RANDOM DRUG TESTING IS AN EXPLOSIVE ISSUE

A proposal to institute random drug-and-alcohol testing of drivers of
trucks carrying dangerous cargo should not be dismissed out of hand.

Superior Propane, parent company of ICG Propane, ought to be applauded for
considering that action in the wake of a coroner's report that showed a
driver had a blood-alcohol reading of 0.28 when his propane tanker crashed
on the Malahat last summer.

The Teamsters Union, though, adamantly opposes any sort of mandatory
testing program, citing "invasion of privacy."

The Teamsters, of course, are wary that such testing programs are open to
abuses. Obviously such concerns should be addressed in constructing any
sort of mandatory drug-and-alcohol testing regime. However, no freedom is
absolute. And in certain cases, concerns about public safety trump concerns
about an individual's rights to sneak a nip in private. Whether this
scenario is one of those or not is something that Superior Propane's review
must explore.

Obviously, a random drug-and-alcohol testing program will be a costly
endeavor, and not just financially. If not handled delicately, it can
destroy staff morale and damage a company's health. Yet, given the huge
potential liability from a propane tanker crash, the company also has a
financial incentive to acknowledge its duty of care to mitigate those hazards.

Nobody is suggesting that drunk driving is an epidemic among propane truck
drivers. It's probably naive, though, to think the case of Philip Higgins,
the Nanaimo driver killed in that July 17, 2000 crash, is an isolated one.
The fact that he crashed his truck on his first drive after he was
reinstated after a suspension on suspicion of drunk driving certainly shows
the existing system for dealing with such problems is lacking.

Had random testing been in effect, Higgins might not have made that fateful
final drive.

Maybe random drug-and-alcohol testing isn't the answer. Rather than dismiss
it out of hand, the union representing truck drivers ought to propose
constructive alternatives.

People in many areas of life surrender a bit of their privacy for the sake
of a greater objective. Nobody objects to Olympic athletes taking drug
tests. Yet nobody's life depends on the outcome of the 100-metre dash.