"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones"

The proposition is to ensure that persons engaged in professional
aviation
are not using illegal drugs. This does not involves "invading the
privacy
of everyone."

Get a grip. You understand my statement in context or you're an idiot.
Pick one. And, the claim is that we're saving lives by spending millions
on
random drug testing. But the evidence is lacking.

It's likely that I'm an idiot, but I sure as hell don't understand your
statement "in context". The "right to privacy" does not extend to drug
testing aviation professionals.


However, as the other poster correctly implies, the evidence
that recreational drug use away from the job is related to accidents is
lacking. If and when there is hard data on this, meaning lives are
being
endangered (on the job), then most people would agree that government
intervention is necessary.

There *is* hard data to support the contention that recreational drug
use
away from the job is related to accidents and life endangerment, and
*most*
people DO believe that government intervention is necessary.

*Most* people DO believe in psychic phenomena.

YOU are the guy who wrote " If and when there is hard data on this (drugs
versus air safety), meaning lives are being endangered (on the job), then
most people would agree that government intervention is necessary." I
simply point out that most people already agree that government intervention
via drug testing is necessary.


Here are some
sources about drugs, drug testing, drug policy and aviation safety as
related to recreational drug use. Maybe you can chew on some of this
"hard
data" next time you get the munchies:

http://www.leftseat.com/AME/health4pilots/default.htm

"Because drug use among pilots is so rare, the cost-effectiveness of drug
monitoring programs has come into question. The FAA has found that about
0.06 percent of pilots and air traffic controllers have a confirmed
positive
drug test, which works out to a cost of about $45,000 per positive result.
However, the programs are likely to continue because of public worries
about
safety. "

$45,000 per positive result seems like a bargain to me.


http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cannabis.pdf

No evidence that marijuana use has any effects after 24 hours. And, up to
then the evidence on residual effects is contradictory.

Did you read the executive summary?

"The adverse effects of cannabis on behaviour, cognitive function, and
psyco-motor function are dose dependent and related to task difficulty.
Complex tasks such as driving or flying are particulary sensative to the
performance impairing effects of cannabis. [snipped for brevity]. Cannabis
use in a pilot is therefore a significant flight safety hazard."

What is contradictory about that? You have some medical evidence you 'd
like to cite that refutes the statement that cannabis use is a significant
flight safety hazard?


http://www.snj.com/ala-call/mari.htm

"The effects last two to four hours when marijuana is smoked and five to
twelve hours when it is taken by mouth."

And the metabolites stay in the fatty tissue for quite a bit longer and
there is no way to test for intoxication, but there is an easy and accurate
way to test for use. Since use is illegal anyway, and no one has a right to
break the laws of the state, and since cannabis use is a significant flight
safety hazard, drug testing is a good way to deter cannabis use.

Not mention other drugs, like coke, MDMA, heroin, codeine, oxycontin etc
etc...


http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/aod/Effectstable2.htm

Nothing here about the supposed dangers to the public from moderate
recreational use.

Horse hockey! You didn't read the link. Here's part of it:

"Marijuana has a number of side effects. New users, people using in a new
setting, or individuals using marijuana with a high THC level, may
experience acute anxiety or have paranoid thoughts. Marijuana causes
difficulty with short-term memory. It also tends to distort perceptions, and
slows reaction time.
Because of these side effects, there are serious indirect risks associated
with marijuana use--often worse than the direct side effects. Users are at
particularly high risk for automobile accidents and unsafe sex. In one study
at a shock-trauma unit, 15% of patients who were involved in traffic
accidents had been smoking marijuana, and an additional 17% had both THC and
alcohol in their bloodstream. Also, students may have difficulty studying
and learning, and athletic performance may be negatively affected."

This is intimately related to the "supposed" dangers to the public from
moderate recreationl use of cannabis by air safety professionals. Gee, just
what we need to add to the margin of air safety, a bunch of acutely anxious,
paranoid, perceptually distorted, slow-to-react commercial pilots and air
traffic controllers. Even routine communications might lead to moments of
chaos:

"Center, Delta 123, flight level 350."

"Delta 123, uhhh, like, roger, dude." [Oh man! Does he know I'm high?
Does he know I think he knows I'm high? He KNOWS! I KNOW he knows...
gasp! What if THEY pull this tape? THEY are everywhere. THEY can probably
even hear me thinking! Gotta...stop... thinking. Paranoia paranoia
paranoia!!! Geeze, my mouth is dry. Pull it together man! it's not like
THEY drug test any more. Holy smokes, I wonder what that flasing there on
the scope means? It sure is a pretty green color! I wonder if there are
any doughnuts left in the coffee shoppe?]


You are wasting my time and that of everyone who takes this debate
seriously
with this crap. If you've read this stuff then you should be able to
quote
the portions which back your position. The first one said it best.
"public
worries about safety".


You obviously didn't read the links. I don't have the bandwidth to quote
the reams and reams of hard data that support my position that drug use is
an air safety hazard and drug testing is a necessary deterrent among
professional aviators and avition professionals. That's why I posted the
links. Maybe you could post some material that debunks the "myth" that
recreational drug use among public safety employees doesn't pose any public
safety hazards.

Chip, ZTL