drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"gatt" wrote in message
The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and alcohol habit--or
lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy; do pilots obstain because
of drug tests, or do they obstain because they're pilots?

I personally think drug testing throughout all areas of transportation is a
Very Good Idea.

Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
random drug testing. That's good for y'all 'cause I was in charge of
remotely controlling the flows and pressures for thousands of miles of very
high pressure natural gas pipeline. It would not be good if I forgot to
open or shut a valve when I was supposed to do so.

I didn't smoke pot while flying because that would be stupid.

I don't smoke pot now because my short term memory is bad enough as it is.

Testing kits aren't "prohibitively expensive" as your buddy says.
Twenty-five people can be tested for about $250.00. That may be "expensive"
depending on how many you must do but I would not put it in the
"prohibitively expensive" category.

Either way, the cost of NOT doing pre, post and interim drug screening would
be much higher than I'm willing to pay. Too damn many people are like I
used to be.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..
[...]
Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
random drug testing.

Did you quit smoking pot because they were doing drug testing? Or because
the job was incompatible with smoking pot?

The former is a pretty idiotic approach to the issue, but the latter seems
more consistent with what you wrote about smoking pot and flying, and does
not invoke drug testing as a solution.

[...]
Testing kits aren't "prohibitively expensive" as your buddy says.
Twenty-five people can be tested for about $250.00. That may be
"expensive" depending on how many you must do but I would not put it in
the "prohibitively expensive" category.

$10/person isn't too bad for a company with 25 people to test. But there
are plenty of one-man operations that are also required to undergo drug
testing (they contract with a testing company, who randomly selects from
their "clients" to determine who will be tested). I admit, I don't know
what the cost is, but I can easily imagine that it's prohibitive at small
scales.

Either way, the cost of NOT doing pre, post and interim drug screening
would be much higher than I'm willing to pay. Too damn many people are
like I used to be.

IMHO, if a person is sober on the job, it doesn't matter what they are doing
off the job. Drug testing does not distinguish between the two, and
discriminates against people simply because of their lifestyle.

Maybe if I thought that drug testing was really being done out of a genuine
concern for people's safety, I'd feel differently. But I'm not convinced
that drug testing enhances safety all that much, and it's clear that the
primary push for drug testing is being done by the people who stand to make
lots of money doing it (as with various security regulations and similar
social expenditures).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..
[...]
Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
random drug testing.

Did you quit smoking pot because they were doing drug testing? Or because
the job was incompatible with smoking pot?

I quit ONLY because of testing. NO other reason. At the time, I was a
young, stupid, pot-smokin', womanizin', party-eight-nights-a-week, and
livin' for the weekend kinda guy. I had an opportunity to double my income
and all I had to do was quit one of those things. DEAL!

During my employment (which involved shift work and long, lonely hours in a
high-tech control room) I stepped outside to take just two little puffs of
pot. I was scared **itless the rest of the night and never did it again.

So, it was only later on in my employment that I found that smoking pot and
being in control of high pressure narural gas lines was a Really Stupid,
incompatible thing to do.

The former is a pretty idiotic approach to the issue,

Quitting something that is bad for you because of rules that were imposed on
me was a bad idea? I'd bet a whole dollar that there's a jillion former
pot-heads flying today who quit because of drug testing.

I'd bet a dollar a lot of them are reading this right now but are too
chicken to admit it.

IMHO, if a person is sober on the job, it doesn't matter what they are
doing off the job. Drug testing does not distinguish between the two, and
discriminates against people simply because of their lifestyle.

A held that stance years ago. Now I realize that more-than-occaisional drug
use is a sever character flaw and not a flaw I want in a Captain or FO.

Maybe if I thought that drug testing was really being done out of a
genuine concern for people's safety, I'd feel differently. But I'm not
convinced that drug testing enhances safety all that much, and it's clear
that the primary push for drug testing is being done by the people who
stand to make lots of money doing it (as with various security regulations
and similar social expenditures).

Then we will agree to disagree.


--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
news
Quitting something that is bad for you because of rules that were imposed
on me was a bad idea?

Yes. A non-idiotic approach to the issue would be to base one's decision on
quitting on real facts, not some economically-motivated rule-making.

I'd bet a whole dollar that there's a jillion former pot-heads flying
today who quit because of drug testing.

A jillion you say? Uh, right. Whatever. I'd bet a lot more than a dollar
that the number is well below that, and in any case I'm not really concerned
about pot-heads flying, as long as they aren't under the influence while
flying. What do I care whether they quit or not?

A held that stance years ago. Now I realize that more-than-occaisional
drug use is a sever character flaw and not a flaw I want in a Captain or
FO.

I disagree that even "more-than-occasional drug use" is necessarily a
problem, as long as that drug use doesn't occur when it would interfere with
a person's obligations. But nevertheless, your qualification of
"more-than-occasional drug use" is not observed by drug testing. Even
occasional users will get strung up by it.

Then we will agree to disagree.

Indeed.

Pete

"Peter Duniho"
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message

Comment (and pardon the top post):

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-occaisional drug use
is a sever character flaw". The proposed solution is to invade the privacy
of everyone. 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 are other "character flaws", like a
penchant for risk-taking, that should be of more concern than recreational
drug use. And how about overly religious pilots? Remember that?

moo

Quitting something that is bad for you because of rules that were imposed
on me was a bad idea?

Yes. A non-idiotic approach to the issue would be to base one's decision
on quitting on real facts, not some economically-motivated rule-making.

I'd bet a whole dollar that there's a jillion former pot-heads flying
today who quit because of drug testing.

A jillion you say? Uh, right. Whatever. I'd bet a lot more than a
dollar that the number is well below that, and in any case I'm not really
concerned about pot-heads flying, as long as they aren't under the
influence while flying. What do I care whether they quit or not?

A held that stance years ago. Now I realize that more-than-occaisional
drug use is a sever character flaw and not a flaw I want in a Captain or
FO.

I disagree that even "more-than-occasional drug use" is necessarily a
problem, as long as that drug use doesn't occur when it would interfere
with a person's obligations. But nevertheless, your qualification of
"more-than-occasional drug use" is not observed by drug testing. Even
occasional users will get strung up by it.

Then we will agree to disagree.

Indeed.

Pete

Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho"
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message

Comment (and pardon the top post):

The former uses some
personal experience and some shoddy reasoning to conclude that any
recreational drug use "is bad for you" and "more-than-occaisional drug use
is a sever character flaw".

In a COMMERCIAL PILOT this is absolutely true, dumbass. CP's are and should
be held to a higher standard.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
Happy Dog" wrote in message

The former uses some
personal experience and some shoddy reasoning to conclude that any
recreational drug use "is bad for you" and "more-than-occaisional drug
use is a sever character flaw".

In a COMMERCIAL PILOT this is absolutely true, dumbass. CP's are and
should be held to a higher standard.

Godlike. It's true because, well, you say so. Your candy-ass pinko point
was that the law is a great thing because it has the added benefit of
protecting you from yourself. Puffing the occasional joint away from the
job does not impair one's abilities. You got evidence, real evidence, to
the contrary? Drinking large amounts of alcohol, away from the job does.
Boxing does. Solid science there. Should drinking alcohol, any alcohol, be
illegal for CPLs? Of course you'll say that moderate alcohol consumption is
OK. But then you'll have to define "moderate" for everyone. And have the
government enforce it. Idiot. The economy can't support your need for the
government to be everyone's mommy. Including yours. Cut the cord.

le moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...

[snipped]


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-occaisional 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." It involves drug testing persons who occupy certain regulated
occupations like Part 135 or Part 121 flying or related fields like ATC, A&P
maintenance, air line dispatch etc. All of these persons retain the right
to privacy, but not the right to use illegal drugs...

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. 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

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

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

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

http://www.aamro.com/New%20Regulations.html

http://www.faa.gov/avr/aam/adap/index.cfm

http://www.casa.gov.au/hotopics/other/04-03-18and.htm

http://www.drugtestingnetwork.com/dot-compliance.htm

http://www.press.dtlr.gov.uk/pns/Dis...n_id=2001_0148

http://www.asma.org/Publication/abst...v72n2p120.html

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4972.PDF

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:9Vlwd.1526$\

It involves drug testing persons who occupy certain regulated
occupations like Part 135 or Part 121 flying or related fields like ATC,
A&P
maintenance, air line dispatch etc. All of these persons retain the right
to privacy, but not the right to use illegal drugs...

ALL Americans have a right to privacy, and NO American has the right to use
illegal drugs.

Thanks for the links.

-c

"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