drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"C J Campbell" wrote

If I drink a pint of Guiness I'll puke. Does that make me an alcoholic?

Possibly. You certainly show signs of an allergy to alcohol, common to
alcoholics.

But Not LIMITED to alcoholics.

For example. My mom could have one drink, and pay for it all next day. She
never had drunk to excess, or on a regular basis.
--
Jim in NC

"Happy Dog" wrote in message Operating a commercial vehicle while under the
influence of
alcohol is very different from operating a commercial vehicle a couple
days
after you smoked a joint.

It may be unfair that one can not partake in getting high when one has
several days to recover. You have any reasonable way to accomodate the
casual user and still weed out the chronic users?

In the end, most professional pilots accept that they can't partake. It's a
compromise and flying is full of compromises.

D.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message They administered breathalyzers?

Yes.

D.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message The testing is worthless. Otherwise I
think the biggest factor in weeding
out problem pilots has been a cultural change.

That cultural change didn't come about until drug testing was instituted.
Chicken and egg kind of thing.

The truth is that if someone really tests positive on the tests, then his
co-workers probably already knew about his problem. I think most testing
centers would be hard pressed to come up with an example of actually
finding
genuine abusers that no one knew about already.

I agree with you as far as social abusers are concerned (drinking alcohol
and smoking marijuana). However, I disagree with you when it comes to
prescription drug abusers. People addicted to pain-killers,
anti-depressants, and other illicit pills may be closet users. Many times
their own families aren't aware of their dependency. How about heroin? Ever
see any pilots shooting up at the bar? Is a heroin user going to want his
colleagues to know about his habit? Will his non-aviation user friends care
if he flies at less than 100%?

Eventually, the abuser will have to decide if they want to get high with
drugs or with an airplane. That is the worth of testing. It doesn't happen
overnight. Without drug testing regulations, it may never happen, until it's
too late.

D.

"Michael" wrote in message - what kind of GUARANTEE does the
drug testing operation give you?

To provide for the non-believers, the collection method was modified. The
specimen is split into 2 containers. Only one is tested. If the results are
positive, the individual who provided the sample may have the second half
tested at the laboratory of his/her choice.

To answer your first question, yes, there are idiots that fail their
pre-employment tests.

D.

"Morgans" wrote in message
news

"C J Campbell" wrote

If I drink a pint of Guiness I'll puke. Does that make me an
alcoholic?

Possibly. You certainly show signs of an allergy to alcohol, common to
alcoholics.

But Not LIMITED to alcoholics.

For example. My mom could have one drink, and pay for it all next day.
She
never had drunk to excess, or on a regular basis.

Neither did I say that it is a certainty that Gatt is an alcoholic. Given
his own stated behavior, however, I would give it a high probability.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell"
"gatt" wrote in message

If I drink a pint of Guiness I'll puke. Does that make me an
alcoholic?

Possibly. You certainly show signs of an allergy to alcohol, common to
alcoholics.

Right, that's enough. What is your, concise as possible, definition of
"alcoholic"?

If someone continues to drink even though it makes him sick, I would say
that person may be an alcoholic, even if it is just one drink that makes him
sick.

An alcoholic is a person who continues to drink when common sense says that
he should quit.

"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

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
"Happy Dog" wrote in message Operating a commercial vehicle while under
the
influence of alcohol is very different from operating a commercial vehicle
a couple
days after you smoked a joint.

It may be unfair that one can not partake in getting high when one has
several days to recover. You have any reasonable way to accomodate the
casual user and still weed out the chronic users?
In the end, most professional pilots accept that they can't partake. It's
a
compromise and flying is full of compromises.

The issue I was raising is efficacy and cost effectiveness. And, the
pro-testing camp don't have solid evidence that random drug testing of
aviation professionals is either. The debate quickly degrades into
name-calling and accusations that people who oppose it are crazy or drug
users themselves. But, stick to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness issues
and it doesn't look justified. It's promoted by hype and hysteria.

moo

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
The truth is that if someone really tests positive on the tests, then his
co-workers probably already knew about his problem. I think most testing
centers would be hard pressed to come up with an example of actually
finding genuine abusers that no one knew about already.

I agree with you as far as social abusers are concerned (drinking alcohol
and smoking marijuana). However, I disagree with you when it comes to
prescription drug abusers. People addicted to pain-killers,
anti-depressants, and other illicit pills may be closet users. Many times
their own families aren't aware of their dependency. How about heroin?
Ever
see any pilots shooting up at the bar? Is a heroin user going to want his
colleagues to know about his habit? Will his non-aviation user friends
care
if he flies at less than 100%?

Nobody always flies at 100%. I agree that it's hard to detect closet
abusers. But where here is the evidence that this type of abuse was a
problem in the aviation community to begin with and that the huge financial
cost and emotional burden of ther invasion of privacy is warranted?
Nobody's posted it here yet.

Eventually, the abuser will have to decide if they want to get high with
drugs or with an airplane. That is the worth of testing. It doesn't happen
overnight. Without drug testing regulations, it may never happen, until
it's
too late.

With more invasive monitoring and spending we could weed out other potential
problems too. Government as nanny. Spend more money. Yesss...

moo