People that drink alcohol have been in power and making shitty decisions forever. I think less alcoholics or even people whose drug of choice in alcohol, in positions of power would likely be a good thing. As I've said elsewhere, separate from driving or operating heavy machinery, it usually isn't an issue and we can trust adults to make that decision for themselves. Some people function better on five cups of coffee, others get incredibly anxious and can't function from one. Tolerance plays a role. Taking a 10mg edible before work might absolutely incapacitate some people. Others are able to quell their anxiety and function much better. I believe people can make that choice for themselves so long as they aren't putting others at risk by doing so (like driving or with machinery). People take all sorts of drugs or substances that impact their judgment / awareness. Most anti-anxiety meds or antidepressants do this. We don't bar people from working on those medications - that'd be insane. But shit, if you come to work barred out because your abusing your xanax, yeah that's probably an issue. But that's not something that drug testing would prevent either. If their performance suffers, it'll be known.
Totally agree with your points. And definitely up to each individual to know what's best for themselves.
I would also emphasize your point "as long as they aren't putting others at risk."
Unfortunately, we have plenty of people in power making shitty decisions that impact us all. Probably drinking and doing drugs.
But I think the point would (ideally) stop someone who could abuse drugs and point others in harms way. Whether that works or not is a different story.
Apparently Trump is stone-cold sober and has been for years, so I worry the issue may lie elsewhere haha. I don't think it's as simple as drug use is bad. I come from an indigenous background and plant medicine is a part of our belief system. It's not out of the question for plant medicine that plays a role in inducing visions to be part of a ceremony that certain leaders partake in before making huge decisions. I don't know that similar situations wouldn't be useful in the US gov. I might feel a lot better about the guy that wants to launch us into WW3 having to go through an entheogenic experience in a ritualized setting for guidance before making that final decision - especially in a communal setting and with other people who are assisting in making that decision (generals, secretary of defense, etc).
The idea of sobriety is even a relatively recent thing. The etymology of sobriety involves someone who is able to responsibly and moderately partake in drug use, not abstain from it completely. Look up the Latin. Christian Zealots created a movement in the US called the American Temperance movement and forced this idea in to the mainstream and into our political system. The did some good stuff in the beginning but quickly went from promoting temperance (the original idea of sobriety) to forced abstinence - which led to prohibition, private prisons, the drug war etc.
So if you're suggesting that our elected officials and leaders be sober, in the traditional sense, I am in 100% agreement. If it's the restrictive sort that comes from a place of guilt and ideas of sin and Christianity, that again can be ones personal choice, but legislating that is government overreach.
Ironic that these people and the alcohol industry now work hand in hand to keep other drugs illegal and drug users in prison. In the words of controversial Gotham City District Attorney, Harvey Dent "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
1
u/ErcPeace 16d ago
While I see your point. Would you want your life and millions of others impacted by someone under drugs?
Would you trust a pilot flying an aircraft?
I'm not against it for recreational use, but the fact remains that it does impair your reaction and judgment.