Police, Alcohol and the Question We Are Not Measuring

“Alcoholics don’t become cops. Cops become alcoholics.” Kevin P. Donaldson’s recent headline is blunt. It will resonate with officers and families who have seen drinking become a way to get through a difficult shift, quiet a memory or find sleep. I have spent enough years in policing to know we cannot dismiss those experiences.

But we owe our people more than a powerful headline. It suggests that policing turns officers into alcoholics. The research does not establish that. People can develop alcohol problems before, during or after a policing career, and most officers do not develop alcohol use disorder. We need to take the risk seriously without reducing officers to a stereotype or assigning every case a single cause.

My greatest frustration with Canadian policing is our lack of useful data. We count incidents and disciplinary outcomes, but rarely know whether someone who needed help received it in time. That is the question behind this story: When drinking begins to cause harm, can an officer ask for help early, receive confidential clinical care, and return safely to meaningful work?

What the evidence says

A review of 67 studies involving more than 272,000 police personnel across 24 countries estimated that 25.7% met a threshold for hazardous drinking and 5.0% for alcohol dependence. Hazardous drinking signals increased risk; it is not a diagnosis of dependence. These pooled international figures are not a current Canadian rate.^[1]

In a Canadian survey of 5,813 public safety personnel, 5.8% of municipal and provincial police respondents and 3.9% of RCMP respondents screened positive for possible alcohol use disorder. Screening is not diagnosis, and voluntary participation limits how confidently we can generalize the results.^[2]

A UK study of 40,986 police employees found 32.6% reporting hazardous drinking and 3.0% harmful drinking under its weekly consumption thresholds. It included civilian staff and measured something different from the Canadian study. Those percentages cannot be directly compared.^[3]

Does policing put officers at greater risk than other work? We do not have a simple answer. One US comparison found no higher odds of alcohol abuse or dependence among protective service workers than other occupational groups, although that category includes more than sworn officers.^[4]

Some risks predate the uniform: 4.6% of RCMP cadets in one study screened positive for alcohol use disorder symptoms before training. That does not prove work has no effect. The cadet and serving-member findings do not follow the same officers through their careers.^[5]

Nor does it let the workplace off the hook. A US study linked administrative stress and exposure to more types of critical incidents with greater odds of frequent binge drinking. It cannot prove causation, but it gives leaders reason to examine supervision, workload and repeated exposure alongside personal factors.^[6]

The cost of waiting

An officer may worry that disclosure will affect a promotion, specialized assignment, firearm status or standing with colleagues. I would not dismiss those concerns as resistance to wellness. Canadian research on public safety personnel and police help-seeking has documented perceived stigma, uncertainty about confidentiality and fear of career consequences.^[7][8]

I have been responsible for operational safety. If an officer is impaired on duty or cannot perform essential functions safely, leaders must act. We can meet that responsibility while giving officers early, private access to treatment. If the only visible pathway is a crisis, investigation or removal from work, we should not be surprised when someone hides an emerging problem until it becomes harder to treat.

An awareness campaign does not answer the practical questions an officer will ask: Who sees my information? What triggers an occupational assessment? Who decides whether I can work? What support is available to my family? What does a supported return look like? Trust depends on clear answers and on whether the organization keeps its word.

What I would expect from a serious police wellness program

1. Make confidential clinical care real. Give officers timely access to independent clinicians with expertise in alcohol use, trauma and occupational health. Explain plainly what remains private, what information may be shared, and the narrow circumstances in which safety or law requires disclosure. Peer support can help someone take the first step; it should connect to clinical care when needed, rather than substitute for it.

2. Intervene before a crisis or an on-duty incident. Make voluntary screening and brief intervention available through health care, using validated tools and clinical judgment. Canada's clinical guideline, published in 2023 with screening recommendations updated in May 2026, supports screening and brief intervention, with further assessment and treatment matched to need. A screening score should open a conversation, not serve as an automatic employment verdict.^[9]

3. Treat the condition and manage the risk. For moderate to severe disorder, the Canadian guideline recommends evidence-based psychosocial care and offering first-line medications, including naltrexone or acamprosate where clinically appropriate. Decisions about duty restrictions must address actual function and safety. They should be proportionate, documented, reviewed and linked to a recovery plan.^[9]

4. Plan for recovery and continued service. Where leave or modified duties are needed, agree on a plan among the officer, treating clinician and occupational health team, with roles and information-sharing boundaries defined. Review progress and essential duties at planned intervals. Recovery may not follow a straight line; a setback should prompt reassessment and care, while any immediate safety risk still requires action.

5. Collect data that helps us learn. Track, in aggregate, time to a first clinical appointment; voluntary uptake; access to treatment; accommodation and return-to-work outcomes; repeat leave; and officer-reported trust in confidentiality. Examine patterns by career stage, assignment and location only where sample sizes protect privacy. Use independent evaluation and publish the methods and limitations. Disciplinary files will never tell us how many people needed help but felt unable to ask.

6. Examine what the organization contributes. Review workload, overtime, fatigue, supervisory conduct and responses after critical incidents. Ask officers and families what made help accessible or impossible. Do not place the entire burden of prevention on the person whose health is already deteriorating.

The question leaders should answer

Donaldson’s headline may prompt an officer to recognize themselves or a colleague. That matters. But a headline cannot tell us how many are struggling, which workplace factors matter, or whether treatment reaches them before a crisis.

As a police leader, I would never ask a service to compromise public safety. I would ask it to show that its officers can seek help before their health, family or career is in jeopardy. Fitness for duty and a genuine path to recovery belong in the same policy.

We cannot claim to value our people while leaving them to discover, at their most vulnerable moment, whether asking for help will cost them their career. Measure the problem. Protect the path to care. Give recovery a real chance.

This article discusses population-level evidence and service design. Clinical assessment and fitness-for-duty decisions require qualified professionals and attention to individual circumstances.