News (Media Awareness Project) - US IL: Editorial: Cicero's Anti-Drug Brainstorm |
Title: | US IL: Editorial: Cicero's Anti-Drug Brainstorm |
Published On: | 2000-05-01 |
Source: | Chicago Tribune (IL) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-04 20:04:52 |
CICERO'S ANTI-DRUG BRAINSTORM
In the field of municipal government, Cicero is nothing if not a
pathbreaker. Too bad it heads in the wrong direction so much of the
time.
The latest bright idea of the town officials is a voluntary drug
testing program for all town employees, using hair samples.
It does not apply to elected officials, even though all of them,
including Town President Betty Loren-Maltese, have taken or are
willing to submit to a drug screen, according to spokesman David Donahue.
On its face, the campaign sounds laudable--all civil servants ought to
be in full possession of their faculties while on duty.
In practice, however, it's a hollow notion: Such testing makes no
sense scientifically, logically or legally.
Drug screening using hair samples has been considered too unreliable
by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Federal Drug
Administration and the Society of Forensic Pathologists.
The use of such iffy tests is particularly questionable when the
results could lead to someone's being disciplined or even fired.
Donahue says Cicero opted for voluntary testing to avoid the legal
problems of a mandatory program.
But that is a bogus distinction. Wouldn't illicit drug users logically
refuse to be tested? Wouldn't a refusal automatically make someone
suspect? Would that person then be compelled to submit to a drug test?
What would Cicero accomplish either way, other than to proclaim its
aversion to the use of illicit drugs?
Random drug testing might make sense in some very specific cases, such
as for police officers, where public safety is at stake. But to
suggest that all employees--from secretaries to street
sweepers--submit to "voluntary" drug testing is an unjustifiable
invasion of their privacy.
Concerns about drug use are valid and shared by public and private
sector employers. They should be addressed through proper supervisory
training to spot work behaviors that suggest the use of illicit drugs.
Once erratic or unsatisfactory performance has been detected, then
drug testing might be indicated on a case-by-case basis, not as a
blanket policy.
Cicero has a history of responding to real problems with far-fetched
solutions. At one time or another it has proposed rescinding the
residency of gang members and distributing Ku Klux Klan literature to
all the townsfolk to get the group to call off a demonstration.
Voluntary drug testing of employees ought to be filed in the same bin
as those other half-baked ideas.
In the field of municipal government, Cicero is nothing if not a
pathbreaker. Too bad it heads in the wrong direction so much of the
time.
The latest bright idea of the town officials is a voluntary drug
testing program for all town employees, using hair samples.
It does not apply to elected officials, even though all of them,
including Town President Betty Loren-Maltese, have taken or are
willing to submit to a drug screen, according to spokesman David Donahue.
On its face, the campaign sounds laudable--all civil servants ought to
be in full possession of their faculties while on duty.
In practice, however, it's a hollow notion: Such testing makes no
sense scientifically, logically or legally.
Drug screening using hair samples has been considered too unreliable
by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Federal Drug
Administration and the Society of Forensic Pathologists.
The use of such iffy tests is particularly questionable when the
results could lead to someone's being disciplined or even fired.
Donahue says Cicero opted for voluntary testing to avoid the legal
problems of a mandatory program.
But that is a bogus distinction. Wouldn't illicit drug users logically
refuse to be tested? Wouldn't a refusal automatically make someone
suspect? Would that person then be compelled to submit to a drug test?
What would Cicero accomplish either way, other than to proclaim its
aversion to the use of illicit drugs?
Random drug testing might make sense in some very specific cases, such
as for police officers, where public safety is at stake. But to
suggest that all employees--from secretaries to street
sweepers--submit to "voluntary" drug testing is an unjustifiable
invasion of their privacy.
Concerns about drug use are valid and shared by public and private
sector employers. They should be addressed through proper supervisory
training to spot work behaviors that suggest the use of illicit drugs.
Once erratic or unsatisfactory performance has been detected, then
drug testing might be indicated on a case-by-case basis, not as a
blanket policy.
Cicero has a history of responding to real problems with far-fetched
solutions. At one time or another it has proposed rescinding the
residency of gang members and distributing Ku Klux Klan literature to
all the townsfolk to get the group to call off a demonstration.
Voluntary drug testing of employees ought to be filed in the same bin
as those other half-baked ideas.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...