drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:32:06 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
wrote in
::

Keep in mind however that drug testing is a BIG business and
the vendors providing these services are going to lobby any
way they can to keep it going.

Very BIG:
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/empl...ugtesting.html

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:32:06 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
wrote in
::

Keep in mind however that drug testing is a BIG business and
the vendors providing these services are going to lobby any
way they can to keep it going.

Very BIG:
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/empl...ugtesting.html


No bias on that page, eh? My god, I never knew it was so bad. Please, save us!

;-o

"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
...
I think "probably cause" testing only would be more cost effective. The
war on drugs is just one more handout to businesses involved in it.

I don't drink, smoke or do drugs because I wish to take care
of my health and continue to fly.


Yep, I quit smoking the day I soloed been over a year not cold turkey I was
a 3 pack a day smoker.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:32:06 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
wrote:

I don't drink, smoke or do drugs because I wish to take care
of my health and continue to fly.

Drinking in moderation is now considered beneficial to your health.
Moderation is usually defined as a glass or two of wine per night.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:32:06 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
wrote:

I don't drink, smoke or do drugs because I wish to take care
of my health and continue to fly.

Drinking in moderation is now considered beneficial to your health.
Moderation is usually defined as a glass or two of wine per night.

It is not the alcohol that is considered beneficial. You could get the same
benefits from drinking grape juice without poisoning yourself with alcohol.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
It is not the alcohol that is considered beneficial.

Not true. The healthful benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have been
well established for about a hundred years now.

You could get the same
benefits from drinking grape juice without poisoning yourself with
alcohol.

Sorta true. You can get the same antioxidant benefits from grape juice as
from red wine. The antioxidants in grape juice even stay in the body longer
than those found in wine. But you miss out on the indisputable health
benefits of moderate *alcohol* consumption.

So, I have self-prescribed a cold beer as soon as I walk in the door from
work and a glass of Merlot as I cook dinner. I'm still alive so it must
work.

I applaud your choice to remain as chemical free as possible, Chris. But
calling alcohol "poison" is hyperbole and ignorant and makes you sound like
my mother-in-law.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message news:M3%

I applaud your choice to remain as chemical free as possible, Chris. But
calling alcohol "poison" is hyperbole and ignorant and makes you sound
like
my mother-in-law.

They interviewed some 100+ year-old here in the northwest several years ago
for television. The young reporter asked the old man to impart his secret
to longevity:

"Weeelllll," the old man said, citing exercise, wholesome living, the usual,
and then: "Every day I drink a glass of my own urine!"

I admire the fellow; he lived a lot longer than I will!

-gatt
PP-ASEL-IA got my new Wright Brothers license in the mail. WOOHOO!!

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
It is not the alcohol that is considered beneficial.

Not true. The healthful benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have
been
well established for about a hundred years now.


As a child of alcoholic parents I have a rather dark view of any supposed
'benefits' from drinking alcohol.

"OtisWinslow" wrote in message

I think "probably cause" testing only would be more cost effective. The
war on drugs is just one more handout to businesses involved in it.

To this extent, I know a woman whose adult daughter worked for a company who
provided drug-masking chemicals as a urine additive...they'd sell that for
six months or a year, and then release the agent to detect the chemical.
Then they'd sell another masking chemical....

The employee, by the way, smoked pot.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
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?

I personally think drug testing throughout all areas of transportation is a
Very Good Idea.

Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
random drug testing. That's good for y'all 'cause I was in charge of
remotely controlling the flows and pressures for thousands of miles of very
high pressure natural gas pipeline. It would not be good if I forgot to
open or shut a valve when I was supposed to do so.

I didn't smoke pot while flying because that would be stupid.

I don't smoke pot now because my short term memory is bad enough as it is.

Testing kits aren't "prohibitively expensive" as your buddy says.
Twenty-five people can be tested for about $250.00. That may be "expensive"
depending on how many you must do but I would not put it in the
"prohibitively expensive" category.

Either way, the cost of NOT doing pre, post and interim drug screening would
be much higher than I'm willing to pay. Too damn many people are like I
used to be.

--
Jim Fisher