drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

Jim Fisher wrote:

If you *did* smoke it,
you'd know that pot (and lots of other stuff) affects you during and well
after partaking of it.

You don't even have to have smoked it yourself to know this. Just know a fair
number of people who do.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

"Jim Fisher"
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message I'm not
really concerned about pot-heads flying, as long as they aren't under the
influence while flying. What do I care whether they quit or not?

Never smoked the stuff, have ya? Good for you, man. If you *did* smoke
it, you'd know that pot (and lots of other stuff) affects you during and
well after partaking of it. Tell your name to just about any long-term
pot smoker. Even if 's not stoned, he won't remember it next time he
meets you.

Wrong.

Do I really have to explain the dangers of short-term memory loss to a
pilot, Bill, er, Roger, er, glancing at header oh yeah, Pete? Not to
mention the fact that a commercial pilot who performs an illegal act on a
habitual basis has no place in the cockpit, man!

Adorable. If there was a communist party they could count on your vote.

le m

Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho"
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message

Comment (and pardon the top post):

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".

In a COMMERCIAL PILOT this is absolutely true, dumbass. CP's are and should
be held to a higher standard.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
news [snipped]

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.

Chip, ZTL

Pretty close, anyway. Tell "your friend" hey from one ex stoner to
another.

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.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
Happy Dog" wrote in message

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".

In a COMMERCIAL PILOT this is absolutely true, dumbass. CP's are and
should be held to a higher standard.

Godlike. It's true because, well, you say so. Your candy-ass pinko point
was that the law is a great thing because it has the added benefit of
protecting you from yourself. Puffing the occasional joint away from the
job does not impair one's abilities. You got evidence, real evidence, to
the contrary? Drinking large amounts of alcohol, away from the job does.
Boxing does. Solid science there. Should drinking alcohol, any alcohol, be
illegal for CPLs? Of course you'll say that moderate alcohol consumption is
OK. But then you'll have to define "moderate" for everyone. And have the
government enforce it. Idiot. The economy can't support your need for the
government to be everyone's mommy. Including yours. Cut the cord.

le moo

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
[...]
Besides, I didn't know I was an idiot at the time.

I never said you knew, or should have known, it was an idiotic approach.
Just that it was.

Never smoked the stuff, have ya? Good for you, man. If you *did* smoke
it, you'd know that pot (and lots of other stuff) affects you during and
well after partaking of it. Tell your name to just about any long-term
pot smoker. Even if 's not stoned, he won't remember it next time he
meets you.

I have met plenty of long-term pot smokers, am even friends with a few, and
none have had any trouble remembering who I am the next time we meet.

But regardless, as you yourself admit, lots of other stuff has the very same
effect. If you are worried about short-term memory loss (which has nothing
to do with someone remembering my name a week later anyway), then test for
THAT. Since according to you it's such a big deal, it should be easy enough
to uncover any performance hindrance, and as an added benefit, you'll get
rid of all the other pilots who are engaging in different but equally
problematic behaviors.

Do I really have to explain the dangers of short-term memory loss to a
pilot, Bill, er, Roger, er, glancing at header oh yeah, Pete? Not to
mention the fact that a commercial pilot who performs an illegal act on a
habitual basis has no place in the cockpit, man!

"A commercial pilot who performs an illegal act?" Give me a break. I can't
name a single person who I know who is innocent of breaking ANY law. As an
obvious example, I'm pretty much the only person I know who actually aims to
drive the actual speed limit (or slower if conditions require), and even I
have been known to accidently exceed now and then.

The real question isn't whether "a commercial pilot who performs an illegal
act" should be allowed in the cockpit or not. Obviously there are some
illegal acts that really aren't that big of a problem.

I'm fine disagreeing with you on WHAT illegal acts are a problem, but don't
go around pretending that this is a black & white matter. I and plenty of
other people are of the opinion that, as illegal acts go, smoking pot is
basically not anything even remotely serious enough to affect a person's
flying career. IMHO it's not even as bad as running a red light or failure
to yield; it's comparable to speeding at best.

Basically, all you can come up with are subjective reasons for drug testing.
That's fine with me; lots of our rules are based on subjective reasoning.
But don't pretend it's anything other than subjective reasoning.

Pete

"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.

Pete

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. 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.

I do have an opinion which of these two camps you fall into.
--
Jim in NC

"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.
--
Jim in NC

"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?

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?

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.

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

"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