drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

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

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.

And you're sure that it was the dope that was the problem and not a
symptom?

Nope.


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*.

You know how many controllers? Are you saying there's a consensus on
this?

I know, quite literally, over five hundred controllers. I have also served
as a union drug testing rep for NATCA. I am saying that this opinion is the
overwhelming consensus on this in 100% of the controllers whose hands I held
while they were peeing in a bottle. How about you, Spiccoli?


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.

So what? Critical safety skills *are* an issue and *can* be tested. If
that's your point, then drug testing isn't the way to go. You can't
always
know lots of things about people. Nor should you. There are lots of
highly
motivated people who smoke pot.

Ok brother, lay it on us. How *can* you test for on the job or in the
cockpit drug impairment without a freaking drug test??? You can't always
know lots of things about people, but you damn well should know if your
neighborhood air traffic controller or ATP is toking on the occasional
number on the way to the airport or doing meth to get through the midnight
shifts. And I have no doubt that there are lots of highly motivated people
who smoke pot. They are motivated to eat, if nothing else. But habitual
drug users aren't motivated to give a rats ass about much more than getting
high.


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.

What about zero tolerance for smoking, drinking and boxing? You OK with
that?

I am opposed to all forms of smoking, drinking alcohol, and boxing while
engaged in an air safety endeavour like commercial flying or air traffic
control. Zero tolerance in the cockpit, in the hanger or in the radar room
or tower cab. It is easy to tell when a person is smoking on the job, since
smoke emmanates from either his mouth or his nose. Drinking is also easily
detected while a person is under the influence of alcohol. Cops have been
testing for DUI for years, and BAT is very accurate. Boxing is also easily
detected, because you can either see punches raining on a body or else you
can feel it (at least once, if it was a sucker punch...). Drug use isn't as
easily detected.

I personally don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about smoking,
drinking or boxing away from the cockpit, hanger, radar room or tower cab.
Last time I checked, tobbacco, alcohol and massachism were all legal.

Also, while were at it (and I know something about this) the top
cause of brain fade in high pressure environments is personal strife.

I can see for myself that you do know a lot about brain fade. Sorry to hear
your life is so stressful. Good thing you aren't an aviation professional!

So,
maybe we should force all these people to keep a diary and randomly check
to
make sure they're not lying.


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.

More like they're not stupid enough to admit it.

moo

I vote for chicken ****. Kinda like a guy who doesn't have the stones to
put his real name on a post.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
You know how many controllers? Are you saying there's a consensus on
this?

I know, quite literally, over five hundred controllers. I have also
served
as a union drug testing rep for NATCA. I am saying that this opinion is
the
overwhelming consensus on this in 100% of the controllers whose hands I
held
while they were peeing in a bottle. How about you, Spiccoli?

And you know they weren't lying? It would be foolish to raise a flag by
stating otherwise, no?

So what? Critical safety skills *are* an issue and *can* be tested. If
that's your point, then drug testing isn't the way to go. You can't
always know lots of things about people. Nor should you. There are lots
of
highly motivated people who smoke pot.

Ok brother, lay it on us. How *can* you test for on the job or in the
cockpit drug impairment without a freaking drug test???

The issue above was "critical safety skills". Do try to keep up. Those can
be tested. Drug testing doesn't test for drug impairment, BTW.

But habitual
drug users aren't motivated to give a rats ass about much more than
getting
high.

Who was talking about "habitual drug users"? The issue was impairment.


What about zero tolerance for smoking, drinking and boxing? You OK with
that?

I am opposed to all

snip 10 lines of evasion

Who cares what you are personally opposed to? The issue wasn't using drugs
on the job. You sure you're not a bit stoned now? You're having trouble
following this. The issue is government control and testing. So, you OK
with random testing for boxing, smoking and drinking?


I personally don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about smoking,
drinking or boxing away from the cockpit, hanger, radar room or tower cab.

So why the occasional joint? What's so special about that?

I vote for chicken ****. Kinda like a guy who doesn't have the stones to
put his real name on a post.

Ahh, so all posters who use a nickname are chicken ****? Is that what
you're saying? Godlike. You'll note that I don't post from an anonymous
source or hide my email.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
You know how many controllers? Are you saying there's a consensus on
this?

I know, quite literally, over five hundred controllers. I have also
served
as a union drug testing rep for NATCA. I am saying that this opinion is
the
overwhelming consensus on this in 100% of the controllers whose hands I
held
while they were peeing in a bottle. How about you, Spiccoli?

And you know they weren't lying? It would be foolish to raise a flag by
stating otherwise, no?

All of these people peed in a bottle and that sample was tested using the
NIDA 5 GC/MS test. Why would they lie? They were tested.


So what? Critical safety skills *are* an issue and *can* be tested.
If
that's your point, then drug testing isn't the way to go. You can't
always know lots of things about people. Nor should you. There are
lots
of
highly motivated people who smoke pot.

Ok brother, lay it on us. How *can* you test for on the job or in the
cockpit drug impairment without a freaking drug test???

The issue above was "critical safety skills". Do try to keep up. Those
can
be tested. Drug testing doesn't test for drug impairment, BTW.

Once again, I ask you *how* you would test these "critical safety skills"?
You keep saying that you can test for them. How? How about sharing the
method
with me that is as practical and available to the aviation industry as is
drug testing.

Drug testing doesn't test for drug impairment because there is no widely
available method of testing for drug impairment. Unlike drinking alcohol.
In the absence of a test for drug impairment, you have to test for drug use.

The DOT testing for drugs is for the presence of illegal substances, whereas
for alcohol, it is for impairing levels of legal substances


But habitual
drug users aren't motivated to give a rats ass about much more than
getting
high.

Who was talking about "habitual drug users"? The issue was impairment.

The issue is "drug testing", not "impairment".



What about zero tolerance for smoking, drinking and boxing? You OK
with
that?

I am opposed to all

snip 10 lines of evasion

Who cares what you are personally opposed to? The issue wasn't using
drugs
on the job. You sure you're not a bit stoned now? You're having trouble
following this. The issue is government control and testing. So, you OK
with random testing for boxing, smoking and drinking?

Hard to follow the ramblings of a guy who sets up a strawman argument about
boxing, smoking and drinking. The subject was:

"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? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?"

The answer is that drug use is significantly detrimental to air safety, and
that drug testing policy is an effective deterrent to drug use among safety
professionals.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones"
I know, quite literally, over five hundred controllers. I have also
served as a union drug testing rep for NATCA. I am saying that this
opinion is
the overwhelming consensus on this in 100% of the controllers whose
hands I
held while they were peeing in a bottle. How about you, Spiccoli?

And you know they weren't lying? It would be foolish to raise a flag by
stating otherwise, no?

All of these people peed in a bottle and that sample was tested using the
NIDA 5 GC/MS test. Why would they lie? They were tested.

You really have a problem following the debate. The "opinion" we were
discussing was that almost all ATCs approve of random testing. I said that
they would have good reason to lie if they were against it because they have
to submit to it anyway. Why raise a flag?


So what? Critical safety skills *are* an issue and *can* be tested.
If
that's your point, then drug testing isn't the way to go. You can't
always know lots of things about people. Nor should you. There are
lots of highly motivated people who smoke pot.

Ok brother, lay it on us. How *can* you test for on the job or in the
cockpit drug impairment without a freaking drug test???

The issue above was "critical safety skills". Do try to keep up. Those
can be tested. Drug testing doesn't test for drug impairment, BTW.

Once again, I ask you *how* you would test these "critical safety skills"?
You keep saying that you can test for them. How? How about sharing the
method with me that is as practical and available to the aviation industry
as is
drug testing.

The ISSUE is "critical safety skills". Drug testing doesn't evaluate those.
Critical safety skills are tested during routine training. (Since you
asked.)

In the absence of a test for drug impairment, you have to test for drug
use.
The DOT testing for drugs is for the presence of illegal substances,

Which doesn't address impairment issues. Right?

But habitual
drug users aren't motivated to give a rats ass about much more than
getting high.

Who was talking about "habitual drug users"? The issue was impairment.

The issue is "drug testing", not "impairment".

Who was talking about "habitual drug users"? The testing is supposed to
address issues related to impairment on the job. It doesn't (to a large
extent).

What about zero tolerance for smoking, drinking and boxing? You OK
with that?

I am opposed to all

snip 10 lines of evasion

Who cares what you are personally opposed to? The issue wasn't using
drugs on the job. You sure you're not a bit stoned now? You're having
trouble
following this. The issue is government control and testing. So, you OK
with random testing for boxing, smoking and drinking?

Hard to follow the ramblings of a guy who sets up a strawman argument
about
boxing, smoking and drinking.

Strawman? You *agreed* with my statement about boxing, drinking etc.
Lordy.

The subject was:

"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? Would it be
better for the aviation community to test after accidents only, and do
away
with the current random test practice and the associated expenses? 'Cause
if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?"

The answer is that drug use is significantly detrimental to air safety,
and
that drug testing policy is an effective deterrent to drug use among
safety
professionals.

In your opinion; which you haven't backed with anything but personal
opinion, unprovoked insult and rhetoric.

le moo

"Chip Jones" writes:

[...] "The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and
alcohol habit--or lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy
[...]"

The answer is that drug use is significantly detrimental to air
safety, and that drug testing policy is an effective deterrent to
drug use among safety professionals.

But there's the problem. The claim that "drug use is significantly
detrimental to air safety" does not wash, because it equivocates use
and impairment, despite your protestations.

- FChE

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

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

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.

And you're sure that it was the dope that was the problem and not a
symptom?

Nope.

And your qualification to make that assessment are...?

Are you a psychologist that got into his head in detail, or are you merely
self-professedly psychic?

Gee...ever heard of "cause and effect"?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

"Happy Dog" wrote in message

going in. As you might expect, he soon saw falling school grades,
low
energy, no motivation, etc., the classic results of habitual pot use.

And you're sure that it was the dope that was the problem and not a
symptom?

Nope.

And your qualification to make that assessment are...?

This was attributed to me but I didn't say it. I do note that the poster
said only that he didn't know the source of this individual's problems. No
qualification is necessary for that.

m

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:718wd.606

They are motivated to eat, if nothing else. But habitual
drug users aren't motivated to give a rats ass about much more than
getting
high.

Except the professor I know. PhD in--get this--criminology. Dude's an
expert in drug abuse arrest demographics. He and his father smoke pot
together, and his father is a very successful lawyer in Alaska. They spent
a month together with their families in New Zealand, bungee jumping and
sailing and surfing and scuba diving, while non-users like the CFIs on this
group struggle to pay their bills. I also know a habitual smoker who is
an accomplished physicist and progammer, just bought a 44' ketch once owned
by the Disneys, and works from his sailboat which, last I heard, was at the
Catalina Islands.

I also know two pot-smoking engineers, a former US Army Major who asked me
if I wanted to partake (I declined) and a woman who smoked pot in college
and graduated Suma Cum Laude from a university in Texas. Let's see...I
know a music teacher who smoked pot daily when we were in college together.
She quit five years ago and hasn't been **** tested yet. Geologist, a
jeweler, a crane operator...

Habitual aviatiors aren't motivated to give a rat's ass about much more than
flying.

-c

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:718wd.606$

How about you, Spiccoli?

....then...

I am opposed to all forms of smoking, drinking alcohol, and boxing while
engaged in an air safety endeavour like commercial flying or air traffic
control.

Yeah, but....no offense. You sound like you have anger/hostility issues of
your own to deal with and, quite frankly, based on your responses to these
people here, I wouldn't get in an airplane with you because you seem, well,
like an arrogant prick. For example:

I can see for myself that you do know a lot about brain fade. Sorry to
hear
your life is so stressful. Good thing you aren't an aviation
professional!

....and...

I vote for chicken ****. Kinda like a guy who doesn't have the stones to
put his real name on a post.

Good luck with your flying career. I sure wouldn't have anything to do with
you in the cockpit, though. Before you start insulting other people, think
about your own faults and ask yourself if you're the kind of guy that people
would want to entrust their lives with, regardless of whether you're clean.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:718wd.606$

How about you, Spiccoli?

...then...

I am opposed to all forms of smoking, drinking alcohol, and boxing while
engaged in an air safety endeavour like commercial flying or air traffic
control.

Yeah, but....no offense. You sound like you have anger/hostility issues
of
your own to deal with and, quite frankly, based on your responses to these
people here, I wouldn't get in an airplane with you because you seem,
well,
like an arrogant prick. For example:

[snipped]

Hey man, no offence taken. Sorry you didn't pick up one the semantics in my
reply about drinking, smoking and boxing. I actually AM an arrogant prick,
but you don't have to worry about getting in an airplane with me.


Good luck with your flying career. I sure wouldn't have anything to do
with
you in the cockpit, though. Before you start insulting other people,
think
about your own faults and ask yourself if you're the kind of guy that
people
would want to entrust their lives with, regardless of whether you're
clean.


People entrust their lives to me every day. I'm an air traffic controller.

Chip, ZTL