No, this isn't a fair cop
Neil Mitchell
November 01, 2007 12:00am
HOW'S this for a piece of timing?
On the very day the police announced they were extending random drug-testing of the public, they effectively side-stepped the same accountability for themselves.
That means a 78-year-old granny who thinks cannabis is a Pacific island can be required to take a drug test by a police officer who believes he is above the same treatment.
Granny may be in charge of a Morris Minor and if she is off her head on anything that's bad.
But the police officer carries a gun, drives a fast car and has the power to lock people in a dark room with no means of escape, which makes him more dangerous than granny if he thinks a nose-full of cocaine is the ideal breakfast.
There is a very simple way to get your head around the question of who to drug-test when working.
Put yourself on the line.
If you're sitting on an aircraft flying from Melbourne to London would you be comfortable if the pilot had spent the previous 24 hours on a drug bender, or would you rather know he had been tested before the doors shut?
Or, another example.
You are lying on the operating table about to count backwards from 10 so the surgeon can removed your putrid appendix.
He drifts into the room in a kaftan, calls everybody "man" and carefully stows a water pipe in the corner before slipping a Bob Marley CD into the music machine.
Would you feel a little happier if a drug test proved he was eccentric rather than a pothead?
And what if a policeman was pointing a gun at you in some dreadful case of mistaken identity?
It is simple really.
Drugs are insidious and they are everywhere.
Senior police believe they are of so much concern that they have eight drug buses on the road and want to turn every police car into a drug-testing facility, just as it is already effectively a booze bus.
Yesterday, the Assistant Commissioner for Traffic, Noel Ashby, announced that more police would be trained in drug-testing and would target specific areas such as rave parties and the trucking industry.
His message is that the drug problem is serious enough for people to be stopped and tested on the random chance they have taken something.
So, why does the Police Association continue to resist random tests for police, while its members happily conduct them on the public?
What makes it worse is that police command and the union have been mucking around with this for five years.
Only yesterday did the Government announce the necessary legislative changes to conduct testing, and although the Chief Commissioner will have the power to conduct random testing she says she will do it only "when I believe it is appropriate".
There is no doubt she wants it, but meanwhile, through agreement with the police union, officers will be tested only when they request it, when they are involved in a "critical" incident such as a shooting, or when a supervising officer considers they have a problem.
If you applied that system to the roads, only drivers who stopped at a police station to volunteer would be drug-tested.
The association secretary, Paul Mullett, clearly opposes random testing for police.
He says evidence shows "the punitive approach" does not work, but if he is right the police are wasting their time on almost everything they do including drug-testing drivers.
The police union is not the only self-defensive organisation here.
After barrister Peter Faris, QC, suggested there was a drug problem with some lawyers, the ethics committee of the Bar Council stupidly decided to investigate him.
While Mr Faris is capable of saying absurd things, this was not such an occasion and, regardless, he has a right to make a dill of himself if he so wishes.
The disgraced lawyer Andrew Fraser obviously agrees with him; after all, he went to jail for drug offences.
He alleged this week that a judge had used drugs, and although credibility is not Mr Fraser's strength, his claims must have sent shudders through the legal club.
Then, yesterday, there were reports that 11 soldiers and air force personnel faced drug charges after police allegedly busted an ecstasy ring at an army base in Victoria.
So, we now have lawyers, soldiers and a judge accused of using drugs.
Add to the list one of the great rugby league players of all time, Andrew Johns, and one of the best AFL footballers of the decade, Ben Cousins, both of whom have admitted to serious problems.
Then ask how it makes sense to test a footballer for illicit drugs in the middle of his holidays, but not test a policeman as he buckles on his gun.
Drug use is common across the community. Police constantly argue they reflect the community, so that means drug use happens within the force.
Police do dangerous work and are in positions of extreme privilege.
That means there should be no doubt about their ability to do their job.
And that means that until they agree to full random testing, they are hypocritical, self-protective and without credibility.
