"Happy Dog" wrote in message Only after the other poster resorted to it.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You impugn yourself by stooping to the lower
level of your debator.

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

You argued that a drug test will show positive even if the user is no longer
under the influence. You argued that casual use during time off shouldn't be
cause for failing a drug test. This crash, involving a casual user no longer
under the influence, undermines your argument.

Only if you're unable to follow it.

I am not very intelligent. Perhaps you could write so that I can follow it.

You're big on hyperbole but short on facts.

Where are *your* facts?

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.)

Where's the evidence that there hasn't been a significant drop? The problem
with reasonable suspicion is that usually it comes too late- after the
crash. Random testing keeps pilots from using before a probable cause test
is needed. It's called prevention.

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.

You haven't produced evidence that is hasn't been reduced. In the last few
years, how many airline accidents have occurred in the US due to impairment?
None. Prevention is the key. Has drug testing prevented any accidents? Can't
measure something that hasn't happened.

Nor have you haven't produced evidence that the costs are significant. I
have already stated that the costs for my 135 operation are very, very low.

In pure speculation, do you think that the Metroliner captain would have
used cocaine casually if he knew that he could be randomly tested and the
metabolites would cause a positive for up to 3 days afterward? I don't know
about that individual, but most of my colleagues have long ago decided it
isn't worth it.

It's more "drugs are bad so anything that reduces their use must be
good".

Then you haven't paid much attention to my posts.

But I see no reason for people to give up more privacy without good
reason.

We agree about privacy. We disagree about the good reason.

D.