drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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.