drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"Chip Jones"
The type of exchange usually happens when you mix a government-as-nanny
liberal with a right (correct) thinking libertarian. The former uses
some
personal experience and some shoddy reasoning to conclude that any
recreational drug use "is bad for you" and "more-than-occasional drug use
is a sever character flaw". The proposed solution is to invade the
privacy of everyone.

The proposition is to ensure that persons engaged in professional aviation
are not using illegal drugs. This does not involves "invading the privacy
of everyone."

Get a grip. You understand my statement in context or you're an idiot.
Pick one. And, the claim is that we're saving lives by spending millions on
random drug testing. But the evidence is lacking.

However, as the other poster correctly implies, the evidence
that recreational drug use away from the job is related to accidents is
lacking. If and when there is hard data on this, meaning lives are being
endangered (on the job), then most people would agree that government
intervention is necessary.

There *is* hard data to support the contention that recreational drug use
away from the job is related to accidents and life endangerment, and
*most*
people DO believe that government intervention is necessary.

*Most* people DO believe in psychic phenomena.

Here are some
sources about drugs, drug testing, drug policy and aviation safety as
related to recreational drug use. Maybe you can chew on some of this
"hard
data" next time you get the munchies:

http://www.leftseat.com/AME/health4pilots/default.htm

"Because drug use among pilots is so rare, the cost-effectiveness of drug
monitoring programs has come into question. The FAA has found that about
0.06 percent of pilots and air traffic controllers have a confirmed positive
drug test, which works out to a cost of about $45,000 per positive result.
However, the programs are likely to continue because of public worries about
safety. "

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cannabis.pdf

No evidence that marijuana use has any effects after 24 hours. And, up to
then the evidence on residual effects is contradictory.

http://www.snj.com/ala-call/mari.htm

"The effects last two to four hours when marijuana is smoked and five to
twelve hours when it is taken by mouth."

http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/aod/Effectstable2.htm

Nothing here about the supposed dangers to the public from moderate
recreational use.

You are wasting my time and that of everyone who takes this debate seriously
with this crap. If you've read this stuff then you should be able to quote
the portions which back your position. The first one said it best. "public
worries about safety".

moo