"Chip Jones"
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...

There aren't enough resources to ensure "maximum safety". The government
has an obligation to mandate and enforce safety laws. But there should be
evidence that there is a safety issue that can be addressed by a
commeasurate amount of spending. I don't see enough evidence of that in
this case.

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.

Reminds me of the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under a
stretlight when he lost them yards away.

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...

An impossibility. I'm assuming you agree with that.

[snipped]

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.

I am using the references you posted to draw my conclusions. They do not
establish that there is a significant risk factor being challenged.

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.

YOUR references show this (after 24 hours). Hello? And, it's beyond banal
to point out that intoxicating substances are, well intoxicating. That
"conclusion" (I doubt the authors think it's the "conclusion") is hardly
news.

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.

They're all dangerous. Although, given a dilemma, I'd prefer to try to fly
impaired by amphetimines than psychedelics. No, I'm not condoning it...


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...

You don't understand the meaning of "burden of proof". I've explained why
the evidence you cite does not directly lead to the conclusion you've made.
In most government as nanny debates this is the case. There isn't any
"science" to make a case against monitoring every detail of the personal
lives of aviation professionals to ensure that they're not under undue
stress. The parallels I drew to alcohol and boxing are intended to show
that there are equally dangerous activities that could be prohibited.
Smoking too. None of those activities (except moderate alcohol
consumption)are a personal issue for me (despite the suggestions of a few
other posters). But people should demand that safety related spending be
directed where there are significant issues. Witness the silliness that
passes for increased airport security now. (Do you feel any safer?) But,
if I had to choose the current security spending plan or random drug
testing, I'd go with the latter.

le moo