Politics, News & Issues >
Police & Prisons
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould police have to submit to routine drug and alcohol testing?
Results so far:
| Yes | 92% | 533 votes | Total: 579 votes | |
| No | 8% | 46 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThere really should be no question in this matter. Official documentation of an officer's use of alcohol or drugs should be essential in an Internal Review procedure or criminal investigation of an officer.
A police officer agrees to a higher standard of personal accountability and conduct when applying for and accepting the position as a law enforcement officer of any capacity. There are laws both on the federal and local levels governing the use of drugs and alcohol by citizens. A police officer is also a citizen and by becoming an officer he/she does not become accountable to a different set of laws to abide by.
Upon employment on the force the citizens of that jurisdiction have given the officer limited power to serve, protect and to implement the use of that power within the policies and procedures of the department. He/she also agrees to personally uphold the laws governing his jurisdiction. The citizens of that jurisdiction expect, and rightfully so, that the officer will be in excellent mental and physical health while using that power in the day to day tasks of the position.
Certainly an officer is faced with certain circumstances that involve the use of discernment and, at times, mild force to the ultimate "deadly force". Required drug and alcohol testing at the times of these circumstances would assure the officer, the family of the victims, the officer involved, the police force and ultimately the citizens themselves that the action was at the very least not conducted "under the influence of drug or alcohol".
The discussion of "random" testing engages another avenue of thought. In the history of America there have always been incidents of police officers working against the system due to their own personal demons or just greed. An officer has the ability to shield and hide their unlawful actions and/or addictions. It is therefore necessary and justified for management to use "random" testing of drugs and alcohol usage on the job. Officers who are performing the duties of an officer while "under the influence" are putting their partners, the force, the citizens, and themselves at an undue exposure to harm as well as litigation.
It is imperative to have reviews to maintain the integrity of the force and that those officers who are using drugs and/or alcohol are exposed, reprimanded, given treatment and/or discharged from the system. The stress of the job as well as the availability to "go bad" is the responsibility of top management to monitor and maintain so a reputation of honor and trust by the community excels.
The phrase "unfair" has been used to describe the practice of drug testing for police. We are taught from childhood to trust and respect those that serve in this capacity. We are taught as children to "be fair". We soon discover that "fair" is not applicable after graduating into adulthood. Trust is earned through verification. Verification has nothing to do with fair. It means I trust you and I will verify that you deserve my trust.
It is "fair" for me to know the officer who is protecting and serving me is not "under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol which then in turn will allow me to "trust" that officer and show him/her the gratitude that he/she has earned!
Learn more about this author, Sandra Watson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The pervasive attitude in our society today is guilty until proven innocent. I would have to say that is a total reversal of what the United States of America was founded on. I would also submit , that given the amount of alcohol consumed by our founding fathers they wouldn't even be allowed to drive a car today, let alone start a new country. So I would argue that nobody should be randomly tested for any substance use , unless and when a problem becomes apparent.
The argument may well be that if one injury is prevented then that makes the entire program worth it, but I would argue that if that is the case then all such substances should be banned, and we all know how well that worked in the U.S. back in the nineteen twenties. That being said, if their is even a suspicion of substance abuse, and when it is being used in the work place, it is abuse, and matters of public safety are at hand, then by all means ,test away.
I say we would have to do a better job of not being afraid to blow the whistle on someone we may suspect could be having a problem, and be even more willing to offer a public apology if we are wrong. There should me no stigma attached to being accused and suspected ( see the U.S. Constitution ) and only help offered if a problem is found. Should damage be done and criminal charges be warranted then so be it. Thats why we have laws.
Unfortunately, like so many of these programs , they are huge profit centers in themselves and are self perpetuating. There is big money to be made from a fearful public, and they are marketing it like chewing gum these days. With so much information, some true and some false, being spewed forth from the gaping yaw of our information technologies, there are plenty of Bogeymen to go around.
Just like the fallacious "War On" series that we keep allowing to be perpetuated on us, testing for substances is more busy work for the nanny state and their agencies than anything else. Codes of professional standards are much more effective than Big Brother testing regimes being foisted on us now. We all want to do a good job and be safe.
It demeans the integrity of our whole society that we have allowed ourselves to be misled by the media and elected officials to so distrust one another ,that we will give up all our freedoms to protect ourselves from one another. I say lets stop demanding everybody but us be tested and return to a more rational time.
No testing for anyone without reasonable cause. No stigma for those tested and cleared, No stigma for those found to need help. Lets work together and stop assuming that people will turn a blind eye when there is serious danger afoot. Police don't want an impaired officer backing them up any more than co-pilots and other personnel want to get on a plane with an intoxicated pilot. We are all smarter than we give each other credit for.
Learn more about this author, Peter Dalton.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Police & Prisons
- Do prisons reform criminals?
- Can racial profiling be a useful way to identify potential criminals?
- Are the police violating the law when tasering an unarmed citizen?
- Do school police officers reduce problems with their presence?
- If the US government restores $2 billion cut from state and local law enforcement, will crime be reduced?
- When police car chases cause damages to others, who is to blame?
