I oppose the “Zero Tolerance” policy
on substance abuse. Yes, even for police officers and firefighters. I always
have.
I DO
support even more vigorous random drug/alcohol testing, especially for
emergency services workers and removing those found addicted to drugs &/or
alcohol from active duty until they've recovered...and to be clear, I've never
smoked even cigarettes, and I rarely drink alcohol.
I've known people who've had substance
abuse issues and have come to accept that addiction is disease. We should at
least attempt to treat the disease rather than simply eliminate the diseased
person.
I believe that today, in the case of
Kevin Simpkins, and for all the others who have been subjected to the “Zero
Tolerance” policy. Many seem to argue, “Since
others have been fired over “Zero Tolerance,” than people like Kevin Simpkins
should be fired too,” but I think that’s exactly backwards. Just because
others have been subjected to a travesty, we shouldn't seek future members be
subjected to the same travesty. Instead, we should seek redress for all those
wrongly terminated over an ill-conceived policy. We don’t hang horse thieves
today because, “Lots of people in the
past were hung as horse thieves, so today’s offenders deserve no less.”
I think the “3 strikes” policy was a
fair way to split the difference. It gave the City the right to remove
substance abusers from its ranks, while giving those suffering under the pangs
of addiction 2 chances to get treated before being terminated; A 1st offense =
treatment, a 2nd offense = a final shot at treatment and a 3rd offense =
termination.
I was fortunate. One of the
Lieutenants I worked with as a Proby was a guy named Phil Kopp, who did NOT
take ANY drinking on duty mildly. He called beer, the alcohol of choice for
most guys back then, “dumb juice,” and often made the
point, “You wouldn't allow a plumber, or
electrician into your home if they arrived impaired, so how can it be OK to do
this job where people’s lives are at stake in any state other than your best?”
I did drink with friends when I was
younger, but by my late 20's, I’d noticed that even after 3 or 4 beers the
night before, I came down with weird muscle aches in my thighs and lower back, “like I had been bracing a wall all night.”
When I stopped drinking beer, the muscle aches disappeared. That was enough
evidence for me and I just stopped. It wasn't hard for me. I didn't like the
taste of beer much at all anyway...AND I never really cared what other people
thought of me, one way or the other.
I greatly admired Phil Kopp’s stand
and the personal courage it took to do that in an environment where that view
was often disdained.
But we live in an age in which there are
many such ill-conceived and poorly implemented policies, from “hate crimes
laws,” to “the right not to be ‘offended’ by others.” I've always opposed “hate
crimes” laws because they are, in effect, “THOUGHT crimes.” IF our goal is to eradicate
racial/ethnic violent crime, then we should simply enact harsher penalties for
ALL inter-racial violence forthwith. I would certainly support THAT! Of course,
“hate crimes” laws don’t do that. Instead, they seek to divine “the intentions”
of the attackers, often relying on unreliable and/or embellished eye-witness
testimony to do so.
As for any right “NOT to be offended,” it clearly does not exist. I am deeply
offended by, among other things, those who claim to support race/gender-based
preferences and “hate crimes” laws, but such “anti-harassment” laws don’t
protect me. WHY not?
Is it because “a majority of Americans support hate crimes laws?” Does a poor
policy’s popularity make it a “proper” or valid viewpoint?
Well, if that’s the case, then
supporting race/gender-based preferences DOES
NOT meet that criteria, given that well over 70% of Americans oppose
race/gender-based preferences.
For me, in any case, the inanity of
such rationalizations makes no difference. I have no desire to silence those
who disagree with me, nor seek to punish others merely because I find them and
their views “offensive.” I am generally interested in WHY those who do disagree with me do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment