87 replies to this topic

[BlackOut227]

Writing a paper for a criminal justice course and I'm curious as to what you druggies think. 

 

Also consider the use of cocaine, heroine, meth, w.e. I'm not just talking about weed.

 

If weed was to become legal, federally, then would you still hold the same opinion when there wouldn't be tests for that?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Like my dad said, "The day I can't do my job high is the day I turn in my badge and gun."

[BlackOut227]

Sounds like a motto to live by.

[Haflinger]

There are a lot of inherent problems with this idea. I'm ... in favour of it, actually, if the problems can be overcome.

 

The biggest single problem I can see is that cops do a lot of the drug testing themselves. You have a who watches the watchers problem in a nutshell: if you have a drug-addicted cop, that cop is on the inside of the system and will have an easier time trying to, ah, suppress any negative findings.

 

And you have to deal with the problem of undercover detectives, some of which take illegal drugs as part of their duty. (Undercover raises so many problems, this is just one of them.) Thankfully most cops are not detectives.

 

You also raise the possibility of blackmail. Cops are particularly vulnerable to this, and useful for blackmailers. If data isn't secured properly - and in the current environment, that's a huge problem - then you should be able to see what the problems that might appear there are.

 

There's also the common problem associated with mandatory drug testing: it's bad for employee morale, because people worry, even people who aren't users; false positives can ruin people's lives.

[The Dark Empire]

i'm from a town where the cops literally have nothing better to do but harass kids to find weed on them so they can fuck them over. I know several people who have criminal records because they got caught smoking which is shitty because it affects their ability to get jobs. Fuck the police they need to be tested too. Maybe then they won't send half the force to question someone.

[Thrash]

Absolutely, if they can random drug test at any other job, there's no reason they can't do it for police.

 

I'm against random drug testing. I only support it for pre-employment and when an accident happens, but since tons of other jobs do it, don't see why it should be an issue doing it with police.

[Lord Draculea]

Absolutely, if they can random drug test at any other job, there's no reason they can't do it for police.

 

I'm against random drug testing. I only support it for pre-employment and when an accident happens, but since tons of other jobs do it, don't see why it should be an issue doing it with police.

If you can prevent an accident from happening, why not do it pre-emptively? We're talking about innocent human lives here.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I don't know how things are in the rest of the country (or Canada) but in Massachusetts the police do not perform drug testing themselves. They take the individual to the emergency room and have them tested there. A physician's order is required.

 

 

Absolutely, if they can random drug test at any other job, there's no reason they can't do it for police.

 

 

Maybe they shouldn't be able to randomly drug test any other job. Maybe they shouldn't be able to randomly drug test anyone, ever. Interesting, though, how quickly people have come to accept this kind of invasion of privacy. 

[Manoka]

Honestly, I don't think our cops should be high all the times, nor surgeons and Doctors so yeah, drug tests are fine. 

 

You also can't drive while on drugs so, cops do a lot of patrols. You'd have to be relegated to some kind of office clerk, and even then, just not a good idea. I mean, even if the guy is on meds from his Doctor he shouldn't be out on the street, with a gun, in a car, telling people to stop breaking the law. Just saying.

[Manoka]

Well, anyways, to address your points...

 

 

1. Just because the cops are doing the test wouldn't mean that it's automatically a conflict of interest. Not all cops are going to give all cops a pass. If a cop finds a corrupt cop, he's probably going to be more pissed at him than he would a regular criminal, for a myriad of reasons, from putting him or his buddies at risk, to just the fact they're held to a higher standard. Furthermore, outside police department, the FBI, or even outside organizations could do the test, which honestly isn't that difficult. They could just as easily try to slip past those people so, it doesn't change much in that department. 

 

2. Under cover cops are given special permissions, like not needing to wear uniforms, adhere to dress codes, carry standard issue weapons, or generally tell people they are police. If they take drugs to blend in which, there are fake drugs, they can just break the law, as much as running stop lights during a high speed chase, or selling people illegal drugs to bait them into doing illegal things. 

 

3. Someone could blackmail a cop by figuring out any number of things, or threaten their family and the like. It's probably more likely that a cop is doing something else that could blackmail them than drugs, and if the test is done properly and they get caught for it, they're off the job one way or another. It's already illegal to do drugs, so like, if you get caught at all it's illegal, so any number of people could figure out about it. 

 

4. You simply increase the accuracy of the tests, or, do more thorough tests if it seems like someone tested positive. Cops shouldn't worry about being caught for doing illegal things, since, it's part of their jobs to stop illegal things. It should be implied that they aren't going to do illegal things. 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Cops and surgeons shouldn't be on the job drunk, either, but they don't do random blood alcohol tests. Why? Because you can tell if someone is drunk, just like you can tell if someone is high. Random drug testing isn't meant to identify someone high on the job — it's meant to identify someone who got high yesterday, on their own time. And that's none of anyone's business.

[Redezra]

Vote Redezra for an Orwellian super state that cracks down so hard on drugs it's funny. Dead funny.

[Manoka]

Cops and surgeons shouldn't be on the job drunk, either, but they don't do random blood alcohol tests. Why? Because you can tell if someone is drunk, just like you can tell if someone is high. Random drug testing isn't meant to identify someone high on the job — it's meant to identify someone who got high yesterday, on their own time. And that's none of anyone's business.

An ounce of alchohol is out of your blood stream in about an hour, but it can take up to a week to get marijuana out, and several to get some of the stronger drugs. So, it does matter if they're a chronic user as compared to someone who uses occasionally. You typically have to get a breathalyzer to prove they were drunk at the time they were drunk.

[Lord Draculea]

I don't know about USA, but in my country (and all over Europe) it is legal and normal routine for the police to stop any car in traffic for a check, with or without reason. It's part of the highway code. During such checks, drivers can be tested for blood alcohol, in case of any suspicion. I don't see it at all as an "invasion" of ones privacy, as long as other peoples' lives are at stake, and can be put in danger by a drunk idiot. The safety of others should prevail at all times. And hence the use of heavy drugs is by far more dangerous than alcohol... Only one logical conclusion is possible, in my view.

 

But then of course, what applies to Europe may not apply to the US. I've learnt to deal with that. 

[Redezra]

Lord Draculea for Ministry of Rehabilitation in Redezra's Super State.

 

He knows how bad big govt can be so he's sure not to repeat any of their mistakes, plus he thinks the Greater Good comes first. 

[Lord Draculea]

Lord Draculea for Ministry of Rehabilitation in Redezra's Super State.

 

He knows how bad big govt can be so he's sure not to repeat any of their mistakes, plus he thinks the Greater Good comes first. 

As long as the "Greater Good" is defined by law, and not by anyone's own interpretation, yes. It's the least we can do to keep our society breathable. You guys take that for granted, but I've lived to see how it is otherwise... Maybe that explains my apparent rigidity, to a certain extent. Breaking the rules and unleashing your inner demons is great, for a one night festival maybe, but you don't want to have to live with it around you everyday, or see your loved ones getting hurt, trust me. 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I don't know about USA, but in my country (and all over Europe) it is legal and normal routine for the police to stop any car in traffic for a check, with or without reason. It's part of the highway code. During such checks, drivers can be tested for blood alcohol, in case of any suspicion. I don't see it at all as an "invasion" of ones privacy, as long as other peoples' lives are at stake, and can be put in danger by a drunk idiot. The safety of others should prevail at all times. And hence the use of heavy drugs is by far more dangerous than alcohol... Only one logical conclusion is possible, in my view.

 

But then of course, what applies to Europe may not apply to the US. I've learnt to deal with that. 

 

Of course drunk driving is a public safety issue. We do field sobriety tests here, too. But drunk driving is like being drunk on the job. What we are talking about is the equivalent of random stops to check not if you're drunk now, but if you were drunk yesterday.

[Lord Draculea]

Of course drunk driving is a public safety issue. We do field sobriety tests here, too. But drunk driving is like being drunk on the job. What we are talking about is the equivalent of random stops to check not if you're drunk now, but if you were drunk yesterday.

 

One remark: drunk driving is worse than being drunk on the job, as in the first case it's a matter of public safety, while in the second it's a private issue between you and your employer, plus there's no imminent threat for anyone (at least in most cases).

 

In any situation, the principle of proportionality of law enforcement should be observed.

 

Otherwise, I fully agree with you that whatever someone wants to do with his body on his own time should not be a matter of concern for anyone else. 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

There are any number of jobs where being drunk on the job could be a matter of public safety. Police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, pilots, drivers, construction workers, food preparers, etc., etc. But again, that's not what we're talking about here. Sobriety checks are used to identify people operating a motor vehicle under the influence, a threat to public safety. Random drug testing is different. It is not used to identify people who are under the influence on the job. It is used to identify people who have used drugs at some point in the past. It is not a matter of public safety, but of moral judgment and disapproval.

[Lord Draculea]

I do not support the idea of random drug testing as a method of identifying people who have used drugs at some point in the past without a good present reason (like e.g. applying for a job, but even then, not just any job). I can't think of any situation where a normal society should allow such a form of harrasement.