Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Commission Mulls Drug Policy Change

Commission mulls drug policy change

By David Lazenby
The Cullman Times

Unanswered questions about a county employee drug policy revision proposed at a Monday meeting influenced Cullman County Commissioners to table the matter until July 8.

County Attorney Dan Willingham said the revised policy would require a drug and alcohol test for any employee injured on the job. It also stipulates workers be tested any time they cause damage to county property.

Any required drug screening test will be paid for the by the county. The cost of these tests is about $33, according to Marie Livingston, who works for accounts payable. The tests are conducted by ASC Occupational Health.


Its appalling that they aren't tested before they are hired to work for the city. If regular common folk have to pass a pre-employment drug screen and we give the state the power to drug test children in public schools then, by all means, city and county workers and every elected official should be tested before being employed or taking office. They should then be randomly tested a few times a month thereafter.

I oppose drug testing, by the way. I think its use should be performance based. But....if we are going to have it then let's make an effort to be fair about it. In fact, I think I might try and find a legislative sponsor for a bill requiring all elected officials to take mandatory, random drug tests.



Rafti said...

Your support of random drug testing of government officials is just a bad idea; I thought you wrote that testing should be performance based, and assumed you knew that THC is detectable weeks to months after use. So what would this new law prove other than bad laws lead to more bad laws?

I thought you were about harm reduction, not vindictive legislation.

If you cancel this post then you are censoring free speech, and avoiding what I think many would consider a valid argument against you position.

Loretta Nall said...

I do think drug testing (if they insist) should be performance based. I take issue with the fact that the people who hold the highest positions in the state aren't subject to drug testing while the rest of us have to piss in a cup to flip a hamburger at McDonald's or stock groceries at Wal-Mart. It should be all or none. I'm in favor of none.

As for free speech, this blog is not affiliated with the government so 'free speech' does not apply in this context. Private citizens can restrict speech on their personal property (in this case a blog) if they choose and that is perfectly legal and not in violation of anyones rights. Obviously I have chosen not to do that in this case.

Don said...

[Yesterday this comment was said to have been received and was in moderation, but I see it's not posted today]

Considering the many bad pieces of legislation that the Alabama legislature has passed and the many good legislative proposals it has failed to pass, perhaps all 140 members should be required to take a daily sobriety test every day the legislature is in session either in its chambers or in committee meetings.

Loretta Nall said...

Thanks for reposting your comment Don. I approved it yesterday but for some strange reason it never showed up here. That happens sometimes.