announced that the proponents of a new initiative may begin collecting petition signatures for their measure. 

MANDATORY DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING FOR MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE.  INITIATIVE STATUTE.  Requires all legislators elected subsequent to passage of this initiative to be tested for the illegal use of drugs and the “habitual use of alcohol.”  Prevents a legislator who tests positive from performing his or her official duties or from getting paid until that legislator completes a substance abuse program at his or her own expense.  Requires a legislator to permanently forfeit his or her office upon a second positive test.  Provides exception for use of medicinal marijuana under a doctor’s care.  Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:  Probably no significant change in state costs in most years. (09-0014.)

The proponents for this measure, Dorothy Cummings and Gary Ellis, must collect signatures of 433,971 registered voters – the number equal to 5% of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 gubernatorial election – in order to qualify it for the ballot.  The proponents have 150 days to circulate petitions for this measure, meaning the signatures must be collected by December 10, 2009.

The Fly is the valley’s longest running political column, written by Metro Silicon Valley staff, to provide a behind-the-scenes look at local politics. Fly accepts anonymous tips.

9 Comments

  1. Can’t we just give them a choice: Either pee in the bottle or pass a damn budget?

    We’d probably get a budget in record time, and Ammiano’s bill to legalize and tax pot would go sailing through!

  2. Among the most wacky of the government bashes are the people opposing the stadium for Santa Clara.

    Stephen Hazel

    a.  Proclaims himself a deity on a regular basis and has accused Santa Clara city officials, proponents of the stadium, council members, and even Super Fan Crazy George Henderson of unethical behavior and has said that the end of the city is near due to the contents located in the city cemetary.  Hazel also comes to San Jose City Council meetings.

    b.  Ciaran ODonnell

    Began his debut at Santa Clara City Council meetings attacking gays and lesbians, and has devolved into callinng our Mayor a mule.
    His comments were immediately disavowed by the group leader who asked him to appear.  However, in the words of the find old Rotarians,

    IT IS WAS TOO LATE AND NOT ENOUGH!

    c.  Santa Clara Plays Fair

    Once they thought they had a voice of skepticism.  Actually most of the members do little except frighten the kids watching the meetings at home.  This intrepid group of montebanks and popinjays would have trouble getting elected to the Town Council of Jersey Island.  One of its leaders, Byron Fleck claims to be a Santa Clara leader, but lives in Willow Glen.

  3. “prevent a legislator who tests positive from performing his or her official duties or from getting paid until that legislator completes a substance abuse program.”

    Completes a substance abuse program?
    Really?
    In the private world you simply would get fired.
    Why do we always give our government the leeway that we ourselves do not have?
    FIRE THEM!

  4. You mean we actually have enough money to drug test these folks but deny the disabled/blind in home care, cut the Cal Works Program, cut down payments to the disabled, and elderly because the State is claiming it is broke? Amazing how we can pay legislators a salary when they are late on the budget, give them cars, trips, meals, etc. on us, but taxpayers can go to hell. Hum…

  5. I’d rather see a law that if there is no budget, no-one in the governor’s office, or the offices of the Assembly members or State Senators gets paid.  NO-one gets paid. Not the elected officials and not a single member of their personal staffs.  And they don’t get it back once the budget is passed.  it’s a PERMANENT take-away.

  6. I am sorry to say that Substance Abuse Programs are in the budget cut too. The law makers are shooting themselves in the foot. Perhaps I am wrong, they can afford the Private rehab institution like Betty Ford Center.
    The poor taxpayers are and have been in all kinds of pains for too long, we are numb.

Leave a Reply

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