Edhat
npr edvertisers
visitors movie times

Santa Barbara Weather: 54.1°F | Humidity: 97% | Pressure: 30.00in (Rising) | Conditions: Clear | Wind Direction: South | Wind Speed: 2.2mph [see map]

Free Newsletter
Advertise
  login You create the news! Send your news item to ed@edhat.com
 
 
login
    15824 Subscribers
      685 Paid (4.3%)
     2 Comments
     1 Commenters
     20196 Page Views
 
 

 
Boxtales 20 Year Anniversary Festival
Boxtales 20 Year Anniversary Festival
 
The Winehound
The Winehound
 
Advertise on Edhat
Advertise on Edhat
 
News Events Referrals Deals Classifieds Comments About

Local Stories by Local People
updated: Feb 06, 2013, 8:59 PM

No drug testing for local law enforcement.

External Link
http://www.ksby.com/news/no-drug-testing-for-local-law-enforcement/

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

 COMMENT 371693 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 06:01 AM

This some malarky

Do as we say not as we do

 

 COMMENT 371711 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 07:20 AM

Great word--malarky....Cops on drugs--another obvious sign that the 'war on drugs' has failed miserably--we need a new paradigm!

 

 COMMENT 371717P agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 07:24 AM

I think they need random drug testing, full panel. Is this something the city council can address?

 

 COMMENT 371721 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 07:31 AM

as if this is a surprise. How about we also give cops tickets for talking on their cell phones? I see cops doing it all the time behind the wheel, but wait I forgot they are exempt from the laws

 

 COMMENT 371735 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 07:55 AM

What a complete joke. Too expensive? Tell that to every major retailer that test every employee they hire.

I really trust law enforcement less and less when I read about things like this.

121: I completely agree. I saw one leaving the Goleta CHP office in his personal vehicle, still wearing his uniform on his cell phone. I would love to hose all the cops that think they are above the law.

 

 COMMENT 371736 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 07:57 AM

Put on a badge and all of a sudden you are above the law. Same is true for all our elected officials in Washington.

 

 COMMENT 371741 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 08:03 AM

@371735

Perhaps you and I read different articles. In the one I read, they said it's not too expensive; that the benefits outweigh the costs.

 

 COMMENT 371743 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 08:07 AM

They said it was TOO expensive lol, what a joke!!

 

 COMMENT 371750 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 08:20 AM

Well at least the police hating posters and wise guys left out making some remark about donuts, that's a first! I wonder how many of these critics are drug tested regularly on their own jobs?

 

 COMMENT 371759 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 08:41 AM

gang banger tagger gets $110,000 bail.
corrupt cop peddling drugs gets $25,000 bail.

This makes a whole lot of sense doesnt it !

 

 COMMENT 371769 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 09:01 AM

The purpose of bail is to guarantee the person released on bail will make their appearance in court in a timely fashion. It makes a lot of sense that a 6 year veteran of the police department with roots in the community (whether he is guilty of the crime charged or not) is more likely to appear in court as required than the gang-banger tagger you describe.

 

 COMMENT 371793 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 09:58 AM

Regardless of if he has ties in the community, he was doing business with known drug dealers. The gang banger is less likely to show up because he may go back to mexico ? How do you know the police officer wont run off and hide ?

 

 COMMENT 371798 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 10:09 AM

The headline here on Edhat is misleading and incendiary.

*Currently* SLO does not conduct ongoing drug testing. However, based on recent developments, they are reconsidering that.

"But both agencies agree, the benefits out way those costs.

"I absolutely think it's worth the expense," said (Sheriff) Parkinson, "It's going to be a little more expensive and it's going to be a little more challenging especially in today's budget but it's worth it."

The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office met today to discuss policy changes to include drug testing and the San Luis Obispo Police Department has been working for a year to include such policies, which will go into effect next month.

After the news of Cory Pierce's arrest yesterday, members of the narcotics and gang unit at the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office asked to be drug tested to prove their integrity. According to the sheriff, everyone passed. "

 

 COMMENT 371819 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 10:41 AM

759/793: It's based on whether the judge thinks the person is likely to run. Maybe the gang banger has family ties to people in another country. Maybe he already ran. Maybe he made some comment in court about it. We have no clue. Besides, the comment on the bail amounts made it sound like you thought a tagger should have a smaller bail amount that a drug dealer. The charges often have nothing to do with it. That would be what 769 was saying. And you don't KNOW the PO won't run. But if the judge thinks he's less of a flight risk, his bail is lower. That's just how it works.
As for the no drug testing cops, if someone is able to do their job & they don't show up to work on drugs, I don't particularly care what they do in their "off" time. I assume they can still test cops if they suspect drug use on the job (or after hours drug use if it affects the job). They don't drug test welfare recipients, and that's the one place I would really like to see it happen.

 

 COMMENT 371852 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 11:40 AM

I don't see why not with today's food technologies they can not include drug tests in donuts.

But seriously. When are we going to start testing for pharmaceuticals? Many are used illicitly and many impair judgement and ability.

There is a high cost to state sanctioned drugs.

 

 COMMENT 371879 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 12:26 PM

why no testing for pharmaceuticals? because that would take hits at the big drug companies bottom lines. Specially when more prescription drugs are abused than are used as lawfully prescribed in our county. Its about money !

 

 COMMENT 371989 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 03:57 PM

We require pilots and bus drivers to regularly test negative for drugs (legal and otherwise) and alcohol. But people armed and tasked with protecting the public and also arresting people aren't subject to tests after they get hired?

That's really scary to me. And dangerous.

 

 COMMENT 372008 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 04:51 PM

Part of the problem is, that it is difficult to determine who should be tested and how often. You can make an argument that virtually every job has some element of mental clarity, dexterity and judgment that could be dangerous if impaired under some set of circumstances. Would you want your pharmacist filling your prescription to be a drug user? What about cab and bus drivers or anyone operating a vehicle or piece of equipment? Doctors, nurses, X-ray technicians, anesthesiologists, dentists, airplane builders and mechanics not to mention the pilots or anyone in the construction trades involved in building something that could fail? That ubiquitous circumstance results in the liklihood of requiring everyone to be drug tested constantly with no indication of a particular problem suggesting there is a need to do so other than some possible abstract danger that could be conjured up.

 

 COMMENT 372025 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-07 05:54 PM

741:

I read the article and am aware of what the officers said. My response was simply to the fact that it could ever be considered too expensive.

Up until now, it hasn't been implemented. What that purpose was, who knows. If it was cost, it's BS.

 

 ROGER DODGER agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-08 07:54 AM

I wonder if they are hiring..

 

 COMMENT 372192 agree helpful negative off topic

2013-02-08 09:46 AM

Well 025 - clearly you didn't read the article. It hasn't previously been implemented for two reasons: 1) It just wasn't. 2) Now there are privacy concerns as the agencies wade into implementing the testing.

Everyone relax. Oh, and reading comprehension brush-ups seems to be in order among you. Good luck.

 

10% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

 

 

Add Your Comments

Edhat Username

Password

Comment

Don't have an Account?

Don't know if you have an account?

Don't remember your account info?

CLICK HERE


ENJOY HAPPY HOUR! ... Between 4:00pm & 5:00pm only happy comment are allowed on the Edhat Comments Board.

If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.

 
Hide Your Handle, but show paid status (paid subscribers only)
NEW - use verified name and picture (contact ed@edhat.com to be verified)
Find out About Becoming A Paid Subscriber
NOTE: We are testing a new Comment Preview Page. You must hit OK on the next page to have your comment go live. Send Feedback to ed@edhat.com.
 

get a handle   |  lost handle

 

EDHAT COMMENTS POLICY

 

# # # #

 

Send To a Friend
Your Email
Friend's Email

Top of Page | Old News Archives | Printer-Friendly Page

  Home Subscribe FAQ Jobs Contact copyright © 2003-2014  
Edhat, Inc.