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

a reply to: Xtrozero

Im not looking for an argument of moral equivalency here. Wrong is wrong. Be it wrong for Peter, or wrong for Amy, or wrong for Dave The Bohemian State Trooper.

Demanding a sample of body fluids for something as trivial as moralistic voyeurism is wrong. Period.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Demanding a sample of body fluids for something as trivial as moralistic voyeurism is wrong. Period.

I fly planes and if I have an incident the FAA will test me, period. Being half baked, slightly drunk, coming down from a great high while on the job is not trivial.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Im sure it isn't.

But for the love of God we drug test people before we will hire them to flip burgers in this country.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

But for the love of God we drug test people before we will hire them to flip burgers in this country.

I agree there is a limit. I tell my kids that drugs are great if you do not want a job that pays more than 15 bucks an hour. I do think people in highly sensitive jobs should be under the microscope more as just a part of what they do. A part of this is people who are required to use guns in their job, or up hold the law with a whammy bat, cops, lawyers, judges, Government officials etc.

You know companies are getting tough. They do not want people working for them if they are a high health risk, smoker, drug/alcohol abuser user etc. When you hire someone you also take on all their problems too medically wise. One might say this is wrong, but health cost for companies is huge. The company I work for pays everyone's medical cost out of pocket, and though I have not personally seen anyone not hired due to high medical risk I know it happens. The airlines will not hire anyone who ever smoked as example, and they check their lungs to make sure they are not lying.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yet another huge conflict.

Our employer has no role in our health care. None whatsoever.

I say this as an employer that pays around 80% of the employees health insurance bill.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I have to be drug tested just to see a doctor.

That's terrible.

What is wrong with our nation?

Welcome to pain management.
Only qualified doctors can now treat pain.
You must sign a contract with them regarding your medications and random drug testing.
Btw, if you come up positive for anything illegal - the DEA is sent notification.
No kidding.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Yet another huge conflict.

Our employer has no role in our health care. None whatsoever.

I say this as an employer that pays around 80% of the employees health insurance bill.

My company has about the best benefits I have ever seen. Free health care for the employee low cost for the whole family, 30 bucks copay. matching 5% 401k, 3 hours a week vacation time minimum, I think I'm 3.9, yearly bonuses for everyone in the company, flex time, you choose (extra money, extra week vacation etc).

The funny part is the engineers can walk around half baked, but I get tested due to the nature of my work...lol

a reply to: infolurker

My view is that anyone on the public's dime for an income should be subjected to drug tests--I'm currently a federal employee, and I'd piss in a cup on any given day. Did back when I was in the Army, too. No big deal.

And does anyone see the irony in the fact that a profession who can take your discarded water bottle and use it to obtain DNA or fingerprints is protesting the same agency from using their discarded bodily waste--waste that would be going down a public toilet anyhow, meaning they're discarding it in public?

I just find it laughable that they'd use the 4th amendment as protection...seriously, I'm laughing right now.

a reply to: intrepid

It can be used by management to potentially remove certain people.

That is a valid concern, however, it is a point that can be made by all professions, not just LEO, who are subject to mandatory substance testing. The potential for this to be used as a weapon (manipulating results) for dirty politics exist across the board but, that shouldn't be the primary reason for objecting to the practice. The higher intention of promoting and sustaining integrity should also be weighed as a potential.

Thus the Union involvement

At least LEO has Union representation whose job is to protect them when, or if, unfair practices arise such as being used by management to potentially remove certain people. That is one of the reasons there is a Union in the first place...

There are many professions whose workers are subject to mandatory substance testing that do not have a Union at all to protect them from the potential of dirty politics.

Ask them to test management as well as workers and I think you might find some resistance there.

That would be a fair thing to do. Testing of LEO should be across the board. After all, every position within law enforcement is a thread that makes up the whole fabric. One loose thread affects the integrity of the whole garment.

originally posted by: Involutionist

There are many professions whose workers are subject to mandatory substance testing that do not have a Union at all to protect them from the potential of dirty politics.

That would be a fair thing to do. Testing of LEO should be across the board. After all, every position within law enforcement is a thread that makes up the whole fabric. One loose thread affects the integrity of the whole garment.

Drug testing is pretty damn well regulated. It is not like someone can slip a positive sample as lets say a cop can slip a handgun on someone they shot. The old they need to weed out the good cops with dirty politics seems to be rather far fetched compared to just weeding out the bad cops.

As you say it should be random testing across everyone including the chief of police. The military would just say everyone whose last number in their SS is a 3 go get tested. In two years everyone is tested sooner or later, but they never know when and that is the point of motivating people just not use drugs in the first place.

a reply to: infolurker

d/p

a reply to: infolurker

hahaha. Who takes the USA seriously any more. If it wasnt for your military invading in the name of (big oil) democracy and destroying the lives of millions we would all be sitting back pointing at the dysfunctional elephant in the room!

a reply to: infolurker

hahaha. Who takes the USA seriously any more. If it wasnt for your military invading in the name of (big oil) democracy and destroying the lives of millions we would all be sitting back pointing at the dysfunctional elephant in the room!

Such horrible comparisons police and military in this discussion. When you join the army you are property of the US gov't and as such they OWN you. No rights that are not already stated, so pee in a cup or jump on one leg your superior tells you you do it. Now the police are in a UNION, so if it is not in the contract guess what piss and moan all you want that is the price of union protections. It may not be acceptable to some but that is the law.

I think that the police officers should be held accountable.

originally posted by: hangedman13
Such horrible comparisons police and military in this discussion. When you join the army you are property of the US gov't and as such they OWN you. No rights that are not already stated, so pee in a cup or jump on one leg your superior tells you you do it. Now the police are in a UNION, so if it is not in the contract guess what piss and moan all you want that is the price of union protections. It may not be acceptable to some but that is the law.

So union protected still doesn't make it right... I guess it is nice that being in a union no one is held accountable for their actions unless its in the contract...lol what a joke.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
hahaha. Who takes the USA seriously any more. If it wasnt for your military invading in the name of (big oil) democracy and destroying the lives of millions we would all be sitting back pointing at the dysfunctional elephant in the room!

You know, Australia doesn't really come up in too many conversations here, really nothing of interest to talk about, so I'm glad yo enjoy talking about us.. BTW I live a pretty good dysfunctional life, thank you.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yea but this is one of those times where you got to suck it up. Any other time union protection would be protected on here just because, but since it is in reference to the police it is a bad thing. At least it is pretty simple to get get cops fired as opposed to say teachers or government employees.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: infolurker

hahaha. Who takes the USA seriously any more. If it wasnt for your military invading in the name of (big oil) democracy and destroying the lives of millions we would all be sitting back pointing at the dysfunctional elephant in the room!

Even worse, its not even oil that really matters. Its the banking system that is used.

When was the last time the US went to war with a nation that used our reserve banking system?

Oil is merely the material that the wealth is valued by.

originally posted by: hangedman13

Yea but this is one of those times where you got to suck it up. Any other time union protection would be protected on here just because, but since it is in reference to the police it is a bad thing. At least it is pretty simple to get get cops fired as opposed to say teachers or government employees.

True about the firing. If strikes me a little funny that cops would not see this as upholding their core values and makes me wonder what do they need to hide?