Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_re_us/hair_drug_tests

BOSTON - The seven police officers swore they didn't use cocaine, yet their hair tested positive for the drug. The officers - all of them black - were promptly fired or suspended.

"I was in complete and utter shock," said Officer Shawn Noel Harris. "I know that I never used drugs a day in my life."

The Boston officers are now suing the police department, claiming the mandatory drug test is unreliable and racially biased. They say hair testing is unfair because drug compounds show up more readily in dark hair than light hair.

Their civil rights lawsuit is one of many legal challenges against hair drug tests, which are used by companies and police departments nationwide. Employers like the test because it can detect drugs up to three months after use; urine tests go back only a few days and can be easily altered.
 
G

·
They will probably win the case because once again The Man is keeping them down by finding out they are using drugs as police officers. It is unfair that it is harder to catch the cocaine using white POs. The cocain using black officer should be able to keep his job until a test can catch ****** using drugs from three months ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
"Gee", I thought that was the best way of testing. (If the glove don't fit you got to acquit). Another victim. I'm sure the test is wrong. "RIGHT",:hump:
 

·
Czar of Cyncism and Satire
Joined
·
2,070 Posts
Looks like somebody spiked a bottle of V05 in the locker room!! A word to the wise, never use the "Community Bottle" of shampoo at your district station house. Always bring and use your own.
 

·
BOOM!
Joined
·
1,353 Posts
SOT_II said:
The Boston officers are now suing the police department, claiming the mandatory drug test is unreliable and racially biased. They say hair testing is unfair because drug compounds show up more readily in dark hair than light hair.
So, drug compounds still do show up? How do the officers explain that one. The test indicated a trace of something in their system?

Last time I checked, I could have sworn that there were WHITE PO's with dark hair????
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
well one of the many reasons i want to be a PO besides pride, honor, INTEGRITY! this is another example of how no body is responsibility for their own actions any more, its everybody body elses fault. pulling a damn race card cause u popped positive, thats just friggin weak!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
You have got to be kidding ...

I was under the impression that this was part of the agreed upon collective bargaining acts from the contract six years ago right? I don't think they have a leg to stand on scientifically or professionally and the system that Boston, with the assistance of the union, put in place seems pretty reasonable. I also believe they got compensated for it so they probably should have gotten off the pipe back then. Its a shame that they got jammed up on a personal level but everyone knew it was a possibility and there's no room for this stuff on this job professionally.

Also I was under the impression that their system put a whole series of remedies in place if you were caught before you got jammed up totally. If these guys were fired it had to be pretty bad. The suspensions are understandable because there are other things expected of them during the suspension but to fight that hit is embarrassing when you could ultimately keep the job of a lifetime. But then again we have the same problem were I work because people take it for just a job not because of the job.

If there's some Boston guys who want to fill me in because I am off base, let me know.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
459 Posts
THE RP said:
You have got to be kidding ...

I was under the impression that this was part of the agreed upon collective bargaining acts from the contract six years ago right? I don't think they have a leg to stand on scientifically or professionally and the system that Boston, with the assistance of the union, put in place seems pretty reasonable. I also believe they got compensated for it so they probably should have gotten off the pipe back then. Its a shame that they got jammed up on a personal level but everyone knew it was a possibility and there's no room for this stuff on this job professionally.

Also I was under the impression that their system put a whole series of remedies in place if you were caught before you got jammed up totally. If these guys were fired it had to be pretty bad. The suspensions are understandable because there are other things expected of them during the suspension but to fight that hit is embarrassing when you could ultimately keep the job of a lifetime. But then again we have the same problem were I work because people take it for just a job not because of the job.

If there's some Boston guys who want to fill me in because I am off base, let me know.
The contract before last (hair testing started about 1999 or so, i had mine done for a few years) called for drug testing in the birthday month of every officer, every year. First hit costs you 45 days suspension and drug counseling. Second one gets you fired. The city decided on hair testing as their preferred method.

The union fought hair testing as unreliable, and published an opinion from someone who apparently had studied the issue which found the rate of false positives was higher in blacks than whites, surmising that it was related to the molecular structure of the hair. This study is what these officers are basing their claims on.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top