drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones"

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.

It's likely that I'm an idiot, but I sure as hell don't understand your
statement "in context". The "right to privacy" does not extend to drug
testing aviation professionals.


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.

YOU are the guy who wrote " If and when there is hard data on this (drugs
versus air safety), meaning lives are being endangered (on the job), then
most people would agree that government intervention is necessary." I
simply point out that most people already agree that government intervention
via drug testing 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

"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. "

$45,000 per positive result seems like a bargain to me.


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.

Did you read the executive summary?

"The adverse effects of cannabis on behaviour, cognitive function, and
psyco-motor function are dose dependent and related to task difficulty.
Complex tasks such as driving or flying are particulary sensative to the
performance impairing effects of cannabis. [snipped for brevity]. Cannabis
use in a pilot is therefore a significant flight safety hazard."

What is contradictory about that? You have some medical evidence you 'd
like to cite that refutes the statement that cannabis use is a significant
flight safety hazard?


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."

And the metabolites stay in the fatty tissue for quite a bit longer and
there is no way to test for intoxication, but there is an easy and accurate
way to test for use. Since use is illegal anyway, and no one has a right to
break the laws of the state, and since cannabis use is a significant flight
safety hazard, drug testing is a good way to deter cannabis use.

Not mention other drugs, like coke, MDMA, heroin, codeine, oxycontin etc
etc...


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

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

Horse hockey! You didn't read the link. Here's part of it:

"Marijuana has a number of side effects. New users, people using in a new
setting, or individuals using marijuana with a high THC level, may
experience acute anxiety or have paranoid thoughts. Marijuana causes
difficulty with short-term memory. It also tends to distort perceptions, and
slows reaction time.
Because of these side effects, there are serious indirect risks associated
with marijuana use--often worse than the direct side effects. Users are at
particularly high risk for automobile accidents and unsafe sex. In one study
at a shock-trauma unit, 15% of patients who were involved in traffic
accidents had been smoking marijuana, and an additional 17% had both THC and
alcohol in their bloodstream. Also, students may have difficulty studying
and learning, and athletic performance may be negatively affected."

This is intimately related to the "supposed" dangers to the public from
moderate recreationl use of cannabis by air safety professionals. Gee, just
what we need to add to the margin of air safety, a bunch of acutely anxious,
paranoid, perceptually distorted, slow-to-react commercial pilots and air
traffic controllers. Even routine communications might lead to moments of
chaos:

"Center, Delta 123, flight level 350."

"Delta 123, uhhh, like, roger, dude." [Oh man! Does he know I'm high?
Does he know I think he knows I'm high? He KNOWS! I KNOW he knows...
gasp! What if THEY pull this tape? THEY are everywhere. THEY can probably
even hear me thinking! Gotta...stop... thinking. Paranoia paranoia
paranoia!!! Geeze, my mouth is dry. Pull it together man! it's not like
THEY drug test any more. Holy smokes, I wonder what that flasing there on
the scope means? It sure is a pretty green color! I wonder if there are
any doughnuts left in the coffee shoppe?]


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".


You obviously didn't read the links. I don't have the bandwidth to quote
the reams and reams of hard data that support my position that drug use is
an air safety hazard and drug testing is a necessary deterrent among
professional aviators and avition professionals. That's why I posted the
links. Maybe you could post some material that debunks the "myth" that
recreational drug use among public safety employees doesn't pose any public
safety hazards.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message

YOU are the guy who wrote " If and when there is hard data on this (drugs
versus air safety), meaning lives are being endangered (on the job), then
most people would agree that government intervention is necessary." I
simply point out that most people already agree that government
intervention
via drug testing is necessary.

That's because they're misinformed and besotted by the war on drugs as a
caure for social evil and an excuse for billions in fruitless government
spending. That doesn't equal evidence of cost-effectiveness or efficacy.

"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. "

$45,000 per positive result seems like a bargain to me.

Your opinion isn't EVIDENCE.


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.

Did you read the executive summary?

"The adverse effects of cannabis on behaviour, cognitive function, and
psyco-motor function are dose dependent and related to task difficulty.
Complex tasks such as driving or flying are particulary sensative to the
performance impairing effects of cannabis. [snipped for brevity].
Cannabis
use in a pilot is therefore a significant flight safety hazard."

What is contradictory about that? You have some medical evidence you 'd
like to cite that refutes the statement that cannabis use is a significant
flight safety hazard?

You're wasting my time by continually taking my posts out of context. The
report didn't conclude that cannibis had any effect after 24 hours and, even
then, the results were contradictory. Get it now? And, shifting the burden
of proof is a debating tactic cherished by those lacking real evidence of
their claim. Know anyone like that?


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."

And the metabolites stay in the fatty tissue for quite a bit longer and

snip ten more lines of crap that doesn't address the claim that testing is
efficacious or cost-effective

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

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

Horse hockey! You didn't read the link. Here's part of it:

"Marijuana has a number of side effects. New users, people using in a new
setting, or individuals using marijuana with a high THC level, may

snip even more crap (and a ridiculously paranoid story worthy of a Reefer
Madness sequel) that doesn't address cost-effectiveness or efficacy

You haven't shown that there was a SIGNIFICANT problem to begin with.

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".


You obviously didn't read the links. I don't have the bandwidth to quote
the reams and reams of hard data that support my position that drug use is
an air safety hazard and drug testing is a necessary deterrent among
professional aviators and avition professionals. That's why I posted the
links. Maybe you could post some material that debunks the "myth" that
recreational drug use among public safety employees doesn't pose any
public
safety hazards.

I read the links and, unlike you, I understood the results and conclusions.
You don't have decent evidence that there was a significant problem to begin
with. And you're again trying to shift the burden of proof.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote in message

YOU are the guy who wrote " If and when there is hard data on this
(drugs
versus air safety), meaning lives are being endangered (on the job),
then
most people would agree that government intervention is necessary." I
simply point out that most people already agree that government
intervention
via drug testing is necessary.

That's because they're misinformed and besotted by the war on drugs as a
caure for social evil and an excuse for billions in fruitless government
spending. That doesn't equal evidence of cost-effectiveness or efficacy.

But in the case of professional aviation, which is the topic, people have a
right to expect maximum safety. The issue isn't cost-effectiveness or
efficacy. The issue is public safety. Even a libertarian such as yourself
surely must be against commercial operators flying, fixing, dispatching or
controlling while impaired. Drug testing commercial aviation personnel
isn't government-as-nanny protecting people from themselves. Drug testing
commercial aviators is basic government functioning as basic government,
protecting people from other people...

Because drug impairment cannot be tested for practically, but drug use can
be tested for easily, we test for drug use, thus deterring drug impairment
as much as possible. Drug testing commercial aviators boils down to
government protecting citizens from the irresponsible and reckless actions
of other citizens. It's the same premise upon which DUI laws and BAT
testing is based as function of public safety, and it is widely supported by
the populace.


"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. "

$45,000 per positive result seems like a bargain to me.

Your opinion isn't EVIDENCE.

Never said it was. Neither is yours. But the $45,000 per positive
statistic is a FACT, unlike anything you have produced in this entire
thread. I'd say that the 0.06% confirmed positive rate IS evidence though
that the deterrent effect of drug testing aviation professionals works just
as advertised. After all, the FAA air safety goal is ZERO accidents. The
goal of air safety drug testing is 0.00% confirmed positives...

[snipped]


You're wasting my time by continually taking my posts out of context. The
report didn't conclude that cannibis had any effect after 24 hours and,
even
then, the results were contradictory. Get it now? And, shifting the
burden
of proof is a debating tactic cherished by those lacking real evidence of
their claim. Know anyone like that?

You, perhaps? I'm taking your posts in the context in which I understand
them. If I am reading you out of context, it is not deliberate. We have
already established that I am both an arrogant prick and an idiot. Never
the less, I didn't think you had any evidence to support your position. You
have confirmed my opinion of the weakness of your position by not producing
any independent facts or data. If you think I'm wasting your time with
independent facts and data, sorry. The report referenced above was one of
the bases upon which Australia instituted random drug testing for air safety
professionals. I have cited it. It clearly concludes, after scientific
research, that even drugs like cannabis are a threat to air safety. The
government of Australia has moved on it for air safety reasons. I'm still
waiting for you to produce some medical evidence showing that cannabis use
in pilots is not a significant flight safety hazard.

Futher, cannabis is the most benign of the drugs tested for. When you get
done refuting that cannabis use is a flight safety hazard, you may want to
move on to the rest of the NIDA 5 drug groups that are tested for, like
opiates, cocaine, amphetemines and phencyclidine. Drug tests are designed
to detect far more insidious drugs than mere cannabis alone.

[snipped]


I read the links and, unlike you, I understood the results and
conclusions.
You don't have decent evidence that there was a significant problem to
begin
with. And you're again trying to shift the burden of proof.

LOL, I love it! Maybe you should have said "unlike you, the entire United
States Government, the Australian Government, JAA, Nav Canada, and thousands
of commercial aviation employers, I understood the results and conclusions."

Godlike, yet you can't cite any science to make your case against drug
testing commercial pilots and controllers. You must be getting hungry by
now...

Chip, ZTL