Another drug raid on the wrong house...

[Fugu]

But this time it's the MAYOR.

 

BERWYN HEIGHTS, Maryland —

A small town mayor whose house was raided and dogs were killed by police appears to be an innocent victim of a drug smuggling scheme, authorities said.

 

Police kicked in the door and stormed the home of the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, shooting two black Labradors and seizing an unopened package with 32 pounds of marijuana inside. But the drugs evidently did not belong to him or his wife.

 

Police say Cheye Calvo and his wife appeared to be victims of a plan by two men to smuggle millions of dollars worth of marijuana by having it delivered to about a half-dozen unsuspecting recipients.

 

The two men under arrest include a FedEx package deliveryman; investigators said the deliveryman would drop off a package outside a home, and the other man would come by a short time later and pick it up.

 

...

 

Calvo's defenders — including the Berwyn Heights police chief, who said his department should have been alerted ahead of time — said police had no right to enter the home without knocking.

 

But officials insisted they acted within the law, saying the operation was compromised when Calvo's mother-in-law saw officers approaching the house and screamed. That could have given someone time to grab a gun or destroy evidence, authorities said.

 

More here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399882,00.html

 

 

I had a glimmer of hope that since the victim of this one is the mayor of a city, it would help fix the problem but that's fading.

 

From another article:

 

Mayor Cheye Calvo got home from work, saw a package addressed to his wife on the front porch and brought it inside, putting it on a table. Suddenly, police with guns drawn kicked in the door and stormed in, shooting to death the couple's two dogs and seizing the unopened package.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_re_us/marijuana_packages

 

This contradicts the first article where they claim the mother in law saw the cops and screamed so they had to go in like Marines in Fallujah going door to door.

 

There's got to be a better way, not to mention the stupidity of putting lives at risk over some pot (even a 32lb box of it).

[Wheels Rollin']

Sounds to me there's a lawsuit somewhere in here, if for nothing more than to pay for home repairs <>... A small town, eh? Bet this'll be the talk of the place for quite some time... A pity, too -- but that does seem to be the way of the world these days <>... Ya' know, I can't even begin to imagine how petrified I'd be if that had happened to me and my wife, even knowing we were innocent of any shenanigans <>... Yikes!

 

~ Bill

[smiller]

so they had to go in like Marines in Fallujah going door to door.

Hey, that's necessary... it's 'for everyone's safety', dontcha know...

[Lawman]

Officer: knock knock

 

Man comes to the door:

 

Officer: Hello sir..I'm Officer Batman and I've been tracking 417 pounds of dope worth 3.6 million dollars and part of that dope in your house and in your possession. I'd like to recover that dope and arrest the responsible parties without risking my safety..Will you please cooperate and not shoot my ass?

[smiller]

 

Officer: Hello sir..I'm Officer Batman and someone left some contraband on your doorstop. Instead of making even the slightest effort to corroborate your involvement, may I instead break down your door and shoot your dogs?

[TyTass]

I have to agree ... it really seems there MUST be a better way. But I'm not just talking about some over-zealousness on the part of the LEOs or shrewdness on the part of smugglers in the Berwyn-Heights case, but the entire War on Drugs.

 

Consider what we have spent since the initiation of The War on Drugs and the fact that there are [perhaps arguably] more kinds of drugs available than ever before and in ever-increasing numbers. Are we even willing to admit that it has failed?

 

Or are we satisfied with our anti-drug policies and events like Berwyn-Heights are just collateral damage in a noble cause?

[Lawman]

Officer: Hello sir..I'm Officer Batman and someone left some contraband on your doorstop. Instead of making even the slightest effort to corroborate your involvement, may I instead break down your door and shoot your dogs?

 

Man at door: That really won't be necessary officer because what your drug dog alerted to was two million dollars worth of cocaine and the commode tank has already finished refilling from the flush so you are welcome to come in and look around..I"ll ask the boys back there to hold their fire..

 

[Fugu]

Will you please cooperate and not shoot my ass?

 

Had they not insisted on being ignorant, they could have simply picked the mayor up at city hall the next morning. Probably closer to the jail, too.

 

I understand that there are times when kicking the door in is the best, safest option, and I understand why. Trying to portray this as one of those situations is going to be an uphill battle.

 

I guess if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

 

[Lawman]

Will you please cooperate and not shoot my ass?

 

Had they not insisted on being ignorant, they could have simply picked the mayor up at city hall the next morning. Probably closer to the jail, too.

 

I understand that there are times when kicking the door in is the best, safest option, and I understand why. Trying to portray this as one of those situations is going to be an uphill battle.

 

I guess if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

 

Perhaps I missed it but I saw nothing to indicate the officers knew it was the mayor's house..I believe this caught the local police dept. by surprise..

[Fugu]

Man at door: That really won't be necessary officer because what your drug dog alerted to was two million dollars worth of cocaine and the commode tank has already finished refilling from the flush so you are welcome to come in and look around..I"ll ask the boys back there to hold their fire..

 

Investigators said the package that arrived on Calvo's porch had been sent from Los Angeles via FedEx, and they had been tracking it ever since it drew the attention of a drug-sniffing dog in Arizona.

 

Police intercepted it in Maryland, and an undercover detective posing as a deliveryman took it to the Calvo home.

 

The cops already knew what was in the box. Even if you could flush 32lbs of pot down the toilet, would it have mattered? They watched him take what they already knew was a box of pot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fugu]

Perhaps I missed it but I saw nothing to indicate the officers knew it was the mayor's house..I believe this caught the local police dept. by surprise..

 

Yes, that is right, and that is the problem.

 

Had they done the tiniest bit of actual work, they would have discovered who the resident of the home is. Perhaps a light bulb would have illuminated.

 

Maybe they would have found out that the resident was a bad mother (hush your mouth) with security cameras, a lot of weapons and a propensity to use them and they could have taken him down elsewhere or waited until he was asleep or any number of other options it seems they rarely use.

 

They could have just as easily walked into a great big trap and gotten killed.

 

Sloppy work by them any way you slice it.

 

[ericfoerster]

Sheez, we all know that MAYORS don't ever break the law or deal dope.

 

I'd suggest that this came down in a way that the PD got the intel from an outside source. Maybe they were even handed the warrant to execute from the State.

 

Lots of stuff here to ponder. But, as always, we have the "experts" playing monday morning quarterback on this one.

 

Please lets us in the field know the best way to stop the drug dealing and we will get right on it.

[Lawman]

Perhaps I missed it but I saw nothing to indicate the officers knew it was the mayor's house..I believe this caught the local police dept. by surprise..

 

Yes, that is right, and that is the problem.

 

Had they done the tiniest bit of actual work, they would have discovered who the resident of the home is. Perhaps a light bulb would have illuminated.

 

Maybe they would have found out that the resident was a bad mother (hush your mouth) with security cameras, a lot of weapons and a propensity to use them and they could have taken him down elsewhere or waited until he was asleep or any number of other options it seems they rarely use.

 

They could have just as easily walked into a great big trap and gotten killed.

 

Sloppy work by them any way you slice it.

 

 

I'm missing your logic. They had no reason to arrest the owner of the house away from that house....Without the dope they have no case..

[ghaverkamp]

Please lets us in the field know the best way to stop the drug dealing and we will get right on it.

 

The easiest plan is not to stop it, but not to legalize it. Of course, that's not something those in the field can accomplish.

[Fugu]

Ya' know, I can't even begin to imagine how petrified I'd be if that had happened to me and my wife, even knowing we were innocent of any shenanigans <>... Yikes!

 

~ Bill

 

Imagine if you were so silly that you assumed the people kicking your door down meant you harm and acted to defend yourself. You'd end up shooting cops and then being shot dead yourself.

 

Lovely thought, isn't it?

 

And yes, this scenario HAS happened. Luckily the homeowner only managed to injure the cops, and they only injured him.

 

 

 

 

[Lawman]

They don't know it's dope until it's analyzed.

[Fugu]

Sheez, we all know that MAYORS don't ever break the law or deal dope.

 

It's entirely possible a mayor is a dope dealer. Wouldn't his stately office still be an easier place to grab him if that's the case, while also providing a great photo op?

 

 

I'd suggest that this came down in a way that the PD got the intel from an outside source. Maybe they were even handed the warrant to execute from the State.

 

So when a warrant is issued, nobody checks anything about the person?

 

They intercepted the package and planted it. This was their operation, but if this had been a case of an error up the ladder it's just moving the blame from the guys in body armor to the ones in suits. Still the same problem.

 

Lots of stuff here to ponder. But, as always, we have the "experts" playing monday morning quarterback on this one.

 

Meaningless invective. Holds no more weight than somebody accusing those in law enforcement of always finding a way to land on the side of their brothers in blue.

 

Please lets us in the field know the best way to stop the drug dealing and we will get right on it.

The best way?

 

How about just not the absolute worst way? The only thing that would have made this a bigger joke is if they'd actually shot the mayor dead.

[Fugu]

They don't know it's dope until it's analyzed.

 

If they don't know that actually makes this worse because they kicked down a door based on the mere suspicion that it was marijuana.

 

I guess I better consider very carefully how I get my next shipment of whole hops if that's the case.

 

 

 

 

[TyTass]

They don't know it's dope until it's analyzed.

That point, Billy, seems to serve the other side of this discussion. How does it serve yours?

[ericfoerster]

The easiest plan is not to stop it, but not to legalize it. Of course, that's not something those in the field can accomplish.

 

BINGO.....

 

Thats why we are now finding smugglers carrying cigarettes, gasoline, and liquor.

We now get to fight these guys too! Taxation has fixed all our problems......argggg!

 

Legalization will not fix this problem because it's too late. The pipelines are in place for distribution.

[ericfoerster]

If they don't know that actually makes this worse because they kicked down a door based on the mere suspicion that it was marijuana

 

Nope, can't get a warrant for that.

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

If they don't know that actually makes this worse because they kicked down a door based on the mere suspicion that it was marijuana.

 

Of course they knew it was marijuana. They delivered it. However, just because they deliver the marijuana doesn't prove that it's the same item after they perform their search.

 

The larger issue seems to be that the police at the scene in this case may well have acted well beyond their authority. From the :

Prince George's County authorities did not have a "no-knock" warrant when they burst into the home of a mayor July 29, shooting and killing his two dogs -- contrary to what police said after the incident.

 

Further, it's asserted that the warrant was never presented to Calvo. (The police say otherwise, but they're the same ones who said they had a no-knock warrant.)

 

This is just another example of the continuing chipping away of protections of the Fourth Amendment.

[Fugu]

If they don't know that actually makes this worse because they kicked down a door based on the mere suspicion that it was marijuana

 

Nope, can't get a warrant for that.

 

 

Lawman says they didn't know. You say they did or they wouldn't have had a warrant.

 

But somehow you both seem to think the cops didn't screw this up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TyTass]

BINGO.....

 

Thats why we are now finding smugglers carrying cigarettes, gasoline, and liquor.

We now get to fight these guys too! Taxation has fixed all our problems......argggg!

 

Legalization will not fix this problem because it's too late. The pipelines are in place for distribution.

Please thrall us folk not in the field with an account of what this means ... to someone in the field. Please ellabotate on the why as a nation we cannot shutdown illegal distibution pipelines despite spending billions and billions (said in my best Carl Sagan) on many, many local, state, and federal forces agencies.

[Lawman]

They don't know it's dope until it's analyzed.

That point, Billy, seems to serve the other side of this discussion. How does it serve yours?

 

It's called "probable cause".."reason to believe"..No one knows

what the chemical components of a subtance are until it's analyzed by a chemist..

[russell_bynum]

Please lets us in the field know the best way to stop the drug dealing and we will get right on it.

 

The easiest plan is not to stop it, but not to legalize it. Of course, that's not something those in the field can accomplish.

 

Before we do that, we need to decide that it isn't a problem.

 

Otherwise, that's like saying "It's too hard to enforce the laws against murder so we'll just legalize it."

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Legalization will not fix this problem because it's too late. The pipelines are in place for distribution.

 

I don't really buy that argument, though I see it repeated by those with large stakes in the continuing war on drugs.

 

Why, if distribution and sale of currently illicit drugs were legalized, would it make more sense to use clandestine distribution channels over open, legal channels?

[Fugu]

It's called "probable cause".."reason to believe"..No one knows

what the chemical components of a subtance are until it's analyzed by a chemist..

 

So when they intercepted the package, and tested a sample with a field test, is there a reason they can't take a sample of that suspected (because we don't KNOW yet, right?) contraband as evidence?

 

 

 

 

[Fugu]

Why, if distribution and sale of currently illicit drugs were legalized, would it make more sense to use clandestine distribution channels over open, legal channels?

 

Because it seems there's a communication error.

 

People who support the war on drugs seem to use "the problem" to mean "people smoking pot" whereas most folks pro legalization think "the problem" means "the illegal drug trade and the mayhem it creates".

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Before we do that, we need to decide that it isn't a problem.

 

Otherwise, that's like saying "It's too hard to enforce the laws against murder so we'll just legalize it."

 

A problem for whom?

 

I didn't see you as a proponent of the nanny state.

[russell_bynum]

Before we do that, we need to decide that it isn't a problem.

 

Otherwise, that's like saying "It's too hard to enforce the laws against murder so we'll just legalize it."

 

A problem for whom?

 

I didn't see you as a proponent of the nanny state.

 

I didn't state a position one way or the other. But just saying "It's too hard to fight this, so let's just pretend we wanted it in the first place." doesn't make much sense.

[ghaverkamp]

I didn't state a position one way or the other. But just saying "It's too hard to fight this, so let's just pretend we wanted it in the first place." doesn't make much sense.

 

First, as Fugu suggests, we have to establish that we're speaking from the same perspective. My position isn't that it's too hard to enforce, therefore we should change the law. However, analogizing to murder implied a certain expectation that there is harm that our society feels obligated to protect against.

 

Instead, the issue is whether we should have the laws in the first place. I don't believe that we need laws that prevent people from acquiring and using drugs. I don't believe we've ever needed such laws, any more than I believe that we needed a constitutional amendment to prevent the sale of alcohol, that we needed a federal effectively imposing a national speed limit, that California needs a law to force motorcyclists to wear a helmet, that Texas needed a law preventing two men from having sex in the privacy of their own home, or that Texas needs a law banning the sale of dildos.

 

All of those create enforcement issues, but I don't think the potential difficulty of enforcing those laws impacting individual behavior and preferences is a reason to get rid of them. The reason to get rid of those laws is that they're stupid, and they intrude into the aspects of our lives where the government doesn't belong.

 

Second, we've seen our constitutional protections eroded because of the drug laws. The bulk of the exceptions for exigency have come about because of the evanescent nature of drug evidence. The breeding of hooliganism that the drug war has created -- whether those hooligans are involved in the drug trade or were brought up around crime and poverty brought about by the neglect of urban and other high crime areas brought about by the drug trade -- has apparently left every cop on the streets afraid that every driver in every traffic stop is armed and ready to shoot. That leads to men leaving a raucous bachelor party being shot outside of a club, to drivers in Utah being Tasered for having the audacity to question an officer, and cops making up exigencies to bust into houses and shooting dogs.

 

In short, bad laws based on bad policy lead to bad consequences for everyone.

[Twisties]

Not replying to anyone in particular, but, great thread, I'm laughing my ass off.

 

I'll just add that we have had innocents killed here in SLC on several occasions during the serving of "no knock warrants". We had an innocent dad lose his life as he defended his house at 3 am (wrong address), and we had some kids killed by stray gunfire (possibly related house but the guy they wanted wasn't there), and we had some kids severely injured by some kind of incendiary that landed in their bed as they slept (it was thrown in through a closed window, so they also had to contend with glass as they escaped). I read of another wrong address case just last week, somewhere or other.

 

I think these no knock warrants have become something of a routine tool, and they are obviously not getting the type of scrutiny and preparation they require. If there is ever a case for them it must be very rare. Since the police are routinely using them in an out of control manner, I say ban them.

 

Frankly, I can't see any kind of situation in which executing a no knock warrant is safer, and certainly not without absolute certain knowledge of the exact occupants and there specific whereabouts in the house.

 

So Mike, we may not agree fully on the matter, but put me down with you for general agreement, at least in the case at hand.

 

As for drugs, I'm already on record on that issue, having argued it with Billy and Eric a few months ago, but I'll say it again:

 

Legalize. Use some savings from enforcement for support/treatment of abusers. Empty jails. Save billions. Improve world relations. Put organized crime/gangs out of business.

 

Jan

[bakerzdosen]

I've got a few issues with legalization, but one stands out in my mind (and maybe it's just from too much time spent in corporate staffing) :

 

If I understand the law correctly, if all illicit drugs were suddenly legal, an employer could no longer do drug testing - right? I mean, technically you can't discriminate against someone for doing something legal can you?

 

Personally, I can't see legalization being a realistic solution at all. To me, it seems as though pro-legalization folks take a very Darwinian point of view to the matter thinking that those that abuse drugs would simply die off and cease to be a burden on society. I don't doubt that, but it just seems as though many of those "dying off" would take at least a few others with them.

 

I would however like to see "no knock warrants" face a much greater scrutiny if they are going to continue to be issued.

[Dave McReynolds]

Before we do that, we need to decide that it isn't a problem.

 

Otherwise, that's like saying "It's too hard to enforce the laws against murder so we'll just legalize it."

 

A problem for whom?

 

I didn't see you as a proponent of the nanny state.

 

I didn't state a position one way or the other. But just saying "It's too hard to fight this, so let's just pretend we wanted it in the first place." doesn't make much sense.

 

I'd like you to compare and contrast your position on legalizing drugs with your position (whatever it may be) on repealing the prohibition of liquor.

 

The way I understand it (old as I may be, I wasn't around then), prohibition was passed because enough people were convinced that the consumption of liquor was damaging to our society, and should be stopped.

 

Then after trying it for a few years, it was revoked because enough people were convinced that too many people were ignoring the law, and the criminal activity surrounding the illicit distribution of liquor was damaging our society worse than the liquor itself did.

 

Now I don't believe that the people who had earlier voted for prohibition suddenly changed their minds and decided that liquor wasn't a threat to society anymore. But they voted to repeal prohibition anyway. Were they wrong?

[Twisties]

I've got a few issues with legalization, but one stands out in my mind (and maybe it's just from too much time spent in corporate staffing) :

 

If I understand the law correctly, if all illicit drugs were suddenly legal, an employer could no longer do drug testing - right? I mean, technically you can't discriminate against someone for doing something legal can you?

 

Personally, I can't see legalization being a realistic solution at all. To me, it seems as though pro-legalization folks take a very Darwinian point of view to the matter thinking that those that abuse drugs would simply die off and cease to be a burden on society. I don't doubt that, but it just seems as though many of those "dying off" would take at least a few others with them.

 

I would however like to see "no knock warrants" face a much greater scrutiny if they are going to continue to be issued.

 

Matt,

 

Corporate drug testing has been put in place by the government as a surrogate for the testing it can not do itself due to constitutional protections. It is reprehensible on it's face. Aside from that, studies have shown that it is ineffective. Moreover, most drug tests do not test for intoxication, but for prior use... with marijuana for instance over a period of several months.

 

How about we use job performance to determine job related issues? Is that too much to ask?

 

Jan

[ericfoerster]

Were they wrong?

 

They are skirting the taxes again now, so yes.

 

We are now finding lots of liquor being smuggled as well as cigarettes and fuel. The taxation is the problem.

 

If I can buy cocaine X from a dealer for 25 a 1/4 gram and the same from a "legal" dealer for twice that, why would I buy where there are taxes? It's simple math.

 

As for the no-knock warrants. In my many years of doing this I've never seen a no-knock for weed only.

 

Again, out of the thousands of warrants that are served there are a few bad ones that make the news. There are also thousands that resulted in the seizure of tons of the crap being taken off the streets. Away from the people who lie, cheat, steal, and murder to get their fix.

 

 

[smiller]

How about we use job performance to determine job related issues? Is that too much to ask?

Pre-employment drug screening is easier and carries less legal liability than targeted testing (regardless of how ineffective such screening might be). As to fairness or civil rights... most corporate entities don't give a damn, not their job.

[smiller]

They are skirting the taxes again now, so yes.

If Prohibition was primarily a tax issue then why did most of the major illegal distribution channels disappear after it was repealed?

[Fugu]

Were they wrong?

 

They are skirting the taxes again now, so yes.

 

So you're for the prohibition of alcohol because some people are bootlegging?

 

Or is one of us mis-reading the text? I think the post you're replying to was asking if it was wrong to repeal prohibition.

 

 

As for the no-knock warrants. In my many years of doing this I've never seen a no-knock for weed only.

 

Neither have the cops in this story, apparently.

 

Again, out of the thousands of warrants that are served there are a few bad ones that make the news.

 

Real easy to say "a few bad ones" when it's not your door, your dogs, and your life in the balance.

[ghaverkamp]

If I understand the law correctly, if all illicit drugs were suddenly legal, an employer could no longer do drug testing - right? I mean, technically you can't discriminate against someone for doing something legal can you?

 

Most people are employed at-will, where at-will generally means at-will, but for statutory exceptions.

[ericfoerster]

As to fairness or individual rights... most corporate entities don't give a damn, not their job.

 

So the companies should not want to test their employees who drive their cars, fly their planes, or invest their money????

 

That makes no sense to me at all.

 

It's OK for a company to bear the burden of liability on these people and demand nothing but a sober employee in return?

 

Lets see how many folks are going to fly airline (insert name here) when they announce that all drug testing for their pilots will stop tomorrow.

 

[ghaverkamp]

Lets see how many folks are going to fly airline (insert name here)

 

It's okay to say US Air.

 

(Actually, I think they're just going to charge a fee to passengers who want a plane with a drug-tested pilot.)

[Fugu]

It's OK for a company to bear the burden of liability on these people and demand nothing but a sober employee in return?

 

Lets see how many folks are going to fly airline (insert name here) when they announce that all drug testing for their pilots will stop tomorrow.

 

Airline pilots aren't tested for alcohol before flying. I'd rather they do that than test to see if a pilot smoked a bowl last week when he or she (I'm so PC) was at home.

 

[Twisties]

How about we use job performance to determine job related issues? Is that too much to ask?

Pre-employment drug screening (regardless of how ineffective it might be) is easier and carries less legal liability than targeted testing. As to fairness or individual rights... most corporate entities don't give a damn, not their job.

 

Actually companies doing business with the feds are required to have a drug free workplace program, and although that does not strictly require testing, it's pretty hard to get your program approved without at least a pre-employment test. So I don't think as a rule corporations are testing because they want to, but because they have to.

 

And where did I say anything about targeted testing? I said, let job performance be used to judge job related issues. You perform well, company treats you well. You don't, they don't. End argument.

 

Here is a problem with targeted testing. In Utah if you have an accident on the job you almost certainly will be tested and if you are positive the worker's comp law says that there is a presumption that you were at fault and to get benefits you must overcome that presumption.

 

Now lets say you smoked pot with your high school buddy for the first and only time in ten years at the reunion three months ago. You are at work and a co-worker mishandles a fork lift and knocks over a stack of barrels 30 feet from you. One of the barrels gets you leaving you permanently and totally disabled. The law says that in addition to your normal burden of proof, it's your fault because you test positive and you have to prove not only that you were not intoxicated at the time, but that it was not your fault. If you tested negative you would only have to prove you were hurt in the course and scope of employment, and the extent of your injuries.

 

This legal argument now blossoms because it's high stakes and we all pay for that.

 

I fail to see why a worker should lose his benefits for life over a misdemeanor, and a victimless crime at that. I don't see why we need to drag a pile of lawyers and doctors (who for the most part want nothing to do with this, the doctors that is) into a legal morass over what should be a non-issue.

 

Testing sucks!

 

Jan

[smiller]

Lets see how many folks are going to fly airline (insert name here) when they announce that all drug testing for their pilots will stop tomorrow.

Wow, I'm flashing back to a film in the eighth grade where Sony Bono (wearing a red-sequined suit) asked us if we wanted our airline pilots smoking marijuana.

 

I wasn't referring to critical public safety positions but rather blanket testing of entire workforces even when there is no particular problem in evidence.

[russell_bynum]

(Actually, I think they're just going to charge a fee to passengers who want a plane with a drug-tested pilot.)

 

Now that's funny.

[Twisties]

As to fairness or individual rights... most corporate entities don't give a damn, not their job.

 

So the companies should not want to test their employees who drive their cars, fly their planes, or invest their money????

 

That makes no sense to me at all.

 

It's OK for a company to bear the burden of liability on these people and demand nothing but a sober employee in return?

 

Lets see how many folks are going to fly airline (insert name here) when they announce that all drug testing for their pilots will stop tomorrow.

 

But Eric, I think there are reputable studies that show that the cost of intoxicated workers is far less than the cost of testing.

 

If a company wants to have some sort of performance test before operating equipment, such as a plane, I would support that. That tests actual ability at the time. It is presumably targeted to the skills needed for the task. It covers not only intoxication, but showing up tired, or sick. If an employee routinely fails the test, fire 'em.

 

Jan

[smiller]

Good job debating me Jan, but actually I was agreeing with you...

 

Anyway, back to the thread we were on before the diversion... I haven't seen Dave's very good question answered yet... was Prohibition a good idea? Did we wimp out by repealing it?

[Fugu]

Ericfoerster answered in the affirmative, I think.

 

 

I'm for a prohibition on prohibition.