Posted: 12/6/2007 9:14:43 AM EDT
|
Okay..... First of all, I'm not in LE. Just a citizen. But here, local police had this issue for some time. The Chief (who was hired out of TX) wanted to random drug tests on his officers. The officers union was against it. The arbitrator sided w/ the union, stating that the current policy of testing when there is reason was enough. I didn't follow it much, but just the little bit I read and hear on the local talk radio, most people who called were in favor of random testing. I have a CDL license and we get pulled in for random testing. Granted, I drive school bus.... Personally, I think its not a bad idea..... I just wanted to see what the some of the LE's on the board (and other people) think of this subject. (I'll put a poll together also). |
|
I see random tests as an insult to the people. I can be trusted with all kinds of things. I have stood guard at an armored car transfer with more than a couple mil in cash and I can't be trusted to not go shoot heroin on the weekend? Random tests are to keep people who would otherwise use from doing so. Cause testing is to prove when someone does and either help them or boot them. The policies in place (ours is with cause, drugs or alcohol) is fine and works as is. I would also oppose implementation of one on principal, but I assume they could do it regardless if done for the entire county and not just our group. Joe |
|
Given some of the headlines in the not so distant past I can see randomn tests on LEO's as a legitimate condition of continued employement. I would like to think that people that make it thru the hiring process are above drug use AND the supervisors know their people well enough to pick up on the signs of drug use/abuse - alcohol, speed, steroids, etc, etc - but history doesn't support my hopes, particularly in larger departments. Personally, I don't have a problem with being asked to pee in a cup without cause. Brian |
Yep. And after an incident (shooting, car wreck). Best way to prove, hell no, that is not a factor. |
| We do random testing & it's mandatory. Those that oppose this need to wake up. It's the mentality that "well, I'm a cop & shold be trusted as a bebefit of my position" that make me wonder. I have known & worked cops on my dept & others that don't share my philosophy on trust & integrity. I've known ofc's, albeit a very small number, that have turned to dope. Just because you're a cop doesn't mean others in our profession are immune to the evils of dope. I know I can be trusted & I prove that everyday & I don't have to tested as a vehicle to make my trustworthyness more concrete, however, drug testing should be required & welcomed by all agencies for their ofc's. Drug testing is a way to identify those dopers in uniform & then get rid of them. Especially for the individuals that are very covert in their ways. I'm not offended in the least by the testing requirement. |
|
All of the employees who work for my town are subject to random drug testing. They're all put in the same pool, along with the town's volunteer FD and the local volunteer rescue squad. I've been in the pool for over 5 years as a FF/EMT, dispatcher, and now an LEO. Never been pulled to test, never worried if I was. We had it in the military, too. I got the unfortunate task as a brand new NCO to be a meatgazer. I don't use dope, I lock up dopers. |
|
Interesting results for the 'poll' (not scientific nor based on any hard proof.) My next question- a follow up actually..... For those who do not support the idea of random drug testing of LE, why not? The local PD and arbitrator here said that in order to start, there has to be a dept. of similar size in the state that does it (sounded like has to set precedent). But the Chief and city basically look at it as they can't do anything new w/out approval from the 'union' (granted I don't know how the union contract is worded). If the people who voted are not 'stacking' the poll, it looks like is is common, at least from this non scientific poll/posting. |
|
No union gives without getting. No city/municipality gets without giving. No city/municipality gives without crushing public demand, i.e. you implement this policy or we will replace you with elected officials that will. When does this "crushing" public opinion force action you may ask? Simple, after a major incident. No incident....No "crush". And the circle of life is complete. |
|
This topic is back in our local news..... The Chief is trying to get the state to pass a law to get random testing through. The association of police chiefs (et. al.) reluctantly 'endorsed' the idea, but stop short of 'pushing' or actually contacting lawmakers to get one made and passed. |
| We've had it for a long time now. 1 test a year for regular ofc, +1 if your in any specialized unit (TACT, vice, crisis intervention or additional weapons) mine comes up several times a year. We were told at one time that we got federal funds for the program. Now with the changes in our sick policy, if your taking pain meds even with a current persricption (Rx more than 6 mons old is considered drug abuse) it has to be completely out of your system before you come back to work or they put you in employee assistance. If your dept. hasn't gone to random testing keep an eye on the politicos. At one time it seemed only the same people (one's who could pass) were getting tested sometimes as much as 3 or 4 times a month. Don't get me wrong I'm all for it as long as it's fair and reasonable We have gotten rid of some crackhead LEOs |
|
We have to take one when hired. Haven't taken one since. Should be mandatory. Cops aren't completely immune from the possibility of drug abuse. I'll fill the cup almost any time that you want. If I can't, give me a water fountain and about 15 min and I'll fill it up for anyone. I've taken a lot of them in the military. Never stressed for a second about it. I've never even taken prescription pills much less illegal drugs. |
|
My Dept. has it. I do not agree with it, Because it is a mandatory firing. I believe in giving one chance, and one chance only to clean up. This is a state regulation the mandatory firing. I have seen many good cops just slip, and throw a career away. One of my sergeants got caught( I was a PO then), and beat it on an appeal. He is back now with back pay. They skipped over him for an Lt spot. Now I out rank him. But anyway, The state gives the dirtbags we lock up a second chance with PTI, a cop deserves one chance also. PTI=Pre-trial intervention. First charge is dismissed after one year. |
| If McDonalds drug tests and our kids have to be tested to play sports then hell ya LE should have to test with -0- tolerance. You know the drill when you take the oath there is no 2nd chance. I would like to see it a step farther.....all politicians and teachers (K12 - College) must drug test. If it's good enough for the CDL driver and the cook at McDonalds then it's good enough for those that desire it. |
|
This issue came up about a year ago at my dept. The chief came to the union to hammer out how we were going about it. We were not opposed to random drug testing, however we wanted to be sure that it was random and not “random”(ie we want you to take one so we picked numbers and you number 1). We wanted to know what type of test was going to be performed. We wanted to know what constituted a positive test. If there was a positive test would there be another test from an independent lab on the same sample (IE state lab). If there is a positive test, and the officer denies using drugs and consents to a polygraph about drugs and it does not show him to be lying, do you accept it as truth? When it was brought up, we had just signed a new contract and the city said they were broke. So who was going to pay for it. From being involved in some DHS testing on kids, I have found that kids can test positive because were in the room after there had been drug use in the home. Would we test positive for busting up a pot party, or going into a room where they were smoking meth. Some drugs are trans-dermal. If an officers spills a couple of grains of meth on the desk while doing a test kit, doesn’t realize it, another later uses that desk will he test positive but have never felt different. If we have somebody doing drugs, I would not have any problem with them being fired on the spot. I don’t want to see anyone loose a career because they did their job and were exposed to drugs. No Mythbusters poppy seed bagels. Oh and I want my upper management to hold the cup….. PSSSSS opps I slipped. 
|
| What I find odd is that this has been the only job where I haven't taken a drug test... Not even an initial prior to hiring. I guess they figure they will get their answer during the voice stress test, along wiith the 100 some questions packet that we had to fill out. |
|
We-ll.......... There are a few ways to view this, but I'm just going to keep to that of military experience. Any and all implications that might be addressed under "the innocent should have nothing to fear" ..... I'll skip. They did it all the time when I was in the Navy. I don't recall having any objection then, just took it as part of the job. Whether or not I considered the why reasonable, I probably did, was immaterial. Those were the orders. Is it an insult to the person? Perhaps BUT if someone is doing drugs, then at least two things are on the table. First of all, they are doing an activity that puts everyone else at risk, such as being a lookout and not seeing someone fall overboard, or putting a ship and crew at risk in a foreign port with the local authorities and their drug laws (from my merchant marine days). They are doing it, they don't seem to care about their comrade ...... and when it comes down to it, one really doesn't need such a person around. It is not alright. Secondly, if they are doing drugs, they will probably do whatever they need to in order to avoid detection, being busted, losing their position, getting kicked out, not having retirement, or whatever. They aren't going to be honest about it. They are probably going to violate the concept of leadership by sacrificing their troops, at whatever level, for their addiction. Therefore, some method must be in place to catch them. Now, take that as one wants to apply it to civilian police. Maybe they sacrifice a civilian for their addiction. Maybe they are blackmailed to accomplish some purpose. Maybe the public ends up believing the police are worthless. One doesn't need dishonest junkies around and one must use some method to catch them because they will use the expectations that one has of the innocent for their protection. Very often, that is the way that criminals work ....... and LEO's should know that. But, that's just my humble opinion. _____________________________________________ ("When drug use was prevalent in the Navy, I had this fear that I might fall overboard one night and the last thing I would see would be the aft lookout smoking a joint, waving, and saying "BY-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"", (wtte), comment of an officer circulating thru the Navy in the 80's) |