drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:25:36 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote in
t::

The
problem with drugs is that you can't always know when a person is high,
or
when drug use is affecting critical safety skills like judgment or
coordination.

You're probably right about detecting impaired judgment, but physical
coordination can be measured:
http://isc.temple.edu/pe204/HandCorrelationReport.htm

Let's see, that wouldn't be a TEST, would it? As in, a TEST to detect
physical impairment? :-)

Chip, ZTL

"Morgans" wrote in message
"Peter Duniho" wrote

I'm not really concerned
about pot-heads flying, as long as they aren't under the influence while
flying.

I disagree that even "more-than-occasional drug use" is necessarily a
problem, as long as that drug use doesn't occur when it would interfere
with a person's obligations.

I believe you are in one of two circumstances. 1), you are the user that
only uses while you are not flying, or 2), you have never been a user and
are totally clueless.

Using pot, in the vast majority of users, becomes more important than
almost
anything.

You mispelled "crack". The ancient fallacy above has been out of style
since "Reefer Madness".

While you claim that use while not flying does no harm, I would
claim that many things are neglected. Some things like sleep, proper
diet,
studying and setting up the flight plan, learning more about the art of
flight, and so on.

And your claim is based on what? How about amphetamine use then. It would
enhance the things you think are problematic. So, what's the problem with
them? Is prescribed Methylphenidate (Ritalin) or Dextroamphetamine OK? OTC
wakeup pills? Then why not a line of coke?

I do have an opinion which of these two camps you fall into.

Of course you do. You have a keen eye for these things. Who else but a
moron or a pothead would oppose drug testing?

moo

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message news:

I find it amazing the folks who are defending this kind of behavior on a
commercial pilot. Those people either have their head up their patooties
or would know a joint from a line of coke.

Exactly what "kind of behaviour" would that be? And, to make it a textbook
strawman, who's defending it and how?

moo

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
[snipped]

The bottom line is that ACCURATE drug testing (the sort that determines
the individual is currently impaired, and not fooled by poppyseed
muffins and who knows what else) is EXPENSIVE. Unfortunately, we do
not hold the drug labs liable for their errors. If they were not
protected from liability from their mistakes, they would soon go out of
business and the problem would solve itself.

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.

Chip, ZTL

"Morgans"
"Peter Duniho" wrote on the subject of OK pot use for aviators:

There is absolutely no evidence to support your theory, and plenty of
evidence in contrary to it.

Pete

User, or clueless, ladies and gentlemen? You make the call.

Gee, I missed the post where the above poster went off topic just to slag
you. Hope you feel better now. (But, alert the DEA just in case.) Tell
you what, why don't you respond to some posts on technical issues and try to
stay on topic. We can evaluate your performance by the same criteria.

le moo

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

This guy I know started smoking cannabis in college. He enjoyed it so
much
and so often that he started losing control of the direction his life
was
going in. As you might expect, he soon saw falling school grades, low
energy, no motivation, etc., the classic results of habitual pot use.
It
was fun (he says), but it was a dead end. To steer his ship down a
straighter, narrower channel, this guy walked into a recruiting office
and
enlisted in the Marine Corps.

And you're sure that it was the dope that was the problem and not a
symptom?

Nope.


Somewhere along the way, this guy realized just how damn bad drugs are
for
building a person's character. Like every controller I know, this guy
would
tell you that people who make their living in aviation safety related
fields, say pilots who fly under Part 121 or Part 135, or mechanics, or
air
traffic controllers, should be randomly drug tested *often*.

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?


It's an air
safety thing. You don't want unmotivated, low-energy, maybe
high-as-a-kite
folks playing around with airplanes that will be carrying passengers.
The
problem with drugs is that you can't always know when a person is high,
or
when drug use is affecting critical safety skills like judgment or
coordination.

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??? You can't always
know lots of things about people, but you damn well should know if your
neighborhood air traffic controller or ATP is toking on the occasional
number on the way to the airport or doing meth to get through the midnight
shifts. And I have no doubt that there are lots of highly motivated people
who smoke pot. They are motivated to eat, if nothing else. But habitual
drug users aren't motivated to give a rats ass about much more than getting
high.


No matter what the rate of positive on a random test is among
this group of aviation professionals, the air safety goal has to be zero
tol
erance for drug use.

What about zero tolerance for smoking, drinking and boxing? You OK with
that?

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. Zero tolerance in the cockpit, in the hanger or in the radar room
or tower cab. It is easy to tell when a person is smoking on the job, since
smoke emmanates from either his mouth or his nose. Drinking is also easily
detected while a person is under the influence of alcohol. Cops have been
testing for DUI for years, and BAT is very accurate. Boxing is also easily
detected, because you can either see punches raining on a body or else you
can feel it (at least once, if it was a sucker punch...). Drug use isn't as
easily detected.

I personally don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about smoking,
drinking or boxing away from the cockpit, hanger, radar room or tower cab.
Last time I checked, tobbacco, alcohol and massachism were all legal.

Also, while were at it (and I know something about this) the top
cause of brain fade in high pressure environments is personal strife.

I can see for myself that you do know a lot about brain fade. Sorry to hear
your life is so stressful. Good thing you aren't an aviation professional!

So,
maybe we should force all these people to keep a diary and randomly check
to
make sure they're not lying.


I'd bet a dollar a lot of them are reading this right now but are too
chicken to admit it.

I'll bet you're right on the money, Jim.

More like they're not stupid enough to admit it.

moo

I vote for chicken ****. Kinda like a guy who doesn't have the stones to
put his real name on a post.

Chip, ZTL

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
[snipped]

Of course you do. You have a keen eye for these things. Who else but a
moron or a pothead would oppose drug testing?


A moronic, pot-smoking troll?

Chip, ZTL

"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?

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.

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.


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?


I personally don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about smoking,
drinking or boxing away from the cockpit, hanger, radar room or tower cab.

So why the occasional joint? What's so special about that?

I vote for chicken ****. Kinda like a guy who doesn't have the stones to
put his real name on a post.

Ahh, so all posters who use a nickname are chicken ****? Is that what
you're saying? Godlike. You'll note that I don't post from an anonymous
source or hide my email.

moo

"Chip Jones"
"Happy Dog" wrote in message

Of course you do. You have a keen eye for these things. Who else but a
moron or a pothead would oppose drug testing?

A moronic, pot-smoking troll?

Sorry to have pushed you beyond the point where you can respond on-topic.
People so easily distracted by their emotions don't make good pilots or much
of anything that requires an ability to set aside emotions and focus.

moo

"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.