"Chip Jones"
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.

You really have a problem following the debate. The "opinion" we were
discussing was that almost all ATCs approve of random testing. I said that
they would have good reason to lie if they were against it because they have
to submit to it anyway. Why raise a flag?


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.

The ISSUE is "critical safety skills". Drug testing doesn't evaluate those.
Critical safety skills are tested during routine training. (Since you
asked.)

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,

Which doesn't address impairment issues. Right?

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".

Who was talking about "habitual drug users"? The testing is supposed to
address issues related to impairment on the job. It doesn't (to a large
extent).

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.

Strawman? You *agreed* with my statement about boxing, drinking etc.
Lordy.

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.

In your opinion; which you haven't backed with anything but personal
opinion, unprovoked insult and rhetoric.

le moo