Modify Your Subscription
Home > List Archives
First Offence? Crucifixian. - Line on the left, one cross each .. .firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:27:11 -0400
- Previous message: AW: 24/10/80 hour rules of ACGME
- Next message: First Offence? Crucifixian. - Line on the left, one cross each .. .
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Chris, I agree completely with your comments about changing the law. In this country there are a few groups actively seeking to have marijuana legalized. In some places it's ok for medical purposes, but most places it's not. Of course, I'm constrained to operate within the current laws, regardless of personal feeling. Just for clarification- the policies I quoted apply equally to my PD and the EMS organization I'm affiliated with. Both do random drug testing, though in a slightly different manner. Maybe it's my background, having been in the military and then in the police and EMS services, but I don't see a problem with this. Also by way of clarification, the guy who comes in drunk will be suspended, certainly. He may or may not be sacked- that would depend on his prior disciplinary history. Being under the influence of an illegal substance is treated more harshly, and that will get you fired. The demarkation between the two is very clear to me: one is stupid, the other criminal. To temper this, we have available employee assistance programs to deal with stress as well as the option to voluntary go into alcohol/drug treatment. If the employee acknowledges his/her addiction on their own (i.e. before we catch them in a random test) they are provided treatment and are not subject to the same disciplinary process. Finally, I do think these issues are as applicable to trauma folks as anyone else. Sergeant David Adler #100, EMT-P Police Dept., City of Philadelphia Housing Authority David.Adler@pha.phila.gov Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official positions of the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Housing Authority or the Housing Authority Police Department. "Cotton, Chris (SAAS)" <cotton.chris@saambulan To: ce.com.au> "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" Sent by: <email@example.com> trauma-list-admin@traum cc: a.org Subject: First Offence? Crucifixian. - Line on the left, one cross each .. . 06/13/02 08:25 AM Please respond to trauma-list Dave wrote: Of course, all other arguments aside, there is one that is > > irrefutable. > > > > Marijuana is illegal in my neck of the woods. Those in a position > > of > > > > public trust cannot fail to abide by the law and expect to maintain > > > > their positions. By way of example, if you get caught using in my > > > > service (and we do frequent, random drug testing) you're fired. No > > > > questions asked. Not to mention that a conviction for a drug > > offense > > > > can cost someone their license/certification. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave Adler, EMT-P > > > > Editor, Prehospital Perspective Magazine > > > > www.prehospital-perspective.com > > > > firstname.lastname@example.org And from me... Spoken like a true policeman, David. Take that whichever way you will; and that's not necessarily meant with a negative connotation. No one would expect anything different from someone in your position. If laws are thought necessary to be changed, then they should be targeted at the appropriate level - and that is via Parliament (or your equivalent). Okay, let's step this a little further. Someone comes in to do a shift and you suspect they are currently effected by marijuana, alcohol or whatever. So, if i understand you correctly, in your police dept the offender would be instantly dismissed if proven guilty by whatever tests you employ. This then, as i see it opens up another cascade. Is it right to perform a ritual dismissal for a first-time ill judgement? Isn't that a bit like "...Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion - first offence!" Maybe when you are talking about such a big department, that is entirely appropriate. Does anyone see any value in counceling first, followed by a support program for those who are misguided enough to come in to work affected by their potions? Or do you just say ... "bad luck - there's the door"? Does that create some moral dilemmas for listers? Could this be seen as shifting the problem? Why suggest moving this away from the trauma forum? Do we think these issues aren't applicable to trauma workers? Is it too difficult or controversial to discuss? Chris Cotton, Intensive Care Paramedic. South Australia. -- trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG To change your settings or unsubscribe visit: http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html