drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
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.

How would the pro-testing camp measure the lost productivity caused by a
chronic marijuana smoker? Even if the chronic user isn't under the
influence, studies have shown that his/her performance is not 100%. Chronic
users exhibit less ambition (more sick days), more anxiety (less likely to
get along with customers and co-workers), and short term memory impairment
(forget the landing gear). These traits are measured in scientific
laboratories.

A pilot exhibiting symptoms similar to those of a chronic user can cost me
more in one day than my drug abatement program costs for a whole year. It's
hard enough to contain costs for stupid pilot tricks without adding dopers
to the roster. Are you including these costs in your cost-effectiveness
study?

Add this cost to your study. If an accident happened, what would the
plaintif's lawyers have to say about employing a doper? "Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, consider the negligence of this operator who put a
stoner in command of a airplane transporting the public. He unneccessarily
endangered my clients." At that point, it doesn't matter if the pilot wasn't
stoned. The image that a failed test will imprint on a jury will still be
there. Is this cost in your cost-effectiveness study?

Here's a cost you may have forgotten in your study. Eighty-five percent of
my clientele are repeat customers. They (most anyway) are of high social
standing. My business would suffer immeasureably if word of mouth spread
that I was using stoners for pilots. How does your study quantify this cost?

Life is unfair. All things aviation are a compromise. You want to get paid
to fly, or you want to join former Miami Dolphin Ricki Williams?

D.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message

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.

How would the pro-testing camp measure the lost productivity caused by a
chronic marijuana smoker? Even if the chronic user isn't under the
influence, studies have shown that his/her performance is not 100%.
Chronic
users exhibit less ambition (more sick days), more anxiety (less likely to
get along with customers and co-workers), and short term memory impairment
(forget the landing gear). These traits are measured in scientific
laboratories.

Aviation professionals do all the above just fine without the use of drugs.
And, for god knows how many times, nobody is advocating that addicts or
chronic abusers of anything be in a position to put others at risk.

Add this cost to your study. If an accident happened, what would the
plaintif's lawyers have to say about employing a doper? "Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, consider the negligence of this operator who put a
stoner in command of a airplane transporting the public. He unneccessarily
endangered my clients."

If that was more than a very remote possibility, I'd agree. But it isn't

Here's a cost you may have forgotten in your study. Eighty-five percent of
my clientele are repeat customers. They (most anyway) are of high social
standing. My business would suffer immeasureably if word of mouth spread
that I was using stoners for pilots. How does your study quantify this
cost?

Again, this scenario wasn't a problem before testing so it hasn't been
significantly reduced. Did you note the quote about the reduction in random
testing? If it was effective, why on earth is would it be reduced? Doesn't
this sort of logic look like the FAA at its worst?

Life is unfair. All things aviation are a compromise. You want to get paid
to fly, or you want to join former Miami Dolphin Ricki Williams?

That logical fallacy is called "False Dilemma". Your position is not backed
by the evidence.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...

[snipped]


Aviation professionals do all the above just fine without the use of
drugs.
And, for god knows how many times, nobody is advocating that addicts or
chronic abusers of anything be in a position to put others at risk.


Actually, you are indeed advocating a higher risk that addicts and chronic
abusers be in a position to put others at risk. Without drug testing, there
is no way to weed drug users out of the commercial airman pool. Your
position is nothing but an increased risk to air safety. Your justification
of
that increased risk seems to be that the costs of drug testing are not worth
the safety benefits of drug testing commercial airmen. You are mistaken.


Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message

And, for god knows how many times, nobody is advocating that addicts or
chronic abusers of anything be in a position to put others at risk.

Actually, you are indeed advocating a higher risk that addicts and chronic
abusers be in a position to put others at risk. Without drug testing,
there
is no way to weed drug users out of the commercial airman pool. Your
position is nothing but an increased risk to air safety. Your
justification
of that increased risk seems to be that the costs of drug testing are not
worth
the safety benefits of drug testing commercial airmen. You are mistaken.

So you keep saying over and over and over. But nobody's posted the evidence
that "addicts and chronic abusers" were a significant problem in aviation to
begin with. And, information has been posted stating that random testing is
being reduced. Why has nobody tried to make sense of this? If it's
beneficial, why reduce it? I think that it isn't beneficial but the FAA
doesn't want to eliminate it because it gives the public a false sense of
security. Whatever the reason, it makes no sense to scale back an effective
program that purports to solve a very serious issue. Can you explain it?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
But nobody's posted the evidence
that "addicts and chronic abusers" were a significant problem in aviation
to
begin with.

Those statistics are hard to come by. Federally mandated testing relieves
employers of legal liabilities arising from slander and defamation lawsuits
and the like. Before the liability issues were settled by federal mandate,
statistics of the kind you request were not kept because they could have
been used in court. Chemical dependency problems were kept very quiet.

And, information has been posted stating that random testing is
being reduced.

"Is?" No. It WAS reduced, in 1995. Every new program needs tweaking. The 25%
level has been in place 9 years now and isn't being changed.

I think that it isn't beneficial but the FAA
doesn't want to eliminate it because it gives the public a false sense of
security.

If it wasn't beneficial, wouldn't the airlines be lobbying Congress to have
the federal government pay for it? The airlines see a benefit. What is it
that they see and you don't?

Whatever the reason, it makes no sense to scale back an effective
program that purports to solve a very serious issue. Can you explain it?

Again, it isn't being scaled back.

D.