A LITTLE HAZY ON TTC DRUG TESTING

At lunch in a Beijing restaurant last month, one of the items offered
on the menu was "saliva chicken." See, I didn't even think chickens
had lips.

My friend Christie Blatchford speculated that saliva chicken would
have been spat on by someone in the kitchen - then judiciously ordered
only steamed rice.

I was thinking about spittle after reading that the TTC has approved a
limited drug-testing policy whereby certain employees "at risk of
being impaired" - not entirely sure what that means - would be
subjected to saliva tests.

Until now, I was under the impression that urine testing was required
for the purpose of tracing drugs and alcohol in the system, as opposed
to blowing into a Breathalyzer for your friendly traffic cop. That's
why athletes on performance-enhancing substances are all the time
inventing new ways to thwart the process, to the extent of spurting
replacement pee up their urinary tracts or tucking clandestine
bladder-bags down the groin.

And was union leader Bob Kinnear being punny when he fumed: "We will
not enter into anything that is arbitrarily rammed down our throats"?

Or, for that matter, Councillor Anthony Perruzza, the only one of nine
commissioners who rejected all forms of substance testing, who said:
"I would hope sober second thought would prevail."

For some reason, perhaps illogical, saliva swabs strike me as less
invasive than whizzing in a cup for urine analysis. Even at the
doctor's office, it feels slightly ridiculous to walk out of the
bathroom carrying that little vial of eau de tinkle.

The objection to all drug testing, as a civil liberties argument -
also, the presumption of innocence that forbids unreasonable search
and seizure - is obvious.

But if commissioners are concerned that employees might be loaded on
the job, perhaps stoned, there is surely a public safety factor to be
considered in preventive measures. Even if, as Kinnear pointed out:
"Not one of our members has seriously injured a passenger due to
intoxication - not once."

That seems scant assurance, however, when the TTC's own research found
39 incidents of drug and alcohol impairment recorded among employees
over the past three years, though not all were drivers or in
safety-sensitive jobs.

Compare that to the thousands of public transit users who are lit up
when they get on a subway or bus - the late-night Queen St. car comes
most to mind - and cause disturbances. Better on the Red Rocket,
though, than behind the wheel on the Don Valley.

I'd be more worried about pilots and train engineers, especially since
impairment has been cited as a cause for colossal railway smash-ups in
North America. But there are other drugs - pharmaceuticals, prescribed
- - that can discombobulate judgment and incapacitate motor skills.
Should employees responsible for the safety of others be screened for
these as well? Ain't no RIDE program for lithium and Prozac. Do I have
the right to withhold this information from an employer, since no law
has been broken?

Details on how testing would be administered, upon whom, and with what
repercussions haven't been worked out.

Random testing of all TTC employees, as proposed by TTC chief general
manager Gary Webster, was rejected outright. But workers where safety
is crucial, those caught using drugs and alcohol on the job and those
returning to work after attending substance abuse treatment programs
would be monitored. Suspicion of alcohol and drug use is trickier to
address.

What constitutes reasonable suspicion?

Hiccups? Dilated pupils? A propensity for giggling at bad jokes? The
dope munchies?

I'll have to ponder this over a vodka-tonic, on the clock. In my job,
alcohol is a creative stimulant.

Rosie DiManno usually appears on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and
Saturday.