AP: 7 Police Officers Sue Over Hair Drug Test (Crybabies!)

[DFWdem]

BOSTON - The seven police officers swore they didn't use cocaine, yet their hair tested positive for the drug. The officers — all of them black — were promptly fired or suspended.

The Boston officers are now suing the police department, claiming the mandatory drug test is unreliable and racially biased. They say hair testing is unfair because drug compounds show up more readily in dark hair than light hair.

Their civil rights lawsuit is one of many legal challenges against hair drug tests, which are used by companies and police departments nationwide. Employers like the test because it can detect drugs up to three months after use; urine tests go back only a few days and can be easily altered.

But studies have found dark-haired people are more likely to test positive for drugs because they have higher levels of melanin, which allows drug compounds to bind more easily to their hair.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_re_us/hair_drug_tests;_ylt=AgfW9Ha1iF0dblgicSZjqcFG2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


How many times has the happened to the average working stiff, ye nobody believes them? Of course, the article says the testing is unfair because drug compounds bind more easily to dark hair, meaning they probably did drugs and are pissed because the drugs are more easily detected in darker hair. The lawsuit doesn't say the test is not accurate per se, only that it's easier to detect drugs in darker hair. I'm having a difficult time feeling sympathy for these guys who are now presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ironman202]

3. if it involves a uniform, a handbook or any form of oath

it is a useless endevour

[NNN0LHI]

17. Does that include preachers too

Of course it does. Silly me.

Don

[UpInArms]

2. what is that they tell everyone else?

If you have nothing to hide, you don't have to fear the test? It's not an intrusion upon your body or privacy. :sarcasm:

[toopers]

4. I am not sure they were "presumed guilty".

They were presumed innocent until a drug test came back positive and they could not explain away the results -- other than to say the test is unfair because the cocaine they used combines more easily with dark hair than light hair.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. I must politely disagree

They are presumed GUILTY until the drug test shows them innocent. Refusal to take the drug test is not permitted. If you refuse, you must be taking drugs.

I have never taken an illicit drug in my life, but I will pee in a cup for NO ONE. Nor will I hand over hair samples. As such, I am presumed guilty of drug use, since I will not take the test which clears me.

A test is a means by which I PROVE my innocence. The burden of proof shifts from the accuser to the accused.

[Trillo]

16. I must politely agree with Kelvin Mace

Since when have average citizens ever been innocent until proven guilty?

My answers:
1) Only when they're a lawyer's client.

2) If they're in the privacy of their own home and not under some kind of surveillance. (with the potential technology of surveillance satellites, this answer is in some question, we may all be visible at home to certain authorities)

Regular, private citizens put up with this treatment in public routinely because they usually can't sue, and when they can afford to sue, they better be as rich as the opponent, and if the opponent is the government, good luck finding an attorney to take the case even if the citizen can afford them. If a citizen writes a merchant a paper check, the presumption is that they're not who they claim to be until they've shown X number of IDs, and if they pay with cash, it better be a small purchase, or else the merchant must "report" the sale to authorities for suspicion of something.

War on Drugs = War on People = War on Citizens = War on Taxpayers = War on Employees....

[Sequoia]

5. They should've shaved their heads maybe.

[Moochy]

6. And eyebrows..

and arms etc...

[Sequoia]

19. No! They test that hair too!?

[bahrbearian]

12. They have shampoos that can mask the drugs, giving you a clean test.

[hang a left]

18. The labs wash the hair before liquifying it for a test.

Hair follicle drug tests are the most reliable for shedding light on a persons lifestyle. If you are a total addict you can not use for 72 hours and have a clean urine sample. With the exception of being a chronic pot smoker. That will show up to 4 weeks after cessation of use. Cocaine is more easily detectable in hair of all colors than other drugs.

[SouthernDem2004]

20. That is a myth.

[bahrbearian]

22. Not a myth

I have a friend who uses it for their Security Clearance Screen's.
He and some other people in his company swear by it.

[Journeyman]

7. Drug compounds show up more readily in users than non-users, too. . .

yet you don't see them contesting the other tests, do you?

[newscott]

9. My uncle was on the force for 39 years

Most of them as an alcoholic. Good thing he never had to take any drug tests.

[wli]

10. more war on drugs BS n/t

[benddem]

11. This sounds like it came from a freeper site

I know many people who've been accused of drug usage who were later cleared.

[DFWdem]

14. That's actually my point

But nobody seems to care about it until someone "important" has it happen to them. False positives occur all the time, but people have virtually no recourse. So now all of a sudden it's an issue because 7 cops failed.

[William Bloode]

13. I hate to defend the officers.

Really i do, but hair tests are to sensitive to outside influence. They could have gotten coke on them in a bust, from dirty money, etc.

I don't have much sympathy though. People who stock freakin shelves for a living have to put up with it, as do many others.

Drug tests are just a bad idea almost all the way around. There are exception even a hardliner like myself will condescend to such as pilots, air traffic controllers, surgeons, and other occupations that may put a lot of folks in danger. Even then i prefer a test that can say if a person is/was on drugs right now, as even for the above listed i feel if they wanted to get high on their own time it's their business.

[Massacure]

15. What happen if one of the cops was bald?

[SouthernDem2004]

21. Any hair will do. Does not have to be from the head.... /nt

[Massacure]

26. Let me rephrase. What if you shave completely?

Do they give a urine test then?

[TroubleMan]

23. They take it from underarm hair or pubic hair

nt.

[Blue_Tires]

25. when i took a similar test

they just scraped hair off my forearm

[Kelvin Mace]

24. Huh?

The Boston officers are now suing the police department, claiming the mandatory drug test is unreliable and racially biased. They say hair testing is unfair because drug compounds show up more readily in dark hair than light hair.

Isn't that like me suing, after being fired for serving food with dirty hands, because my white skin shows dirt better?