drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...

[snipped]


The type of exchange usually happens when you mix a government-as-nanny
liberal with a right (correct) thinking libertarian. The former uses some
personal experience and some shoddy reasoning to conclude that any
recreational drug use "is bad for you" and "more-than-occaisional drug use
is a sever character flaw". The proposed solution is to invade the
privacy
of everyone.

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." It involves drug testing persons who occupy certain regulated
occupations like Part 135 or Part 121 flying or related fields like ATC, A&P
maintenance, air line dispatch etc. All of these persons retain the right
to privacy, but not the right to use illegal drugs...

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. 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

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cannabis.pdf

http://www.snj.com/ala-call/mari.htm

http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/aod/Effectstable2.htm

http://www.aamro.com/New%20Regulations.html

http://www.faa.gov/avr/aam/adap/index.cfm

http://www.casa.gov.au/hotopics/other/04-03-18and.htm

http://www.drugtestingnetwork.com/dot-compliance.htm

http://www.press.dtlr.gov.uk/pns/Dis...n_id=2001_0148

http://www.asma.org/Publication/abst...v72n2p120.html

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4972.PDF

Chip, ZTL

"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

"gatt" wrote in message
"Happy Dog"
Using pot, in the vast majority of users, becomes more important than
almost anything.

You mispelled "crack".

Alternately, meth. More commonly, alcohol.

Yeah. That was "Reefer Madness" crap. That erroneous POV hasn't been
popular since the sixties. I'm surprised that nobody's commented on
prescription or OTC stimulants.

m

"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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:57:49 -0800, "gatt"
wrote in ::

I sure wouldn't have anything to do with
you in the cockpit, though.

If you're ever flying in the Atlanta area, you may have Chip in your
cockpit despite your best efforts; he's an air traffic controller
there.

"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

"C J Campbell" wrote in message

I suspect that if you are getting ill before you get drunk that you are
already an alcoholic.

Wow. So if two or three shots of whiskey or three beers over four hours
will cause me to puke until 9 or 10 a.m. the next day, that makes me an
alcoholic?

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

-c

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:34:21 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

I
spend an inordinate amount of time counseling kids who have become pregnant
after "moderate" alcohol consumption.

Hmmm, and here I always thought it required having sex to become
pregnant.

Bad joking aside, if said kids loose their ability to think straight
or say no after moderate alcohol consumption then almost by
definition, it wasn't really moderate consumption.

Also I'm curious, how does being an alcoholic get you on a respirator?

Thanks, Corky Scott

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:9Vlwd.1526$\

It involves drug testing persons who occupy certain regulated
occupations like Part 135 or Part 121 flying or related fields like ATC,
A&P
maintenance, air line dispatch etc. All of these persons retain the right
to privacy, but not the right to use illegal drugs...

ALL Americans have a right to privacy, and NO American has the right to use
illegal drugs.

Thanks for the links.

-c

"Happy Dog" wrote in message news:CYlwd.25292$%

Yeah. That was "Reefer Madness" crap. That erroneous POV hasn't been
popular since the sixties. I'm surprised that nobody's commented on
prescription or OTC stimulants.

Oh, no! It's a perfectly documented fact that pot makes sorority girls jump
out second-floor windows and causes people to drown.

Couple of stoners helped me pull a 12-year-old kid from a river one time
when his (drunk) dad and uncle had been goofing around and tossed him over a
jump-off cliff into the water. He hit his head on the way down. You could
see the kid's brains. The two guys who'd been smoking took him to the
hospital 'cause everybody else had been drinking. Ugly day, that was.

-c