Cops Fighting Mandatory Drug Tests – Claim it’s ‘Unconstitutional’ to Screen Police Urine

a reply to: infolurker

It's pretty easy to get a script for steroids. Just watch the documentary Bigger Faster Stronger.

I see why you would not want cops to be taking roids, but drug testing for it won't do much.

originally posted by: mOjOm
If they haven't been using then they have nothing to worry about, right???

I've heard that called the "slippery slope" more time than I can count. It's OK though because it's the front line of The Man?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The hypocrisy is in the politicians and judges not being tested. Cops are simply doing their jobs (and, apparently, part of that job is now serving as the meat shield for those who should really be the targets of criticism and circumspection: the law makers.)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all for testing them too. If we're going to test the regular free person on the street and for minimum wage employment and all that then we need to test those who are running the show twice as much.

But of course our justice system is a joke. I've known lawyers, cops, even judges that are higher than those they send to jail on a daily basis. They get the good sh*t too. None of that stepped on street garbage either. It's all just a big joke and we are the punchline.

originally posted by: intrepid

I've heard that called the "slippery slope" more time than I can count. It's OK though because it's the front line of The Man?

It's ok to test them because they're walking around armed and dangerous and with unbelievable power over the rest of us. Same with anyone in power or that controls the lives of others. They are the ones who need to be watched. I don't really give a damn about some guy flipping burgers if he's high. But the cop on the street, the lawyer in the court room, they banker who's got control over millions of dollars, the fire fighter, etc. Those guys need to have a clear head. I don't care if the average joe is getting high, because they lack the power to cause that much trouble when they abuse it.

a reply to: mOjOm

How about the congressman on coke? You are looking too small. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing our the workers(LEO's) response to THEIR bosses. See the difference?

It's fishy from the start. how did they get it in the contract that they don't have to take a drug test?
And they should be held to the same standard that everyone else is that have drug test on the job. .and most places do a drug test after any type of accident or incident.
So yeah, pee in the cup like the rest of us. And like so many cops say, if you don't have anything to hide why are you worried?

originally posted by: intrepid

How about the congressman on coke? You are looking too small. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing our the workers(LEO's) response to THEIR bosses. See the difference?

Exactly!! How frightening is the idea that your government and people of power are all coked up or whatever when they're deciding things like going to war or where to spend your tax dollars?? That kind of idea should stop everyone in their tracks and make them pay attention.

Why we applaud testing, arresting and jailing the weakest members of society while allowing the most powerful to run amok is beyond me. It should be the other way around. While your cracked out neighbor might cause some limited damage they are nothing compared to a coked up law maker with a monkey on his back and the ability to vote on policy.

I was fishing around looking for stories about this and found this.

www.realpolice.net...

It gave me a giggle to think this person would ask the question, but what alarmed me was the replies.

a reply to: infolurker

They're right. Its a violation of privacy. Especially in right to work states.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

They're right. Its a violation of privacy. Especially in right to work states.

The question then is, why is it only a violation of privacy for some people and not for others??? Nobody seems to care when it's some minimum wage employee or some low level guy or gal wanting work or some government aid, but once someone "important" might get tested then it's a matter of privacy.

originally posted by: intrepid
What about when not on duty? There are lingering tests. That's why I'm saying it doesn't happen because management would be as culpable. That said I'm in Canada and I'm talking about weed. Other intoxicants I have NO idea about.

How can you arrest someone for being in possession of marijuana, then go home and hit the bong?

You're saying that you personally know cops who are either...

Pocketing marijuana from those they bust

Purchasing marijuana from a drug dealer

or manufacturing marijuana

The stuff doesn't just fall out of the sky.

a reply to: Bone75

What I'm saying is that they have the same impulses as everyone else. Some will smoke weed, some will not AND some will be pissed about the first group. I said it was complex.

originally posted by: Bone75

Pocketing marijuana from those they bust

That's an easy one.

It's not just pot either.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

They're right. Its a violation of privacy. Especially in right to work states.

The question then is, why is it only a violation of privacy for some people and not for others??? Nobody seems to care when it's some minimum wage employee or some low level guy or gal wanting work or some government aid, but once someone "important" might get tested then it's a matter of privacy.

Its wrong for everyone.

What an employee does in their off time is their business.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm with ya there 100%.

Too bad that's not how things are though.

a reply to: mOjOm

For the most part, if you want to place blame on drug testing, blame General Liability and Crime Policy insurers. Especially GL insurers.

If employees drive, auto insurance/liability insurance requirements also are to blame.

Businesses will do what is cheapest...and administering drug tests isn't cheapest.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: intrepid
I work in this industry and understand this well. There's levels to this. It can be used by management to potentially remove certain people. Thus the Union involvement. Ask them to test management as well as workers and I think you might find some resistance there.

It's a nasty industry.

If those certain people are under the influence of mind altering drugs while on duty, then they should be removed.

What about when not on duty? There are lingering tests. That's why I'm saying it doesn't happen because management would be as culpable. That said I'm in Canada and I'm talking about weed. Other intoxicants I have NO idea about.

I usually stick up for LEO's but not in this case!

People are denied jobs due to a positive of cannabis use. Police arrest people for testing positive for the use of ILLEGAL DRUGS!

How can anyone accept being incarcerated or fined by an individual who is guilty themselves of using the same drugs?

Keep in mind, these officers do work for the taxpayers.

Bingo!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Actually if I'm blaming anyone I'll blame those who decided to start a Drug War against it's own populace. A completely BS hypocritical and disaster idea and policy that has wasted more lives, more money and more time than any war we've ever had or known.

I'd love to say that the Drug war has accomplished nothing but the truth is far far worse. It's increased every negative thing you can attribute to drugs including crime, cartels, death, wasted money, destroyed families, failed medical help, corrupt justice system, etc. Probably the only good thing to come from it was more and better drugs for those who take drugs. But since that was supposed to be the opposite goal you can't exactly call it a victory.

We not only lost, we kicked our own asses big time!!

originally posted by: mOjOmActually if I'm blaming anyone I'll blame those who decided to start a Drug War against it's own populace. A completely BS hypocritical and disaster idea and policy that has wasted more lives, more money and more time than any war we've ever had or known.

That is where we need to change our strategy. We cannot blame people who are dead and buried and nearly forgotten. What use is in it? We need to blame and shame the people who continue to enforce such antiquated policy. This means civil disobedience, mockery, protest, and a whole lot of film of these cops "just doing their jobs".

Society has come a long way in dealing with the negatives of a "drug culture", if you can call it that. It's the cops and injustice system that is still stuck in the dark ages.

It just shows what would have happened if you gave barbarians cutting edge technologies.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
It's the cops and injustice system that is still stuck in the dark ages.

It just shows what would have happened if you gave barbarians cutting edge technologies.

The problem isn't that they are ignorant and stuck in the dark ages. They know exactly what they're doing. They know it's BS and simply a way to extort money and property from people. That is how the injustice system pays for itself. No crime=No money=No job for them.

Let's face it. The Justice System Needs Crime. That is their only reason for being here. They say crime doesn't pay, but that's a lie, it pays damn well for the criminals and Law Enforcement.