Should Politicians Have Hair Alcohol Testing?

January 4th, 2010

Today, people entering positions of leadership are often asked to go through not only drug testing, but alcohol testing, too. Some people argue that since alcohol is a legal substance for adults, testing for its usage is an inappropriate measure of governing or leadership ability. Others say that politicians with a history of alcohol abuse should go through alcohol testing to prove their sobriety to the public they are serving.

The issue of alcohol detection drug service testing, and which circumstances it is useful for, is a topic catalyzed by the increasing accuracy of testing technology. What used to be the normal routine was urinalysis alcohol testing. But, with urinalysis, results were not consistently accurate, and only revealed about a week’s worth of history. Now, with the new, sophisticated technology of hair alcohol testing, one can see a person’s history of alcohol use, for up to 12 months.

What makes hair alcohol testing so sharply accurate? Ethyl glucoronide, known as EtG, is a metabolite the body creates when alcohol enters the bloodstream. EtG is the identifiable marker in today’s alcohol hair testing. Courts in the USA and the UK are already using etg alcohol testing in cases, especially as related to drunk driving and custody issues. Businesses too are picking up on the convenient and telling tool of this testing, and of course, people entering the realm of political leadership are prime targets for testing.

The goal of testing is to discover alcohol abuse, or absence of abuse. One strand of hair reveals the past twelve months of alcohol use, to a surprisingly minute degree. Our hair shows patterns of alcohol consumption, from light to heavy, including periods of abstinence. This testing helps differentiate social drinkers from heavy drinkers.

Is it an invasion of privacy to submit an alcohol test before entering public office? These days, the media grabs up any private information they can find about a politician, sometimes to the disfavor of the politician. Governor Spitzer knows all too well that what is done behind closed doors may be discovered and exposed to all the world.

Some people argue that alcohol testing should not be required of those entering public office, because of its private nature, and the fact that alcohol is not illegal. They say that politicians have lost too much of their privacy already, and alcohol testing is going too far. Why expose something that is perfectly legal and within their rights as adults?

Others say that politicians should be prepared to reveal their entire private life to the media, because that’s what they invisibly sign up for when they go into a public position. They point to alcohol testing as proof that the politician does not have a pattern of heavy drinking, which could indicate alcoholism. A hair alcohol test, they argue, can positively prove that a political candidate has a history of moderate or no alcohol consumption. For politicians who have openly admitted a history of alcohol abuse, hair alcohol testing may be an effective way of proving if the abuse is a current or recent problem.

Some politicians actually use hair alcohol testing to prove without a doubt that they do not have an alcohol problem. Other politicians consent to hair alcohol testing, when required, but fear that their drinking habits, even if they are moderate, will be criticized. Either way you look at it, hair alcohol testing is a reliable way of learning someone’s pattern with alcohol.