Shaun Bailey wants London firms to test staff for drugs

[ProfessorSlocombe]

I was particularly impressed that he insisted we start at Westminster and the Houses of Parliament first. Clearly this man wants to win ...

www.itv.com/news/london/2020-08-23/shaun-bailey-wants-london-firms-to-test-staff-for-drugs

Firms should conduct random drug tests on their employees, the Conservative London mayoral candidate has said.

Shaun Bailey called for every business in the capital with more than 250 employees to sign up to a drug-testing charter - routinely checking workers for illegal substance use - with the results being made public.

Mr Bailey said this would help to identify middle class cocaine users, who are fuelling the "explosion" of crime among poorer communities by purchasing drugs from criminals.

In an open letter addressed to London's business leaders, he wrote: "This is a huge problem. Drug use is not only a crime in itself; drug use is a direct cause of crime, from county lines gangs to stabbings on our streets.

"When people buy drugs, they are funding the criminals who traffic vulnerable kids and unleash mayhem on our streets.

"So as mayor, I'll call for every business in London with over 250 employees to sign up to a drug testing charter."

Mr Bailey, 49, who grew up in a council house in Ladbroke Grove, west London, was a youth worker with gang members for 20 years.

"The purpose of this charter is not to get employees fired or shamed. Individual results will be anonymous," he said.

"The purpose is to change our culture. City Hall will publish an annual league table showing which companies have the highest and lowest rates of drug use.

"Because... the way to start tackling a problem is to shine a light on it."

I like this idea - though whether individual results will be kept private is a concern.

He’s not my usual team but I agree with him. It’s a huge problem in London I’m sick of gangs hanging around my street, using 15 year olds to do their dirty work.

Oh, hang on, seems I misheard. Apparently he doesn't want to test politicians in Westminster. Seems they "don't need it, as obviously we can trust them."

Sorry about that, as you were.

This won'r work, so many things show up on drugs tests that are not illegal. Why should I have to tell an employer what medication I take and why I take it? Obviously if it is something that could impair my work that would be different.

Sales of poppy seed bagels would probably go up though.

@sashh

This won'r work, so many things show up on drugs tests that are not illegal. Why should I have to tell an employer what medication I take and why I take it? Obviously if it is something that could impair my work that would be different.

Sales of poppy seed bagels would probably go up though.

Well if you want the job, that's what you sign up to. Remember the War on Drugs has only had 49 years to get running. Pretty soon I am sure we will see that breakthrough they promised back then. OK, they're all dead. But it was really revved up in the 80s - 2 generations ago, so maybe another 100 years we'll see some results.

You might gather I am less than impressed by nearly 50 years of fuck all to show for countless billions spent on this lunacy. The crowning turd on the shit sandwich was when it was recently easier to get cocaine than flour - if that doesn't tell you you lost the war 49 years ago, I have some bridges for you to buy ....

Well if you want the job, that's what you sign up to

That's a terrible attitude to have about something which we have to do. Work isn't a nice choice, or a fun jaunt. We are forced to work because the alternative is to not have the basic things for our lives. There should be a line between work and personal, and if your drug use isn't affecting your work, I don't think you should have to give your employer access to that personal information.

That doesn't of course mean I support people who take drugs, because I don't.

I've got a decades experience commissioning drug treatment services, and it is completely impractical to set up a drug testing service without an effective treatment service.

Opiates, yeah sure we have decent substitute prescribing regimen, but psychosocial interventions, often required to be focused around trauma informed care, take a dedicated professional resource (guess what's been stripped back over ten years of austerity).

Cocaine is a whole different ballgame, and actually, we don't truly have an effective treatment for cocaine.

Then we have your cannabis, nitrous oxide, ecstacy, mdma, - some companies do have testing, for example in warehousing when in charge of dangerous machinery - but employers use this selectively ime - I don't think any scaffolding company would willing want to test it's employees.

What would the consequences be of a positive result? Sacking? Is that proportionate?

Then you have the problem of randomisation Vs profiling/victimisation, false positives, implications of black balling from employment.

Believe me, randomised drug testing of general population, without clear thought of what result you want to achieve, is just a Very Bad Idea.

I've got a decades experience commissioning drug treatment services, and it is completely impractical to set up a drug testing service without an effective treatment service.

If 49 years clearly hasn't been enough time, how long do you need ? 100 years ? 200 years ?

What problem are you trying to solve?

People have literally been finding increasingly inventive ways to get trashed since we clocked that fermented fruit gave a good buzz and a crashingly bad hangover!

If you want to target the cocaine trade specifically, the biggest thing you could do is make it unfashionable - but it will probably get replaced by another substance.

And we have made impressive gains, the drug treatment systems set up in the 80's tackled the opiate crisis primarily - and the approaches taken helped to successfully contain aids and hiv.

But treatment research is out of fashion at the moment, it's more in favour of prevention agenda and addressing early childhood trauma. Theory being that healthy, well adjusted children don't have the gaps to fill with drugs later in life.

So yeah, another 20-30 years, and some well funded cohort studies, and we'll find out.

So yeah, another 20-30 years, and some well funded cohort studies, and we'll find out

Well Slocombes Slant dictates that no government policy is every harmed by doubling the figures, so that's already 100-200 years. Which would mean the War on Drugs will have outlived any giant tortoise born in 1971.

You'd think that somewhere in the future, someone might say ... and why are we doing this ? as it becomes a religion that just has to be obeyed.

Mind you, I see that UK cannabis producers are upset.

www.ft.com/content/300e452f-6843-4e37-b6ab-58cfa5413db7

Companies warn current regulations will encourage investment to shift elsewhere in Europe

British medical cannabis companies are lobbying the government to ease restrictions around importing and exporting the drug, warning that they hinder growth and will force them to shift investment outside the UK.

They'll be nobody left to work, lol.

Opiates, yeah sure we have decent substitute prescribing regimen

Timeforabiscuit is that methodone?

If you want to go on policy timelines, I'd be inclined to start back with the East India Trading company onward - so at least 1750's. Then the first opium wars 1839.

This is not a new problem.

I understand the point he's making and agree to an extent - middle class drug users don't think of the violence, deaths and general misery that it's taken to enable the drug use at dinner parties.

However, I don't agree that naming and shaming (assuming that's what is being suggested) or targeting individuals by way of drug tests will work. It'll either push people to take drugs which won't show up in one's system, or will simply create a booming trade in the purchase of 'clean' urine samples that people will take with them to work in case they're called for a drug test.

The only solution to any of this is legalisation of drugs. Get the government to control the supply and distribution, tax it and ensure harsh penalties for gangs or purchasers of those who get drugs outside of the pre-approved avenues. It's blindingly obvious that the War on Drugs is a failure. People enjoy getting high and are not going to stop that. It's like telling people not to eat chocolate or masturbate - never going to happen.

@southwestten - yes methodone, but also subutex and other diritives. It's based around substitute prescribing, theory being you supply a stabilised dose of opiates consistently which gives the service user time to stabilise other aspects of their life (housing, exit from sexwork etc) - and then gradually titrate the dose down.

It isn't fantastically effective, usually takes around 24 months if they actually manage to come off methodone in my experience - lots of people never come off it.

I don't think it's for employers to take on this task. For one thing, it wouldn't capture drug use in the unemployed (including the wealthy who don't need to work as well as people on benefits) so it would be a bit meaningless. Frankly employers have enough on their plates getting through the Covid pandemic without taking on the mantle of drug enforcement officers.

What is the aim though? He says identify middle class users. Then what?

The 'war on drugs' has been heavily criticised. Plenty on Google. The reason the USA started it is pretty dodgy.

He wants to exempt the HOC? hahaha. Well then.

If the commons, lords, Head of State and direct line heirs (of age) aren't tested, it's a nonstarter.

Don't forget all police, judiciary and armed forces.

@Timeforabiscuit

If you want to go on policy timelines, I'd be inclined to start back with the East India Trading company onward - so at least 1750's. Then the first opium wars 1839.

This is not a new problem.

The opium wars where where the British forced the Chinese to accept good old Indian opium or face being blown to smithereens by a Royal Navy gunboat.

Probably better not mention that - especially given now we actually need the Chinese on side.

I'd start with anyone on boards of directors, CEO and CFO personally!

war on drugs hasn't worked. I wouldn't consent to a drug test by my employer, and would be looking to work elsewhere if they insisted, as quite frankly if I want to get trashed in my own time then it's none of their business. If it was affecting me to the point of not being able to do my job... then performance manage me/manage me on attendance. If it's not affecting my job.. no problem.

I know, tricky isn't it! Its almost as if highly lucrative commodities benefit from a political status quo.

The war on drugs is a heap of shite. It was never about stopping the drug trade.

I wouldn't consent to a drug test. They should only be carried out at work if there is a valid reason.

It isn't fantastically effective, usually takes around 24 months if they actually manage to come off methodone in my experience - lots of people never come off it

Yes, I know someone who has been addicted for years. She tried to get off methodone and she said it wasn’t the physical aspects of withdrawal - which were extremely unpleasant but only lasted a few days - but the feeling of extreme flatness and depression which never seemed to go away.
It’s a life sentence for her as making sure she has her daily dose is the most important thing in her life. It’s sad really.