"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
You know how many controllers? Are you saying there's a consensus on
this?

I know, quite literally, over five hundred controllers. I have also
served
as a union drug testing rep for NATCA. I am saying that this opinion is
the
overwhelming consensus on this in 100% of the controllers whose hands I
held
while they were peeing in a bottle. How about you, Spiccoli?

And you know they weren't lying? It would be foolish to raise a flag by
stating otherwise, no?

All of these people peed in a bottle and that sample was tested using the
NIDA 5 GC/MS test. Why would they lie? They were tested.


So what? Critical safety skills *are* an issue and *can* be tested.
If
that's your point, then drug testing isn't the way to go. You can't
always know lots of things about people. Nor should you. There are
lots
of
highly motivated people who smoke pot.

Ok brother, lay it on us. How *can* you test for on the job or in the
cockpit drug impairment without a freaking drug test???

The issue above was "critical safety skills". Do try to keep up. Those
can
be tested. Drug testing doesn't test for drug impairment, BTW.

Once again, I ask you *how* you would test these "critical safety skills"?
You keep saying that you can test for them. How? How about sharing the
method
with me that is as practical and available to the aviation industry as is
drug testing.

Drug testing doesn't test for drug impairment because there is no widely
available method of testing for drug impairment. Unlike drinking alcohol.
In the absence of a test for drug impairment, you have to test for drug use.

The DOT testing for drugs is for the presence of illegal substances, whereas
for alcohol, it is for impairing levels of legal substances


But habitual
drug users aren't motivated to give a rats ass about much more than
getting
high.

Who was talking about "habitual drug users"? The issue was impairment.

The issue is "drug testing", not "impairment".



What about zero tolerance for smoking, drinking and boxing? You OK
with
that?

I am opposed to all

snip 10 lines of evasion

Who cares what you are personally opposed to? The issue wasn't using
drugs
on the job. You sure you're not a bit stoned now? You're having trouble
following this. The issue is government control and testing. So, you OK
with random testing for boxing, smoking and drinking?

Hard to follow the ramblings of a guy who sets up a strawman argument about
boxing, smoking and drinking. The subject was:

"The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?"

The answer is that drug use is significantly detrimental to air safety, and
that drug testing policy is an effective deterrent to drug use among safety
professionals.

Chip, ZTL