Pubdate: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer (Philippines) Copyright: 2009 Philippine Daily Inquirer Contact: http://www.inquirer.net/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1073 Author: Rina Jimenez-David Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) DRUG TESTS AND RIGHTS THE news story that police would now start conducting random drug tests on clients of bars and similar establishments in Metro Manila reminded me of a tale that someone told me last week. Young men leaving the premises of clubs reported being collared by police just outside the door, allegedly on suspicion of drug dealing. When the club-goers protested that they had no drugs on them, the cops would produce a sachet of shabu or a packet of "E" and, claiming to have found the drugs on their persons, threaten to hale them to jail. But if they paid out P200,000 or some such outrageous amount, the young men would be set free, and everyone could walk away as if nothing happened. Why did the story sound so familiar? And why didn't it raise any hackles? Because I'd heard it-or versions of it-many times before. Because it had happened to young people I knew. When my son first started driving, we warned him that when driving at night, especially on a night out with friends, he should be extra careful because police target groups of young men like him and his friends. Initially stopped for an alleged traffic violation, they could be in for more trouble if police sniff a more lucrative scam. Drugs could be planted in their vehicle, and the puny "kotong" could escalate into a major transaction. The impunity of such rotten cops is fueled by the stigma attached to drugs. None of the victims, or their parents, would raise a ruckus over the arrest or threatened arrest. Even just getting connected to drugs, though fraudulently, is cause for shame, and most would rather just pay up on the basis of trumped-up charges than risk unwanted publicity on the mere suspicion of being involved with drugs. * * * IF police were so bold in the days when drugs were not yet headline news the way they are today, how much bolder do you think they would be, now that PNP Chief Jesus Verzosa has ordered random drug tests on those entering or leaving entertainment establishments? In fact, Verzosa says he may even order police to enter these clubs or discos and start testing the customers at random. To his credit, Verzosa has at least expressed concern that his men (and women) might be accused of violating the human rights of the customers. Which is why, he added, police would be told to "get the approval" of those they would be testing. If police, especially drug operatives, behaved like Boy Scouts, I'm sure there would be no problems with such a scenario. But c'mon, would a club customer have the moxie to talk about human rights, or refuse a drug test, in the midst of an operation where police are waving guns in his face? Now that President Macapagal-Arroyo no less has appointed herself the "Drug Czar," everyone's falling over himself or herself trying to prove a personal resolve to stamp out the drug menace. Officials are widening the net, targeting clubs or other places where young people hang out-schools, coffee shops, maybe even basketball courts and malls. No one seems concerned that the innocent, as well as the guilty, will get caught in this indiscriminate hunt. * * * THE ANTI-DRUG establishment has asserted that drugs have become the country's No. 1 problem, one that fuels other problems like criminality and corruption. That may well be the case, but should ordinary citizens, especially the youth, in the name of eradicating drugs, surrender as well their basic rights? The law has been described as an umbrella that provides protection to everyone, the innocent as well as the guilty. But if we give permission to the State to take away that umbrella, or punch holes in it, then even upright citizens will no longer have any protection against an abusive State. In the current furor over the so-called "Alabang Boys," we're forgetting that what triggered the dispute between the PDEA and the prosecutors were findings that the drug agents had violated not just the rights of the suspects, but also their own rules and regulations. Given the questionable means they employed in arresting the suspects and gathering the evidence, a prosecutor said, it was doubtful whether the case would ever stand up in court. I can well understand the frustration and anger of PDEA agents who find that, after risking their lives and spending hours or days on surveillance, they find the people they've arrested walking off after posting bail or, worse, having their cases dismissed. But the solution to their frustration is not to turn a blind eye to procedures, but rather for them to follow these procedures with more rigor, to exercise discipline that they do not overstep regulations or go for an overkill when chasing after suspects. * * * THIS, I'm sure, is an unpopular view. And in the wake of national alarm over drugs, the more politically correct view would be to call for harsher measures, more draconian policies, slash-and-burn operations. What we forget is that we already have broad, indiscriminate nets being cast in the name of eradicating the drug menace. Everyone applying for a driver's license, for instance, has to undergo a drug test. But in the years since these drug tests have been required, how many drug users or pushers have been identified among the applicants? Far more effective, to my mind, would be the equipment and procedures to better implement "driving while under the influence" laws. The laws are in place, but meaningless because police have no way to scientifically determine the amount of alcohol or drugs in an apprehended driver's bloodstream, and are not interested in spotting those who need to go into rehab. They're mostly after drug pushers, even if they have to plant the evidence to catch them. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom