Posted: 11/5/2008 9:44:32 PM EDT
|
(inspired by another member's comment in another thread)
...imagine what the outcome would have been had it been a requirement to be drug tested before being allowed to vote. I mean, if you're engaged in criminal activity, you should not be allowed to vote. Of course, the implications of this make it completely wrong in so doing, but I'm just saying this as a hypothetical situation and how if people were precluded from voting on the premise that they were found to test positive for illegal drug use, I would be willing to wager that the election's outcome would have been very different. What say you? *Disclaimer* I am in no way advocating any invasion into privacy, so don't start with it. |
|
Quoted:
Outcome possible would have been different, but running 100 million drug tests would take a little while, and cost a hell of a lot. Last time I was drug-tested (for work), they made me put a cotton swab in my mouth and hold it there 30 seconds or so. That's less time than it takes to fill out my ballot (I voted via mail). Attach swab to ballot. Test randomly. The technical difficulties can be overcome. But I agree: it wouldn't be feasible. Nor would it be constitutional: You cannot deny the vote to anyone who hasn't been convicted. |