Drug-Testing Our Legislators

News broke yesterday Thursday that Republican Representative Wayne Krieger wants to drug-test legislators:

Rep. Wayne Krieger, R-Gold Beach, has introduced a bill that would require twice-yearly drug testing for all legislators as well as the governor, state treasurer, secretary of state and all other statewide elected officials -- even the chief justice of the state Supreme Court....  Refusing to take the test would be regarded as an admission that the official has taken a controlled substance illegally, under House Bill 2306. Anyone who fails the test would be given the choice of getting treatment or seeing the results made public.

Torrid Joe is not amused.

I challenge Krieger to tell me how many people he talked to last campaign who said, "Hey Wayne, you know the thing you should concentrate on the first three weeks of 2007? Getting the entire top level of government to do pee tests! Yeah, focus on that."

The bill's not going anywhere, but it's good to see the minority has their priorities sorted out.  More at Loaded Orygun...

Comments

  • Jimbo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I could care less about drug and alcohol use among state legislators. What is needed, however, is random drug testing of all local and state police personnel. Perhaps if Portland Police were tested for illegal steroid usage, a couple of ciizens would still be alive.

  • (Show?)

    It broke Thursday actually--but how can you expect The O to keep up with, y'know, the news? :)

    Thanks for the shoutout.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It will be interesting to see how many members actively support it. I called the office of my Republican state rep. and the LA wondered where that came from--is there someone else with a drug problem now that Wirth and Doyle are gone?

    I said what we need are people willing to talk about what specifically they propose for the budget, "This is how we should pay for a rainy day fund", not just "we must have a rainy day fund", and didn't get any argument.

  • politicallogic (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rather than this, maybe we should instead have IQ tests, and maybe clinical character and psychiatric evaluations, for all of our elected leaders. In Krieger's case I'm betting these would reveal more than a few "interesting" things.

  • Talapus Pete (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It seems to me if the state thinks high-school kids should be tested for drugs, then testing legislators—and cops, say—is equally fair. Of course, not testing for booze is going to let a lot of our elected officials—and cops, again—off the hook.

  • (Show?)

    My understanding is that high school kids are NOT randomly tested for drugs on a blanket basis. Only if they wish to pursue athletics (or in some cases any extracurricular activity), has testing been allowed. But again, that's for kids under in loco parentis standards. We're talking about adults here--not even close to the same thing.

    Cops are tested as a measure of public safety. There is no similar benefit to testing people who sit behind a desk all day.

  • Talapus Pete (unverified)
    (Show?)

    An invasion of privacy is an invasion of privacy, regardless of in loco parentis "standards." One of the coming trends, coming closer every news story about drug "epidemics" is random testing of just about everyone, at least everyone in workplaces. There's a lot of support for employees peeing in bottles. Support, even, from people who should know better. It's already a condition of employment in a lot of places, and it's a big industry—a growth industry. Lots of money to be made in making everybody take drug tests!

  • engineer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I find it ironic that the party of less government is advocating even more government intrusion!

    I would much rather see mandatory IQ testing of legislators, and those who are not at least of average intelligence should have to resign (I wonder how many would be left?)

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What's the problem with drug testing our elected officials? Personally I'd be happy to know that my legislator that is making spending decisions with my tax money isn't a closet speed freak. This isn't a personal invasion. They are elected officials and this should be part of the job description in my opinion. They drug test the guys that deliver beer to bars...drug test the people that decide how to spend billions of dollars. Why is this a problem? Good for Krieger.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Garrett is right, and in fact we ought to do drug tests on everyone who either works with the public or touches tax dollars. I want to start with waiters and cooks (don't want them screwing up my order owing to being high), secretaries in government offices (they might hand me the wrong form to fill out), and people who run and post to political blogs (anyone who does these things is obviously either crazy or stoned).

  • Bert S. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's demeaning to get drug tested.

    It's tempting to say that if elites make working class people get drug tested, then we should also subject elites to their own medecine.

    In addition, I have heard that drug testing data for individuals may be legally available to those willing to pay for the information. Sort of like a credit report.

    If that is true, then I think this bill could call attention to the need to regulate access to this information.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I hate to remind everyone but we had a legislator last session who was caught with meth in her car. Did everyone forget about Kelley Wirth? Ok...let me turn it around. Maybe if they did some alcohol testing in our national Congress we wouldn't have a bunch of Republican's hiding in alcohol rehab. I understand that there is a point to be made that this is not exactly something that should be at the forefront of the agenda but why on earth would anyone think its a bad idea to drug test a publically elected figure?

  • (Show?)

    I do seem to recall someone proposing Breathalyzer tests prior to voting -- in Congress, I think.

  • (Show?)

    but why on earth would anyone think its a bad idea to drug test a publically elected figure?

    In both major parties, there is a strong streak of libertarianism, and I think this is a metric to see what your score on that dimension is. Personally, I think all drug testing is an egregious invasion of personal liberty. For that matter, I think most of our drug laws are crazy. It's a bad idea because there are a lot of ways to tell if someone's behaving recklessly without jumping into an Orwellian nightmare.

  • Lisa M. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kinda funny though, from the Oregon News Review, of Roseburg and posted on the Oregon Republican League site:

    Don't help people sit on their butts

    I have a question, not only for Douglas County, but for the entire state of Oregon. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me, I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order for me to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.

    What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to go earn it for them?

    Please understand, I have nothing against helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

    Leonard Wilson

    Riddle

    pee test

    oregonrepublicanleague.blogspot.com

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't care if an elected official passes every medical test with flying colors--urine test, blood test, whatever. If said elected official says "We must have spending discipline and a rainy day fund but don't ask how we will provide the money for a reserve fund", to me they are being arrogant and claiming to be better than the ordinary person and how dare anyone ask them specific questions.

    Besides: OK, if you want to test every elected official, does that extend down to school board members? Drug testing in transportation and public safety (police, fire, EMT) makes sense, but why for clerical and other office jobs--a bandwagon? Who pays for the test? What is the false positive/negative rate? Does the lab doing the tests have a good track record?

    Or don't those questions matter because it should be part of the job description--look at K. Wirth? If that is the rationale, why not require a full physical in the summer or fall to make sure there isn't another Mac Sumner?

    I think this is a sideshow for people who don't want to discuss other issues.

  • Greg Tompkins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Urine tests are so inaccurate. Someone can easily pass a urine test two days after any "hard drug" use and 3-4 days after marijuana. If they want to be fair and accurate, then go for the hair test. That will reveal any drug use back 9 months with nearly pinpoint accuracy.

    --GREG--

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Greg is right. Though, even that won't tell us if someone is dealing. The only sensible thing is total, 100% government surveillance of all citizens. The only people who could possibly oppose this idea are those who have something to hide.

  • TomCat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While not supporting or recommending drug use, there are things that are far more debilitating to rational thought than very moderate recreational use of pot or alcohol. Perhaps we should also test their TVs to see if they have been watching the O'Reilly Factor.

  • Greg Tompkins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am not advocating for drug use, either. However, legislators and government workers are the people who come up with the rules, they should be the FIRST to have to abide by them. So the rule is even applied they should randomly and frequently hair test everyone who is employed or using any form of public assistance (welfare, unemployment, disability, etc.) For people who come up positive then put them in jail. Drugs are still ILLEGAL, aren't they? We shouldn't have to resort to such an extreme measure but our society is drug addicted and the loss of productivity is costing us a lot of money. China is about to overtake us militarily and economically while we're sitting on our obese asses getting high and drunk.

  • pat malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Refusing to take the test would be regarded as an admission that the official has taken a controlled substance illegally

    Joe McCarthy, we hardly knew ye.

    Wayne Krieger should have to pass a common-sense test. He'd be out on his butt before he was able to set down his No. 2 pencil on his desk top.

  • (Show?)

    Greg said: "I am not advocating for drug use, either. However, legislators and government workers are the people who come up with the rules, they should be the FIRST to have to abide by them."

    I absolutely agree here. And since the rule is that adults not under reasonable suspicion of drug use, and not applying for employment in a public safety position, may not be coerced to be tested for drug use, then our legislators and executives are in the clear.

    To answer another question: since a mortgage deduction on one's taxes is just as much "welfare" as a TANF check, does the author of the latter idea support drug testing all homeowners before giving them a loan? How about monthly pee tests for anyone who has a driver's license?

  • Greg Tompkins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Like I said earlier, pee tests are highly inaccurate. They only work for very recent drug use. Why have one administered once a month? Hair tests, although very expensive, cover a much longer stretch of time (up to 9 months) and therefore wouldn't have to be done as often. Though I wholeheartedly agree with the "invasion of privacy" argument, it should be equitable to all. Either check everyone or check noone.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You know...if legislators were forced to take random drug tests we'd probably see the elimination of our asinine drug laws. I guarantee you that before that first test happened in Congress marijuana would be legalized.

  • Kelly Wirth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Editor's note: Fake comment deleted. Don't impersonate real people.]

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What drugs would be tested for? Legal? Illegal? Prescription drugs, too? If so, would they be required to show a doctor's note prescribing the drug?

    I mean, come on this whole drug testing is not only an invasion of privacy it is ridiculous. We have illegal drugs that should be legal. We have legal drugs that probably should be illegal (although I myself am against prohibition of any kind given it goes against the concept of freedom). We have cameras that monitor our behavior. We have employers who think they have the right to ask us to pee in a cup whenever they demand. How much more Big Brother are we going to withstand? How much longer are we going to put our faith into folks we do not even know? We trust our politicians and our local media more than we trust our neighbors.

    As far as Kelley Wirth, I happen to know her and her family. I have watched enough people slam her as they blindly followed the reports put out by the media and our "trusted" legislature. She was a former neighbor of mine and she and I spoke at length about what happened. I always felt she was framed and set up so that she would be removed from office. Do not believe everything the news media reported about this. There is so much more to this story. Kelley was treated so terribly amongst people of her own party as well as her own community that she left the area to raise her children in peace. She volunteered to do a drug test that very day the police said meth was found in her car to show she was not a user but the police said that was not necessary. The drugs were planted by the girlfriend of the young man Kelley was involved with for a time (who was himself a convicted drug dealer). Kelley, a meth user? Please. We have had neighbors who are meth users and this is simply not a drug habit you can hide.

    Politics is, by and large, a dirty game. Corruption is not just as the national level but at the local level as well. I am only posting this anonymously because given what happened to Kelley, I certainly am not about to attach my name to that messy situation. (I felt the need to add that considering some would choose to think I am not telling the truth as I know it. I do have something to protect--my safety.)

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What a complete waste of time. Krieger has obviously introduced this as a way to make those who support civil liberties look bad; the old, "well if you don't have anything to hide...blah blah blah..."

    It's another Republican effort to detract attention from performance-based evaluations of politicians, on which they don't fare so well.

    I would have to guess Krieger also supports warrantless wire tapping, reading of my mail, and other types of blanket search and seizures that betray the Republican plan for replacing the Bill of Rights with the instructions for an anoscope.

  • Curt (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Drug testing is about nothing more than harassing people. This guy is just mad and making noise because his party isn't in power any more. There's not a problem with drunk or high legislators and never has been. Nor is there a "problem" with drunk or high pilots/high school athletes/cops/firemen. There are isolated incidents of such things occurring.

    Maybe he could get to work on getting some school funding. Or maybe he can't think of any ideas there, and figures it's up to the Democrats to Actually Fix Problems.

    Curt

  • Greg Tompkins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am starting to think that politicans and government workers are half witted dolts. They can make asinine rules for the rest of the population but then they are above their own laws. Granted there are much more important issues to focus on but out of fairness and equality then they need to quit complaining and subject themselves to the same tests most others in society have to.

  • (Show?)

    Greg, if you can explain what functions of direct public safety legislators perform, then we can talk about them following "their own laws." Otherwise, they ARE following their own laws, which very clearly prevent suspicionless drug testing, as this proposal would be.

  • Ben There (unverified)
    (Show?)

    With all due respect, the statement,

    ... the rule is that adults not under reasonable suspicion of drug use, and not applying for employment in a public safety position, may not be coerced to be tested for drug use..."

    is just plain WRONG!

    Guess you've never applied for a job at, or worked at Goodwill - who subject their employees to both pre-employment AND random (on the job) drug tests.

    Guess you've never been on TANF - DHS can and does submit recipients to random drug tests.

    Guess you've never had a prescription for a Schedule II narcotic - like painkillers or ADHD drugs - many doctors require random drug tests of these patients just to continue getting their medication. Ever hear of a "narcotic contract" or "pain contract"?

    I've been asked to pee in a cup in all these situations.

    Drug tests are humiliating, invasive, coercive and do little to identify or stem substance abuse.

    That said, I have to agree that lawmakers, politicians, policy setters, cops, judges, doctors and anyone else who deems it appropriate to create, monitor and/or enforce such tests against me - should put their money where their mouths are.

    If we poor slobs have to "be clean" to take in and sell your hand-offs at Goodwill, I think it's only right and fair that those who make and enforce these ridiculous policies and laws - especially those who do so at taxpayer expense - should too.

  • Greg Tompkins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    torridjoe, your argument is absolutely pathetic! Who cares if their jobs are considered "direct public safety" or not! The fact that someone uses drugs, which is an ILLEGAL activity should be an ethical concern, should it not? Why should they be held on a pedestal and made immune to the same asinine rules they put in place for everyone else? In the private sector many employees who have absolutely nothing to do with "direct public safety" are subject to drug testing. What it all boils down to is a matter of character. Someone who uses drugs is a deviant and flawed individual. Why on earth would you want these people to pass laws? If these nimrods can pass legislation that affects ALL of our lives in a very substantial way then they need to be held to a very high ethical standard. I am frankly fed up with the lack of accountability in politicans and government workers, especially in Oregon! And I am not slamming Democrats. It goes across party lines. They brag all the time about how Oregon is progressive and "pioneering". I call bullshit. I know this is probably going to ilicit the "if you don't like it here move" retort.

  • Madam Hatter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't like or agree with drug testing, but when people are forced to do it to get (many) a minimum wage job, so should those who thought it was such a great idea in the first place. As someone wrote above, maybe then this nonsense will stop.

    This bill is just window dressing though, I won't argue that. Note that only certain positions are automatically terminated after testing positive - and only after testing positive THREE times, no less - and legislator is not one.

    Also note the curious SECTION 7:

    SECTION 7. { + A person serving as a public official listed in section 2 of this 2007 Act fails a drug test for the purposes of sections 1 to 7 of this 2007 Act if the test indicates that the person has used marijuana, without regard to whether the person is authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana under ORS 475.300 to 475.346. + }

    So even if you have a legal prescription for medical marijuana, as allowed by state law, you're GUILTY! This is the same as what's happening to the rest of us in the courts, so I guess it's only fair. But, it's REALLY asinine to me that someone can be wonked out legally on OxyCotin, but cannot partake of the herb the night before (or week before, or even month before) legally - even if his doctor and state law says he can.

    How about we just do away with all the invasive abuses of ALL of our civil liberties? For all of us.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is silly. There is enough real work for our Legislature solving real problems and taking advantage of real opportunities. No one should waste time on this.

    Maybe when Oregon has acceptable pubic education, a strong economy, fewer homeless and hungry, better infrastructure, etc. this issue could be revisited.

  • Greg Tompkins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How "silly" is it that we should actually expect accountability from our legistlators and those acting on OUR behalf? Especially when the laws they pass impact our lives in a big way? Why on earth would you want the possibility of drugs affecting their already shrunken brains? So they can pass even MORE stupid laws? I think it's anything but a waste. It's an ethical and character issue. Frankly I find it offensive that so many of you have defended their lack of accountability and justified their ineptitude.

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Greg T. sez: Someone who uses drugs is a deviant and flawed individual. Why on earth would you want these people to pass laws?

    I think if someone is deviant or flawed it should be clear to everyone based on their performance, and they should be subjet to public rebuke. Whether or not their personality disorders stem from drug use or not is irrelevant. I'm for judging people based on their works and deeds, not their biochemistry.

    Churchill, Grant, and JFK were heavy substance abusers who performed well in some roles and not so well in others. But I'd hate to think the world would have refused their aid when each was "the man of hour" on account of what was in their urine.

  • (Show?)

    Ben There--

    *Goodwill is not run by the government.

    *No one is coerced to apply for and receive TANF. I don't agree they should pass a drug test to receive assistance, but it's not even close to coerced testing.

    *Wouldn't the fact that a doctor prescribed a particular drug, create a pretty healthy suspicion that the individual was in fact using the drug in question? Furthermore, that's a medical test for a specific drug, not a blanket test for any drug on the list.

    I don't like private drug testing at all--but employers can do what they like as a condition of employment. That's not what we're talking about here.

  • (Show?)

    Greg-- Like Ben, you seem to think that private practices have any bearing on what is possible in the public arena. Then you say: "The fact that someone uses drugs, which is an ILLEGAL activity should be an ethical concern, should it not? "

    OK, fine. Which legislator is using drugs as a fact? Or hell, I won't even hold you to factual evidence. Which ones are reasonably suspected of drug use?

    Why do you hate the Constitution? Are you aware of the 4th Amendment?

    How is there lack of accountability for our legislators in Oregon? Did you not get your ballot last November? You should check with your county registrar about that.

    Question: do you think Chief Justice Rehnquist was a deviant and flawed individual? How about Betty Ford?

  • Greg Tompkins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    torridjoe,

    You are totally missing the point. My own personal opinion (like that even matters) is that drug testing should not be a practice. It is absolutely an invasion of privacy, blah blah blah.... It doesn't seem that the point of this conversation's focus is on whether drug testing should do done at all, but rather if it should be done on politicans.

    HOWEVER, legislators and state politicans are making laws and enforcing the very legislation they foist upon society. Yet you advocate for them to be EXEMPT, state they are not involved in "direct public safety" and use that as a justification for them to be exempt from drug testing? I know people who work in CALL center jobs and I have even heard of (gasp) suspicionless random testing! Why should we treat lawmakers like God and give them such preferrential treatment? I could give a damn about things politicans from the past did. Just because THEY did it doesn't mean that it's "ok" for them to do it NOW! I hear some politicans back in the 1800's owned slaves. So because they did that, does that make it right? And even if absolutely all the legislators had never abused a drug in their life and never would they should subject themselves to it willingly and shut up. Enough with the preferrential treatment for politicans and state workers. Why should we have this caste system based on whether someone is in the "public" or "private" arena?

    --GREG--

  • Nina (unverified)
    (Show?)

    as i've often told others "i would HAVE to be on something in order to deal with the ongoing stress of trying to support myself on minimum wage".......

    someone on here called those who use drugs as deviant. can't recall who and i am too lazy to find the post again. a wee bit judgmental there considering we all have at least one addiction (not necessarily to a chemical of course). what do you define as a drug, out of curiousity?

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Drug testing functions to test whether a person will drop their pants when ordered to do so by authority.

    The policy has been the centerpoint of all recent administrations' employment policy. The main goal, which has worked, is to prevent the flow of workers from worse to better jobs.

    Many positions are tested for purely political reasons, and create the available applicant pool. Did you know that Salvation Army bell ringers get to keep 50% of what you throw in the kettle? Why wouldn't every poor person sign up for that? Daily urine testing. They are being paid to undercut your civil liberties for a religious, not for profit with an evangelical agenda. Screw 'em. I've started my own NFP; good-bye taxes. What a corrupt and cynical system!

    Life is cheap in the US and there is no respect for process or reason. You live in a police state, which will have policies like this. Do something about the police state if you don't like it. What would you have done in Nazi Germany? Really? What are you doing now? That's what you would have done, not what you imagine.

    Since I was 7 years old I have asked everyone I have ever met that question and written it down. "What would you have done if you had lived in Hitler's Germany". I am German and I guess it was irritating to hear the Nazis portrayed as some kind of abberation when, deep down, I could see that the Germans had acted like people always act. Follow the Big Man. I need to be led. Country above self. The troop has gone on a hunt; are you with them? Typical primate values. Don't think like that? Do you "support our troops" or do you call a hired assasin a murderer? The troop's on a hunt. You will be included/excluded in the troop based on your response. Free society. Free to impose mindless primate values on all the other breeding shits.

    Last year I stuck statements people had made in the Xmas cards I sent them. It is staggering to see what people said 25 and 30 years ago and what they are doing today.

    You know what the #1 reason given was for acting contrary? Debt. You've been bought and paid for and so the State can subject you to any indigity and posting a rant is the best you can manage for a response. Pitiful monkeys. Hopefully the species will die out quickly without much collateral damage. I lived in Leiden for 3 years and during a trip to Amsterdam I happened to meet a little old lady that lives a few doors down from the Ann Frank house. She turned them in. She is proud of the fact. Claims to have hated the Germans, but she had a business loan at the time, and she kind of liked getting rid of the Jews on the street. And you know, arguing with her didn't feel one bit different than arguing PDX issues with some random person on TriMet. You really are the same kind of people.

    And me? I'm not outspoken...really. I'm just debt free. Get there and see if you don't go beyond this.

  • gt (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank You for your comments, I agree we have become somewhat of a "police state". The unfortunate thing is they are applying their policies in such an uneven fashion and we have this caste system based on whether you're in the "public" or "private" arena. The public arena gets to make the rules but don't have to abide them. I am very disgruntled how the liberals have hijacked our country and the Republicans aren't doing anything effective either except bumbling around like dolts. Even the liberals have tried to shut me down for my comments on this very site! Sounds like the open minded and progressives they brag about being? They can deride anything and everyone they want but watch out if you say anything deemed "policially insensitive".

    What do they think I am, stupid? I know how to get a different IP address and thus get around their attempts to shut me down.

  • (Show?)

    "Why should we have this caste system based on whether someone is in the "public" or "private" arena?"

    Is that a serious question? Do you really need a primer on how the Constitution works? The rights of the individual are not the same as the rights of the collective--because the latter must take into account ALL individuals.

    Call center jobs are not in the purview of government. Why you think they are, is baffling.

    There is NO preferential treatment at work here. Adults may not be randomly drug tested in the United States. Politicians are adults. Why are you claiming it's preferential treatment to treat politicians like everyone else, when "everyone else" is not subject to random drug testing?

    Or let's narrow it down to public employees, which politicians are. Which public employees are subject to suspicionless drug testing, beyond those who work in sensitive positions of public safety?

  • Ben There (unverified)
    (Show?)

    tj-

    No one is coerced to run for and be elected to the legislature either. It's at least as voluntary - if not more so - than being forced to apply for TANF. People forced to do that generally have few, if any, other choices.

    As far as "narcotic contracts" go, they DO, in fact, blanket test for any drug on the list. Many vets, in particular, have been denied their pain medication because they have tested positive for marijuana. Even those who also have a legal prescription for medical marijuana (besides their pain meds).

    If having to pee in a cup in order to get relief from chronic, debilitating, pain isn't coercion, I don't know what is...

  • Ben There (unverified)
    (Show?)

    tj-

    No one is coerced to run for and be elected to the legislature either. It's at least as voluntary - if not more so - than being forced to apply for TANF. People forced to do that generally have few, if any, other choices.

    As far as "narcotic contracts" go, they DO, in fact, blanket test for any drug on the list. Many vets, in particular, have been denied their pain medication because they have tested positive for marijuana. Even those who also have a legal prescription for medical marijuana (besides their pain meds).

    If having to pee in a cup in order to get relief from chronic, debilitating, pain isn't coercion, I don't know what is...

elsewhere

connect with blueoregon