"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"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.

But in the case of professional aviation, which is the topic, people have a
right to expect maximum safety. The issue isn't cost-effectiveness or
efficacy. The issue is public safety. Even a libertarian such as yourself
surely must be against commercial operators flying, fixing, dispatching or
controlling while impaired. Drug testing commercial aviation personnel
isn't government-as-nanny protecting people from themselves. Drug testing
commercial aviators is basic government functioning as basic government,
protecting people from other people...

Because drug impairment cannot be tested for practically, but drug use can
be tested for easily, we test for drug use, thus deterring drug impairment
as much as possible. Drug testing commercial aviators boils down to
government protecting citizens from the irresponsible and reckless actions
of other citizens. It's the same premise upon which DUI laws and BAT
testing is based as function of public safety, and it is widely supported by
the populace.


"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.

Never said it was. Neither is yours. But the $45,000 per positive
statistic is a FACT, unlike anything you have produced in this entire
thread. I'd say that the 0.06% confirmed positive rate IS evidence though
that the deterrent effect of drug testing aviation professionals works just
as advertised. After all, the FAA air safety goal is ZERO accidents. The
goal of air safety drug testing is 0.00% confirmed positives...

[snipped]


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?

You, perhaps? I'm taking your posts in the context in which I understand
them. If I am reading you out of context, it is not deliberate. We have
already established that I am both an arrogant prick and an idiot. Never
the less, I didn't think you had any evidence to support your position. You
have confirmed my opinion of the weakness of your position by not producing
any independent facts or data. If you think I'm wasting your time with
independent facts and data, sorry. The report referenced above was one of
the bases upon which Australia instituted random drug testing for air safety
professionals. I have cited it. It clearly concludes, after scientific
research, that even drugs like cannabis are a threat to air safety. The
government of Australia has moved on it for air safety reasons. I'm still
waiting for you to produce some medical evidence showing that cannabis use
in pilots is not a significant flight safety hazard.

Futher, cannabis is the most benign of the drugs tested for. When you get
done refuting that cannabis use is a flight safety hazard, you may want to
move on to the rest of the NIDA 5 drug groups that are tested for, like
opiates, cocaine, amphetemines and phencyclidine. Drug tests are designed
to detect far more insidious drugs than mere cannabis alone.

[snipped]


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.

LOL, I love it! Maybe you should have said "unlike you, the entire United
States Government, the Australian Government, JAA, Nav Canada, and thousands
of commercial aviation employers, I understood the results and conclusions."

Godlike, yet you can't cite any science to make your case against drug
testing commercial pilots and controllers. You must be getting hungry by
now...

Chip, ZTL