As long as anyone else is prohibited off duty, the same should apply. If there’s a safety argument for a trucker, for example, an officer should be held to at least as high a standard.
I haven’t paid attention to this issue since it doesn’t affect me, but are we still at the stage of no good way to tell whether a person is “under the influence”, vs chemical traces for weeks after?
It seems like a timing requirement might be more effective and fair: for example pilots can’t fly within 8 hours of drinking alcohol. I can definitely see a similar requirement to help ensure you’re not under the influence while putting public safety at risk
6 Comments
BoxerDevil@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
For once I agree with a police union
AA5B@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
As long as anyone else is prohibited off duty, the same should apply. If there’s a safety argument for a trucker, for example, an officer should be held to at least as high a standard.
I haven’t paid attention to this issue since it doesn’t affect me, but are we still at the stage of no good way to tell whether a person is “under the influence”, vs chemical traces for weeks after?
It seems like a timing requirement might be more effective and fair: for example pilots can’t fly within 8 hours of drinking alcohol. I can definitely see a similar requirement to help ensure you’re not under the influence while putting public safety at risk
BoxerDevil@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Actually I just saw an article stating they had made a test with 96% accuracy
FlyboyM619@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
A case of the worst person you know made a good point.
kttnpunk@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
Bet this police union has had different opinions on marijuana in the past when it suited them...
Whirling_Ashandarei@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Split on this, bc fuck pigs, but maybe if they smoked some weed they'd chill the hell out and stop killing innocent people/animals/etc.