POLICE DRUG TESTING SENDS WRONG MESSAGE

We hold our police officers to a higher standard. We expect them to go out
every day to serve and to protect, all the while demanding that they
observe the necessary tenets of equality, tolerance and, above all, fairness.

We insist that our officers remain firm in the presumption of innocence
until proven guilty and we tolerate nothing less.

So it is somewhat ironic that the Police Services Board would consider a
drug testing policy that has the potential to deny our police officers the
same rights we, as citizens, insist upon.

Random testing for police in "high risk" positions was slated to begin March 1.

However, after hearing objections from the Toronto Police Association and
Mayor David Miller, the board has decided to hold off just long enough to
review the policy.

That Miller has chosen to side with police officers in this issue is no
surprise; he has expressed his opposition to random drug testing in the past.

"I don't believe in random testing of people, that violates civil
liberties. I believe in supervision, proper supervision, and I believe drug
testing is only appropriate where there's evidence to support it. It's the
same with anyone in any job. Your rights are important," Miller said.

In this case, he said he agrees with the police association that this issue
needs to be studied and discussed.

Retired judge George Ferguson recommended the drug testing as a part of
sweeping reforms designed to root out police corruption. But police
association president Dave Wilson argued the force is well equipped to
catch offenders and to help them. Random testing, the association
maintains, is a violation of their human rights and they plan to fight any
attempt to impose such a policy.

In the coming weeks, a new police chief will take the helm.

The new chief must have the power to work within the force to develop an
effective approach that is grounded in human rights.

Random drug testing is heavy handed and unnecessary. It makes much more
sense to empower supervisors with the skills needed to recognize officers
using drugs, acting only on a per-case basis.

Drug testing need only follow when there has been some pattern of behaviour
established, or questions about conduct and competence, perhaps related to
drug abuse, have been displayed.

No other police force in the country has random drug testing and for good
reason. Subjecting police officers to a policy that violates their rights
is no different than asking those same officers to ignore the rights of
those they are sworn to serve and protect.