...at least in Oklahoma City.
FOP contract doesnt allow it in Tulsa.
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=9433021
But the irony is that the drugs they are most likely to find wont be tested for.
Kind of like shooting blanks. [B)]
quote:
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=9433021
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081130_12_0_OKLAHO590915
"At the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference this month in California, Phoenix police Cmdr. Kim Humphrey told the San Diego Union-Tribune illegal steroids are a growing problem among American police ranks."
http://newsok.com/steroids-not-on-police-radar/article/3326357
I would rather see them test recipients of public assistance.
edit: You are right.... Why discriminate? Test both.
Test'em.... and anyone on assistance too!
quote:
Originally posted by patric
...at least in Oklahoma City.
FOP contract doesnt allow it in Tulsa.
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=9433021
But the irony is that the drugs they are most likely to find wont be tested for.
Kind of like shooting blanks. [B)]
Doesn't allow for RANDOM testing. Testing is allowed based on probably cause.
WHAT?
That's just stupid.
Bus drivers that work for the City of Tulsa are tested when hired then part of a random broad spectrum consortium. Cab drivers too. All CDL drivers have drug screening.
Cops drive just as much as any of those people. But they have the right to do so at a high rate of speed. They also have the right to carry and use a firearm.
It would seem logical to me to drug screen the people in charge of enforcing the drug laws... if for no other reason than the driving aspect of their job.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
WHAT?
That's just stupid.
Bus drivers that work for the City of Tulsa are tested when hired then part of a random broad spectrum consortium. Cab drivers too. All CDL drivers have drug screening.
Cops drive just as much as any of those people. But they have the right to do so at a high rate of speed. They also have the right to carry and use a firearm.
It would seem logical to me to drug screen the people in charge of enforcing the drug laws... if for no other reason than the driving aspect of their job.
Not to nitpick, but CDL license holders don't have screenings unless it's part of a job recruitment. Working for a business that handles a bunch of these, I know. But you are correct that DOT regs dictate that ALL potential new drivers for any company requiring a CDL to operate their vehicles are not only required to have a drug screening, but prior drug screenings from any other driving jobs must be taken into consideration as part of the hiring process.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
WHAT?
That's just stupid.
Bus drivers that work for the City of Tulsa are tested when hired then part of a random broad spectrum consortium. Cab drivers too. All CDL drivers have drug screening.
Cops drive just as much as any of those people. But they have the right to do so at a high rate of speed. They also have the right to carry and use a firearm.
It would seem logical to me to drug screen the people in charge of enforcing the drug laws... if for no other reason than the driving aspect of their job.
Current employees and pre-hires are two different animals. Everyone gets a drug test prior to being hired. After that, it takes probably cause to get tested.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
WHAT?
That's just stupid.
Bus drivers that work for the City of Tulsa are tested when hired then part of a random broad spectrum consortium. Cab drivers too. All CDL drivers have drug screening.
Cops drive just as much as any of those people. But they have the right to do so at a high rate of speed. They also have the right to carry and use a firearm.
It would seem logical to me to drug screen the people in charge of enforcing the drug laws... if for no other reason than the driving aspect of their job.
Current employees and pre-hires are two different animals. Everyone gets a drug test prior to being hired. After that, it takes probably cause to get tested.
When was the last time you read that an officer involved in a shooting or use-of-force was being drug tested?
...and at that point, the damage is already done.
I would think that random testing of a city employee who reads your water meter would be nowhere as important as a city employee who could deprive you of life or liberty, but one obviously has a stronger union than the other.
Wilbur:
For cabbies, bus drivers, crane operators, and so on the screening is on going. It is a matter of public safety and required by the DOT. If you want to do anything involving a CDL or public machine operating (DOT jurisdiction) you must be part of a random drug screening consortium. Also, every such employer has a pre-screen (insurance requirement).
Police drive as much more or more than those people, they have a pass to do so at dangerously high speeds under stressful situations. When they arrive they use force up to and including deadly force. They enforce drug laws.
One would think they would be subject to at least as much scrutiny as a cab driver. Not sure why it would be a big deal for them. When you serve the public in such a manner laws would subjects themselves to higher scrutiny. Not being on drugs is directly relevant to their job performance.
(not saying I imagine it is a big problem, but with ready access to drugs I am sure some officers fall into the trap. a screening policy may help them avoid such a thing)
I really don't know any officers that are against random drug screening.
The problem the union has had with it is how it would be done. The city wanted officers to have to go during the day (Monday - Friday), to city medical and give a urine sample. The union was okay with that but not all officers work during the day. So, the union asked if overtime would be given to those officers that were not at work but had their "number" called for lack of a better term and had to go to city medical off-duty. The city said no. The union then asked if their was an alternative site that officers could go while they were at work (not during 8-4). The city said no. the city didn't want officers pulling up in their patrol cars in uniform and giving samples at other locations. The officers then asked if city medical personnel could come to us and then take the samples back. The city said no.
That is the problem with the union has with drug testing.
That makes more sense than a flat our refusal.
I would think someone could come up with a compromise. I don't know enough about police schedules, but if they don't always work night shifts then work it around. Or perhaps work something out with the ER of XYZ clinic that is open 24/7.
Seems like a minor obstacle. Even if they are against paying overtime one would think a solution could be found.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
That makes more sense than a flat our refusal.
I would think someone could come up with a compromise. I don't know enough about police schedules, but if they don't always work night shifts then work it around. Or perhaps work something out with the ER of XYZ clinic that is open 24/7.
Seems like a minor obstacle. Even if they are against paying overtime one would think a solution could be found.
You would think something could be worked out. However, lately all the city wants to talk about is how much time we work but not what kind of condition we're in while we work. Go figure.
Another thing people forget, is that officers depend on other officers for back-up and help. I don't want a drugged out cop tasked with saving my life. I wanna go home at night.
I'm not opposed to random drug testing, as long as the Chief and the Mayor are in there goin' in that cup random too.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I'm not opposed to random drug testing, as long as the Chief and the Mayor are in there goin' in that cup random too.
Which would be a fine example, but the point is they don't drive around all day in a company vehicle.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I'm not opposed to random drug testing, as long as the Chief and the Mayor are in there goin' in that cup random too.
Which would be a fine example, but the point is they don't drive around all day in a company vehicle.
You're not suggesting the head law enforcement officers of this city are exempt because they don't regularly go on patrol, are you? They both respond to crime scenes. The Chief drives a police car.
I don't think driving around all day is the mayor or the chief's job. They should not be exempt simply for PR sake, but as a practical matter their drive-time is far less than a "working" officer and thus their ability to cause havoc if intoxicated is lesser.
My concern is that police are driving constantly, they are doing so in dangerous situations by the nature of their job, they need to be trusted to the utmost for order to be sustain, and they are exposed/have access to drugs on a regular basis. Thus, it would make sense for all parties to have a consortium.
Again, I doubt it is a common problem. But I am sure it happens from time to time. Perhaps a random screening would help the public trust police more often and keep any officer that is prone to addiction from slipping down that path.
To work at Med-X you have to pass a drug test. They seem pretty proud of that considering the sign on the front door. I'm personally glad, that my cashier at Med-X didn't smoke pot last night. I could have been short-changed due to stoner math! It's comforting to me. I trust Med-X.
I wish, oh how I wish, I could say the same about our policemen & women. Without having to prove your innocence, how would we ever know who's guilty?
Thanks for the sarcasm... it was much appreciated.
Should other people who drive for a living then be required to pass drug screenings? Truck drivers, cabbies, bus drivers, machine operators, airline pilots? If you are impugning the entire system so be it - but your argument is not one to exempt police officers.
Similar to police, MedEx employees are screened because of their ready access to drugs. MedEx PHARMACY. I believe most, if not all, pharmacies have drug screenings. Police have easier access to drugs, drive for a living, are relied on for being immune from cross examination on truthfulness, and are responsible for the use of deadly force.
Seems to me their job has more responsibility to the public than a pharmacist or a cabbie. Most officers would agree with that to. Yet they are held to a lower standard in this regard. That doesn't seem strange to you?
/keep in mind I would be in favor of legalizing most drugs under libertarian principles. I'm not a drug war zealot by any means and general disfavor drug testing. Frankly, if a cop wanted to smoke pot, munch some shrooms or whatever OFF duty I don't care. Just like I don't care if (s)he gets drunk at the football game over the weekend. But, like CDL drivers, the concern is what might occur while on the job. And if the test is required for others in lesser positions of responsibility...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Thanks for the sarcasm... it was much appreciated.
Should other people who drive for a living then be required to pass drug screenings? Truck drivers, cabbies, bus drivers, machine operators, airline pilots? If you are impugning the entire system so be it - but your argument is not one to exempt police officers.
Similar to police, MedEx employees are screened because of their ready access to drugs. MedEx PHARMACY. I believe most, if not all, pharmacies have drug screenings. Police have easier access to drugs, drive for a living, are relied on for being immune from cross examination on truthfulness, and are responsible for the use of deadly force.
Seems to me their job has more responsibility to the public than a pharmacist or a cabbie. Most officers would agree with that to. Yet they are held to a lower standard in this regard. That doesn't seem strange to you?
/keep in mind I would be in favor of legalizing most drugs under libertarian principles. I'm not a drug war zealot by any means and general disfavor drug testing. Frankly, if a cop wanted to smoke pot, munch some shrooms or whatever OFF duty I don't care. Just like I don't care if (s)he gets drunk at the football game over the weekend. But, like CDL drivers, the concern is what might occur while on the job. And if the test is required for others in lesser positions of responsibility...
I'm saying if a cashier at a pharmacy, a bank teller, a pencil pusher, a backhoe operator and high school students, professional athletes are all subject to pre-employment proof of innocence & random proofs of innocence during employment, then police should absolutely be no exception.
In fact, I believe that police should be required to prove their innocence every month and have the cost of the test taken out of their salary.
They obviously should be held to a higher standard, for the reasons you listed.
Thanks again for discussing this like it is a mature and important topic.
You honestly do not see how police being on drugs would be more of a concern than an accountant?
Constant driving in publicly owned vehicle - check
Government issued firearm - check
Easy access to drugs - check
Responsibility to the public - check
Accountant: none of the above.
If an accountant was on PCP the worst possible professional outcome is messing up a client file and him getting fired. A police officer would very likely kill someone, cost the city millions, and hurt the reputation, believability and therefor the effectiveness of the police. I see a difference.
And again, an accountant is liable to his client. He does not swear an oath to protect, accepts a paycheck from, nor serves the public. When you agree to serve the public you should be held to a higher standard of care. I expect more integrity from the police than from a pro-athlete or a teller. I imagine their self image is somewhere above that level also.
Also, you avoided the one and only question that I posed:
Are you against drug screenings for the other persons I mentioned (cabbies, truck drivers, heavy machine operators, airline pilots)?
Please make an attempt to respond without sarcasm or avoiding the issues. This is a simple discussion, not an attack on anyone. You ignored every point I made and lazily threw down more "wit." It serves no useful purpose.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
To work at Med-X you have to pass a drug test. They seem pretty proud of that considering the sign on the front door. I'm personally glad, that my cashier at Med-X didn't smoke pot last night. I could have been short-changed due to stoner math! It's comforting to me. I trust Med-X.
I wish, oh how I wish, I could say the same about our policemen & women. Without having to prove your innocence, how would we ever know who's guilty?
To get hired at Med-X you have to pass a drug test, just as you do to be a police officer. But once hired at Med-X, you don't get randomly tested.
And, I don't think driving is what needs to be considered here. How about the ability to kill someone. The Chief carries a gun just like the rest of the police officers. He probably drives a car more then some police officers, since many aren't assigned to patrol.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Thanks again for discussing this like it is a mature and important topic.
You honestly do not see how police being on drugs would be more of a concern than an accountant?
Constant driving in publicly owned vehicle - check
Government issued firearm - check
Easy access to drugs - check
Responsibility to the public - check
Accountant: none of the above.
If an accountant was on PCP the worst possible professional outcome is messing up a client file and him getting fired. A police officer would very likely kill someone, cost the city millions, and hurt the reputation, believability and therefor the effectiveness of the police. I see a difference.
And again, an accountant is liable to his client. He does not swear an oath to protect, accepts a paycheck from, nor serves the public. When you agree to serve the public you should be held to a higher standard of care. I expect more integrity from the police than from a pro-athlete or a teller. I imagine their self image is somewhere above that level also.
Also, you avoided the one and only question that I posed:
Are you against drug screenings for the other persons I mentioned (cabbies, truck drivers, heavy machine operators, airline pilots)?
Please make an attempt to respond without sarcasm or avoiding the issues. This is a simple discussion, not an attack on anyone. You ignored every point I made and lazily threw down more "wit." It serves no useful purpose.
I don't agree with drug tests. However, since we've slid half way down this slope and drug testing is a multi-billion dollar industry, its here to stay and entrenched, unfortunately. That won't be changed & it's only going to get worse on us poor plebeians. Soon, they will be wanting to do roadside drug tests upon citizens during traffic stops. Mark my words.
The point I apparently failed to convey was that I think its ridiculous that these types of professions previously mentioned, are subject to drug screenings, when such a high risk / high profile / high stress / high temptation job as a police officer are not.
If they have the right to deprive liberty & life from the general public they serve, they in turn should sacrifice a little themselves, just as we as "civilians" have over the past 15 years.
I think police need to be held to the HIGHEST standard, in fact. They are all fine upstanding men & women above reproach, right? Then, they should pass a mandatory monthly test to prove that they remain that way. To the citizens AND to their fellow officers, as a previous poster mentioned.
You'd think that a monthly pass would be a point of pride amongst police, wouldn't you? Those have have sworn an oath to uphold & enforce the laws? Prove you're not guilty, just as "civilians" have to in dealings with police, in your workplace, every day across this Nation. With power comes responsibility & accountability.
I don't recall hearing a cabdrivers, pilots, heavy machine operators union fighting tooth & nail to stop from getting drug tested, as many police unions have, so far successfully.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Thanks again for discussing this like it is a mature and important topic.
You honestly do not see how police being on drugs would be more of a concern than an accountant?
Constant driving in publicly owned vehicle - check
Government issued firearm - check
Easy access to drugs - check
Responsibility to the public - check
Accountant: none of the above.
If an accountant was on PCP the worst possible professional outcome is messing up a client file and him getting fired. A police officer would very likely kill someone, cost the city millions, and hurt the reputation, believability and therefor the effectiveness of the police. I see a difference.
And again, an accountant is liable to his client. He does not swear an oath to protect, accepts a paycheck from, nor serves the public. When you agree to serve the public you should be held to a higher standard of care. I expect more integrity from the police than from a pro-athlete or a teller. I imagine their self image is somewhere above that level also.
Also, you avoided the one and only question that I posed:
Are you against drug screenings for the other persons I mentioned (cabbies, truck drivers, heavy machine operators, airline pilots)?
Please make an attempt to respond without sarcasm or avoiding the issues. This is a simple discussion, not an attack on anyone. You ignored every point I made and lazily threw down more "wit." It serves no useful purpose.
I don't agree with drug tests. However, since we've slid half way down this slope and drug testing is a multi-billion dollar industry, its here to stay and entrenched, unfortunately. That won't be changed & it's only going to get worse on us poor plebeians. Soon, they will be wanting to do roadside drug tests upon citizens during traffic stops. Mark my words.
The point I apparently failed to convey was that I think its ridiculous that these types of professions previously mentioned, are subject to drug screenings, when such a high risk / high profile / high stress / high temptation job as a police officer are not.
I guess I'm not making myself clear. Police are subject to drug testing. Just not random drug testing. To say they are not subject to drug testing is false.
If they have the right to deprive liberty & life from the general public they serve, they in turn should sacrifice a little themselves, just as we as "civilians" have over the past 15 years.
Police already give up liberties, as the courts have ruled many laws don't apply to police officers when they are the victim. In otherwords, a police officer can't have his/her peace violated, and other similar situations.
I think police need to be held to the HIGHEST standard, in fact. They are all fine upstanding men & women above reproach, right? Then, they should pass a mandatory monthly test to prove that they remain that way. To the citizens AND to their fellow officers, as a previous poster mentioned.
First, police can't even qualify with their weapons at the range but once or twice a year because of manpower issues. There is no way the city is going to say all 1000 employees need to get tested on a monthly basis, particularly with the costs involved. Remember, the Mayor says we're broke (except for the new city hall, the new arena, the new ballpark, .....).
You'd think that a monthly pass would be a point of pride amongst police, wouldn't you? Those have have sworn an oath to uphold & enforce the laws? Prove you're not guilty, just as "civilians" have to in dealings with police, in your workplace, every day across this Nation. With power comes responsibility & accountability.
Proving you are guilty is the job of the court. Police are but one aspect of the three pronged law enforcement picture.
I don't recall hearing a cabdrivers, pilots, heavy machine operators union fighting tooth & nail to stop from getting drug tested, as many police unions have, so far successfully.
Again, I'm not opposed. I'll go pee in the cup or get my hair pulled everyday. But, as was mentioned earlier, the city seems to forget not everyone works 8-4 monday through friday (except for city medical).
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Are you against drug screenings for the other persons I mentioned (cabbies, truck drivers, heavy machine operators, airline pilots)?
I am. But only because no screening test can tell you whether your employee was or will be driving under the influence, thus making them useless for their stated purpose.
Moreover, there are plenty of legal drugs that have as much or more of an impact on one's job safety than almost any illegal drug yet are not tested for.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Are you against drug screenings for the other persons I mentioned (cabbies, truck drivers, heavy machine operators, airline pilots)?
I am. But only because no screening test can tell you whether your employee was or will be driving under the influence, thus making them useless for their stated purpose.
Moreover, there are plenty of legal drugs that have as much or more of an impact on one's job safety than almost any illegal drug yet are not tested for.
If you're against it for CD truck drivers, be prepared to argue all the way to federal court. It's a federal law that all drivers hauling freight for a trucking company submit to drug screening upon demand and prior to hire. That law won't go away any time soon, trust me. The DOT regulates that as well as the FHSA (Federal Highway Safety Admin).
Perhaps what's most noteworthy here is that OKC's police union has gone from a "don't test us for drugs" position to a "don't test us for the drugs our members have been known to use" stance.
Under the current proposal, they would be able to say they have random testing, but without any fear of any members getting snagged.
I know it's the job of a union to cover for their members, but in this instance, what they are covering for is reprehensible, and a fraud.
A former Utah state trooper suspected in shootings on Dallas-area roads had an addiction to painkillers and was wanted for a North Texas crime spree that left two motorists dead. (//%22http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEmTNUBTKTgCNcd9ZgYJnCNlbPOwD9592KPG0%22)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Thanks again for discussing this like it is a mature and important topic.
You honestly do not see how police being on drugs would be more of a concern than an accountant?
Constant driving in publicly owned vehicle - check
Government issued firearm - check
Easy access to drugs - check
Responsibility to the public - check
Accountant: none of the above.
If an accountant was on PCP the worst possible professional outcome is messing up a client file and him getting fired. A police officer would very likely kill someone, cost the city millions, and hurt the reputation, believability and therefor the effectiveness of the police. I see a difference.
And again, an accountant is liable to his client. He does not swear an oath to protect, accepts a paycheck from, nor serves the public. When you agree to serve the public you should be held to a higher standard of care. I expect more integrity from the police than from a pro-athlete or a teller. I imagine their self image is somewhere above that level also.
Also, you avoided the one and only question that I posed:
Are you against drug screenings for the other persons I mentioned (cabbies, truck drivers, heavy machine operators, airline pilots)?
Please make an attempt to respond without sarcasm or avoiding the issues. This is a simple discussion, not an attack on anyone. You ignored every point I made and lazily threw down more "wit." It serves no useful purpose.
Accountant:
Has access to other peoples money. check
How many accountants have take illegal drugs??? A lot more than cops!!! If an accountant is on drugs other accountants to say anything. If a cop is on drugs. I am going to do something. It is our lives, the publics lives and his life.
First, most accountants don't have access to other peoples money. It is generally bad control for the person doing the books to have access to the funding. FAR too easy for that person to take what they wish and simply make the books reflect a new balance. Thus, the fear is really unfounded.
Second, I can fire my accountant. If he is stoned on the job I can simply tell him he is fired. If I am pulled over by a cop that is either stoned or fiending for his drugs I am at his mercy.
Third, money is not nearly as important as freedom or life. An accounting can certainly mess things up to the point that I have a HUGE headache. But whatever money an accounting could take a cop could also take in fines or confiscation. However, it remains unlikely that an accounting would accidentally kill someone during the performance of their job duties.
and finally, why would you think more accountants are on drugs than cops? I'm not defaming cops, but generally they have more stress filled lives, odd hours, and easier access to drugs. Of the two, the police seem more likely. But with no data or desire to really back that up... and barely a desire to continue a dead thread I shall just let it fade away.