It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
As Public Employees. Police should not be any different than any other Public employee.

That said:

C. Police Officers and Fire Fighters



Many municipalities have attempted to establish random drug testing programs for police officers and fire fighters, arguing that such positions are inherently safety sensitive. Such arguments have generally been quickly accepted for police, largely on the basis of the fact that they carry firearms (a factor specifically mentioned in Van Raab). A typical case of this type is Penny v. Kennedy, 915 F.2d 1065 (6th Cir. 1990), in which the court upheld random testing for police (and firefighters) in the city of Chattanooga. The supreme court of Massachusetts followed the same approach and reached the same result for police cadets in O’Connor v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 408 Mass. 324, 557 N.E.2d 1146 (Mass. 1990).


Read the rest

As Kim Davis showed.

City/Government workers do not have constitutional protections.
edit on 9-12-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

The middle one, please



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

If it is that big of an issue they can quit.
Otherwise follow the rules.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Test 'em randomly and every 30 days.

They should be an example of how to be legal in all ways.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
O thank the Lord Jesus for this blessed'd news.

I just find it odd, how countries that legalize drugs have less drug users, where as the countries that ban it, have more. Alberta Canada has more hard, or level 3,4 drug user then others parts of the country, due to the strict drugs tests.

It always fun an games, till someone on the wrong side of the gun, or that they are brothers and sisters into bonds.

Maybe they should start nailing people for having one beer the night before...one decimal above 0.

edit on 9-12-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

probably because they have shady dealings. test them all. if there's nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=20127731]infolurker[/post ]Yes lets have the drug test nation. Start with President zero and VP nutzo then test our way through the House and Senate. Would like to see Nancy Pelosi"s drug test. Guaranteed to have a lower passing rate than students math tests in Detroit.




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: intrepid

All police in that Union should be drug tested tomorrow during work hours and the results posted on NBC Nightly News (they need the ratings more than Fox).


AND management. That's the buggaboo.



Every once in a while I agree with you I intrepid. If management is going to hold the peeons to a certain standard. They had better be able to meet the standards themselves.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Drug testing police officers won't work because of the same reason it doesn't work on people applying for jobs.

It would have to be either blood or follicle testing and that becomes costly very quickly.... urine testing is cheap but it is so easy to fake it isn't even funny. You can buy kits that keeps the clean urine at a toasty 98.6, all you have to do is stuff it in your pants and just pour it in the bottle. Easy peasy.

I have taken so may pee tests in my career, I can't remember exactly how many, but it is way past 20. Of all the urine tests I have done, the only one I know of that you can't cheat on was the Army. That's because whichever E-6 happened to pull meat watch duty during urinalysis stood there and physically watched you pee into the bottle, so there was no way to fake it. All other pee tests I have taken, government or private, would be extremely easy to fake if one so desired.


edit on R292015-12-09T18:29:33-06:00k2912Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R302015-12-09T18:30:37-06:00k3012Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
That's because whichever E-6 happened to pull meat watch duty during urinalysis stood there and physically watched you pee into the bottle, so there was no way to fake it.


There's a term I haven't used in 25 years.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: rukia


edit on 12102015 by Butterfinger because: embed fail



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Well "intrepid"....you seem to be emotional about the subject. "Hit piece?" How you figure? Are you a cop? why the "swipe" on the intent of the thread? Since you are not up on current events...the use of drugs is common by most people in society. All people are tested after a injury in a work setting. Especially in work related situations where the "performance" of duty may harm the public, i.e., airline pilots, bus drivers, military members, professional athletes, etc. In fact, most may be required to test "if" they are "suspected" prior to an event. Truck drivers are often tested without warning and can be fired on the spot if the results are "dirty."

If anyone who is given implied consent in areas where their duties could be dangerous to the public, that in itself warrants a constant threat of systemic testing. To assume police officers are immune to worldly situations and behaviors says more about you than the issue. They are not immune as many convictions show. Many cops smoke dope, sell dope, addicted to pain mads, and many "evidence rooms" are subject to theft. Hell...personal lockers in the locker rooms are "locked" for a reason...lol. Cops are human like everyone they police. That being a fact, is the reason to test them. They "serve" the public therefore required to prove they are fit.

Your assumptions show another problem seen America. You imply some members in society "should" be immune to things the majority suffers. I see this as just another attempt to "classify" some people as "more worthy" than others. According to you, they hold a special position in society. What is apparent is the public suffers as a result of govt. control and corruption. I, for one, see no reason for society to "conform" to the standards of obsessive bureaucrats but to hold those who govern and enforce the public policies do so to our expectations.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: crappiekat
I think we just need to legalize the bud Nation wide.

Good Lord, kids are getting killed because of this.

www.drugpolicy.org...

Then the police can consentrate on more important things.

world wide, my friend.... World wide



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Well? If these "LEOs" ain't doing nothing wrong. They have nothing to fear. Right? It's not that hard to wiz in a cup.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
Well? If these "LEOs" ain't doing nothing wrong. They have nothing to fear. Right? It's not that hard to wiz in a cup.




its actuaLly quite difficult when you are pumped up on drugs knowing damn well you are about to fail


ETA i ....I would imagine...

edit on 10-12-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
Well? If these "LEOs" ain't doing nothing wrong. They have nothing to fear. Right? It's not that hard to wiz in a cup.


Seems like refusing to pee in a cup, or making a big deal about it, should be 'probable cause' to suspect that they are up to no good. Possibly shenanigans. Or chicanery.

In which case, it would seem that forcing an inspection of said pee is in order. After all, if they're not up to something, they have nothing to hide.




posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   

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.


My stance on this is that if these drugs are going to be illegal, then you have to question the groups that say they shouldn't be tested.

Of course, I already know the real answer to my line of reasoning. If drug problems are pervasive, police departments will be rendered non functional overnight. We also probably don't have enough jails to house everyone, and jailing for drug offenses is already a big problem.

So how about a compromise, we don't drug test them but if an officer is involved in a shooting or excessive force case we test for drugs and steroids, because at that point if guilty they're no longer a non violent offender.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: mOjOm

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.)


I fully support drug testing for politicians and judges. Regardless of the current/future legal status of various drugs I want the people who are making decisions to be clear headed and sober. It has another benefit to in that it's one less vice that can be used against them by special interests.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
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.


I've got a couple CEO's of moderate sized corporations in my family so I've had this discussion with them before. Medical risk is absolutely one of the things they're looking for in a candidate. How much a factor it is against any given person is a bit of a sliding scale, but if you weigh 350 pounds you better be the best person in the industry at what you do. If a background check shows you like to drink/smoke heavily, again that will negatively impact you.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: murphy22
Well? If these "LEOs" ain't doing nothing wrong. They have nothing to fear. Right? It's not that hard to wiz in a cup.


Seems like refusing to pee in a cup, or making a big deal about it, should be 'probable cause' to suspect that they are up to no good. Possibly shenanigans. Or chicanery.

In which case, it would seem that forcing an inspection of said pee is in order. After all, if they're not up to something, they have nothing to hide.



Here Here.
In fact lets extend the testing out to all jobs that are paid using public funding as a mandatory ongoing requirement.

They did a test using swabs from the toilets in the UK parliament and found various peruvian marching powder traces at several locations.
edit on 11-12-2015 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join