Pot Law Could Snuff Out Testing Policy

[Ganjarden]

A voter-approved law reducing possession of small amounts of marijuana to a civil offense threatens to unravel drug testing of police and other public employees, the Herald has learned.

The law, which goes into effect Jan. 2, prohibits government agencies and authorities from enforcing any punishment for pot possession with a fine greater than $100, according to the Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association, and defines possession so broadly as to include traces of pot in blood to urine to hair and fingernails.

"This very much threatens to undermine our ability to do the drug testing we do," said Jack Collins, an attorney for the Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association.

Collins is calling for police departments to stop drug testing certain employees until the Legislature can explicitly allow public employees who fail drug tests to be punished. Without swift action, police departments and other agencies face lawsuits from unions protecting their members, Collins said.

"At this point, it looks like a violation of their rights, and then there'd be a lawsuit and it would cost thousands of dollars," he warned.

Berkshire District Attorney David Capeless predicted the new law has far-reaching consequences for even school bus drivers and MBTA train operators, who could point to the law and say they can only be fined, not fired, for marijuana offenses.

"People given the critical job of looking after children or the general public, there's a greater risk now they could be high," Capeless warned.

Concerns about the viability of punishing people for flunking drug tests follow news reports of drug use by public workers. The Herald found that 77 MBTA employees have failed substance-abuse tests over the past three years.

A task force set up by Public Safety Secretary Kevin Burke is examining the implications of the new law and how it will be enforced. Burke's office is expected to provide answers to questions of drug testing by year's end.

Meanwhile, the Boston Police Department plans to continue drug testing regardless of any uncertainty, said Elaine Driscoll. "Enforcing our drug policies is non-negotiable," Driscoll said.


News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Boston Herald
Author: Edward Mason
Contact: Boston Herald
Copyright: 2008 Boston Herald and Herald Media
Website: Pot Law Could Snuff Out Testing Policy

 

[Jim Finnel]

“Enforcing our drug policies is non-negotiable,” Driscoll said.

i thought it was the law they were to enforce

 

[Keith Lake]

Maybe they'll have to work on developing a test for actual impairment.

<Instead of using their huge net to search for residual inactive metabolites that could be present for a month after consumption>

School bus drivers et al should not be driving high (or drunk or otherwise impaired) but as soon as the driver's punched out for the day - it shouldn't be anyones business what he/she does on their own time

 

[darkrail]

These stories make me so happy.

The whole drug war depends on irrational fear-mongering. They say that if weed is legal (or decriminalized) every apocalyptic nightmare will explode onto our streets, society will crumble, YOU WILL DIE, etc. It's all so foolish.

When these pigs [sorry to any upstanding law-folks out there, but these particular lowlifes ARE pigs] promote the coming plague of legalization, and are then proven wrong, the psychological drug war suffers. Just like here in Los Angeles: we can now buy weed at some 400 local mini-mall dispensaries, and what doom befell us??? None.

Here is one of my heroes beautifully summing up this story, and this type of propaganda:

YouTube - Penn and Teller: What would happen if drugs were legal

 

[colitas]

I dont see how this looks like a violation of gov. employees rights....alcohol is legal but if a airline pilot violates the 12hr rule of bottle to throttle they stand to be diciplined or fired....so why would this threaten police unions?? a police dept. should have a "no use policy" as a condition for hire....if police want to smoke then they should find another job....but lets not kid ourselves there are plenty of police today who do the harder drugs....and it is a matter of time before they hurt someone before they are caught....Look at the recent capture of the ex Utah Trooper Police: Dallas shooting suspect is ex-Utah trooper
A man suspected in a series of rush-hour shootings near Dallas is a former Utah state trooper wanted on burglary and robbery warrants who apparently shot himself ...
Furthermore, Smith had been a Utah state trooper since 1996 but retired in May because of "personal issues," said Sgt. Jeff Nigbur, a spokesman for the Utah Department of Public Safety.

The crime spree appears to have begun in Garland, where a man police identified as Smith jumped over a pharmacy counter at a grocery store and stole OxyContin pills
I cant help but think that if MMJ was legal that this Trooper and the others he killed would still be alive.......

 

[wordsworm]

"When these pigs [sorry to any upstanding law-folks out there, but these particular lowlifes ARE pigs]"

I don't know why folks feel the need to put pigs down. They're very intelligent animals, and don't deserve to be compared with police.

 

[Herb Fellow]

Maybe the Boston Police Department should made judgments on performance instead of what may be hanging around in their employees blood, hair or urine.

 

[Keith Lake]

^^
Exactly


On a related note, I just read an article about how they've developed a cost effective test to distinguish between marinol use and cannabis use; testing for some cannabinoid metabolites that are not present in marinol.

They are now testing the marinol patients and using the result as a basis to disqualify benefits.

I'd like to see them develop the test that only registers impairment; like alcohol. This would hamper persecution and be a great start towards normalization of the driving laws.

 

[Bee23]

That will be a relief to many. Thanks Soniq