cannabisnews.com: 3 Boston Police Officers Fail Drug Test 3 Boston Police Officers Fail Drug Test Posted by UaN on February 05, 1999 at 07:32:17 PT Hummm,what kind of donuts have they been eating! The Boston Police Department, which began drug testing of all patrol officers for the first time a month ago, confirmed yesterday that three officers have tested positive for illegal substances in hair analysis. The Boston Police Department, which began drug testing of all patrol officers for the first time a month ago, confirmed yesterday that three officers have tested positive for illegal substances in hair analysis performed last month. Testing began Jan. 4, and so far 197 of approximately 1,500 patrol officers have been tested for cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines, morphine, and heroin. If the three officers who tested positive flunk a second test, which they have the option of taking, then they will be suspended for 45 days, forced to attend drug rehabilitation classes, and subject to unannounced spot drug tests for three years. Police Commissioner Paul Evans vowed to crack down on any officer who flunks the second test. But Evans acknowledged that suspensions won't come immediately. ''It's a lengthy process where there's a likely to be some false positives,'' he said. Sergeant Detective Margot Hill, the department spokeswoman, would not discuss the cases specifically. But Hill said the three officers, whom she would not identify, ''have all opted for the second tests at their own expense.'' The test costs $125, and results will be known in about 10 days, she said. Hill would not say which drugs were found in the initial tests of the three officers. In August, after a prolonged contract battle with the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, the department won the right to test police officers on their birthdays. In the past four years, only three officers have been suspended for drug use, Evans said. The low numbers reflect the fact that before the patrolmen's union accepted hair analysis testing, officials were able to test officers only when they had a reasonable suspicion, he said. ''To be honest, reasonable testing was not getting it,'' he said. ''I don't think we were dealing with the problem.'' Thomas J. Nee, president of the patrolmen's union, said he had not heard that any officers had tested positive. ''Listen, there are reputations at stake here, and mistakes can be made,'' Nee said. ''It's just too soon to convict anybody, and right now I can tell you we stand behind all of our officers.'' Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #1 posted by Echo on February 05, 1999 at 10:25:37 PT: Positive Police Piss I think that it is really nice that only law-enforcement officers have "reputations" that need to be considered when piss testing. It's great that only when testing the people who enforce laws that it's admitted that there are false positives and it is a "lengthy process" to determine if the testee is an actual "drug" user. We'll only truely be free when the Police are treated the same as the People. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: