Drug test for Hub officers stirs bias fear

Great Debates
1

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/173/metro/Drug_test_for_Hub_officers_stirs_bias_fear+.shtml

My view is that

– the tests are probably unbiased, since Asians, who also have blackhair, do not fail.
– nobody has disputed the tests’ accuracy. Those officers who tested positive have used drugs.
– the tets perform a useful public function. Who wants an armed policeman on drugs?
– This ought not be a racial affair, since 98% of black officers pass.
– The NAACP and Assn of minority officers should not be fighting the test. Instead of supporting the 2% of black police officers who improperly used drugs, they should be thinking about the 98% who didn’t.

2

it’s very scarey to me that you, who work w/stats for a living made the error in your OP that you did.

2% of all the officers tested positive. this does not equate to 98% of all minority officers tested negative.

3

december: *My view is that

– the tests are probably unbiased, since Asians, who also have blackhair, do not fail. *

I think you may have missed the sentence about “citing studies which have shown that the dark color and texture of black hair react differently than light hair in drug tests”, and also the one noting that “drugs, including cocaine and amphetamines, can accumulate in higher concentrations, binding to the melanin pigment in the hair of rats” [emphasis added]. Black and Asian people do not have identical hair texture or melanin levels, so if those factors do in fact affect the accuracy of drug tests, we would not expect to see the same number of false positives for blacks as for Asians, even though the hair color for both groups is approximately the same.

*-- nobody has disputed the tests’ accuracy. Those officers who tested positive have used drugs. *

I think you may have missed the sentence stating “the lopsided numbers have led the NAACP and the department’s association of minority officers to challenge the hair test’s validity”, as well as the one noting that the president of the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers—who, btw, supports the concept of random drug testing of officers—“said he personally vouched for some of the black officers, insisting, as they do, that they are drug-free.” So yes, there are people disputing the tests’ accuracy, as well as other people defending it. That is kind of the whole point of the article, in fact.

*-- the tets perform a useful public function. Who wants an armed policeman on drugs? *

Well, though we may disagree about the efficacy of random drug testing, I think we can all agree that nobody wants an armed policeman on drugs.

*-- This ought not be a racial affair, since 98% of black officers pass. *

Well, if the accuracy of the test is not in fact race-dependent, then you’re absolutely right that it ought not to be a “racial affair.” If the hair tests’ accuracy does in fact turn out to be race-dependent, it’s difficult to see how we’re going to address the problem without bringing up the question of race.

– The NAACP and Assn of minority officers should not be fighting the test. Instead of supporting the 2% of black police officers who improperly used drugs, they should be thinking about the 98% who didn’t.

You may have missed the above-cited sentences indicating that it is disputed whether or not all the positive-testing minority officers “improperly used drugs”, and also whether the test applies fairly to minority and non-minority officers.

Simply assuming that all the officers who tested positive by the hair test have been thereby proved to have used drugs, and therefore that nobody should be attempting to defend them, is missing the whole point of what those who object to the test are saying.

I certainly don’t want any individuals or organizations making lame excuses for criminals, but neither do I want any public body making personnel decisions based on drug tests that are unreliable or differentially reliable depending on the race of the testee. Which situation we’ve got in the Boston Police Department depends on what the scientific reliability of the tests in question actually is.

4

I’m actually stunned to say that I agree with you except for this little tidbit (oh and according to the article it was 96% not 98%).

The NAACP and the Association you mention would have an interest, even a duty to look into allegations that the test may be biased. They’ll most likely fail, but that’s a whole different issue.

5

Other issues:

  1. A ‘negative’ result means exactly that the officer in question probably didn’t use drugs during the testing period. (not the same thing as 'proved to be a non user)

  2. length of hair is not discussed. If officers of one race typically have longer hair than officers of other races, the testing would not be equivalent.

6

Couple of points in response.[ul][]The question of differential reaction by race goes against the idea that the races have minimal genetic difference, and especially goes against goes against the idea that there’s no such thing as race. Put this principle into words and see how non-PC it sounds: “Small amounts of certain drugs accumulate in people’s hair, except not black people.”* :rolleyes: If that’s ever scientifically proved, I’ll have to believe it. Until then, I do not wish to assume that statement to be true.[]Is the debate scientific or political? If it were just about science, if it were just about impartially getting the facts, via new research, etc., that would be OK. However, my impression is that we’re really looking at a political debate, where certain groups are simply marshalling whatever facts tend to support their position.[]What remedy is being sought? E.g, suppose that test correctly identified drug-users, but Asians were more likely to escape detection, for some genetic reason. Then what? []I have a feeling that equality of results is a driving force. The fact that African-Americans come up with a higher percentage seems be enough reason to oppose the test, in the eyes of some groups.[]I wish some African-American group would be more willing to look inward. A very reasonable reaction to these results is to believe them. Then, one could look at the reasons why a higher (albeit, still small) percentage of black policemen use drugs, and seek ways to fix this problem.[/ul].

7

Yeah, I hate it when people marshall facts to support their position. It smacks of deceit.

8

Huh. Never expected a link to the friggin’ Boston Globe in a december OP.

9

Hair sampling for drugs can show months in the past. A cop that smoked marijuana on his night off doesn’t bother me in the least (except when the same guy arrests me for the same crime). The cop that is actually high on duty is another story completely. What is a test came out to detect excessive or binge drinking. That is the cop that would scare the hell out of me. Shakiness, hangovers etc. sounds like a recipe for disaster.

10

Very funny. But, you really ought to be concerned about the facts they’re marshalling:

African-Americans aren’t rats. To focus on a rat study while ignoring the human study is an ugly business, scientifically and racially.

11

This bothers the hell out of me. No one should be a cop if they don’t have at least have enough respect for the law to stay away from illegal drugs.

12

At last ! Conclusive evidence that all reinsurance workers are immune to irony and that everyone in New Jersey as a sense of humour.

13

Every cop in the USA probably breaks speed limit laws on a regular basis when off duty, and that’s a crime that actually endangers lives and can have stiffer penalties than smoking a joint. Yeah, police are trained to drive fast, but even a perfect driver might be in an accident that is wholly someone else’s fault, and the slower you are going the less likely the accident will be fatal.

14

The losers need to quit smokin weed. They’ve got good jobs with good benefits. If they’re too dumb to shape up, F’ em.

Of course, the tendency of the NAACP to waste resources on worthless slackers is one of the main reasons they’ve lost so much support in recent years.