Albuquerque police to undergo random steroid testing

a reply to: Boadicea

I see your point, but until it also applies to regular people it's moot. A significant number of employers do random drug testing, and that's just for every day jobs. I've had to do many tests and my line of work is IT. Police officers should be held to a higher standard than your average citizen because of the significant amount of power they wield.

Then there's the fact that they have easy access to drugs. It would be very easy to pocket some and just say you found less, or none at all.

I'd like to add a class of people to the random drug test list along with police officers - politicians.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boadicea
We shall have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand where you are coming from and respect your opinion, even if I don't agree.

Fair enough -- and right back atcha!

But may I ask -- with all due respect, and understanding the virtue of your position on the matter, i.e., safety for all -- where would you draw the line? Or perhaps a better question would be how would you draw the line? What criteria would you consider appropriate for random drug testing?

originally posted by: Pimpish
a reply to: Boadicea

I'd like to add a class of people to the random drug test list along with police officers - politicians.

They would be the FIRST that I would drug test!!! (Sorry to take that last sentence out of order -- but I couldn't resist!)

A significant number of employers do random drug testing, and that's just for every day jobs. I've had to do many tests and my line of work is IT.

Indeed they do... but that doesn't make it right. I have refused jobs because of random drug testing. Not because I'm worried about passing or failing, but because it is a gross violation of our inalienable rights, and I refuse to condone it by willfully submitting to it.

Police officers should be held to a higher standard than your average citizen because of the significant amount of power they wield.

I do see your point. Although I would use the term "force" rather than "power," they are capable of far greater harm to far more people than you or I am. But they also have inalienable rights. Where and how do we draw the line?

a reply to: Shamrock6

That is the problem with contract labor.....

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm sure everybody probably has a slightly different line, but for me it's basically people who can take your life in their hands as part of their job should be tested. Whether it's having your life in their hands more literally, as a pilot or a police officer, or more metaphorically as someone who makes laws, like politicians. I'd also add things like truck drivers to that list. Fast food workers, grocery store workers, janitors, things like that...no reason they need to be subjected to random drug tests.

In an ideal world it would be as you said, only tested if there's some sort of incident or reason to believe a test is needed. A lot of companies work that way already, mostly for insurance purposes. The problem with that is, it's so easy to pass a urinalysis. Let's say an officer has some incident or other and so is going to be tested. He/she would be aware of that and would very easily have synthetic urine ready. That's really my only argument against that.

It's pretty weird for me because for most issues I'm definitely more libertarian.

As an ex-resident of Albuq. I can say that testing the police is a very good thing.

Crime and unemployment is very high there; the police are generally "ok"; but many are corrupt and it is a well known factor

The State itself is broke, court systems backed-up for years...and there are so, so many police. If one threw a rock in any direction, chances are you would hit an officer before a civilian (to give an anology).

Drugs are a huge element in Albuq. especially crystal meth (or ice as they call it).

Overall, it is almost a police state already, eg. biometrics to get a drivers license etc. but no one speaks of it as it is in the back of too many peoples mind.

Locally, the joke is the licensen plates read "Land of Enchantment", we all called it as citizens "Land of Entrapment".

I have personally been on highways (which are vast empty spaces from city to city)..at night doing the speed limit at 85mph, out of nowhere a car gets behind me puling up well over 100mph and follows me for 20-30 mins, turning flood lights on me, right on my bumber and then passes me later....always the police.

The police trust is zero in that city, it's a good thing.

MG

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boadicea
We shall have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand where you are coming from and respect your opinion, even if I don't agree.

Fair enough -- and right back atcha!

But may I ask -- with all due respect, and understanding the virtue of your position on the matter, i.e., safety for all -- where would you draw the line? Or perhaps a better question would be how would you draw the line? What criteria would you consider appropriate for random drug testing?

Public transportation operators, as in mass transit, like buses, trains, aircraft that offer tickets to the general public. Police and armed security personnel.... I would like to see those people submit to random drug testing.
But I still believe that if the employer is up front about it, it shouldn't be a problem for any employer to require that their employees submit to random drug testing.
ETA:
Something I forgot to mention... Insurance companies are a driving force behind random drug testing. They can require companies that they insure to perform random drug testing. If a company has a less a less than stellar safety record with a lot of lost time incidents, they will request a program be initiated.

a reply to: Boadicea
They can remove our rights on a whim so they do need to held to a much higher standard..at least higher than presently.

YES YES YES more of this, and daily drug testing yes thats right daily, check thier pee every day. Dont stop there give them video cameras that record them during work. And to top them off give them emotive mind sensing helmets to know when they lie while doing thier daily reports.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boadicea
We shall have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand where you are coming from and respect your opinion, even if I don't agree.

Fair enough -- and right back atcha!

But may I ask -- with all due respect, and understanding the virtue of your position on the matter, i.e., safety for all -- where would you draw the line? Or perhaps a better question would be how would you draw the line? What criteria would you consider appropriate for random drug testing?

Public transportation operators, as in mass transit, like buses, trains, aircraft that offer tickets to the general public. Police and armed security personnel.... I would like to see those people submit to random drug testing.

So would it be fair for me to paraphrase it as those who have/assume a direct responsibility for the safety of others? And I'm assuming -- but correct me if I'm wrong -- that could include others not necessarily in direct control, such as air traffic controllers? Would the numbers matter? For example, just mass transit operators, or taxi drivers too?

I only ask to examine my own position and find fault or inadequacies... I'm trying to play devil's advocate here against myself so to speak.

But I still believe that if the employer is up front about it, it shouldn't be a problem for any employer to require that their employees submit to random drug testing.

I do see problems though. Not just the constitutional violations of inalienable rights, but also the very reliability of testing, and the efficacy. As I understand it, eating poppyseed muffins can cause a positive for opiates... taking some cold medicines can cause a positive for ephedra (meth). Plus, finding drugs in the system does not necessarily mean the person was high on the job. THC can be detected in the system long after the fact. There is also the issue of medical marijuana. My brother was able to replace prescription painkillers (and all their adverse side effects) with medical marijuana products, but because of drug testing, had to return to prescription painkillers when he returned to work. The way I see it, drug testing creates at least as many problems as it resolves.

ETA:
Something I forgot to mention... Insurance companies are a driving force behind random drug testing. They can require companies that they insure to perform random drug testing. If a company has a less a less than stellar safety record with a lot of lost time incidents, they will request a program be initiated.

Yes, indeed. My husband's employer has fought insurance-mandated drug testing for years -- even with a stellar safety record. Of course, it doesn't cost the insurance companies anything, just the company they demand it of. And who pays in the end? The employee. It's just one more cost of hiring/employing for the company, and is that much less they can pay the employee.

a reply to: Boadicea
I think it would give a person a better feeling if they got into a cab, knowing that the driver wasn't using a drug that could affect his driving ability.

I do see problems though. Not just the constitutional violations of inalienable rights, but also the very reliability of testing, and the efficacy. As I understand it, eating poppyseed muffins can cause a positive for opiates... taking some cold medicines can cause a positive for ephedra (meth). Plus, finding drugs in the system does not necessarily mean the person was high on the job. THC can be detected in the system long after the fact. There is also the issue of medical marijuana. My brother was able to replace prescription painkillers (and all their adverse side effects) with medical marijuana products, but because of drug testing, had to return to prescription painkillers when he returned to work. The way I see it, drug testing creates at least as many problems as it resolves.

These are valid concerns for plenty of people. If an employer did drug testing and would fire you for having residual THC, would you want to work for him anyway?

originally posted by: Pimpish
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm sure everybody probably has a slightly different line, but for me it's basically people who can take your life in their hands as part of their job should be tested. Whether it's having your life in their hands more literally, as a pilot or a police officer, or more metaphorically as someone who makes laws, like politicians. I'd also add things like truck drivers to that list. Fast food workers, grocery store workers, janitors, things like that...no reason they need to be subjected to random drug tests.

In an ideal world it would be as you said, only tested if there's some sort of incident or reason to believe a test is needed. A lot of companies work that way already, mostly for insurance purposes. The problem with that is, it's so easy to pass a urinalysis. Let's say an officer has some incident or other and so is going to be tested. He/she would be aware of that and would very easily have synthetic urine ready. That's really my only argument against that.

It's pretty weird for me because for most issues I'm definitely more libertarian.

I tend to lean libertarian too -- although I refuse to officially be part of any group that would have me as a member

I wonder if the founding fathers would have written the Bill of Rights differently if they could have foreseen the advent of planes and trains...

I guess in the final analysis, I'd rather take my chances with stoned transportation operators than giving the PTB any more power over us than absolutely necessary. Either way, we're taking chances.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Boadicea
They can remove our rights on a whim so they do need to held to a much higher standard..at least higher than presently.

I get what you're saying -- and agree to a great extent. But I still have to believe our focus should be on specific violations, not "what ifs" and "maybes."

My concern is that once we start picking and choosing who "deserves" these rights, we no longer have any rights -- just entitlements and privileges. This could so easily degenerate into "First they came for the cops' inalienable rights, but I wasn't a cop so I did nothing... By the time they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me."

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boadicea
If an employer did drug testing and would fire you for having residual THC, would you want to work for him anyway?

Nope! Unfortunately, it may not be up to the employer tho, thanks to insurance companies -- as pointed out.

Odd isn't it that sometimes trying to achieve safety and security can just lead to other threats to safety and security?

a reply to: DAVID64

Firstly roid rage is b.s. I have done testosterone shots and many people I know have. It doesn't cause rage. How many of you went out and killed people when your hormones were peaking between 8-12th grade? It's only called steroids when you get it off the street but when you get prescribed from a doctor it is testosterone replacement therapy. These cops have been brainwashed by the department. They are under great stress as you would be. I have trained cops in self defense classes and I can tell you they are a$$holes even off duty. They trust no one outside of their click.

This is a step in the right direction.

This does remind of an old thread and who some ATS members are adamant that there is no link between testosterone and aggression.

Hey, It's just low-T

a reply to: DAVID64

Most police officers have had homosexual thoughts, were probably bullied in school, distortions on what it is to be a real man, not too successful with female relations and devastating rejections.

Only difference is they have a badge and a court of law backing them....they never truly embrace these man issues us guys pretend we don't have because its considered sissy. Add steroids, #ed up hours(secadian thrown off), bottled thoughts and emotions, no respect, citizens fear ya... you dealing with "true danger" Prob even more so than ISIS or al Qaeda which in my honest opinion are just assets for 5 or 6 international spook agencies.financial hubs s to push world thought and agendas with fear and Hegel. Basically ends justifies the means policy.

Being perfect is a hard act to keep going. Surrender feels a whole lot better to the spirit.

a reply to: Boadicea

Sure, but if there was a lawsuit, and somehow got out that an officer was taking illegal steroids, wouldn't look too good and the cit would have to pay.

It could even be said that pov is outright invalid when these officers are enforcing laws and still taking illegal steroids.

a reply to: Boadicea

The "bridge" between both points is essentially how an individual works in a group. Classic utilitarianism vs. Deontology argument, which happens quite often on ats, seemingly though not many see that.

With the way things work, there is the issue of legal liability. Right or wrong, if a company/city doesn't dot their i's and cross their t's, an individual screw up, will also be a company/city screw up, and both will be dragged to court, and both will lose.

The idea of individual rights in this case, would seem legit, but that'd probably also hold that an individual's "wrong", would solely effect themselves, but that isn't the case with this.

a reply to: DAVID64

Random testing?

Lie. They do not test unless they have irrefutable and substantial evidence of an officer using any narcotic.

The random test is just to force an ok to require you to submit to one, or lose your job. Any lawyer will tell you that you are truly free to do what you want but companies now have to make you sign a particular waiver of your rights to work.

But because drug tests are so openly accepted by the majority of the working class... they get away with revoking your right to a personal life.