LSD Use as a barrier to public safety employment: A review of the medical findings

Conclusions In a review of available literature on the topic of adverse effects of the use of hallucinogenics, the authors found some remarkable evidence. First, there is not evidence that these drugs are physically or emotionally addictive. In fact, users generally discontinue use because of the impact of altering states of consciousness. Few have the desire to experience these effects beyond satisfying their curiosity about the drugs. There seem to be some specific personality factors that predispose individuals to experiment with psychedelic drugs, and certainly, specific personality types are prone to be associated with negative side effects in both the short and long-term. In light of the considerable amount of research which supports the premise that LSD is not as dangerous as once assumed, perhaps restrictive hiring policies should be reviewed and reevaluated in the case of the one-time user. If an individual passes all testing, and personal history shows stability, disqualifying a candidate for prior LSD use does not appear to be supportable by research finding. Again, this report is not meant to diminish the negative effect of hallucinogens on a small portion of our society. The intent is to point out that the medical literature does not support the contention that one-time hallucinogen use carries with it any undesirable long-term consequences. The importance of considering an individual within the context of testing and background can not be minimized.     

The determination of local public expenditures and the principal and agent relation: A case study

The principal and agent relationship is important in the public sector. There, elected or appointed representatives act on behalf of the citizens of their jurisdictions. This paper examines the importance of the budget referendum, which allows the principals to approve or disapprove the proposal of a set of agents, in the context of local public expenditure decisions. We test the null hypothesis that the institution of referendum, when compared to a nonreferendum institution, does not lead to significantly different expenditure behavior.