"Happy Dog" wrote in message Kind of makes you look lame ...

You stooped to name calling too, which doesn't help your argument.

The article you posted isn't what I requested and I explained why.

Actually, the Metroliner accident is what you requested. The coroner
concluded that the captain wasn't high at the time of the accident, but his
prior cocaine usage had left him fatigued which did contribute to the crash.
He had used cocaine during his time off, which you argue in favor of, and
then crashed because of the after effects. Kind of ruins your argument.

How are we all significantly safer because of it? The
evidence posted here does not address this issue. So, wise guy, tell us
how
it's effective and how this justifies the cost and invasion of privacy.

You argue that this crash was statistically insignificant. I ask you-
WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THOSE 17 LIVES?
How many lost lives will justify drug testing? How many crashes does it take
for you to justify drug testing?

Without passengers, there would be no airlines. The evidence from the NTSB
justifies testing if for no other reason than public perception. Most people
are very afraid of flying. Drug and alcohol testing lends a little bit more
confidence to them. Would you want a stoner pilot with your family aboard?

As for privacy, you give that up long before the drug testing phase of
training.

D.