Peeler's bill would require drug testing for candidates
By JIM DAVENPORT
Reader poll
Should elected officials be required to pass a drug test?
- No, it's an invasion of privacy. 9% 84 votes
- Yes, it should be mandatory for all elected officials. 90% 763 votes
847 total votes.
COLUMBIA — People filing for public office would also have to submit to drug testing if legislators concerned about the fallout of former state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel's admission of cocaine use of have their way.
Senate Republican Leader Harvey Peeler filed his bill a day after news broke that Ravenel had been indicted on a federal cocaine conspiracy charge. The June indictment came just six months after the Republican Charleston real estate developer took office. He has since pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.
"The reason I introduced this bill was in response to my constituents' outcry over our state treasurer and his situation," said Peeler, R-Gaffney, who took a drug test himself to get a commercial drivers' license. "It just makes sense to me that elected officials must first pass the drug test."
"What's good for one man should be good for the next man," Freddie William, 60, said as he sold art on a Columbia street corner. "If it's required for me to take a drug test, why shouldn't a man in a public office?"
Ravenel's indictment surprised people like Bobbie Futch, 61, who works at a Columbia music store. "I thought he was such an up-and-coming guy."
Futch said she wouldn't mind taking a drug test, but politicians should be required to do even more.
"I think they should give them lie detector tests," she said.
Drug tests aren't unusual in the workplace and are even required by law for some jobs. But the legislation may face a big roadblock: a past Supreme Court ruling says the Constitution, not the Legislature, sets limits on what people must do to hold an elective office.
For instance, it says anyone eligible to vote "is eligible to any office to be voted for, unless disqualified by age, as prescribed in this Constitution."
"There's a big difference between what makes sense to us all and what constitutional limitations provide," said Thomas Crocker, who teaches constitutional law at the University of South Carolina School of Law.
The legislation also would require drug tests for people seeking federal offices. But Crocker points to a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that blocked Congress from imposing standards on people becoming lawmakers beyond what the Constitution allowed.
If Congress couldn't create its own standards, "I don't think a state could do it at all," Crocker said.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
AMEN !!!
February 5, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
Crocker may be full of crock -- he knows our constitution can be amended to allow for this long overdue testing!!!
February 5, 2008 at 6:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCVOTER (anonymous) says...
I disagree. If Ravenel had been given a drug test on Monday after using cocaine on Friday night it wouldn't have showed up anyway. Drug testing is a scam.
Cocaine, Extacy, Meth...all are out of the system in hours. Marijuana is the least dangerous of all illegal drugs, and it stays in the system for up to 30 days.
Marijuana users are the most likely to test positive. This means if you work somewhere that drug tests you would be better off to smoke crack all weekend than to smoke a joint.
How is this a good idea?
You can't believe in freedom and drug testing. I am amazed to see a Republican so willing to give up the privacy of the people of SC so quickly.
February 5, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbo (anonymous) says...
What a bunch of political malarky, and more importantly, A WASTE OF OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS, proposed by a so-called Republican. SCVOTER has the facts straight on this one - it would be completely ineffective, as testing most often is when you actually look at the data. This is some politician's knee-jerk response to Ravenel, trying to make a name for himself with a feel-good piece of fluffy, pork-barrel legislation. BOO!
February 5, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CHRISJIII (anonymous) says...
This is just another lame attempt by some backwoods GOP politician to get his name in the news. What purpose would testing serve? At every turn the GOP is attempting to become more intrusive into the lives of the people. SCVOTER makes a very good argument.
February 5, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crankyyankee (anonymous) says...
As little substantive work as these representatives accomplish in a year one would think they where all on pot!
February 5, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KidYendor (anonymous) says...
Thank goodness for our U.S. Constitution to stop this bill. It would be OK for some of these legislators to do a dooby or a line now and then. It might make these guys see the light of truly good conservative government and legislate accordingly instead of pushing forward their liberal anti-Sanford positions. It is time for CHANGE !
February 5, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KidYendor (anonymous) says...
And say you are a pro marijuana voter. A candidate comes along who admits he smokes a joint now and then and he supports legalization. Who is Harvey Peeler to say you can't vote for him because he smokes pot. That's why this bill needs to be thrown out.
February 5, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
algorelost (anonymous) says...
This is a great idea. They should also random drug test all sitting elected officals. If they are going to pass laws to allow drug testing in the private field they need to do it in the public field, and then they should be drug tested at random.
February 5, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EducatedMom5 (anonymous) says...
I think this is needed in today's society. With many people from all walks of life being addicted to illegal substances (and alcohol abuse), drug testing should be required. How can a politician be a true leader functioning to their highest potential if their stoned/drunk? Not well. However, I don't believe that our taxpayer dollars should be spent on the testing, just as everyday citizens pay for their own testing, politicians should be made to do so also. I don't understand why this wasn't already so!
February 6, 2008 at 12:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
