drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"Peter Duniho" wrote

Oh well...guess we're back to "the good ol' days".

I see you haven't changed, either.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message news:Ni7wd.10243

Using pot, in the vast majority of users, becomes more important than
almost
anything.

That has been my experience with four people that I know out of, oh, maybe a
hundred pot smokers. (Let me elaborate: I'm a performing and recording
musician AND one of my parents was a regular pot smoker, so it comes with
the turf. I'm fine working with -most- pot smokers but refuse to deal with
drunks or anybody using anything stronger than pot. And the pot smokers I
know who've been as addicted as you describe are not the caliber of people
who fly planes anyhow.)

What I'm refuting is the "vast majority" part of your post. It CAN be
exactly as you describe in people who already have addictive tendencies. I
know a physicist and programmer who smoked pot daily and, unfortunately, is
an alcoholic. He quit smoking pot when he felt like doing so, but can't
shake the alcoholism despite the toll it has taken on him.

So, my direct experience has been exactly the opposite when it comes to pot,
but exactly as you describe when it comes to alcoholics. And meth users,
which is an epidemic here in the northwest, but, like I said, nobody trusts
'em.

-c

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"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.


FACT: If you get popped on a random drug test, you are unemployed, and
likely unemployable. That seems like about as real a fact as there can
be...

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:




FACT: If you get popped on a random drug test, you are unemployed,

Not from the FAA you aren't.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
news [snipped]

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'll betcha there are a bunch of ex-pothead controllers out there too who
quit for the same reasons. I'm pretty close to one of them, but he'd never
admit his past sins on a public forum for fear of losing his federal job.
This guy I know started smoking cannabis in college. He enjoyed it so much
and so often that he started losing control of the direction his life was
going in. As you might expect, he soon saw falling school grades, low
energy, no motivation, etc., the classic results of habitual pot use. It
was fun (he says), but it was a dead end. To steer his ship down a
straighter, narrower channel, this guy walked into a recruiting office and
enlisted in the Marine Corps. The Marines drug test with a zero-tolerance
policy. The he used his Marine Corps experience to get an FAA job as a
controller. The FAA drug tests too, with a zero-tolerance policy.

Somewhere along the way, this guy realized just how damn bad drugs are for
building a person's character. Like every controller I know, this guy would
tell you that people who make their living in aviation safety related
fields, say pilots who fly under Part 121 or Part 135, or mechanics, or air
traffic controllers, should be randomly drug tested *often*. It's an air
safety thing. You don't want unmotivated, low-energy, maybe high-as-a-kite
folks playing around with airplanes that will be carrying passengers. The
problem with drugs is that you can't always know when a person is high, or
when drug use is affecting critical safety skills like judgment or
coordination. No matter what the rate of positive on a random test is among
this group of aviation professionals, the air safety goal has to be zero tol
erance for drug use.

Random testing in the field of professional aviation is a necessary evil. I
firmly believe that even if we completely legalize pot someday for the
masses, we will still have to maintain a zero-tolerance random drug testing
policy or else air safety will suffer.


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

I'll bet you're right on the money, Jim.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...
[...]
This guy I know started smoking cannabis in college. He enjoyed it so
much
and so often that he started losing control of the direction his life was
going in. As you might expect, he soon saw falling school grades, low
energy, no motivation, etc., the classic results of habitual pot use.

Those are the classic results of ANY lifestyle abuse. Any number of other
things can have the exact same result. Computer games, pornography, and
even scientific research have all been known to cause the exact same kind of
"drop out" behavior. Last I checked, none of those things are disallowed
for pilots.

More importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that *generally* habitual
pot use leads to the things you describe. Certain individuals are
susceptible to falling into a rut like that, but lots of habitual pot users
have no such problems, just as lots of habitual computer gamers, scientists,
and porn aficionados have no such problems.

You are trying to extrapolate to all people based on your knowledge of a
single individual. There's just no basis for that kind of extrapolation,
and it would be absurd to make rules based on a single individual.

[...]
Somewhere along the way, this guy realized just how damn bad drugs are for
building a person's character.

Drugs aren't meant to build character. Why would you expect them to be?
And more importantly, there are plenty of other legal activities that are
similarly not useful for "building a person's character". Why should
everything a person does be good for building a person's character, and what
possible justification does our government have for mandating that a person
engage only in things that are good for building character?

Like every controller I know, this guy would
tell you that people who make their living in aviation safety related
fields, say pilots who fly under Part 121 or Part 135, or mechanics, or
air
traffic controllers, should be randomly drug tested *often*. It's an air
safety thing.

It's not a safety thing. It's a money thing. Even before drug testing,
it's a pretty sure bet that more pilots flew while drunk than while high on
pot. And yet, what testing is being sold? Drug testing.

If it were really a safety thing, the focus would be on alcohol abuse.

You don't want unmotivated, low-energy, maybe high-as-a-kite
folks playing around with airplanes that will be carrying passengers.

I don't want drunk pilots playing around with airplanes that will be
carrying passengers either. But no one seems to be cracking down on that.

The
problem with drugs is that you can't always know when a person is high, or
when drug use is affecting critical safety skills like judgment or
coordination.

This is true of the drug known as alcohol as well.

No matter what the rate of positive on a random test is among
this group of aviation professionals, the air safety goal has to be zero
tol
erance for drug use.

Drug use while flying, yes. Drug use generally? No...it has nothing to do
with air safety whatsoever. Drug testing does not distinguish between the
two.

Random testing in the field of professional aviation is a necessary evil.
I
firmly believe that even if we completely legalize pot someday for the
masses, we will still have to maintain a zero-tolerance random drug
testing
policy or else air safety will suffer.

There is absolutely no evidence to support your theory, and plenty of
evidence in contrary to it.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

Computer games, pornography, and even scientific research have all been
known to cause the exact same kind of "drop out" behavior. Last I
checked, none of those things are disallowed for pilots.

So a guy I know who's a sociology professor and researcher at a major
university, who smokes pot, plays video games, drinks beer and surfs and
occasional porn site probably shouldn't become a pilot... [Answer, in his
case: True]

More importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that *generally*
habitual
pot use leads to the things you describe. Certain individuals are
susceptible to falling into a rut like that, but lots of habitual pot
users
have no such problems, just as lots of habitual computer gamers,
scientists,
and porn aficionados have no such problems.

Absolutely agree. I know habitual long-time pot smokers and computer gamers
who have been successfully employed for decades--in one case, 23 years--who
have college degrees, careers. Profs, lawyers, engineers, programmers,
insulators. I know others who don't have those vices at all and, for
example, work for those people.

When I was a magazine editor some of the most productive and least
expendable members of the staff were pot smokers. I had to fire a few
people who weren't 'cause they just didn't have the ambition to meet
deadlines, check facts, report accurately...show up...

Of course, for each of those I remember a friend or schoolmate that was a
burnout by the time he graduated from high school, and is still working at a
warehouse or plant somewhere for minimum wage.

-c

"Peter Duniho" wrote on the subject of OK pot use for aviators:

There is absolutely no evidence to support your theory, and plenty of
evidence in contrary to it.

Pete

User, or clueless, ladies and gentlemen? You make the call.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans"
"Peter Duniho" wrote on the subject of OK pot use for aviators:

There is absolutely no evidence to support your theory, and plenty of
evidence in contrary to it.

Pete

User, or clueless, ladies and gentlemen? You make the call.

Gee, I missed the post where the above poster went off topic just to slag
you. Hope you feel better now. (But, alert the DEA just in case.) Tell
you what, why don't you respond to some posts on technical issues and try to
stay on topic. We can evaluate your performance by the same criteria.

le moo

"Morgans" wrote in message news:Ni7wd.10244

User, or clueless, ladies and gentlemen? You make the call.

Neither. You're simply incorrect.

And I'd wager, as a performing and recording musician, that I have more
experience with pot users and alcoholics than both of you combined.

-c
(not an addict.)