disqualification

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

You may actually run into a constitutional challenge on this one depending on whether it's federal, state, or local.

The people are, at least in theory, allowed to elect whoever they damn well choose. So long as the candidate meets the requirements for holding office set forth in the applicable law they're good to go no matter how much dope they've smoked over the years. Some states don't allow convicted felons to hold office, but just saying you hit the peace pipe a couple of times during summer camp don't equal a criminal record. I don't think you could legally get away with this without a constitutional amendment at the applicable state or federal level.

Probably a different story at the local level, though. As quasi-governmental units cities can usually set their own rules.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Exactly. And many states have either statutory or constitutional requirements for many offices, even at the local level.

Furthermore, why would you want to prohibit people who have used drugs from public office. If I knew nothing about two candidates other than one had smoked pot and one hadn't, I'd vote for the guy who had.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Furthermore, why would you want to prohibit people who have used drugs from public office. If I knew nothing about two candidates other than one had smoked pot and one hadn't, I'd vote for the guy who had.

Perhaps because I am more than a bit annoyed by idiot politicians, like Schumer and Kucinich, who want to dictate, to me and other citizens, what rights we’re entitled to enjoy while they simultaneously whittle away at the ordinary citizen’s quality of life with taxes and inflationary monetary policies.

I see a double standard. I guess this idiot Schumer doesn’t see the irony of his argument. Schumer’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, suggests that the last three presidents shouldn’t be able buy a hand gun since they admitted to using illegal drugs or abusing a legal substance; yet, they were given command and control of the world’s most might military force. The same holds true for the recreational users of illegal drugs in Congress who also exert some degree of influence over the U.S. military. It’s ironic to me that we condone the Commander in Chief’s use of drugs, but disallow a citizen’s enlistment and discharge the private for the same offense. (BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I’m not arguing that the military change its drug policy.)

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

(BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I’m not arguing that the military change its drug policy.)

Isn't that a bit of a double standard? Both positions are positions of public trust (maybe the Pres more than the Priv). I just think the use/abuse of drugs (tobacco/alcohol/controlled substances) has very little or nothing to do a person's loyal service or patriotism.

I think we all kind of agree that throwing up additional requirements is extremely unwise.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Isn't that a bit of a double standard? Both positions are positions of public trust (maybe the Pres more than the Priv). I just think the use/abuse of drugs (tobacco/alcohol/controlled substances) has very little or nothing to do a person's loyal service or patriotism.

I think we all kind of agree that throwing up additional requirements is extremely unwise.

You are correct that it doesn't affect ones patriotism, but it does affect ones ability to function, react, or make critical decisions. The only thing binding someone is a contract agreeing to uphold the standards of the UCMJ which states zero tolerance. Would you really want someone who habitually uses to work on or even fly military aircraft that flies over your house and/or loved ones?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

You are correct that it doesn't affect ones patriotism, but it does affect ones ability to function, react, or make critical decisions. The only thing binding someone is a contract agreeing to uphold the standards of the UCMJ which states zero tolerance. Would you really want someone who habitually uses to work on or even fly military aircraft that flies over your house and/or loved ones?

Instead of doing it on the front end, I think it should be done on the back end. For instance, in the civvie world (and I recognize you don't think much of it) you hire someone. If they don't work out (slacker, can't do the job, won't do the job, sleeps during work hours, whatever), you fire them. That's why there's a probationary period. Even if you get past that point, in a lot of states, you can fire someone for any reason (except discrimination).

It seems to me the appropriate thing to do with the service. Let the recruit prove him/herself instead of screening them out. Also use the probation model. Make terminations easy and fairly unassailable.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Instead of doing it on the front end, I think it should be done on the back end. For instance, in the civvie world (and I recognize you don't think much of it) you hire someone. If they don't work out (slacker, can't do the job, won't do the job, sleeps during work hours, whatever), you fire them. That's why there's a probationary period. Even if you get past that point, in a lot of states, you can fire someone for any reason (except discrimination).

It seems to me the appropriate thing to do with the service. Let the recruit prove him/herself instead of screening them out. Also use the probation model. Make terminations easy and fairly unassailable.

In the civie world I can understand the back-end probationary period. However, the military is not the civie world. Even low-ranked grunts have to qualify with a secret clearance depending on the tools they use, now (qualified). It was a known tactic of the mob to send mules into the police academies to get their feet in the door. The gangs of LA were sending plebes or new recruits to the military to get military training before being allowed to be "jumped in."

There has to be a standard applied at some point. It costs money to send the military recruits to tech schools and there are a limited number of seats to fill with a mostly short contract obligation, based on a number of different factors. It is not a viable solution to weed them out once the training has already been completed. Civies get their education up front and not, typically, on the tax-payers dime.

[Miso Horny]

Schumer sounds like a fucking idiot! Good luck with passing such a law.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

It seems to me the appropriate thing to do with the service. Let the recruit prove him/herself instead of screening them out. Also use the probation model. Make terminations easy and fairly unassailable.

Unfortunately, as stewards of the American taxpayer’s dollar (are you reading this WTF?) the military must sort things out in advance, because it is during that first year (actually the first six months) that the government invests about $45 to $50,000 to outfit and train, for example, each Marine recruit for military service (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3072945/). Recruitment costs for the Air Force is lower; whereas, they are higher for the Army. This figures do not include medical care, housing or facility (base) maintenance costs. Plus, if you average in the costs of training helicopter or jet pilots (or other highly technical or specialized fields) you increase the budget per soldier/sailor/Marine by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Furthermore, I have had several civvie jobs that tested up front and randomly tested after I was hired.

One last item. Only about 27% of today's youth are eligible to enlist (http://w3.newsmax.com/popunders/mainpop.htm). Lack of physical fitness disqualifies most, followed by the inadequately educated and then by those with prior legal issues—such as drug use. Even after being screened, one in ten recruits washout (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...asicattrit.htm). Lack of physical fitness disqualifies most, followed by the inadequately educated and then by those with prior legal issues—such as drug use. Even after being screened, one in ten recruits washout (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...asicattrit.htm).

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

It wasn't difficult under GWB?

Whoever said he was a conservative; constitutionalist; libertarian or anyone else who believed in the Constitution.

He's a poor example, DG.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Whoever said he was a conservative; constitutionalist; libertarian or anyone else who believed in the Constitution.

He's a poor example, DG.

Still, he is hardly a progressive or libs

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Perhaps because I am more than a bit annoyed by idiot politicians, like Schumer and Kucinich, who want to dictate, to me and other citizens, what rights we’re entitled to enjoy while they simultaneously whittle away at the ordinary citizen’s quality of life with taxes and inflationary monetary policies.

I see a double standard. I guess this idiot Schumer doesn’t see the irony of his argument. Schumer’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, suggests that the last three presidents shouldn’t be able buy a hand gun since they admitted to using illegal drugs or abusing a legal substance; yet, they were given command and control of the world’s most might military force. The same holds true for the recreational users of illegal drugs in Congress who also exert some degree of influence over the U.S. military. It’s ironic to me that we condone the Commander in Chief’s use of drugs, but disallow a citizen’s enlistment and discharge the private for the same offense. (BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I’m not arguing that the military change its drug policy.)

I don't think Schumer's proposal is going to get any traction and I don't think that it's necessarily a good idea. But one bad idea that is going to fail certainly doesn't call for yet another bad idea. Let the first idea fail on it's own merits, which is surely will.

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Still, he is hardly a progressive or libs

IMHO he isn't far off. Two things define him - The Patriot Act; TARP

[discreetgent]

JB, you have a very broad definition of lib and progressive. I don't recall lib or progressive being social conservatives

[DFW5Traveler]

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms. - Socrates

The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. - Montsquieu

At the heart of the socialist vision is the notion that a compassionate society can create more humane living conditions for all through government 'planning' and control of the economy...

Idealist socialists create systems in which idealists are almost certain to lose and be superseded by those whose drive for power, and ruthlessness in achieving it, make them the 'fittest' to survive under a system where government power is the ultimate prize...

The issue is not what anyone intends but what consequences are in fact likely to follow. - Thomas Sowell

.

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

JB, you have a very broad definition of lib and progressive. I don't recall lib or progressive being social conservatives

No, you're correct about that IMO. And he was a social conservative up to a point but when a President can willingly and with a big smile on his face, tell the people whose liberties he just eroded (The Patriot Act) that he only did it for their own good, that smacks of pure liberal thought to me.