Pubdate: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 Source: Toronto Star (CN ON) Copyright: 2008 The Toronto Star Contact: http://www.thestar.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/456 Author: Rosie DiManno Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test) A LITTLE HAZY ON TTC DRUG TESTING At lunch in a Beijing restaurant last month, one of the items offered on the menu was "saliva chicken." See, I didn't even think chickens had lips. My friend Christie Blatchford speculated that saliva chicken would have been spat on by someone in the kitchen - then judiciously ordered only steamed rice. I was thinking about spittle after reading that the TTC has approved a limited drug-testing policy whereby certain employees "at risk of being impaired" - not entirely sure what that means - would be subjected to saliva tests. Until now, I was under the impression that urine testing was required for the purpose of tracing drugs and alcohol in the system, as opposed to blowing into a Breathalyzer for your friendly traffic cop. That's why athletes on performance-enhancing substances are all the time inventing new ways to thwart the process, to the extent of spurting replacement pee up their urinary tracts or tucking clandestine bladder-bags down the groin. And was union leader Bob Kinnear being punny when he fumed: "We will not enter into anything that is arbitrarily rammed down our throats"? Or, for that matter, Councillor Anthony Perruzza, the only one of nine commissioners who rejected all forms of substance testing, who said: "I would hope sober second thought would prevail." For some reason, perhaps illogical, saliva swabs strike me as less invasive than whizzing in a cup for urine analysis. Even at the doctor's office, it feels slightly ridiculous to walk out of the bathroom carrying that little vial of eau de tinkle. The objection to all drug testing, as a civil liberties argument - also, the presumption of innocence that forbids unreasonable search and seizure - is obvious. But if commissioners are concerned that employees might be loaded on the job, perhaps stoned, there is surely a public safety factor to be considered in preventive measures. Even if, as Kinnear pointed out: "Not one of our members has seriously injured a passenger due to intoxication - not once." That seems scant assurance, however, when the TTC's own research found 39 incidents of drug and alcohol impairment recorded among employees over the past three years, though not all were drivers or in safety-sensitive jobs. Compare that to the thousands of public transit users who are lit up when they get on a subway or bus - the late-night Queen St. car comes most to mind - and cause disturbances. Better on the Red Rocket, though, than behind the wheel on the Don Valley. I'd be more worried about pilots and train engineers, especially since impairment has been cited as a cause for colossal railway smash-ups in North America. But there are other drugs - pharmaceuticals, prescribed - - that can discombobulate judgment and incapacitate motor skills. Should employees responsible for the safety of others be screened for these as well? Ain't no RIDE program for lithium and Prozac. Do I have the right to withhold this information from an employer, since no law has been broken? Details on how testing would be administered, upon whom, and with what repercussions haven't been worked out. Random testing of all TTC employees, as proposed by TTC chief general manager Gary Webster, was rejected outright. But workers where safety is crucial, those caught using drugs and alcohol on the job and those returning to work after attending substance abuse treatment programs would be monitored. Suspicion of alcohol and drug use is trickier to address. What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Hiccups? Dilated pupils? A propensity for giggling at bad jokes? The dope munchies? I'll have to ponder this over a vodka-tonic, on the clock. In my job, alcohol is a creative stimulant. Rosie DiManno usually appears on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. - --- MAP posted-by: Steve Heath