Drug WarRant

I’ve long been an opponent of mandatory workplace drug testing, either for pre-screening or random suspicion-less testing. I would never work for a company that requires it.

For one thing, workplace drug testing establishes a relationship that says the employee (and his/her body) is somehow “property” of the company, rather than a valued contributor. Additionally, workplace drug testing shows a lack of management competence, relying on flawed tests that don’t even distinguish between impairment and non-impairment, when any supervisor that has even a modicum of capability can identify an impaired employee without a test.

Why would I want to work for a company that is incompetent and considers me property?

The big lie of workplace drug testing is that it is necessary for workplace safety and to reduce workplace accidents. This is how the drug-free workplace program has been sold all across the country to the huge financial benefit of drug-testing companies, and to the detriment of the individual and the corporation that ends up paying in drug testing costs and loss of employee trust.

For many years, those who pushed for workplace drug testing touted the “Firestone Study” which supposedly claimed that:

“Recreational drug users are five times more likely to file a workers’ compensation claim and 3.7 times more likely to be involved in workplace accidents than other workers”

That was repeated uncritically in government workshops and webpages as fact (as well as in testimony to Congress). The only problem is that there was no “Firestone Study.” Researchers were able to track this mythical study to remarks from Firestone’s medical director about something else entirely.

After a number of calls and queries I received a two page document from Firestone’s Medical Director, E. Gates Morgan. The report apears to be an in-house newsletter. In it, a Mr. Ed Johnson is interviewed about the Employer Assistance Program (“EAP”) at Firestone. There are some statements pertaining to absenteeism, but these are not documented, and more importantly, refer only to a few alcoholics who have been served by the Firestone EAP. The statistics generated (if these calculations based on alcoholics were actually made) have nothing to do with drug users, recreational or otherwise.

The statistics cited about absenteeism and workers’ compensation claims may have been derived from interviews with alcoholic workers enrolled in the EAP at Firestone. These people were not identified by urine testing for alcohol, but were referred because they or others perceived that their lives were falling apart. They, unlike workers randomly tested for drug use, were dysfunctional. To use them as a justification for testing unimpaired workers is like demanding that all workers have mandatory periodic rectal temperatures taken because a case of tuberculosis was found in the workplace.

A 1994 review by the National academy of sciences said that “Despite beliefs to the contrary, the preventive effects of drug-testing programs have never been adequately demonstrated. … The data obtained in worker population studies, do not provide clear evidence of the deleterious effects of drugs other than alcohol on safety and other job performance indicators.”

Today, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation reports on a study by the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA) at Flinders University. There is a fact sheet and the full study (pdf).

The fact sheet notes:

Does workplace testing improve workplace safety?

Evidence is inconclusive regarding the efficacy of drug testing in reducing workplace accidents and injuries. While some studies suggest that testing can reduce injury and accident rates, more rigorous studies indicate testing has only a small effect or no effect at all. Claims that workplace testing can substantially reduce workplace injuries, accidents and compensation claims are not supported by the available research evidence.

The ADLRF goes on to give some good reasons for opposing drug place testing.

Here’s another bit from the study that I found interesting:

While there is evidence that alcohol and drugs play a role in workplace accidents and injuries, there is also a growing body of evidence indicating other factors may play a more important role such as:

• fatigue
• noise
• dirt
• dangerous working conditions
• conflict at work
• poor working conditions and procedures
• poorly maintained equipment
• insufficient training and supervision of employees.

And this:

Distinguishing between workplace and workforce use is important when establishing workplace safety risk. Workers who consume alcohol or drugs away from the workplace and who do not return to work until the effects of consumption (e.g., intoxication, hangover, fatigue) have dissipated are unlikely to be a direct risk to safety. By contrast, consumption during (or just prior to) work hours or consumption at the workplace after work hours, is more likely to produce a direct safety and/or productivity risk.

Past research concerning workers’ alcohol and drug use has generally failed to adequately differentiate workforce from workplace alcohol and other drug use. Similarly, substance use and substance impairment are very different, as use alone does not automatically infer impairment.

The report also had this to say about testing technology:

The most common types of testing technologies used in the workplace are breath analysis, urinalysis, and saliva testing. All three test technologies have limitations. Apart from breath analysis, which can detect alcohol intoxication, no other workplace drug test can detect intoxication or impairment. Urinalysis is particularly problematic due to its inability to distinguish between recent and past drug use.

I’d like to see someone challenge the Department of Labor with this information. Let’s establish policies based on fact and science and not on adding profits to the drug testing companies.

Very weird watching this commercial in the Super Bowl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGgosT-v5sw

The bizarrely silly musical “Sheep’s on the Lamb” (for which I am leading the orchestra, playing keyboard and penny whistle) opened last night to cheers from the good-sized house. Our final performance is tonight.

Here’s a fun video from the Daily Show that nicely lampoons the Florida welfare drug-testing law.

In preparation for the Superbowl, here are some classic old ONDCP Superbowl ads.

• ONDCP: Drug, Anti-Terror
• ONDCP: Drug, Anti-Terror 2
• ONDCP: Subway Ride
• ONDCP: Knocked Up

Video: Feel the horror of going through a SWAT drug raid with children in the house. And these were actually pretty nice cops. But it sure doesn’t excuse this kind of raid.

Thanks for the nice mention from @alejoalberdi, who calls Drug WarRant “modelo de lucidez y compromiso en la lucha contra la idiotez prohibicionista.”

Heckled during speech, Mexico’s president defends drug war

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has once again clashed with a citizen angry about the effects of the country’s drug war, this time during a speech in which a man in the audience shouted, “How many more dead?” […]

“The deaths in the country are because of the criminal organizations, criminal organizations that are recruiting young people like you, for addictions, for criminal gangs, to kill other young people,” Calderon responded.

“If you or others presume that the Mexican government — my government — would cross its arms and watch as they attack the young people of Mexico, as they kidnap them, as they extort them, you are very mistaken.”

The audience, mostly men and women in business suits, applauded enthusiastically. Many gave him a standing ovation.

Subsequent reports said Moreno had announced his plans to challenge Calderon on his Facebook account. After the event in Guadalajara, the man was surrounded by audience members who scolded him, one report said.

This is a follow-up to the previous post about “evil.”

The man interrupting was asking a question loaded with content, dealing with such things as policy options, international agreements, proper use of military, how to respond to violence without increasing the violence, etc.

What he got in response from President Calderon was a calculatedly childish good-vs-evil (and therefore nothing more to discuss) response.

It’s the same as the “if you don’t support prohibition, you want to surrender” meme. It’s purpose is to falsely eliminate the existence of any other options. If it’s evil, you must fight it. It blocks even discussing ways of stopping or reducing the “evil” through other means (that might actually work!)

It is absolutely offensive for President Calderon to imply that the interrupter would want his government to “cross its arms and watch as they attack the young people of Mexico, as they kidnap them, as they extort them.” In fact, that’s why he was speaking up. He wants his government to actually do something that will work, instead of doing something that fuels more violence.

And yet, with Calderon’s good-vs-evil words, the simple-minded people in suits gave him a standing ovation and scolded the poor man who truly wanted to know “How many more dead?”

I assume most of you have used a chain saw or been next to one that was in operation. It’s loud. As a tool, it’s pretty darn terrifying and its destructive capability is intense.

We need to do a better job of getting the average citizen to picture themselves in this all-too-real situation:

Oops. FBI Uses Chain Saw on Wrong Door

Judy Sanchez, of Fitchburg, says she awoke to heavy footsteps in the stairwell on Jan. 26 and walked into her kitchen in time to see a blade chop through her door.

“I took two steps, face the second door, and I heard the click of a gun, and saying, ‘FBI, get down,’ so I laid down on my living room floor,” Sanchez told WHDH.com. “I was screaming, ‘You have the wrong apartment, you have the wrong apartment,’ over fifty times. And then I seen the big blade coming down my door.”

She says she was held face-down on the floor at gunpoint while her 3-year-old daughter Ji’anni cried in another room. […]

Sanchez says she and her daughter now have trouble sleeping. The mom told WHDH she now sleeps with a baseball bat next to her bed.

Our home is our most sacred place of refuge. The place where we’re supposed to feel safe, comfortable, and private. With the mass production of drug war raids, this kind of thing can happen to anyone.

Colombian President Juana Manuel Santos has been stirring things up a bit.

Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos called on the U.S. and Europe on Saturday to break the taboo and start a global debate on the legalization of drugs, reiterating his country would not oppose drug decriminalization.

Santos and Nicaraguan writer and former vice-President Sergio Ramirez discussed the possibility of legalizing drugs and the impact on Latin America, during a debate at the literature and arts Hay Festival in the coastal city of Cartagena.

“I know that this can’t be the opinion of a state or the president of the republic, but I am a normal citizen, so I can [say it]. The solution is decriminalizing drugs. It must be decriminalized,” Ramirez was quoted by Colombia’s presidential website.

“I am not against this,” Santos responded. “And I am saying this as president of the republic. This decision would be acceptable for Colombia if taken by the entire world.”

That’s right. A sitting president.

The U.S. has responded:

The United States “respects,” but does not support Colombian President Santos’ call for a global debate on drug legalization, said U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman Tuesday.

Sherman, who is in Colombia to prepare U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to the Summit of the Americas in April, told newspaper El Tiempo that she “appreciated that presidents say what they think and of course I respect their points of view.”

OK. Polite, diplomatic. And the expected non-support for the idea.

However, “President Obama does not support legalization. What we do support is the intense work relation we have with Colombia and with President Santos with the aim of liberating us from this evil.”

Whoa. Liberating us from this evil? Sounds like a phrase from the Lord’s Prayer.

You see, the problem is that once you identify something as “evil,” you’ve completely shut off any notion of having a rational discourse or of analyzing options.

And, by definition, drugs are not and cannot be “evil.” Drugs are inanimate objects, incapable of moral action.

….

With more and more foreign leaders and former leaders calling for real change, it won’t be long before the U.S. position of drug policy becomes the outlier, and it becomes harder and harder for the U.S. to impose their war on the rest of the world.

Top cop says 12yo girl’s strip search justified

That’s the world in which we live — the world of the drug war.

Josh Gerstein at Politico had a prediction that Obama would answer a marijuana question last night based on a conversation with a Google staffer:

Google is signaling that it won’t let any single issue, like marijuana legalization, dominate its online question-and-answer session with President Obama Monday afternoon.

But don’t despair, NORML fans, as it seems you stand a good chance of getting a query before the commander in chief.

“We’re not releasing questions ahead of time, but I should note that a marijuana question was asked and answered in last year’s YouTube interview with the president,” Google staffer Abbi Tatton said in response to a POLITICO inquiry about how the web giant plans to handle the usual proliferation of pot-related questions put forward by the online audience.

In retrospect, it seems clear that the Google staffer was signaling that they considered the question already asked and answered.

Of course, it doesn’t really matter whether the President was asked. Any answer he would have given would have been dismissively vague. It’s child’s play to come up with a non-answer, such as

I understand that these concerns exist, and the fact that a dialogue is happening is a good thing. And yet, on the other hand, surrendering is not the solution to our drug problems. This is why our White House Office on Drug Control Policy is pursuing a balanced approach that is successfully working to reduce the harms caused by drugs. Thank you for your question and your years of service to our country.

In some ways, it’s actually better for us that Obama continues to dodge the question and the Google chose not to answer it. The question and issue are still getting play… Check this out:

President not asked about legalizing pot despite thousands of questions on the subject

TAMPA, Fla. — When the president’s Google Plus meeting got started on Monday, the commander-in-chief had time to answer questions about his dancing and singing abilities, how he’ll spend his anniversary, and even what he thought about comedians making jokes about politicians. But what he didn’t answer were any of the hundreds of questions submitted for the event about legalizing marijuana.

In fact, CBS reported 18 of the 20 most popular questions for his online meeting had to do with cannabis, with the number one ranked YouTube question coming from a retired police officer who asked, “What do you say to (a) growing voter constituency that wants more changes to drug policy than you have delivered in your first term?” […]

Even on the campaign trail the subject is getting attention, with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul supporting the legalization of marijuana. […]

Last year, the president did say legalization is a legitimate topic but that he does not support the move. Yet, with so many questions on the issue being submitted on Monday, it’s fair to say this is a subject that is not about to burn out anytime soon.

It’s gotten to the point that every time that President Obama decides to “listen” to the people, we get a lot of coverage. Not a bad thing.

If you believe that hiring a drug-sniffing dog to go through your house is a good way to get connected to your child’s life, then you might want to re-think your entire parenting approach.

Dog for hire sniffs out drug problems

Parents concerned about whether their children are using narcotics, businesses wanting to enforce their drug-free workplace policies, and schools that want to keep drugs out of their parking lots and classrooms now have a new place to turn for help.

Frankfort native Brent Snyder has started Snyders K-9 Scent Detection, which uses a trained and certified canine to locate the presence of drugs by doing searches of houses, cars, factories and other workplaces.

Did you know that Maricopa County, Arizona does the training for “85 percent of all drug-recognition experts in North America”? That’s the shocker (to me, at least) in this article: RCMP halts training with U.S. force over abuse findings

Training of police officers from across Canada in drug recognition techniques has been called into question after the U.S. Department of Justice censured an Arizona-based police department that partnered with Mounties for the program.

The federal RCMP suspended the program last week after learning of allegations against the force, including racism and abuse of authority.

The allegations first surfaced when the Justice Department issued a report in mid-December outlining its findings from a civil rights violations probe into the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

The probe found “reasonable cause to believe” the force engages in “unconstitutional policing,” including racial profiling, retaliating against people who criticized its policies and disregarding basic legal obligations.

It suggested Latinos were being unlawfully stopped, detained and arrested, and that inmates who don’t speak English were punished for failing to understand commands and refused basic services.

None of that, of course, is any surprise to me. We’ve been quite aware of the rogue nature of that particular police force and its disdain for petty niceties like individual rights or the Constitution. I just didn’t know that they were the ones training officers in drug recognition. I see articles all the time these days about a local officer somewhere having received “certification” in drugged driving assessment, and wondered who was providing this “expert” training. Now I know.

[B.C. Civil Liberties Association Executive Director David] Eby said he’s pleased with the RCMP’s swift action against the “rogue” force, and thinks it is appropriate for the Mounties to cast doubt on the adequacy of the training program.

“There’s a serious question about why those prisoners were in the lockup, given the arresting policies and procedures of this police force,” he said in an interview on Sunday. “Were the prisoners consenting to that? How did they end up in the lockup? Would they just round up a whole bunch of people during a training program?”

Eby called on the RCMP to conduct a retroactive review to ascertain whether the training officers have received can be relied upon. He also noted there may be future implications in criminal court proceedings.

He added he hopes the scenario awakens the RCMP to the risks of relying on American police as service providers.

Ain’t that the truth.

In related news…

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — The federal government should help police departments nationwide obtain the tools and training needed to attack a rising scourge of driving under the influence, two U.S. senators said Sunday.

Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Mark Pryor of Arkansas proposed that federal funding in a pending transportation funding bill be used for research and to train police. They said police have no equipment and few have training in identifying drugged drivers, who don’t show the same outward signs of intoxication as drunken drivers do, such as slurred speech.

I find the argument that always seems to show up in this area quite ironic — If only those people on drugs would show some sign of impairment so we could arrest them for being impaired. We know they must be impaired although we don’t have any actual data to prove it. It’s just that they’re able to hide their impairment so we can’t detect it.

Again, to reiterate what I’ve said in the past, I’m all for getting dangerous drivers off the street, and if you have a reliable way to identify impairment, I’ll support that, but if you’re arresting drivers because of the presence of drug metabolites rather than the presence of impairment, then I have a problem with it.

I don’t think it takes much special training to detect when someone is drugged up to the point of being impaired. It just takes special training to detect someone who has taken drugs but isn’t impaired in any significant way.