The question cameup on martinsaffer.com and I think that it is a worthy question. Is Reta Griffith, our county commissioner, submitting to random drug testing? Should she submit too?

She will be wanting your vote in May; just tell her that you won't until you see the results of her drug screen!

If these public officials are clean of drugs, then why are they making such a stink over a drug test? It seems that either they have something to hide or they don't support a drug free county.

If I have to take a test every year before I can work at Snowshoe either cleaning or running a cash register or waiting tables then why shouldn't the people that are running our county, and have access to our county funds should have to take a test also.

I wonder if there was ever a time in Martin’s life that he might have been a little apprehensive about a drug test?
Not a accusation just a question.

When the Pharisees caught the women in adultery they sought to bring her to Jesus for condemnation. If you recall Norman, Jesus said, "He that is without sin shall cast the first stone." The scripture goes on to say that he then bent down and began to write in the dirt. Many commentators feel he began to write the Ten Commandments. His reaction and subsequent writings brought conviction upon the crowd and they left without stoning the sinner. If you would have been there Norman you would have insisted they stone her and then started a thread on Jesus not doing his job as the Messiah. You see yourself as some crusader against wrongdoing but you are just a nosy, unhappy old man with too much time on his hands and a keyboard at the ready. How many people will you have to slander before it is enough? "The mystery cop" The Sheriff and his rocks" "Judge Rowe" "Donna Price" "JL Clifton" Now you go after Reta again because you and she had a difference of opinion over the Sharp Farm, and she holds the power in the local Republican party that you desire. To quote a great saying from the communist witch hunt of the fifties; "Have you no shame Mr. Alderman?"

It's norman and the etator way, its what brings us back again and again. If you want to read civil posts martinsaffer.com but you will see after a couple of visits he runs a more strict bully pulpit and no new ideas are really exchanged.

Sometimes I think I am sick coming back again and again.

No wait a minute, I am just bored and tired of the reruns on TV.

No one pays much attention to what Norman says or does, so you are giving him way too much importance.

What does asking Mrs. Griffith to surrender her liberties and freedoms do to safeguard my liberties and freedoms? Sounds foolish and ass backwards to me.

I am not in any way suggesting that Reta is a "witch". I am not looking for witches just rotten public officials. What is it going to hurt for her to take a drug test? If Marty has the gonads to do it, she ought to!

I didn't originate this issue:

Linda gibb
Jun 22, 2009
1:36 am

Re: Time to Step up to the Plate on Drug Abuse

I don't think elected officials should be exempt. The citizens have a right to expect that those representing them are drug & alcohol free.
Martin Saffer
Jun 22, 2009
5:52 am

Re: Time to Step up to the Plate on Drug Abuse

Then I hope you require that they do at the ballot box.

normanalderman
Jun 22, 2009
8:14 am

Re: Time to Step up to the Plate on Drug Abuse

I am interested in how Reta Griffith responds to this challenge. She is up at the ballot box in May. I would think that she would be first on the list unless there is some question about passing the test? I will have to assume that there is if she won't take the test?
edit delete

Martin Saffer
Jul 17, 2009
12:34 pm

Re: Time to Step up to the Plate on Drug Abuse

I'm still waiting for more Court House elected officials and personnel to join up in the pool of voluntary random drug screens to prove to the County that when folks look up towards the Court House they can be assured that those on the County pay role are putting their actions on the line as well as their just words to fight drug and alcohol addiction and abuse.

Martin Saffer
Today
6:53 am

Re: Time to Step up to the Plate on Drug Abuse

I'm still waiting.....

normanalderman
Today
3:52 pm

Re: Time to Step up to the Plate on Drug Abuse

You mean Reta hasn't submitted to a drug test? Confirm and I will raise the question on etater! That girl needs to get with the program and start acting professional!

i would certainly raise questions of an elected official refusing drug tets. especially if employees are mandated to take them. next election i would make a point of axing her in public why she refused a drug test .as well i would want to know why it isnt mandatory for elected officials if it is for regular employees.

How many of you know druggies who have passed the drug test?

On the flip side, how many of you have heard of someone testing false positive?

So, what's the point? I wouldn't take one either.

I am offering to publish the results of Retta's drug screen on etater for free!

What about it Reta?

It's this simple: If you have nothing to hide then, there's nothing to fear! Hell! I've taken a thousand whiz quizzes as my job requires them!! I pee in that cup happily!

Ok, people are starting to raise a holler: It's time to pee in the cup!

Pan, go over to the "Computer" thread and say that to the scaredy cats who will not go to the Cash for Clunkers web site for fear that Obama will jump in and read everything on their personal computer!

If they have nothing to hide, there's nothing to fear, right?

P.S. Gee Norman, the offer to publish the results is sooo generous. Wonder what your pee test would reveal?

That I am full of paxil, linsinopril,metoprolol, nexium,glipizide, and metformin.

And Jesus would say to us today, stay on your meds and sin no more!

Maybe Clifton should take a drug test. The way he looks and acts.

The woman at the well submitted to Christ's questions. Just think of his questions in the light as if they were a drug test!

I suggest Reta wait until Christ himself asks her to pee in the cup, then.

Or until she loses this election because she wasn't willing to pee in the cup! It is symbolic; of course, our public officials would never use drugs, but this way we know for certain!

Norman you say your a man of god. Why don't you stop slandering other people. We can bring out that your a alchoolic you make your night trips to the liquor store on sat and preach on Sunday. Makes me sick but your a man of god yah right. I cant see why people listen to your bs. so everyone just think of that.

LOL! If Norman makes nightly trips to the liquor store then by all means GRAB your cameras people! Get pictures of the going ons about Norman. I'm sure he wouldn't mind. LOL!

You are totally welcome to take pictures of me at the liquor store!

Norman....if you'd add VIAGRA to your concoction ((haha!!) you might be less angry and have less time to post negative comments on E-Tater! Carol Will Thank You!!!!

Don't do Viagra!

Way to go Blueberry Hill!!!

There is no law which states that a person must be drug free to hold an elected office.
Requiring an elected offical to submit to a drug test drug would be invasion of privacy.

Are you saying, Tom, that it is ok if the County Commission requires county employees to submit to a drug test but County Commissioners shouldn't have to take a drug Test! Where did you get such screwed up values?

Very simple Stinkwell

County Commissioners are elected officials, county employees are not.

It's not my values. There is no law that requires elected officials to submit to a drug test.

You shall not therefore oppress one another; but you shall fear your God: for I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 25:17 Norman read the bible instead of etatering.You will drawl closer to god.I bet you haven't even cracked your bible in weeks have you. You don't need to make a fuss on here about how you do read the bible if you do.Just be honest with your self you could spend your time reading the bible that etatering.You spend I would say 6+ hours on this site a day.If you spent that time reading the bible man your walk with the lord would be so great.I know what your going to do after I post this.You will write a 40 page report of how you read your bible.Please Norman would you stop slandering people on here it gives you a bad image as a cristian.Slandering hurts more than just the person your slandering there family there reputation so think before you act.Norman I dont have any hard feelings towards you I just needed to let you know that you are casting your self as a mean spiteful person.Do you want to look like this.You need to say sorry to the ones you have hurt over the years.If you knew the pain you have inflicted over the years would you have still done it?Words hurt more than actions.

Here we go again,Norman brings out the dirt,some of you them bring out what you think of as dirt on Norman. You all say he is judging them, while some of you are judging Norman. This would really be a bad world if we all acted alike. I think this is what ETATER is about is to view our own points. Norman is not always wrong.I am not always right. As far as judging me, That is one time I will be judged by my maker.

In this day and time, all public offical, police, etc should be drug tested at random. Rescue personal driving ambulances,fire personal also should be tested. Maybe this will save their own lives down the road. The problem is the people that doesn't want the test is usually the ones that need it.

I totally agree that all city/County based programs and services, such as volunteer fire and rescue, along with council members, court employees and police, should be subject to random drug testing.
Those types of volunteers and employees are tested in other areas, so why should PC be any different?
If someone is "clean" and free of drugs, they should have no objection to submitting to a drug test. People who have something to hide are the ones who raise a ruckus...

I have some questions about this. Who does the testing? Who is the ultimate authority that says who gets tested when? How much does it cost? Who pays for the tests? Are the results private? What if someone is taking legal prescription drugs (such as an antidepressant or fertility drugs) and they don't really want the whole world to know their business--is there a guarantee that the results are private? What drugs do they test for? Will alcohol be included?

If people refuse a test, I don't believe it means they have something to hide. We do have a few civil rights left. If we would decriminalize drugs, this wouldn't be an issue. Is a public servant in our community not performing his duties correctly? Then investigate accordingly. Is everything running correctly? Do the county commissioners show up acting drunk or stoned? Then take action. Do people have the right to not want their privacy invaded? You bet. It doesn't mean they have something to hide.