Do as I say, not as I do

I'm opposed to mandatory drug testing in the workplace, for reasons that I've stated before. I don't support testing for MPs for the same reasons. However for Minister of National Drug Control, Wayne Perinchief, to keep calling for the former while resisting the latter is hypocritical in the extreme.

At a public meeting last week, the Royal Gazette reported that:

Mr. Perinchief... spoke again of the PLP’s support for mandatory drugs tests in the workplace and said companies would be encouraged to introduce them.

After one of the speakers at Saturday's rally of Bermuda Against Narcotics (BAN) challenged the PLP to submit themselves to drug tests, Mr. Perinchief said:

“I accept the challenge. We have a responsibility to lead by example. We have to come out of the denial that we are in. That we are better then everyone else.”

Mr. Perinchief also told the audience that he was proud to say he has already been drug tested.

Conspicuous by its absence, however, was a pledge to press for mandatory testing for all MPs. Hardly surprising, since Mr. Perinchief is opposed to that. At the end of last year he explained why tests for MPs should be voluntary:

“I would think that people with a sense of responsibility would be quite happy to do it voluntarily but this would have to be a policy decision. The word mandatory has all sorts of connotations – it would mean we would have to put sanctions in place for non-compliance and I don’t think that’s practicable.”

Therein lies the hypocrisy. Mr. Perinchief is not calling on employees to voluntarily submit themselves for testing, as he has done. He is pressing for mandatory tests in others' workplaces, while resisting the same level of compulsion in his own.

If Mr. Perinchief believes voluntary testing is the best solution for MPs, why does he support mandatory testing for the rest of us?

Comments

[Adjustah on 13.02.06 at 18:23]

"If Mr. Perinchief believes voluntary testing is the best solution for MPs, why does he support mandatory testing for the rest of us?"

I think you answered your question in your blog title. This is classic, "Do as I say, not as I do"

[ken on 13.02.06 at 18:37]

I don't think the attack on Minister Perinchief is warranted. He has already stated that he has been tested and he believes others should be. However the directive for all MPs to be tested must come from a higher authority, which to me is what Minister Perinchief is yielding to.

[SmokingGun on 13.02.06 at 18:51]

"Mr. Perinchief... spoke again of the PLP’s support for mandatory drugs tests in the workplace...."

Seeing as Bermuda's House of Parliament is not much of a "work" place I guess they feel they shouldn't have to get tested.....

[NoVote on 13.02.06 at 19:29]

I'm not really sure of the merits of mandatory drug testing, but I am pretty sure of the merits of getting rid of the hypocrites in government.

The sad thing for Perinchief is that his Cabinet colleagues are forcing him into this position. I get the distinct impression that he'd be happy to accept manadatory drug testing for MP's too, if it was up to him.

Interesting though that the government feels that all athletes that represent Bermuda have to undergo mandatory drug testing prior competing this is a policy that is currently enforced.

Meanwhile it is apparently okay for those that represent Bermuda as government ministers all over the world (and they certainly rack up the airmiles!) not to be subject to the same policy.

With some of the nonesense that these people come out with you've got to wonder whether they have been smoking something, so probably a good idea to have them be checked before they're allowed to get on that next plane!

[king on 13.02.06 at 19:38]

"Mr. Perinchief also told the audience that he was proud to say he has already been drug tested."

Did he pass?

[ken on 13.02.06 at 20:23]

I would guess that in this climate, had Minister Perinchief failed the drug test, someone would've 'LEAKED' the results...especially with the media so blatantly anti-PLP...it would've been front page news! probably a special edition would've been printed!

[Phil on 13.02.06 at 20:47]

NoVote

Interesting though that the government feels that all athletes that represent Bermuda have to undergo mandatory drug testing prior competing this is a policy that is currently enforced. Meanwhile it is apparently okay for those that represent Bermuda as government ministers all over the world (and they certainly rack up the airmiles!) not to be subject to the same policy.

I think that this is a specious argument. Athletes need to be drug tested to prevent cheating as a result of the use of performance-enhancing drugs. A similar rationale does not exist for MPs.

[tilti on 13.02.06 at 20:58]

Limey, I agree with you, but the national soccer team has had some issues at customs while returning from tournaments in Jamaica. Maybe drug testing for non-performance enhancing drugs too would save some embarassment, not to mention produce a greater sense of discipline on a team that has fitness and attendence problems.

[loki on 13.02.06 at 20:58]

"I think that this is a specious argument. Athletes need to be drug tested to prevent cheating as a result of the use of performance-enhancing drugs. A similar rationale does not exist for MPs."

Well, OK: I think that this is a specious argument, as the athletes are not only tested for performance-enhancing drugs, but illegal drugs, also. I agree that athletes should be tested for performance-enhancing drugs, but why should some guy who wants to play beer league softball need to show that he hasn't had a spliff in the last 90 days? If government feels that athletes should be required to prove that they have not taken illegal drugs, then they should be prepared to be subjected to the same standards.

[Phil on 13.02.06 at 21:10]

loki

I do not think that there is any justifiction for testing athletes for illegal drugs that do not enhance performance. So I agree with your last point: if the Government believes it should be mandatory for anyone else to submit to that kind of testing then they need to explain why the same logic shouldn't apply to them.

[king on 13.02.06 at 22:35]

I'm just suprised he didn't come out and tell everyone how we should be proud he passed!

[blovator on 13.02.06 at 23:54]

Perinchief's problem is not that his intent is flawed. If drug testing is the policy he wishes to pursue, then one hopes that he has authority to pursue it. It would how ever appear that he does not have the authority to pursue it. Therefore one wonders why he presented the policy in the first place. Policy has to be consistent. Directives can not have differeent meanings for different people. If MPs can avoid drug testing, for no apparent reason, then why should workers submit? If MPs can avoid it for no particular reason, then others who have power will be able to avoid it too. And the whole process collapses. And once again a government drug policy goes down in flames through the indifference of leadership and incompetants in the civil service.

The primary problem with Perinchief was never intent. It is execution.

Coxall was right.

[WyrdSister on 14.02.06 at 00:34]

our politicians are on drugs, its evident from their behavior, so drug testing would be redundant.

[WyrdSister on 14.02.06 at 00:36]

besides, who needs drug testing in the work place, lets have stoned airline pilots, doctors, taxi drivers, truckers,teachers, and so on, it will make for an interesting life, dangerous, but interesting.

[NoVote on 14.02.06 at 00:50]

Limey,

FYI - Having been tested myself under the regime that I noted and having specifically queried what drugs I was being tested for, I can advise that the tests only seek to identify the presence of illegal narcotics of the very much non-performance enhancing variety.

[NoVote on 14.02.06 at 00:52]

Loki,

Tests are not undertaken on Bermuda's athletes under the governments drug testing regime (each athletes own local and international sporting bodies may have additional requirements that are enforced before, during and after various events) do not seek to identify performance enhancing drugs.

[SmokingGun on 14.02.06 at 11:22]

Mandatory Drug Tests in the Work-force. This would have to include all employees of all companies doing business in Bermuda. This would have to include IB and should include all government workers.

Hmmmm... let's see if we can come up with any more things we can toss at IB so the Cayman's make that much more sense.

Mandatory drug testing for truck, bus or taxi drivers etc. is fine but it is not the right way to deal with our drug problems accross the board. If a company wants to have a program that should be of their choice. Bermuda should have programs available for them to do so.

[tong on 14.02.06 at 11:40]

Not to sound like some sort of hippy but drug testing is approaching the issue from the wrong angle. Drugs will always be taken. People either do them in moderation, or to excess... alcohol included. By drug testing you simply criminalize a section of the community leading to further issues... "life sux now I really want to get high".OR "now I am in prison lets see what I can do upon release cuz my record is screwed." I think they should focus on providing education, along with a staggered process of decriminalization for marijuana. Small fine for small amounts, no stop list, Home use, legal, grow a plant of two in your home, street use and street selling still illegal... but sanctioned govt sales outlets legal.

It will never happen as the US would not allow it, but until they realize that penalizing drug users does nothing but overcrowd our jails and provide vast profits for drug sellers... well the problem will never get better.
Look at the States vs. Western Canada's approach. Far less issues north of the border.

Then the issues of drug testing would be about support and assistance to help people with addiction issues not about criminilization.

[SmokingGun on 14.02.06 at 12:05]

tong - I would tend to agree with you. However I do believe any person who takes a position that puts others at risk should have a strict policy to honour and be tested on a regular basis.

[myshreecents on 06.03.06 at 13:49]

Like Limey I am also not in favour of Government sponsored mandatory random drug testing in the workplace. If individual private companies see fit to test their staff so be it, however for the government to set a policy of opening everyone in the workplace to random testing conjures thoughts of Orwell's "Big Brother" at his worst. In fact Minister Perinchief's call for such a policy greatly concerns me but I shouldn't expect anything different from him considering his background as a police officer. We have recently heard a Supreme Court Justice complain about our lack of sufficient substance abuse treatment facilities. To begin to test everyone in the workforce would certainly open a floodgate that we could not ever hope to deal with. In fact this whole question of drug testing I believe can only serve to cloud an already complex issue.
I welcomed the announcement of a Ministry specifically to deal with substance abuse hoping we would finally see an open, honest and most importantly informed debate on the subject.
It is time for us to examine how other countries are dealing with what is a global problem. Many have begun to reconsider their previous policies with a few to reclassifying certain substances and focusing their attacks on others. Many countries including "Mother England" Canada, Spain, Holland and Portugal to name a few have decided to move away from even prosecuting for possesion of "small" amounts of cannabis and in some cases small amounts of all drugs. The general mind set is to begin to look at substance abuse as a social health issue as opposed to a criminal issue. Let's get real, our two legal substances, tabacco and alcohol cause more deaths and cost society more in health care than all illegal substances put together. It is time for new open debate. Simply calling for the open drug testing of everyone in the workforce is a dissappointing opening salvo in the Governments renewed "war on drugs".