This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 21, 2010 9:31 AM. The previous post in this blog was How "urban renewal" kills off livability. The next post in this blog is There must be some mistake. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Friday, May 21, 2010

So is that it for drug-testing the Portland police?

For a while there, Portland city commissioner "Legend" Saltzman was telling people that he was demanding drug testing of the police force as part of contract negotiations with the police union. But now that Saltzman's out and the mayor's in as police commissioner, will that idea be tossed aside?

If I were the police union head, I'd tell the mayor, "We'll take them, if you will." And that would likely be the end of that.

Comments (13)

My impression of Adams is that he is first and foremost a "pleaser" (the fact that he's not very good at pleasing anyone notwithstanding).

Therefore, I think his first instinct with any group like the Police Union is to try to be their "buddy." He's a wonk who thinks that if he studies any problem long enough, that some win/win answer that hasn't occured to lesser mortals will reveal itself.

Only when he realizes that he hasn't pleased everyone and someone is still opposing him, does he flip out and get vindictive.

Let's also not forget that the police know the gritty details of Adams' truck accident at Jantzen Beach.

...yes, those details which methinks Leonard got hold of from his police connections and has been holding over Adams.


Plain clothes detective responds to a 911 call in Normal Heights (San Diego): two roomates fighting outdoors. He arrives (alone) and tries to break it up, isolating the apparent aggressor, who turns on the cop. They struggle, and the detective deploys his baton, which is taken away from him by the aggressor, who then puts the Detective into a choke hold. Detective breaks away, then shoots and kills the alleged aggressor.

And that has what to do with drug testing of cops, Mr. Tee?

I didn't want to email Jack from my workplace. Thought he would find it interesting and didn't mean to imply anything or threadjack.

Personally, I don't think a cop should ever brawl with a suspect, especially without backup on scene.

So I am less concerned the cops may be using illegal drugs and much more concerned the cops don't take undue risks...As the San Diego story illustrates, hand-to-hand fighting is never a good idea, and we should expect the Police to use disproportiantely more force than their adversary.

The result of all the criticism of Portland Cops is either A) depolicing, or B) increasing the threshold before they resort to deadly force.

Both are a mistake.

How can you not be concerned that someone whose job involves deadly weapons is not abusing drugs especially steroids which are known to cause undue aggression? Do you think badges make people above the law? Or that badges excuse illegal conduct such as taking drugs? Or that drugs are not dangerous and therefore should be decriminalized? Help me understand why it's illegal to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs but it's o.k. to go to work with weapons of personal destruction f...ed up on drugs.

Clearly there have been some examples of law enforcement officers that use steroids. The difference between law enforcement and others is the cops know they are very likely to LOSE THEIR JOBS if they are caught. Given that disincentive, I believe most officers will not incur the risk of buying/injecting/storing anabolic steroids.

I believe cops are more likely to abuse alcohol than the average citizen, but shouldn't we treat them as addicts who deserve compassion and treatment (like the bums and street urchins that populate our sidewalks)? Opiates? Maybe, but I think most drug abusers will eventually out themselves. We should drug test those who manifest symptoms of drug use or those who use excessive force.

I see great hypocrisy when the most progressive, drug tolerant, pro-personal freedom folks want to drug test the cops, but adamantly object to subjecting teachers, coaches, youth leaders, or public employees to random drug testing.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

I want any armed person that I have to obey to be tested for drugs. Hey, life isn't fair.

Eh, drugs are as American as slavery or inventiveness or firearms.

The whole idea of random drug testing makes no sense...a free people ought to be permitted in their free time to pour whatever chemicals...including nicotine and alcohol...through their systems to self medicate as they see fit. Christ on a Bike, this country was founded by pot smoking Masons and Deists, working under the sign of the all-seeing Eye.

Now, on the job ? Whole other ball of wax. How do you differentiate ? Easy with booze...you might be an alcoholic, but not get drunk at work. Breathalyzers can detect your hangover, but that's it.

What about the person who smokes dope on Friday night, but shows up to work sober on Monday, their system still full of THC to be detected should a drug test be undertaken ?

I'm all in favor of self medication, but also all in favor of testing out-of-control cops for steroid abuse. Hell, I've went to work hung over dozens and dozens of times over the decades, but I never, ever drank on the job, period.

Where do we draw the line ?

Seriously, where do you draw the line with a type of human behavior as natural as breathing ? The only example of a human society in recorded history that did not drink or use drugs was the Eskimos of antiquity, and that's only because they didn't have access to many plants.

We are one drink quaffing, drug gobbling species. This will never change. EVER. Puritans ought to take note of this immutable, eternal FACT. It's simply tilting at windmills, the entire push by modern day Puritans to create a new human being who does not use some type of mind-altering substance or other, that's all.

Substance abusing cops are a bad idea for a lot of reason. And that includes alcohol. A drunk cop who was having marital problems went out and fired his service revolver multiple times on the Main St. of the place I grew up. The other local yokels were too afraid to response so the sherriff's office had to deal with him.

And cops have to operate motor vehicles so drunk cops are a real menace and violating the law.

Most employers drug test these days as part of pre-employment and some continue that on a random basis - many pilots are subject to that. Lots of doctors and nurses are subject to it. And most employers will test if there are accidents or incidents that occur while the employee is on duty. Why should cops have more rights than the average employee? Drug testing is just a condition of employment/part of doing business.

How do cops on steroids get caught if they are not tested? Do we hope an honest cop finds the dealer and the dealer rolls? Given the thin blue line mentality, that's rare.

And since most cops are the last people to respect other people's rights unless they absolutely have to, I find whining for special rights for cops who want to violate the law really hypocritical.

..."since most cops are the last people to respect other people's rights"

You lose your seat at the grownups table when you state that law enforcers are the problem. If you believe that, then drug testing isn't going to achieve your obectives.

I don't think police apologists have any place at the table. I have to say that the two recent road rage incidents with off duty cops are cause enough for both of them to be drug tested. And I do respect good cops; it's just that there are so damned few of them. And if you think wife beating, civil rights violating, drug using/alcohol abusing cops aren't a problem because you must respect badges and authority, you need remedial help.

Clicky Web Analytics