Hey, there! Log in / Register
Police: Boston firefighter was one toke over the line
By adamg on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 5:27pm
The Globe reports a Boston firefighter, in uniform and in a department vehicle, was arrested in Dorchester this afternoon on drug-possession charges after police spotted him smoking what appeared to be marijuana.
The arrest comes one day after the Boston firefighters union stormed out of contract talks that have largely stalemated over the issue of mandatory drug and alcohol testing.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
A few weeks ago...
...I would not have gotten your headline. But after seeing the Brewer & Shipley song you referenced covered on Lawrence Welk, I'm hip to your lingo.
Sweet Jesus.
So, who were the other guys?
From the story:
Really? Seems like something that should be a matter of public record, as long as they were not underage.
The mind wanders as to why this information was not available.
They were no one of importance
The media reported that the other guys were not firefighters, so their names were not included in the article. No sense in embarrassing their families with the news that their loved one got arrested, that is a fate reserved for firefighters only!!
Yeah, the cops are totally anti-firefighter these days
Geesh. Drama, please.
First, the paper got the details from government officials briefed on the arrest (likely from the fire department or DA's office). Those officials didn't necessarily have the full details of the other two men, just that there were two other men arrested at the time. The police don't have to tell you names, only put them in a report, and the report was likely not yet available for public record for the paper to sift through. Hell, the other two might not have shown IDs and the police then have a harder time verifying whatever name/alias was given them so the names would not be verified and ready for report.
Either that or since their names don't add anything to the story, then the paper might not have even *asked* their names and said the names are "unavailable" because they didn't try to find them out.
Who knows what possible reason the paper didn't get their names, but to jump straight to "it's a conspiracy to trash firemen!" is absurd. Hell, this fireman wasn't even supposed to be in his car, in his uniform, or parked in front of a hydrant for that matter! Then he was actually *seen* smoking a joint by a cop passing by? He was making himself about as conspicuous as possible! Nobody's going out of their way to tattoo him with embarrassment... He's doing fine with that on his own!
That information did not
That information did not come from the district attorney's office.
Hero firefighter
Channel 4 reports the firefighter saved a dozen lives in a 2002 fire.
Firefighter Busted for Firing Up MaryJane
Ed Kelly aka Fred Flintstone must have spit out his
Bud Lite when he got the phone call.
A fish rots from the head down.
Why is the firefighters
Why is the firefighters union throwing such a shit fit about drug testing? It's against the law to use drugs, isn't it? I appreciate the work of firefighters, but they're clearly in the wrong on this one. I don't want my public servants on drugs. If they're not guility, they have nothing to hide. Pee in the cup. If that doesn't suit them, I'm sure there's plenty of people who want their jobs.
Against the law
Last I checked, employers and firefighters weren't tasked with enforcing the laws. The police and regulatory agencies are.
What's in your cup, tulip?
That doesn't even get into the simple scientific fact that drug tests have both misclassification errors and margins of error that are completely unacknowledged (if they are even understood) by war-on-drugs crusaders.
A major medical journal recently had law enforcement and medical experts classify drugs on the basis of their hazard to both users and to society. Cigarettes landed near the top with crack and meth, pot near the bottom (well below alcohol). If we had a rational drug policy based on risk rather than prohibitionistic moral crusading, a little weed would be inconsequential.
So just to clarify, you have
So just to clarify, you have no problem with firefighters using drugs?
Off Duty = Own Business
If it were off duty, no. Pot isn't nearly as dangerous as alcohol. Do you have a problem with them using alcohol off duty? What about having sex in other than the missionary position, which used to be illegal in MA?
The problem in this case is that the infraction occured ON DUTY, not that the firefighter was smoking pot per se. Alcohol is far more dangerous a drug than weed. Of course, using alcohol in a city-owned vehicle would have the same result as using pot - it is illegal for everyone to do so. I'd hope that using cigarettes in a city owned vehicle would result in disciplinary action.
I just don't think that what an employee - even a firefighter - is doing on his or her own time while off duty is any of the city's business (beyond the standard sort of drug enforcement that all citizens are subject to).
So shooting heroin, smoking
So shooting heroin, smoking crack and snorting angel dust is ok with you, as long as it is off duty. And smoking a butt in a city vehicle is a major no-no that should result in disciplinary action.
Smoking Red Herrings
Those are dangerous drugs you list, pot is not dangerous.
Those are also drugs of high concern according to the risk assesment I mentioned above, which was done by both medical AND law enforcement experts together. In the US, those drugs are all subject to police action if done on one's own time. Your employer - be it the fire department or a private concern - has no business being involved if you are neither using nor impaired by them while on duty.
Cigarettes are a high risk drug too, because of their aggregate social impact, highly addictive nature, and second-hand damage potential. Legal, but high risk. FURTHERMORE, if you are in a city vehicle, you are presumably on duty, not on your own time. That is of concern to your employer and to the owner of the vehicle. Do it at home and it is your own concern.
So, mr. "lets make spurious hysterical statements" ... are you then saying that city employees should be drug tested for cotinine even if they don't use tobacco at work? That is the parallel statement. Tobacco is a VERY costly drug given the aggregated health impacts for the user and the user's family. Does that make the mere presence of cotinine in a blood sample the business of the city?
Geesh, if we were talking about gun use we would have heard the statement "nanny government" by now!
That marijuana is not
That marijuana is not dangerous is your opinion. I know people who use large amounts of marijuana and they have problems. Sobriety, for them, is a relative term. Their judgement is affected in a manner similar to severe alcoholics. I would not trust these people to handle a crisis situation and/or operate heavy machinery. Apparently you do not share these concerns. I agree that smoking a little weed is not the end of the world, but cops and firefighters should be, and are, prohibited. Smoking IS prohibited by the Police and Fire Depts (for those hired after 1995).
Why offduty activities by firefighters matter
Firefighters are able to claim disability pensions based on lung and heart ailments caused by the nature of their work - from lung cancer and emphysema to heart attacks.
You know, of course, what else can cause those things. Right. Smoking. That's why many (most? all?) municipalities have managed to incorporate no-smoking clauses into their contracts (typically, for new hires after the clause is added); otherwise they might be paying out for disabilities/death/whatever that were not really work related.
I'm no scientist or doctor, but haven't there been some studies showing that marijuana is even worse for your lungs than cigarettes? If so, that would certainly be a concern to a municipality.
Logic tends to quiet
Logic tends to quiet swirlygirl. Maybe she can move to a municipality that encourages it's heavy machine operators to do drugs that she deems harmless. I'm sure a referendum asking if public safety workers, first responders and people operating dangerous machinery should be allowed to smoke as much weed as they want (as long as its off duty) would pass.
sigh...
{facepalm}
If proven true this idiot
If proven true this idiot gets what he deserves. They oughta make anexample of this numbskull. Hang tough Ed Kelly. This doesn't change a thing. NECN is still getting it wrong. They reported this morning that Boston Fire wants more money for random drug testing. WRONG. We want better training and health and wellness programs like every other big city department. Get it right media scum.
to be frank...
hey Frank, no need to hate on the media, pal. They also forgot to mention the part about some firefighters' attitude of entitlement to better benefits and pension increases without having to answer to taxpayers (their true employers). The media may get things wrong (a lot), but at least they don't do it intentionally and in bad faith. I have never seen a news anchor go on t-v and intentionally lie to the public without being fired for it. If everyone else lived by that standard, Ed Kelly would be standing in the unemployment line, not in front of the cameras continuing to lie his a** off...
I don't hate the media. I'm
I don't hate the media. I'm just stating the truth, which they don't do. Don't you think that's the media's job? Shouldn't they at least try to get the story right? Why can't I say the truth without you personally attacking Ed Kelly. His job is to protect the rights of the Firefighters and he's doing that. As for pensions and better benefits, the media does report on it, but just as irresponsibly and just as incompletely and just as untrue. The media are people too and they get things wrong. Once one paper or TV reporter says something then they all jump on it. They use the saying of "Other media outlets have reported that...." They don't check the validity of the report, just that it was reported. Dan Rather got caught not checking the facts. Where is he today? The truth is the public gets a service for their tax money. The firefighters and every other public servant gets paid to provide that service. With a portion of their pay they pay for their own pension. Privately employed people pay into social security. Public employees pay into their own pension. The pensions are better funded and managed and as a result provide a better return than social security. If you don't want services then tell your officials that you'd rather put out your own fires, arrest your own criminals, plow your own streets, fix your own bridges........ All people are fallible. Some people shouldn't work as Firefighters. You can't condemn the whole Fire Department for the actions of a few. Like I said, if proven, and I figure this is a slam dunk, the guy should be fired. Let the process happen. Ed Kelly didn't sign on to baby sit anybody. These men make their own choices. I support Ed. Who wouldn't fight for keeping their benefits and pension or making them better?
Identity of the other two guys
BPDNews has posted their names. Normally, of course, they don't post about simple pot-smoking cases.