"Capt.Doug" wrote in message

The issue I was raising is efficacy and cost effectiveness. And, the
pro-testing camp don't have solid evidence that random drug testing of
aviation professionals is either. The debate quickly degrades into
name-calling and accusations that people who oppose it are crazy or drug
users themselves. But, stick to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness
issues and it doesn't look justified. It's promoted by hype and hysteria.

How would the pro-testing camp measure the lost productivity caused by a
chronic marijuana smoker? Even if the chronic user isn't under the
influence, studies have shown that his/her performance is not 100%.
Chronic
users exhibit less ambition (more sick days), more anxiety (less likely to
get along with customers and co-workers), and short term memory impairment
(forget the landing gear). These traits are measured in scientific
laboratories.

Aviation professionals do all the above just fine without the use of drugs.
And, for god knows how many times, nobody is advocating that addicts or
chronic abusers of anything be in a position to put others at risk.

Add this cost to your study. If an accident happened, what would the
plaintif's lawyers have to say about employing a doper? "Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, consider the negligence of this operator who put a
stoner in command of a airplane transporting the public. He unneccessarily
endangered my clients."

If that was more than a very remote possibility, I'd agree. But it isn't

Here's a cost you may have forgotten in your study. Eighty-five percent of
my clientele are repeat customers. They (most anyway) are of high social
standing. My business would suffer immeasureably if word of mouth spread
that I was using stoners for pilots. How does your study quantify this
cost?

Again, this scenario wasn't a problem before testing so it hasn't been
significantly reduced. Did you note the quote about the reduction in random
testing? If it was effective, why on earth is would it be reduced? Doesn't
this sort of logic look like the FAA at its worst?

Life is unfair. All things aviation are a compromise. You want to get paid
to fly, or you want to join former Miami Dolphin Ricki Williams?

That logical fallacy is called "False Dilemma". Your position is not backed
by the evidence.

moo