I have no problem with it. I get why there are reasons not to like it in other situations, but this is different. This is basically a position that you cannot be fired from for four years. It’s possible to hide the bad effects long enough to get elected, but have the cracks show through otherwise.
With other jobs, I can see the argument that you fire them after their performance suffers–unless what they do is so important that you can’t afford to wait that long.
But I mostly see drug tests in situations where it’s just not that critical, and I agree those are stupid. Just test how well they do their job. It’s better to have a good worker who is stoned than a bad worker who is completely sober.
Many years ago I worked as a psychiatric nurse. Having seen the unintentional effects of prescribed drugs let alone the effects of recreational drugs I would be in favor of knowing what drugs anyone is on if they are in a position where their physical or mental impairment could cause considerable problems.
Personally I find it frightening that we should trust the acuity of people in their 70s who could be taking anything at all as the side effects of many common medications are much worse in the elderly. While I am not enthusiastic about mandatory drug testing in any circumstances I can appreciate its necessity where it is a safety issue because we cannot trust people to tell the truth about their drug use.
Mind you at their age a urinary tract infection can be enough to create dementia anyway so who needs drugs?
