"Chip Jones" wrote in message

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.

That's because they're misinformed and besotted by the war on drugs as a
caure for social evil and an excuse for billions in fruitless government
spending. That doesn't equal evidence of cost-effectiveness or efficacy.

"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.

Your opinion isn't EVIDENCE.


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?

You're wasting my time by continually taking my posts out of context. The
report didn't conclude that cannibis had any effect after 24 hours and, even
then, the results were contradictory. Get it now? And, shifting the burden
of proof is a debating tactic cherished by those lacking real evidence of
their claim. Know anyone like that?


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

snip ten more lines of crap that doesn't address the claim that testing is
efficacious or cost-effective

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

snip even more crap (and a ridiculously paranoid story worthy of a Reefer
Madness sequel) that doesn't address cost-effectiveness or efficacy

You haven't shown that there was a SIGNIFICANT problem to begin with.

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.

I read the links and, unlike you, I understood the results and conclusions.
You don't have decent evidence that there was a significant problem to begin
with. And you're again trying to shift the burden of proof.

moo