Dis-Jointed

For some reason, I'm finding it difficult to share the UBP's outrage over the Government's continued refusal to agree to random drug tests for Members of Parliament.

Perhaps it's because, as far as I'm aware, no other legislature does this. Perhaps it's because I just don't care if my elected representatives enjoy a joint from time to time. Perhaps it's because I don't believe it would do anything to lessen Bermuda's problems with illegal drugs. Most people think politicians are a venal, immoral lot anyway.

To me, this affair just smacks of political point-scoring. The Opposition should be giving the Government a hard time about what they're doing to, er, crack down on the dealers and the traffickers instead.

Comments

[loki on 01.06.04 at 06:53]

And, of course, the truth about random drug testing is that it's much more likely to catch-out someone who has the occasional joint than, say, someone shooting up or snorting lines - the harder drugs only stay in the bloodstream for a short period, whereas cannabis can be detected for weeks afterwards.

[BDA JOE on 01.06.04 at 07:21]

I think you're far off-base on this Phil. Are you telling me that you really don't care if the people who represent you in our legislature are using drugs? Does it not disturb you that the PLP are refusing to submit to drug tests, because of money? Now either this is just another display of their arrogance or they've got something to hide.

Actually, most people respect our politicians. However, this issue has the potential to erode our trust in our leaders. The PLP should just bight the bullet and get tested, unless of course they have something to hide?

[Tiger Bay on 01.06.04 at 08:59]

The monetary argument is pure evasion. Bermuda has a drug problem -- and given the small size of our community, its impact is disproportionate.

I am sure that the PLP members of parliament feel that drug testing is demeaning to their stature. But I am also sure that the bus drivers and athletes feel the same way.

The mixed message being sent by the PLP on this issue undermines the anti-drug message being taught to kids.

BTW: The PLP seem to want to introduce gambling to our bingo-addled isles. In the US, anyone working in the gambling business must undergo drug testing. They test the hair, which shows up all drug use over a long period of time (most hard drugs are water soluble and pass through the system quickly, while fat-soluble marijuana hangs out a long while).

I'm surprised that the Government health insurance plan does not include drug testing -- many corporate plans do.

[The Limey on 01.06.04 at 09:26]

BDA Joe

Do I care if they're smoking marijuana? No. Do I care if they're all a bunch of crack-heads? Yes. But somehow I doubt that's the case.

Kids will choose to do or not do drugs according to how they're brought up by their parents and the other kids they choose to mix with at school. It would be nice if the politicians were to set an example, but I don't believe it would make any difference to drug usage in Bermuda except possibly among a few politicians.

Tiger Bay

Athletes are tested for performance-enhancing drugs which would give them an unfair advantage in their sport. I didn't realise that bus drivers were tested, but if that's the case, there's clearly a safety issue there (I don't want to be driven around by someone who's stoned).

In contrast, the only reason for testing politicians is to set an example. If that's the aim, I look forward to the UBP introducing a motion suggesting random drug testing for all parents. Or let's get straight to the root of the problem and randomly test all school kids, as some schools in the US do and is now being considered in the UK.

[Tiger Bay on 01.06.04 at 09:50]

Many athletes in Bermuda are tested for recreational drug use.

[Cadre on 01.06.04 at 09:57]

I suggest drug testing for the Bermuda Regiment, which would be entirely consistent with military practice elsewhere.

In America, all active duty members must undergo a randomly scheduled test annually. Members of the Guard and Reserves must be tested at least once every two years.

[Jay Pedro on 01.06.04 at 13:46]

That's sensible. Test the conscripted recruits and if they test positive, what? Dismiss them? That's more of an incentive to do drugs, if you ask me. Testing positive for drugs is not illegal, so you can't charge them.

[loki on 01.06.04 at 14:14]

The idea of mandatory testing for the regiment would be an invasion of privacy of massive proportions: regiment conscripts are not there voluntarily and we want to test them for drug use on the basis that they have been forced to join the regiment? Jay Pedro is absolutely right - there is nothing illegal in testing positive for drug use. For instance, someone could have vacationed in Amsterdam, tried out that city's various 'coffee shops' and fly back to the Island having committed no criminal offence in any country. But they'd still test positive for drug use.

[Tiger Bay on 01.06.04 at 15:02]

I have less-than-fond memories of my time in the Regiment with a handful of barracks-mates with a crack addiction.

Those individuals are now in jail for criminal offenses presumably driven by their drug habit.

Social reform is a big part of the Regiment's mission. Drug testing may have helped these individuals get control over their lives.

[loki on 01.06.04 at 16:01]

Well, as an attorney with an interest in civil liberties, here's my issue with mandatory drug testing and why I don't agree with it: essentially, it is a forced search of a person, not because there is any reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence or have done something wrong, but merely to see if they have committed an offence or done something. Think about it; there is no difference between mandatory drug testing and the police being allowed to conduct random searches of people's houses simply to check whether or not illegal activities are being conducted there. And while were at it, why don't we install 24 hour CCTV in houses to make the police's job easier? And when it comes to civil liberties, it really is a very, very slipperly slope, right Mr. Ascroft?

[cadre on 01.06.04 at 19:31]

Another related issue is that of traffic control cameras ... which were to be installed in the waning days of the UBP government ... but were quietly shelved and delayed under the PLP.

Kind of like BHC, Berkeley, the Bercoll teacher, and other uncomfortable issues -- delayed until they slip out of the public eye.

I understand that the PLP had civil liberties issues with the speed cameras -- but they would certainly help control the speeds on the roads (and raise some revenue to boot).

[BDA JOE on 01.06.04 at 21:38]

Does anyone else remember a certain PLP Cabinet Minister telling a police officer who pulled her over, that she doesn't deserve a ticket because she is 'an MP'? Perhaps that explains the traffic cameras. It isn't inconcievable that a similar logic exists behind drug testing for party members..