Everyone Arrested Will Be Tested For Drug Use

[Annie Bynnol]

8 hours ago, Palomar said:

Alternatively, drugs should be legalised, and testing should only occur where there is suspicion of impairment.

 

 

Alternatively drugs should be legalised and testing should be random and frequent on the roads and in the workplace as it already is in many situations and jobs.

Employers will do the testing as failure to protect the public from their impaired employees would lead to them being sued.

All working people and in all occupations and professions would be screened.

A positive test could lead to dismissal or a continuing testing programme payed for by the drug user depending on the nature of the job and responsibility to others.

I would expect that any business or organization would guarantee that their workforce and services are not carried out by drug users.

[Thirsty Relic]

7 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Alternatively drugs should be legalised and testing should be random and frequent on the roads and in the workplace as it already is in many situations and jobs.

Employers will do the testing as failure to protect the public from their impaired employees would lead to them being sued.

All working people and in all occupations and professions would be screened.

A positive test could lead to dismissal or a continuing testing programme payed for by the drug user depending on the nature of the job and responsibility to others.

I would expect that any business or organization would guarantee that their workforce and services are not carried out by drug users.

Oh yes, what a great idea - lets open the door to mass testing of people and disciminating against them on the basis of which drugs they take.  Don't forget, caffeine, alcohol and ciggies are drugs.  Where do we draw the line?

 

Currently, we are desperate for workers in many areas.  We're already forcing hard working and low paid carers out of work if they don't get double jabbed, even though they are in a shortage industry.  Why not move on to fuel tanker drivers, to help safety on roads and motorways?  Force all to have checks and ban those who had a joint a few months ago - that will help the petrol crisis won't it.  Then we can move to doctors, nurses,  and so on.  Teachers who smoke?  Down to the Job Centre....

[The_DADDY]

22 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

Oh yes, what a great idea - lets open the door to mass testing of people and disciminating against them on the basis of which drugs they take.  Don't forget, caffeine, alcohol and ciggies are drugs.  Where do we draw the line?

 

Currently, we are desperate for workers in many areas.  We're already forcing hard working and low paid carers out of work if they don't get double jabbed, even though they are in a shortage industry.  Why not move on to fuel tanker drivers, to help safety on roads and motorways?  Force all to have checks and ban those who had a joint a few months ago - that will help the petrol crisis won't it.  Then we can move to doctors, nurses,  and so on.  Teachers who smoke?  Down to the Job Centre....

My bold 

Which is bordering on criminal in my opinion. 

Take an experimental jab which could kill you or lose your lively hood 

Absolutely vile!!! 

[Annie Bynnol]

11 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

Oh yes, what a great idea - lets open the door to mass testing of people and disciminating against them on the basis of which drugs they take.  Don't forget, caffeine, alcohol and ciggies are drugs.  Where do we draw the line?

 

Currently, we are desperate for workers in many areas.  We're already forcing hard working and low paid carers out of work if they don't get double jabbed, even though they are in a shortage industry.  Why not move on to fuel tanker drivers, to help safety on roads and motorways?  Force all to have checks and ban those who had a joint a few months ago - that will help the petrol crisis won't it.  Then we can move to doctors, nurses,  and so on.  Teachers who smoke?  Down to the Job Centre....

Alcohol and tobacco are legalized drugs and their availability, distribution, use and abuse are controlled by law. 

The laws that apply to alcohol and tobacco are proportional to and reflect the harm they can cause and their affect on safety to the individual and others.

The doctors, nurses and teachers you mention are  already subject to laws, rules and regulations concerning the use of alcohol and tobacco and being in breach of them could lead to criminal charges, civil action and breaches of contract leading to dismissal.

But you won't see many teachers doctors, nurses and so ons at the Job Centre because they have been dismissed because of alcohol and tobacco issues because they take the responsibility of their jobs seriously.

 

I am willing to bet that smoking when delivering fuel is regarded as irresponsible. Are you suggesting we allow banned drunk fuel tanker drivers back on the road?

 

 

 

 

[Tony]

10 hours ago, Longcol said:

They aren't going to be the ones arrested on suspicion of theft, fraud or drug possession and then tested are they?

 

Young black males will. It seems like trying to bring in something akin to SUS laws.

That's a good point to make and it's clearly very sensitive.

 

To be Devil's Advocaat, perhaps some crimes are allied and you've partly answered your own question. Uncovering one crime (recreational drug use) leads to uncovering something more serious (drug dealing) because young black males are the people disproportionately engaged in such, so focussing on the minor problem prevents people moving onto the bigger one. 

 

It's the "broken windows" strategy. Perhaps great effort would be needed to make it colour blind, which in times of identity politics and perpetual victimhood is increasingly difficult, perhaps impossible, although that doesn't help victims or perpetrators. 

[harvey19]

Without users there would be no dealers.

Deterent effects often work.

The middle and upper classes may have more to lose than the working class user of illegal  drugs.

 

 

 

 

[El Cid]

4 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Without users there would be no dealers.

Deterent effects often work.

The middle and upper classes may have more to lose than the working class user of illegal  drugs.

Cannabis is classified as a class B drug.  As such, any person who is caught with cannabis risks up to five years imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. While being convicted of producing and supplying a Class B drug, risks up to 14 years imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

For those caught with a small amount of cannabis – typically less than one ounce – police can issue a warning or on-the-spot fine if the possession is deemed for personal use.

 

Five years in jail or they might let them off, are they having a laugh?

[Carbuncle]

If you're suspected of an offence then it should not trigger a trawl through your life looking for other unrelated offences.

 

The alternative does not bear thinking about:

 

"You were caught by our speed camera doing 35mph in a 30mph zone. Please send us your last six years of tax records, a blood sample and details of your movements over the last twelve months together with alibi witnesses to confirm these details. Oh and by the way, in future could you slow down a bit or we'll nick you for speeding."

[Guest sibon]

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

If you're suspected of an offence then it should not trigger a trawl through your life looking for other unrelated offences.

 

The alternative does not bear thinking about:

 

"You were caught by our speed camera doing 35mph in a 30mph zone. Please send us your last six years of tax records, a blood sample and details of your movements over the last twelve months together with alibi witnesses to confirm these details. Oh and by the way, in future could you slow down a bit or we'll nick you for speeding."

You won’t find many master criminals speeding, for reasons related to your post.

 

There’s nothing wrong with the police picking up suspected criminals for petty offences. Especially if that gives them

the opportunity to investigate the suspect more thoroughly. Indeed, I’d say that it would be an excellent tactic to adopt.

[Carbuncle]

17 minutes ago, sibon said:

There’s nothing wrong with the police picking up suspected criminals for petty offences. Especially if that gives them

the opportunity to investigate the suspect more thoroughly. Indeed, I’d say that it would be an excellent tactic to adopt.

Well, obviously I disagree.

 

I think it's reasonable to search the suspected burglar's home for stolen property (related) but not to search through his electronic devices on the off chance of finding child pornography (unrelated). I am not sure exactly how to specify the boundary but I want people's rights, including to privacy, to survive to the maximum extent reasonable even in the face of a conviction. Certainly, suspicion of an offence shouldn't abolish all rights to privacy.

 

Where do you draw the line?