drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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.

Did the poster say this? I didn't see it? I think you're seeing stuff that
isn't there.

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

How often? Twice a year? Would that do it?

moo

"Chip Jones" wrote in message

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.

That's because they're misinformed and besotted by the war on drugs as a
caure for social evil and an excuse for billions in fruitless government
spending. That doesn't equal evidence of cost-effectiveness or efficacy.

"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.

Your opinion isn't EVIDENCE.


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?

You're wasting my time by continually taking my posts out of context. The
report didn't conclude that cannibis had any effect after 24 hours and, even
then, the results were contradictory. Get it now? And, shifting the burden
of proof is a debating tactic cherished by those lacking real evidence of
their claim. Know anyone like that?


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

snip ten more lines of crap that doesn't address the claim that testing is
efficacious or cost-effective

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

snip even more crap (and a ridiculously paranoid story worthy of a Reefer
Madness sequel) that doesn't address cost-effectiveness or efficacy

You haven't shown that there was a SIGNIFICANT problem to begin with.

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.

I read the links and, unlike you, I understood the results and conclusions.
You don't have decent evidence that there was a significant problem to begin
with. And you're again trying to shift the burden of proof.

moo

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:00:40 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

It was my mother, if you must know.

I didn't, really, but thanks for sharing.

She was found unconscious on the floor
having drunk a whole bottle of vodka. Her blood alcohol level was so high
that it took four days for it to get down to where she was merely legally
drunk.

She believed she was a moderate drinker and still believes that. Thankfully, she
has not had a drink in nearly two years now.

Your mother's belief's notwithstanding no one who drinks an entire
bottle of vodka in one sitting is inbibing a moderate amount of
alcohol, and I think most who read this would agree.

Corky Scott

CJ,
The drugs we never knew. I worked with the guys several times. he had
been using them so frequently that we never knew.
The alcohol, we suspected but could not prove it.
The cost? I could care less. We are working on planes that carry people
and they are depending on safe reliable transportation. People who work
on or fly them should not be using either.
Michelle

C J Campbell wrote:

"Michelle P" wrote in message
ink.net...


Bob,
It may be a feel good program but I know that it keeps some of my
co-workers from drinking during the week. We have an random drug and
alcohol testing (required by DOT).
I know of one one person fired for using drugs and one for alcohol in
the past two years.
Michelle



It would be interesting to know whether they were actually using drugs or
alcohol. Was their substance abuse discovered by random testing, or was it
something that everybody knew about anyway?

"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.

Did the poster say this? I didn't see it? I think you're seeing stuff
that
isn't there.

He did say this in another section of the thread.


How often? Twice a year? Would that do it?

If you are looking for clear cut, well defined rules, I am afraid I do not
have them. Life is not a board game.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote in message

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.

That's because they're misinformed and besotted by the war on drugs as a
caure for social evil and an excuse for billions in fruitless government
spending. That doesn't equal evidence of cost-effectiveness or efficacy.

But in the case of professional aviation, which is the topic, people have a
right to expect maximum safety. The issue isn't cost-effectiveness or
efficacy. The issue is public safety. Even a libertarian such as yourself
surely must be against commercial operators flying, fixing, dispatching or
controlling while impaired. Drug testing commercial aviation personnel
isn't government-as-nanny protecting people from themselves. Drug testing
commercial aviators is basic government functioning as basic government,
protecting people from other people...

Because drug impairment cannot be tested for practically, but drug use can
be tested for easily, we test for drug use, thus deterring drug impairment
as much as possible. Drug testing commercial aviators boils down to
government protecting citizens from the irresponsible and reckless actions
of other citizens. It's the same premise upon which DUI laws and BAT
testing is based as function of public safety, and it is widely supported by
the populace.


"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.

Your opinion isn't EVIDENCE.

Never said it was. Neither is yours. But the $45,000 per positive
statistic is a FACT, unlike anything you have produced in this entire
thread. I'd say that the 0.06% confirmed positive rate IS evidence though
that the deterrent effect of drug testing aviation professionals works just
as advertised. After all, the FAA air safety goal is ZERO accidents. The
goal of air safety drug testing is 0.00% confirmed positives...

[snipped]


You're wasting my time by continually taking my posts out of context. The
report didn't conclude that cannibis had any effect after 24 hours and,
even
then, the results were contradictory. Get it now? And, shifting the
burden
of proof is a debating tactic cherished by those lacking real evidence of
their claim. Know anyone like that?

You, perhaps? I'm taking your posts in the context in which I understand
them. If I am reading you out of context, it is not deliberate. We have
already established that I am both an arrogant prick and an idiot. Never
the less, I didn't think you had any evidence to support your position. You
have confirmed my opinion of the weakness of your position by not producing
any independent facts or data. If you think I'm wasting your time with
independent facts and data, sorry. The report referenced above was one of
the bases upon which Australia instituted random drug testing for air safety
professionals. I have cited it. It clearly concludes, after scientific
research, that even drugs like cannabis are a threat to air safety. The
government of Australia has moved on it for air safety reasons. I'm still
waiting for you to produce some medical evidence showing that cannabis use
in pilots is not a significant flight safety hazard.

Futher, cannabis is the most benign of the drugs tested for. When you get
done refuting that cannabis use is a flight safety hazard, you may want to
move on to the rest of the NIDA 5 drug groups that are tested for, like
opiates, cocaine, amphetemines and phencyclidine. Drug tests are designed
to detect far more insidious drugs than mere cannabis alone.

[snipped]


I read the links and, unlike you, I understood the results and
conclusions.
You don't have decent evidence that there was a significant problem to
begin
with. And you're again trying to shift the burden of proof.

LOL, I love it! Maybe you should have said "unlike you, the entire United
States Government, the Australian Government, JAA, Nav Canada, and thousands
of commercial aviation employers, I understood the results and conclusions."

Godlike, yet you can't cite any science to make your case against drug
testing commercial pilots and controllers. You must be getting hungry by
now...

Chip, ZTL

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chip Jones wrote:
The bottom line is that the THREAT of being popped positive on a
random drug
test seriously deters drug use. In the field of professional
aviation, that
is a good thing.

No, the bottom line is that the rate of use in aviation is so low (as
indicated by the results) that most if not all of the positives are
false positives. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right - and
since nobody seems willing to spend the money to do it right
(eliminating the false positives) I have to assume it's not worth
doing.

Michael, just wondering, what makes you think that nobody seems willing to
spend the money to do drug testing the "right" way?

The method madated by the FAA ala a DOT 49 CFR Part 40 random urine drug
test is called a GC/MS drug test. GC/MS drug testing has virtually *no*
false positives. No test can be 100% accurate, but the GC/MS test combined
with the MRO process is pretty dang accurate.

You can read all about it he http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones"
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.

That's because they're misinformed and besotted by the war on drugs as a
caure for social evil and an excuse for billions in fruitless government
spending. That doesn't equal evidence of cost-effectiveness or efficacy.

But in the case of professional aviation, which is the topic, people have
a
right to expect maximum safety. The issue isn't cost-effectiveness or
efficacy. The issue is public safety. Even a libertarian such as
yourself
surely must be against commercial operators flying, fixing, dispatching or
controlling while impaired. Drug testing commercial aviation personnel
isn't government-as-nanny protecting people from themselves. Drug testing
commercial aviators is basic government functioning as basic government,
protecting people from other people...

There aren't enough resources to ensure "maximum safety". The government
has an obligation to mandate and enforce safety laws. But there should be
evidence that there is a safety issue that can be addressed by a
commeasurate amount of spending. I don't see enough evidence of that in
this case.

Because drug impairment cannot be tested for practically, but drug use can
be tested for easily, we test for drug use, thus deterring drug impairment
as much as possible.

Reminds me of the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under a
stretlight when he lost them yards away.

Your opinion isn't EVIDENCE.

Never said it was. Neither is yours. But the $45,000 per positive
statistic is a FACT, unlike anything you have produced in this entire
thread. I'd say that the 0.06% confirmed positive rate IS evidence though
that the deterrent effect of drug testing aviation professionals works
just
as advertised. After all, the FAA air safety goal is ZERO accidents. The
goal of air safety drug testing is 0.00% confirmed positives...

An impossibility. I'm assuming you agree with that.

[snipped]

Never
the less, I didn't think you had any evidence to support your position.
You
have confirmed my opinion of the weakness of your position by not
producing
any independent facts or data. If you think I'm wasting your time with
independent facts and data, sorry.

I am using the references you posted to draw my conclusions. They do not
establish that there is a significant risk factor being challenged.

The report referenced above was one of
the bases upon which Australia instituted random drug testing for air
safety
professionals. I have cited it. It clearly concludes, after scientific
research, that even drugs like cannabis are a threat to air safety. The
government of Australia has moved on it for air safety reasons. I'm still
waiting for you to produce some medical evidence showing that cannabis use
in pilots is not a significant flight safety hazard.

YOUR references show this (after 24 hours). Hello? And, it's beyond banal
to point out that intoxicating substances are, well intoxicating. That
"conclusion" (I doubt the authors think it's the "conclusion") is hardly
news.

Futher, cannabis is the most benign of the drugs tested for. When you get
done refuting that cannabis use is a flight safety hazard, you may want to
move on to the rest of the NIDA 5 drug groups that are tested for, like
opiates, cocaine, amphetemines and phencyclidine. Drug tests are designed
to detect far more insidious drugs than mere cannabis alone.

They're all dangerous. Although, given a dilemma, I'd prefer to try to fly
impaired by amphetimines than psychedelics. No, I'm not condoning it...


I read the links and, unlike you, I understood the results and
conclusions. You don't have decent evidence that there was a significant
problem to
begin with. And you're again trying to shift the burden of proof.

LOL, I love it! Maybe you should have said "unlike you, the entire United
States Government, the Australian Government, JAA, Nav Canada, and
thousands
of commercial aviation employers, I understood the results and
conclusions."

Godlike, yet you can't cite any science to make your case against drug
testing commercial pilots and controllers. You must be getting hungry by
now...

You don't understand the meaning of "burden of proof". I've explained why
the evidence you cite does not directly lead to the conclusion you've made.
In most government as nanny debates this is the case. There isn't any
"science" to make a case against monitoring every detail of the personal
lives of aviation professionals to ensure that they're not under undue
stress. The parallels I drew to alcohol and boxing are intended to show
that there are equally dangerous activities that could be prohibited.
Smoking too. None of those activities (except moderate alcohol
consumption)are a personal issue for me (despite the suggestions of a few
other posters). But people should demand that safety related spending be
directed where there are significant issues. Witness the silliness that
passes for increased airport security now. (Do you feel any safer?) But,
if I had to choose the current security spending plan or random drug
testing, I'd go with the latter.

le moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
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.

I know it won't do a damn bit of good to give you what you ask for but if
you wanna take your head outta your ass long enough to educate yourself,
take a look at the following Mooboy:

From James E. Hall, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...iving/s1p1.htm

Excerpts:

"For on-demand (unscheduled) air taxi fatal accidents, the percentage of
those pilots tested that were positive for alcohol declined from 7.4 in the
1975 to 1981 period to 1.8 in the 1983 to 1988 period (NTSB, 1984 and NTSB,
1992). "

"We have already reported to you that the Safety Board began documenting the
abuse of alcohol and other drugs in transportation accidents in the 1970's.
By the early 1980's, it became clear that a problem existed in all modes of
transportation and that not much was being done about it."

"The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration reported that 1993, was the fourth
year in a row that aviation workers tested positive at a rate less than one
percent. Because of these low rates, new regulations that became effective
in 1995, will permit the random testing rates for those industries to be
reduced from 50 percent to 25 percent"

"Until recently, very little was known about the use of impairing drugs
(including alcohol) by the operators of railroad trains, airplanes, ships
and heavy trucks. In the United States, the data indicated that a
significant problem existed and that strong action was required to control
it."

"From 1983 to 1988, no pilot in a fatal commuter crash tested positive for
alcohol. However, the pilot of one of these fatal crashes did test positive
for a metabolite of cocaine. In 1988, a Trans-Colorado Airlines, Fairchild
Metro III, operating as Continental Express, with two crew members and 15
passengers on board, crashed short of the runway at Durango, Colorado,
killing the two crew members and seven passengers. The NTSB found that the
captain's use of cocaine degraded his performance and contributed to the
accident (NTSB, 1989).

"Pre-employment tests accounted for 49 percent of the positive total in 1991
and 44 percent in 1992. Random tests of current employees accounted for the
46 percent of the positives in 1991 and 50 percent in 1992. Return to duty,
reasonable cause, and periodic tests, in that order, accounted for the
remaining positive tests in 1992. There were no positive post-accident tests
in 1992 and four in 1991. Positive results from random tests remained below
1 percent for the third consecutive year. Flight crew accounted for 42
positive tests in 1991 and 32 in 1992. By far the largest number of positive
tests come from maintenance personnel (1,586 in 1991 and 1,598 in 1992).
Positive tests for both years indicated that marijuana was most prevalent
(52 percent in 1991 and 57 percent in 1992), followed by cocaine (42 percent
in 1991 and 33 percent in 1992), amphetamines (4 percent in 1991 and 4.7
percent in 1992), opiates (5 percent in 1991 and 4 percent in 1992), and PCP
(1 percent in 1991 and 0.7 percent in 1992). Some persons tested positive
for more than one drug (DOT, 1992,1994). (******)Clearly, progress has been
made and the aviation industry has now been permitted to reduce the random
drug test rate to 25 percent of covered employees(*******)."

"I would like to note that the transportation workforce has a very low
positive drug test rate compared to the total workforce in the United
States. A large independent testing lab reported that less than 3 percent of
transportation workers in safety-sensitive positions tested positive for
drugs in 1992 and 1993 while about 10 percent of the general workforce
tested positive in these years. (SKB, 1994) That said, there must be no
tolerance, absolutely zero, for alcohol and drug use in transportation. We
have had great success, but we are only half-way there. Obviously, testing
alone will not solve this problem. Testing does have a deterrent effect, but
effective programs must also include strategies to identify and treat
abusers before it is too late."

--
Jim Fisher

"C J Campbell" wrote in message

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?

That does not fit any description of moderate drinking. It is far in
excess
of what you would have to take to derive any medical benefits from alcohol
consumption.

Except I don't drink that much. Like I said, it makes me sick. I have a
beer, a glass of wine OR a drink about once every two weeks.

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.

Except, like I said, I rarely drink.

-c