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."

😴

Shaun Bailey highlights the valid issue of middle class cocaine users. I agree it should not be swept under the carpet.

The difficulty with his suggestion is now that working from home seems to be something that will be permanent for many people, especially in 'middle class' jobs, how will an employer carry this out?

I'd tackle this in other ways, perhaps by drug testing anyone before they can have a provisional or renewed driving licence, even perhaps a passport renewal.

Dolly yes I'll wondering that myself...

@dollypopy

What's the point of this thread?

There is no point to it. My test was called Faulty earlier. It wasn't, I took legal Pharmacy opiates. The test detected that and I was nearly suspended.

I was also asked if losing my livelihood was worth it to "Save a child"
Laughable. (Also, no. To me destitution is not worth it for a stranger. Sorry. Most people would agree even if they pretend otherwise)

Agreed, even when we test with the consent of service users it's fraught with problems - it's not a good therapeutic tool.

'Some people' is never a very convincing basis for an argument. I'm concerned about invasion of privacy. If you are underperforming due to drug use, let your work place deal with that. To argue for the mass testing of the English workforce is surely disproportionate to any current harm.

London workforce.

The only way to solve it is to get the drug trade away from organised crime.

@PicsInRed

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

HM Forces are regularly randomly tested; dh was tested more than once. The consequences can be severe, depending on rank and responsibility.

Prohibition did not benefit anyone except Al Capone.

Why politicians feel the same approach is necessary with recreational drugs is a mystery to me.

A right winger wanting employers to have more of a hold over employees? I'm shocked!

I understand the point the candidate is trying to make but I disagree with the proposal.

I think the war of drugs has been a failure and we need to start looking at the drug issue as a public health problem as opposed to a purely criminal justice one. We need to properly invest in not just prevention, but also treatment and recovery. We would also be better if we looked at drugs less hysterically and acknowledge the science surrounding them. For eg. Legalising cannibis and LSD for medicinal use.

Another problem with the proposal is that drugs tests don't tell you what someone has taken exactly. The pp talking about the legal medicine she had taken showing up and almost costing her her job.

You risk punishing people for taking legal medicines which creates a whole host of problems not to mention could increase discrimination against disabled/mentally ill people. If you have to disclose medical information and drug regimes to your boss then how can we garunteed that those who have genuine medical problems won't be unduly targeted by employers. This proposal gives employers not only to much personal information but also too much power over their employees. I can forsee a situation where these 'rights' would be expanded to allow employers to potentially dictate what type of medical care an employee may receive and that is not a good rod to go down.

My test was called Faulty earlier. It wasn't, I took legal Pharmacy opiates. The test detected that and I was nearly suspended.

No, your test was faulty. It's supposed to look for illegal drugs. If they can't devise a test that only finds illegal drugs, then they don't have a test do they ?

You risk punishing people for taking legal medicines which creates a whole host of problems not to mention could increase discrimination against disabled/mentally ill people.

Never been a problem in the past.

I think he is right to point out that MC drug users are insulated from the grim reality of the drugs trade.
Drug tests could cause more problems than they solve. What if someone has an undeclared health condition (the doesn’t affect them doing their job) and is forced to reveal it to their employer to avoid the sack.
I occasionally take prescription codeine at night due to back problems. So would I have to supply my employer with a copy of my prescription?

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I think he is right to point out that MC drug users are insulated from the grim reality of the drugs trade. Drug tests could cause more problems than they solve. What if someone has an undeclared health condition (the doesn’t affect them doing their job) and is forced to reveal it to their employer to avoid the sack. I occasionally take prescription codeine at night due to back problems. So would I have to supply my employer with a copy of my prescription?

What part of "War on Drugs" isn't getting the message across ?

All wars have friendly fire and collateral damage - or don't they teach that in history any more ?

So "War on Drugs" - of course innocent peoples lives will be fucked up. But that's alright because we are saving lives here people.

Now personally - spoiler alert - I'm not a massive fan of the War on Drugs. Mainly because I am incredibly sensitive around issues of bodily autonomy and personal liberty. But the past 49 years have shown me I am clearly in a minority and need - like some of the more delicate posters here - to get with the programme.

I find it mildly amusing that even in the midst of the balls up that's been made of Covid testing, some posters here are signing up to the idea of employer drug testing as if they would be in any way less incompetent. But that's how the cookie crumbles. Some people clearly happy to get fired for an erroneous drug test that they've not even asked the accuracy of. I can begin to see how internet scammers find their marks.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I think he is right to point out that MC drug users are insulated from the grim reality of the drugs trade. Drug tests could cause more problems than they solve. What if someone has an undeclared health condition (the doesn’t affect them doing their job) and is forced to reveal it to their employer to avoid the sack. I occasionally take prescription codeine at night due to back problems. So would I have to supply my employer with a copy of my prescription?

Yes, he's definitely right to point that out. Needs saying. It's a sufficiently important message that it shouldn't then be undermined by a genuinely terrible policy proposal.

But according to plenty of people the whole point of the USA 'war on drugs' was to enable the authorities to criminalise certain sections of society...

I find your posting style a bit odd tbh. Why not just say what you think in a straightforward way and ask people what they think?

'Some people clearly happy to get fired for an erroneous drug test that they've not even asked the accuracy of. I can begin to see how internet scammers find their marks'

Who is that aimed at for example.

Vast majority of posters have said it's a shit idea.

Presumably aimed at the ones who approve of the idea.

There's only been about 2 though.

The OPs tone throughout has been as if they're talking to a bunch of idiots, seems to me.

There's been at least twice that, I got bored counting and didn't finish. If you don't like OPs tone fair enough, but addressing a minority is a pretty unremarkable and reasonable thing to do.

No, your test was faulty. It's supposed to look for illegal drugs. If they can't devise a test that only finds illegal drugs, then they don't have a test do they ?
You're making yourself look silly now

Most people do drugs nowadays.

If they want to tackle county lines then surely the answer is to just make all drugs legal.

*What part of "War on Drugs" isn't getting the message across ?

All wars have friendly fire and collateral damage - or don't they teach that in history any more ?*

Prohibition is a disaster, that's the problem.

The mafia and organised crime in America became as huge as it did off the back of prohibition. All drug prohibition has done is make countless criminals super rich/relatively rich and a high proportion of violent crime is related to the drug trade.