JUST SAY NO

Nobody relishes the idea of men or women under the influence of drugs
or alcohol operating buses, subways or other public-transit vehicles.
But the notion of trampling over Canadians' civil liberties, as the
Toronto Transit Commission is considering doing in response to one or
two apparently isolated incidents, is no more appealing.

Earlier this month, a Toronto bus driver was charged with impaired
driving after passengers noticed him driving erratically; his
blood-alcohol level proved to be three times over the legal limit.
Coincidentally, a report emerged around the same time that a transit
worker killed in a subway tunnel accident last year was high on
marijuana at the time. (A lack of safety procedures, not impairment,
was blamed for his death.) There is no available research to suggest
either of these incidents reflected widespread behaviour. But the
city councillors who oversee the transit service have nevertheless
decided that drastic measures may be needed, asking yesterday for TTC
staff to investigate drug and alcohol testing for employees.

Among the more elaborate schemes under consideration is a facial-scan
device to "read" workers' faces for signs of impairment or fatigue.
With even TTC chair Adam Giambrone acknowledging that the technology
is "experimental," this Orwellian scenario seems ripe for all manner
of misreading. Likelier, especially considering the TTC's tight
budgetary constraints, is that staff will recommend the random
alcohol and drug tests common in many American workplaces. But this,
too, would be problematic.

Subjecting transit operators to breathalyzer tests for alcohol, of
the sort used by police on ordinary drivers, would be defensible. But
drug testing is another matter. Because marijuana remains in one's
system for weeks on end, workers who use the substance on their own
time, as large numbers of Canadian do, could find themselves
identified and penalized - a substantial intrusion on their privacy.

It is improbable that mandatory drug testing would survive a legal
challenge. But if it did, the precedent would be a major blow to
Canadians' freedoms. Employers would be licensed to monitor workers'
personal lives, allowing otherwise exemplary employees to be
penalized for how they spend their free time. That would be an
enormously high price to fix a problem that has not been proved to exist.