Pubdate: Tue, 03 May 2005
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 2005 PG Publishing
Contact:  http://www.post-gazette.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/341
Author: Bill Toland, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

BILL WOULD REQUIRE DRUG TEST FOR CANDIDATES

HARRISBURG -- If our lawmakers are going to such great troubles to
uncover who among our pro athletes are injecting what chemicals into
which body parts, perhaps we ought to know the same of our lawmakers.

Some might say that, if anything, our lawmakers appear to be taking
performance-retarding drugs.

But many of them apparently believe it's time that drug testing be
extended to those who seek public office. Looking around the state
Capitol, it's clear that few of the men and women elected to represent
Pennsylvania voters are using performance-enhancing substances, unless
you count the extra-large taco bean salad served at the cafeteria on
Tuesdays, which undoubtedly enhances performance in one physical
category or another.

So, yeah, this is not a buff bunch. But there is a larger roster of
equally ingestible and injectable substances, many of which would
compromise a politician's ability to consider matters of policy, or at
least his ability to drive home afterward.

"I've never been drug-tested," said state Rep. Frank LaGrotta,
D-Ellwood City, whose name is one of 22 appearing at the top of a new
House bill that would require drug testing for every candidate for
every elected office in Pennsylvania. "I think we're making important
decisions. It would be good to know that we don't have a
substance-abuse problem."

Politicians at all levels are generally exempt from the types of drug
testing that are administered to the people who work for them, to the
truck drivers who deliver their mail, even to journalists who write
about them.

As with most of the thousands of House bills introduced during each
two-year session, odds that this bill will pass into law are about
equal to the odds that Pittsburgh Pirates infielder Ty Wigginton will
someday top Hank Aaron's career home run mark. Which is to say, low
odds.

That's mainly because of the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down by
an 8-1 vote a Georgia law that required drug testing among prospective
public officials. In 1997, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the
drug test "diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake." The law,
the court said, did not fit within the narrow category of searches and
seizures that are conducted without suspicion or just cause, but are
still constitutionally permissible.

Yet nationwide, some hopelessly hopeful lawmakers continue to pitch
the drug-testing laws. Members of New York's Legislature proposed two
years ago, and again this year, a bill that would compel each
candidate for office to submit to a drug test, and would also set out
the procedure by which candidates would be notified of, and could
challenge, a positive test result.

The first time around, the bill died without action.

Also, a Republican lawmaker from New Mexico this year proposed a
voluntary version of the drug law -- candidates for public office
wouldn't be forced to submit to the test, but they would have to
explain in writing why they decided to avoid the test.

The lawmaker, state Sen. Steve Komadina, said the random testing was
needed because a state judge had been busted for cocaine possession
and drunken driving in 2004, according to The Associated Press. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: SHeath(DPFFLorida)