"Capt.Doug" wrote in message news:fANwd.4675
"Happy Dog" wrote in message Kind of makes you look lame ...

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

Only after the other poster resorted to it. Look it up.

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,

Huh? Did I argue that? No, I didn't.

then crashed because of the after effects. Kind of ruins your argument.

Only if you're unable to follow it.

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?

You're big on hyperbole but short on facts. Did I argue that this crash was
statistically insignificant? No, I didn't. BTW, the pilot could have had a
similar problem with alcohol and had it go undetected.

How many lost lives will justify drug testing? How many crashes does it
take
for you to justify drug testing?

Very few. But I want to see where there's been a reduction. And this
hasn't been demonstrated.

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?

Do you have a particular thing for the False Dilemma fallacy? Again, you
support your argument with claims not in evidence. Where were the stoner
pilots? In any good commercial operation, pilots who act like they're
somewhere else, for any reason or no reason, are dealt with. Where's the
evidence that there has been a significant drop in accidents because of
random testing? (I'm in favour of testing where there's probable cause.)
If you wish to argue that random testing is justified because it gives the
flying public a false sense of reduced danger, go ahead. But that's like
arguing in favour of the crazy things being dome in the name of security
now. Or do you think we're safer because of them too? Do you think that
drug testing is the best use of the funds allocated to it? Again, if public
perception is your goal, we can agree to disagree. But I still haven't seen
the evidence that the accident or incident rate has been reduced. It's more
"drugs are bad so anything that reduces their use must be good". FWIW, I
have seen pilots with alcohol abuse problems whos ability is impaired
because of them. I'll bet almost anyone who's been around a commercial
operation for long has. They don't fly while intoxicated, but they're
affected just the same. But they can't be busted by any kind of testing.
They are dealt with other ways. Just they always have been.

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

Sure. My medical records are in half dozen different places now. I don't
like it but I can't see any easy way to improve that part of the process.
But I see no reason for people to give up more privacy without good reason.

moo