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.
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).
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.
world wide, my friend.... World wide
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.