• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Drug Testing Bill Aims to Combat Drug Use in Colombia

Posted on: Tuesday, 6 September 2005, 12:00 CDT

Excerpt from report by Colombian newspaper El Espectador website on 4 September; subheading as published

At a time when Congress is in upheaval over allegations of drug dealers in its midst and Prosecutor Mario Iguaran is announcing an investigation to bring dealers and sellers to justice, a bill to neutralize, control and punish drug use by public servants has been introduced.

Under the bill, anybody seeking a government job or employment as a contractor for the State would have to undergo a medical exam and lab tests administered by the Institute of Legal Medicine to determine whether he or she has used drugs. Anyone who tests positive for drug use would be barred from working for or doing business with the State.

The bill would also authorize the Ministry of Social Protection, in coordination with the Institute of Legal Medicine and other public agencies, to administer regular tests to determine if public employees are using drugs. Any employee testing positive would have to undergo medical treatment for one year, at ARP [Professional Risk Underwriter] and EPS [Health Care Promotion Enterprise].

The controversial bill would also grant the president of the Republic extraordinary powers for six months to issue regulations aimed at preventing drug use in the workplace. Under the bill, employees who resume drug use would lose their jobs.

Consumer country

According to Senator Javier Caceres, the author of the bill, the initiative is in response to a reality that goes unacknowledged in Colombia: "We went from being a producer country to a consumer country some time ago." In 2000 alone, according to the National Planning Department, the drug problem in Colombia cost the country 2.6bn US dollars, or 1.48 per cent of the gross domestic product.

At present, Article 41 of the Consolidated Disciplinary Code prohibits public servants from oattending work in an inebriated state or under the effect of drugs.o Furthermore, the second paragraph of Article 60 of the Substantive Labour Code stipulates, oarriving at work in an inebriated state or under the effect of drugso is just cause for termination of an employment contract.

The objective of the bill is to unify existing laws and ensure that public employees understand that they cannot promote public anti-drug policies while using the drugs they are fighting. The bill intends for public employees to set an example of a drug-free workplace.

At present, there are two legal precedents on drug use in Colombia. Constitutional Court Decision C-221, written by Judge Carlos Gaviria Diaz, decriminalized the personal use of drugs and another law reinstated punishment of public drug use, but classified it not as a serious crime, but a minor offence.

During congressional debate of the referendum proposed by the government in 2002, an initiative to submit the recriminalization of drug use to public referendum was introduced. Due to procedural errors, the Constitutional Court rejected this alternative and obviously it did not appear on the referendum on which the Colombian people voted in October 2003.

Last year, the matter was lightly debated again when Senator Carlos Moreno de Caro introduced a bill to decriminalize the sale of coca leaves and marijuana for medicinal, therapeutic and food purposes. The bill was not well received due to the controversial issue of drug use.

For starters, experts say, the proposal to tighten controls on drug use in the public sector is inconsistent with Article 16 of the Constitution, which states, "All individuals have the right to freely develop their personality, without any limitations other than those imposed by the rights of others and the law."

This was precisely the foundation of the Constitutional Courtos controversial 1994 decision, which stated: "A State that respects human dignity, personal freedom and the free development of personality, cannot neglect its undeniable obligation to educate and substitute it with repression as a way of controlling the use of substances that are deemed harmful to humans."

El Espectador consulted the Ministry of Social Protection about the bill to control drug use among public servants and a high- ranking official in charge of prevention remarked that a similar initiative was introduced two years ago, but was plagued by procedural irregularities. Furthermore, it was poorly conceived and inexpedient.

The official, who asked not to be identified, remarked: "This is not an easy issue and it goes against the right to privacy. Moreover, it is a complex public health issue." He added: "When it is time, the government will present an idea, but this looks like an HIV bill that would have imposed a similar control. But the law violated the right to privacy and as a result, HIV tests are absolutely prohibited from being administered in the workplace."

Who will pay for treatment? The State or the EPS? Who will set the thresholds? These are the first concerns about a bill that, for now, is seeking to broaden the debate that Senator Artunduaga paradoxically began when he claimed there were drug dealers in Congress. And if people are selling, someone is buying. Does this constitute a private act? The new bill has opened the door to debate. [passage omitted]

Source: BBC Monitoring Americas

More News in this Category