drug/alcohol testing policy: effective? [Archive]

OtisWinslow

December 14th 04, 09:32 PM

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. Most pilots I know take good
care of their health for the same reason. There's always going
to be the occasional fool who feels differently.

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.

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Casual debate here:
>
> Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs
> (one
> was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand.
> As
> a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for
> drugs
> and something similar for alcohol.
>
> Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
> Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
> so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
> Aviation.
>
> 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?
>
> What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?
>
> -c
>
>

Frank

December 14th 04, 10:15 PM

Bob Gardner wrote:

> It's a feel-good program for the government, allowing them to show the
> public that they are "doing something." It has no practical effect.
>
<snip>

If they were really serious about highway safety they'd give people a
'driving' test, not a drug test. Same applies to pilots.

I don't much care if you're high, liquored up, haven't slept in three days,
or just plain incompetent. The victims are just as dead.

--
Frank....H

Larry Dighera

December 14th 04, 10:26 PM

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/employersolutions/drugtesting.html

Jim Fisher

December 14th 04, 10:27 PM

"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

Michael

December 14th 04, 11:45 PM

gatt wrote:
> Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and
drugs (one
> was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a
thousand. As
> a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25%
for drugs
> and something similar for alcohol.

I seem to recall that the false positive rate for the lower-cost tests
(those that don't cost hundreds of dollars per test) is also something
like 0.1%. Perhaps that means the actual rate is zero, and the only
effect of the policy is to increase costs and ruin careers while doing
nothing to improve safety. That would be about par for the FAA.

> Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
> Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost
prohibitive,
> so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
> Aviation.

Which suggests to me that they're probably not using the expensive
tests with low false-positive potential.

> 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?

Pilots don't abstain. I know lots of professional pilots, and as a
whole they're the heaviest drinkers I know. They don't drink when
they're flying, though. I also know quite a few who quit smoking dope
after testing kicked in. None of them was ever high on the job,
though. I weigh in solidly on the "Testing is a waste of time and
money" side of the equation.

> What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

In my last job, we all ****ed in a bottle. We worked with radioactive
materials in refineries and chemical plants, so it just made sense.
Yeah, right.

The only positive that ever came up was from my boss - who was rabidly
anti-drug. He tested positive for opiates (heroin). He screamed
bloody murder, and because he was a senior manager and not a peon, an
investigation was done. There was a retest, which also showed positive
for opiates, but at a lower concentration. However, when the sample
was sent to a proper lab, it turned out to be a false positive - a
related chemical which is a breakdown product of poppy seeds. That
poppyseed bagel did him in.

In spite of this, I found the remains of a marijuana cigarette (a
roach) in the bathroom of our shop - only used by employees who were on
the program. Somehow they were passing the random tests - meaning they
had figured out a way to beat it. Truth is, I know exactly who was
high on the job - it was obvious from the quality of the work.
However, I couldn't have him fired for it - he was passing the tests.
One fine day he missed not one but THREE flights as I waited for him at
the airport and the customer got ****ed. We never got another contract
at that facility again. He was fired for this.

I don't have much respect for drug testing. I think it's a way for
lazy managers to hand over the tough decisions to a technician.
Michael

Michael

December 14th 04, 11:48 PM

Peter Duniho

December 14th 04, 11:53 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
> [...]
> Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
> random drug testing.

Did you quit smoking pot because they were doing drug testing? Or because
the job was incompatible with smoking pot?

The former is a pretty idiotic approach to the issue, but the latter seems
more consistent with what you wrote about smoking pot and flying, and does
not invoke drug testing as a solution.

> [...]
> 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.

$10/person isn't too bad for a company with 25 people to test. But there
are plenty of one-man operations that are also required to undergo drug
testing (they contract with a testing company, who randomly selects from
their "clients" to determine who will be tested). I admit, I don't know
what the cost is, but I can easily imagine that it's prohibitive at small
scales.

> 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.

IMHO, if a person is sober on the job, it doesn't matter what they are doing
off the job. Drug testing does not distinguish between the two, and
discriminates against people simply because of their lifestyle.

Maybe if I thought that drug testing was really being done out of a genuine
concern for people's safety, I'd feel differently. But I'm not convinced
that drug testing enhances safety all that much, and it's clear that the
primary push for drug testing is being done by the people who stand to make
lots of money doing it (as with various security regulations and similar
social expenditures).

Pete

G.R. Patterson III

December 15th 04, 12:41 AM

gatt wrote:
>
> 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 abstain from drugs because I can't afford the penalties if I were caught --
haven't done any illegal drugs in well over 20 years. I'm not on any sort of
test plan, so testing is not a factor. I obey the FARs as far as drinking goes
because I wouldn't want to find out the hard way that the Feds are right about
it.

> 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?

If you have an accident, what good is the test? Since there are people out there
who would fly while intoxicated, I think it likely that random testing prevents
this to some extent.

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

Blueskies

December 15th 04, 01:20 AM

"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/employersolutions/drugtesting.html

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

;-o

NW_PILOT

December 15th 04, 03:36 AM

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Casual debate here:
>
> Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs
(one
> was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand.
As
> a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for
drugs
> and something similar for alcohol.
>
> Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
> Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
> so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
> Aviation.
>
> 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?
>
> What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?
>
> -c
>
>

Obstain from drugs? that would mean I could not fly! Flying is I think the
best drug around........it gets you high in more ways than one.

NW_PILOT

December 15th 04, 03:39 AM

"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.

NW_PILOT

December 15th 04, 03:55 AM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
> "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
>
>

And then there are the people that have a lifetime supply by prescription of
vicodan, percodan, percocet, diazapam, or some other opiate, hypnotic or
designer pansy pill that have very bad effect on a persons judgment and
decision making skills than cannabis and leaves them highly susceptible to
suggestion. I would trust the guy that drinks & smokes cannabis at home then
work with someone on them make you feel happy pansy pills that they had out
like candy.

NW_PILOT

December 15th 04, 04:06 AM

> In spite of this, I found the remains of a marijuana cigarette (a
> roach) in the bathroom of our shop - only used by employees who were on
> the program. Somehow they were passing the random tests - meaning they
> had figured out a way to beat it. Truth is, I know exactly who was
> high on the job - it was obvious from the quality of the work.
> However, I couldn't have him fired for it - he was passing the tests.

Passing a **** test is not that hard!!! You can buy dehydrated urin, they
make kits out of IV bags and 9 volt heating pads that hold real urin and
getting clean urin only cost about $40.00 or if they have children then most
just have their children **** in a jar.

Most people that self medicate or use for recreation don't do it at work
anyway.

NW_PILOT

December 15th 04, 04:12 AM

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> gatt wrote:
> > Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and
> drugs (one
> > was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a
> thousand. As
> > a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25%
> for drugs
> > and something similar for alcohol.
>
> I seem to recall that the false positive rate for the lower-cost tests
> (those that don't cost hundreds of dollars per test) is also something
> like 0.1%. Perhaps that means the actual rate is zero, and the only
> effect of the policy is to increase costs and ruin careers while doing
> nothing to improve safety. That would be about par for the FAA.
>
> > Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
> > Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost
> prohibitive,
> > so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
> > Aviation.
>
> Which suggests to me that they're probably not using the expensive
> tests with low false-positive potential.
>
> > 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?
>
> Pilots don't abstain. I know lots of professional pilots, and as a
> whole they're the heaviest drinkers I know. They don't drink when
> they're flying, though. I also know quite a few who quit smoking dope
> after testing kicked in. None of them was ever high on the job,
> though. I weigh in solidly on the "Testing is a waste of time and
> money" side of the equation.
>
> > What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?
>
> In my last job, we all ****ed in a bottle. We worked with radioactive
> materials in refineries and chemical plants, so it just made sense.
> Yeah, right.
>
> The only positive that ever came up was from my boss - who was rabidly
> anti-drug. He tested positive for opiates (heroin). He screamed
> bloody murder, and because he was a senior manager and not a peon, an
> investigation was done. There was a retest, which also showed positive
> for opiates, but at a lower concentration. However, when the sample
> was sent to a proper lab, it turned out to be a false positive - a
> related chemical which is a breakdown product of poppy seeds. That
> poppyseed bagel did him in.

Takes one hell of a lot of popyseeds to test posotive.

C J Campbell

December 15th 04, 04:30 AM

"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?

Speaking for myself, I abstain because I think it is stupid to go around
poisoning yourself. I have never used drugs without a prescription, alcohol,
coffee, tea, or tobacco and I am not about to start. You could shove a chaw
of tobacco up a horse's butt and pull it back out and I would not think it
any nastier than it was before.

I cannot speak for the motivations of others. However, I think that the drug
and alcohol testing programs are a colossal waste of time and money.

Jim Fisher

December 15th 04, 02:30 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> [...]
>> Back in my younger years, I quit smoking pot because I got a job that did
>> random drug testing.
>
> Did you quit smoking pot because they were doing drug testing? Or because
> the job was incompatible with smoking pot?

I quit ONLY because of testing. NO other reason. At the time, I was a
young, stupid, pot-smokin', womanizin', party-eight-nights-a-week, and
livin' for the weekend kinda guy. I had an opportunity to double my income
and all I had to do was quit one of those things. DEAL!

During my employment (which involved shift work and long, lonely hours in a
high-tech control room) I stepped outside to take just two little puffs of
pot. I was scared **itless the rest of the night and never did it again.

So, it was only later on in my employment that I found that smoking pot and
being in control of high pressure narural gas lines was a Really Stupid,
incompatible thing to do.

> The former is a pretty idiotic approach to the issue,

Quitting something that is bad for you because of rules that were imposed on
me was a bad idea? I'd bet a whole dollar that there's a jillion former
pot-heads flying today who quit because of drug testing.

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

> IMHO, if a person is sober on the job, it doesn't matter what they are
> doing off the job. Drug testing does not distinguish between the two, and
> discriminates against people simply because of their lifestyle.

A held that stance years ago. Now I realize that more-than-occaisional drug
use is a sever character flaw and not a flaw I want in a Captain or FO.

> Maybe if I thought that drug testing was really being done out of a
> genuine concern for people's safety, I'd feel differently. But I'm not
> convinced that drug testing enhances safety all that much, and it's clear
> that the primary push for drug testing is being done by the people who
> stand to make lots of money doing it (as with various security regulations
> and similar social expenditures).

Then we will agree to disagree.

--
Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher

December 15th 04, 02:36 PM

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
>
> Takes one hell of a lot of popyseeds to test posotive.

No it doesn't.

You'd know that if you were a regular "Mythbusters" viewer.

--
Jim Fisher

Corky Scott

December 15th 04, 03:07 PM

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

C J Campbell

December 15th 04, 04:53 PM

"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

December 15th 04, 05:07 PM

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Takes one hell of a lot of popyseeds to test posotive.

A single bagel or muffin can cause you to test positive and there are people
who have lost their jobs because of it. Because of this the drug test is
being revised.

Another outrage is people who have too much water in their urine have lost
their jobs because it was presumed they were attempting to disguise their
drug use by drinking water. Of course, many diets encourage water drinking
and flight crew in particular should drink lots of water to avoid the
dangers of dehydration.

gatt

December 15th 04, 05:32 PM

"Frank" > wrote in message ...

> If they were really serious about highway safety they'd give people a
> 'driving' test, not a drug test. Same applies to pilots.

> I don't much care if you're high, liquored up, haven't slept in three
days,
> or just plain incompetent. The victims are just as dead.

They might as well administer a sleep test. "How much sleep did you get
last night? Four hours?! Well, clearly you're a hazard to aviation."

So it boils down to bureaucracy and public image after all. Just making
sure. Drugs and alcohol just don't seem to be a significant source of
aviation accidents. If it's cost prohibitive to the extent that it hurts the
small-time commercial pilot, it just doesn't seem worth it.

(If it's not cost prohibitive after all, it's probably not an issue.)

-c

gatt

December 15th 04, 05:42 PM

"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

December 15th 04, 05:45 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
news:2KJvd.77134

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

Granted, there are plenty of pilots who do plenty of stupid things, but
that's how I look at it.

>Too damn many people are like I used to be.

Heh. I applaud your honesty!

-c

G.R. Patterson III

December 15th 04, 05:50 PM

gatt wrote:
>
> They might as well administer a sleep test.

That would certainly be a great idea, if they could do it. Several of the
existing regulations on airline pilots, truck drivers, and railroad engineers
have no other purpose than to ensure that these people have at least the
opportunity to get enough sleep.

> Drugs and alcohol just don't seem to be a significant source of
> aviation accidents.

And there's no way to tell to what extent that's due to the fact that random
testing is required in some fields of employment.

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

Peter Duniho

December 15th 04, 05:58 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> Quitting something that is bad for you because of rules that were imposed
> on me was a bad idea?

Yes. A non-idiotic approach to the issue would be to base one's decision on
quitting on real facts, not some economically-motivated rule-making.

> I'd bet a whole dollar that there's a jillion former pot-heads flying
> today who quit because of drug testing.

A jillion you say? Uh, right. Whatever. I'd bet a lot more than a dollar
that the number is well below that, and in any case 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?

> A held that stance years ago. Now I realize that more-than-occaisional
> drug use is a sever character flaw and not a flaw I want in a Captain or
> FO.

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. But nevertheless, your qualification of
"more-than-occasional drug use" is not observed by drug testing. Even
occasional users will get strung up by it.

> Then we will agree to disagree.

Indeed.

Pete

Jim Fisher

December 15th 04, 06:11 PM

"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

Chip Jones

December 15th 04, 06:25 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
[snipped]
>
> Quitting something that is bad for you because of rules that were imposed
on
> me was a bad idea? I'd bet a whole dollar that there's a jillion former
> pot-heads flying today who quit because of drug testing.

I'll betcha there are a bunch of ex-pothead controllers out there too who
quit for the same reasons. I'm pretty close to one of them, but he'd never
admit his past sins on a public forum for fear of losing his federal job.
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. The Marines drug test with a zero-tolerance
policy. The he used his Marine Corps experience to get an FAA job as a
controller. The FAA drug tests too, with a zero-tolerance policy.

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*. 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. 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.

Random testing in the field of professional aviation is a necessary evil. I
firmly believe that even if we completely legalize pot someday for the
masses, we will still have to maintain a zero-tolerance random drug testing
policy or else air safety will suffer.

>
> 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

gatt

December 15th 04, 06:29 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message

> I'm not on any sort of test plan, so testing is not a factor.

Are you a commecial pilot? If so, how does that work?

> I obey the FARs as far as drinking goes because I wouldn't want to find
out the hard way >that the Feds are right about

I can say categorically that I can't even conceive of flying under the
influence of alcohol, pot...Benadryl...I rarely drink pop or coffee before I
fly 'cause caffeine is a diuretic. paradox. I'm less worried about having
an accident because of alcohol (I rarely drink) than I am about potentially
having an accident and then having the NTSB determine that there was alcohol
in my system.

> If you have an accident, what good is the test? Since there are people out
there
> who would fly while intoxicated, I think it likely that random testing
prevents
> this to some extent.

Thanks, George. Food for thought.

-c

Peter Duniho

December 15th 04, 06:45 PM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...
> [...]
> 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.

Those are the classic results of ANY lifestyle abuse. Any number of other
things can have the exact same result. Computer games, pornography, and
even scientific research have all been known to cause the exact same kind of
"drop out" behavior. Last I checked, none of those things are disallowed
for pilots.

More importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that *generally* habitual
pot use leads to the things you describe. Certain individuals are
susceptible to falling into a rut like that, but lots of habitual pot users
have no such problems, just as lots of habitual computer gamers, scientists,
and porn aficionados have no such problems.

You are trying to extrapolate to all people based on your knowledge of a
single individual. There's just no basis for that kind of extrapolation,
and it would be absurd to make rules based on a single individual.

> [...]
> Somewhere along the way, this guy realized just how damn bad drugs are for
> building a person's character.

Drugs aren't meant to build character. Why would you expect them to be?
And more importantly, there are plenty of other legal activities that are
similarly not useful for "building a person's character". Why should
everything a person does be good for building a person's character, and what
possible justification does our government have for mandating that a person
engage only in things that are good for building 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*. It's an air
> safety thing.

It's not a safety thing. It's a money thing. Even before drug testing,
it's a pretty sure bet that more pilots flew while drunk than while high on
pot. And yet, what testing is being sold? Drug testing.

If it were really a safety thing, the focus would be on alcohol abuse.

> You don't want unmotivated, low-energy, maybe high-as-a-kite
> folks playing around with airplanes that will be carrying passengers.

I don't want drunk pilots playing around with airplanes that will be
carrying passengers either. But no one seems to be cracking down on that.

> 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.

This is true of the drug known as alcohol as well.

> 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.

Drug use while flying, yes. Drug use generally? No...it has nothing to do
with air safety whatsoever. Drug testing does not distinguish between the
two.

> Random testing in the field of professional aviation is a necessary evil.
> I
> firmly believe that even if we completely legalize pot someday for the
> masses, we will still have to maintain a zero-tolerance random drug
> testing
> policy or else air safety will suffer.

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

Pete

Larry Dighera

December 15th 04, 06:59 PM

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:25:36 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> wrote in
>::

>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

G.R. Patterson III

December 15th 04, 07:07 PM

gatt wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
>
> > I'm not on any sort of test plan, so testing is not a factor.
>
> Are you a commecial pilot? If so, how does that work?

Nope, I'm a private pilot. In the late 60s and early 70s I used a variety of
drugs. By mid-'73, I didn't smoke pot very frequently 'cause I didn't like the
lethargy. In '74, however, I got married to a woman who was pretty habituated to
marijuana. She got wrecked every night and really got upset if I didn't
participate.

After we broke up, I went back to school. I stayed straight because I needed a
good head to get the grades -- besides, I could barely afford food. After that,
I went to work for a company that has a zero tolerance on drugs and crime. I
wasn't about to lose my job and possessions and take prison time for smoking
reefer, much less any of the more esoteric stuff I tried in my 20s. My company
didn't test for drugs, so I was really just concerned about the possibility of
arrest. I also needed to keep a good head for my work, so I'm not sure I
would've smoked much if it had been legal.

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

gatt

December 15th 04, 07:21 PM

"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!!

Happy Dog

December 15th 04, 07:44 PM

"Peter Duniho" >
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message

Comment (and pardon the top post):

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. 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 are other "character flaws", like a
penchant for risk-taking, that should be of more concern than recreational
drug use. And how about overly religious pilots? Remember that?

moo

>> Quitting something that is bad for you because of rules that were imposed
>> on me was a bad idea?
>
> Yes. A non-idiotic approach to the issue would be to base one's decision
> on quitting on real facts, not some economically-motivated rule-making.
>
>> I'd bet a whole dollar that there's a jillion former pot-heads flying
>> today who quit because of drug testing.
>
> A jillion you say? Uh, right. Whatever. I'd bet a lot more than a
> dollar that the number is well below that, and in any case 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?
>
>> A held that stance years ago. Now I realize that more-than-occaisional
>> drug use is a sever character flaw and not a flaw I want in a Captain or
>> FO.
>
> 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. But nevertheless, your qualification of
> "more-than-occasional drug use" is not observed by drug testing. Even
> occasional users will get strung up by it.
>
>> Then we will agree to disagree.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Pete
>

Michael

December 15th 04, 08:11 PM

C J Campbell wrote:
> > Takes one hell of a lot of popyseeds to test posotive.
>
> A single bagel or muffin can cause you to test positive and there are
people
> who have lost their jobs because of it. Because of this the drug test
is
> being revised.

Yeah, it's been in the process of being revised for years. You can
keep revising until the cows come home, but until you're willng to
spend hundreds of dollars per test, the problem won't go away.

You see, drug testing is hard. It's sort of like doing oil analysis
(another practice I don't put much faith in) - you're trying to detect
tiny concentrations of stuff you care about in an organic fluid that
has been where the sun don't shine.

I don't know how much experience the rest of you have with this, but
I've actually done these analyses (both the kinds used for oil analysis
and the kinds used for drug testing) in an actual chemical laboratory
with my own actual hands (required lab course in my engineering
program), so let me share with you some of the pitfalls involved:

First off, when you're dealing with tiny quantities, everything must be
clean. Absolutely, positively, scrupulously clean. Breathe in the
wrong place, use a bit of the wrong soap, omit a calibration step, make
a minor error - and your results are garbage. A real world trace
analysis is usually multiple steps - and every one of them has to be
right every time. Second, you have to know what you are looking for
and what else can be there. Analytical chemistry is the process of
elimination. You can never really eliminate everything - that's what
makes field samples such a challenge. That's also what causes a single
poppyseed bagel to trigger a false positive for heroin. Kitchen
poppies and opium poppies are close relatives, and there is no simple
test to tell the digestive products of the two apart reliably in trace
quantities.

> Another outrage is people who have too much water in their urine have
lost
> their jobs because it was presumed they were attempting to disguise
their
> drug use by drinking water. Of course, many diets encourage water
drinking
> and flight crew in particular should drink lots of water to avoid the
> dangers of dehydration.

The actual reason is keratinides. These are breakdown products
normally found in urine in certain concentrations. Excessive liquid
consumption will reduce their concentrations below normal levels, and
little else will. Low keratinine content is a pretty reliable
indicator that someone has been drinking a lot of liquids (not
necessarily water) and not sweating too much - meaning the kidneys are
working overtime. It's not likely to happen unless the person is
intentionally drinking a lot, but as you mentioned certain diets
encourage this and it's also considered proper for those working in a
very low humidity environment. The "problem" with this is that it can
cause the already diluted breakdown products of certain drugs consumed
days ago (most notably cannabis) to be diluted to such a low level that
the test won't work. This won't actually work if the person has enough
of the drug in his system to be actively impaired or if he has a very
high concentration due to chronic use, but it works pretty reliably if
the person is only an occasional user who has been clean for a couple
of days or more. Why we should care that the person is an occasional
user who last used days ago has never been adequately explained.

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.

Michael

gatt

December 15th 04, 09:16 PM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:Ak%vd.213

> Random testing in the field of professional aviation is a necessary evil.
I
> firmly believe that even if we completely legalize pot someday for the
> masses, we will still have to maintain a zero-tolerance random drug
testing
> policy or else air safety will suffer.

It's interesting that marijuana keeps coming up in this discussion. It's the
most benign of them all, impairing people less even than alcohol. According
to a drug testing link somebody forwarded, methamphetamine use is coming up
pretty dramatically (44% increase in positive test results in the last
year?!)

I agree, though, that if pot (as an example) were legalized, it still
wouldn't belong in the cockpit. But, test for it? Do they test for the
presence of perfectly legal drugs like Benadryl which, arguably, would pose
a more severe handicap to a pilot?

I'd rather ride with a guy who smoked pot last week or went on a bender
three days ago at a bachelor party than a guy who's about to fall asleep at
the yoke because he took Benadryl two or three hours ago.

-c

gatt

December 15th 04, 09:31 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

> Computer games, pornography, and even scientific research have all been
known to >cause the exact same kind of "drop out" behavior. Last I
checked, none of those things >are disallowed for pilots.

So a guy I know who's a sociology professor and researcher at a major
university, who smokes pot, plays video games, drinks beer and surfs and
occasional porn site probably shouldn't become a pilot... [Answer, in his
case: True]

> More importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that *generally*
habitual
> pot use leads to the things you describe. Certain individuals are
> susceptible to falling into a rut like that, but lots of habitual pot
users
> have no such problems, just as lots of habitual computer gamers,
scientists,
> and porn aficionados have no such problems.

Absolutely agree. I know habitual long-time pot smokers and computer gamers
who have been successfully employed for decades--in one case, 23 years--who
have college degrees, careers. Profs, lawyers, engineers, programmers,
insulators. I know others who don't have those vices at all and, for
example, work for those people.

When I was a magazine editor some of the most productive and least
expendable members of the staff were pot smokers. I had to fire a few
people who weren't 'cause they just didn't have the ambition to meet
deadlines, check facts, report accurately...show up...

Of course, for each of those I remember a friend or schoolmate that was a
burnout by the time he graduated from high school, and is still working at a
warehouse or plant somewhere for minimum wage.

-c

gatt

December 15th 04, 09:46 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message

>I got married to a woman who was pretty habituated to
> marijuana.

As a musician I've played with groups who had habitual pot users in them (I
won't play with drunks or hard-drug users.) One time a couple of years ago,
in England, the bass player confided in me that the four days he'd been in
the UK was the longest he'd gone without smoking pot since he was ELEVEN
YEARS OLD!

He's also a construction contractor for a major printer company. Showed me
his "Certified Drug Free" card after he passed his drug test a couple of
years ago. Guy's 40. His house is three times as big as mine, his daughter
is a champion equestrian who just started college, his son is studying
robotics and plays football in high school.

Having said that, there have been a couple of times where drug or alcohol
consumption has negatively influenced a recording session or a concert. No
way in hell those guys would make a good pilots.

-c

Jim Fisher

December 15th 04, 09:58 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Quitting something that is bad for you because of rules that were imposed
>> on me was a bad idea?
>
> Yes. A non-idiotic approach to the issue would be to base one's decision
> on quitting on real facts, not some economically-motivated rule-making.

You might be surprised that most of us are motivated by money. Works for
me, anyway.

Besides, I didn't know I was an idiot at the time. Thought I was pudy
smart, actually.

> 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.

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!

--
Jim Fisher

G.R. Patterson III

December 15th 04, 10:26 PM

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.

Happy Dog

December 15th 04, 10:39 PM

"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

Jim Fisher

December 15th 04, 10:52 PM

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.

Jim Fisher

December 15th 04, 11:01 PM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> ...
> [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

Happy Dog

December 15th 04, 11:07 PM

"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

Peter Duniho

December 15th 04, 11:23 PM

"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

Morgans

December 16th 04, 02:10 AM

"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

Morgans

December 16th 04, 02:15 AM

"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

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 03:23 AM

"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

Chip Jones

December 16th 04, 03:41 AM

Chip Jones

December 16th 04, 03:41 AM

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

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 03:43 AM

"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

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 03:48 AM

"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

Chip Jones

December 16th 04, 03:51 AM

"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

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 03:54 AM

"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

Chip Jones

December 16th 04, 04:19 AM

"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

Chip Jones

December 16th 04, 04:21 AM

"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

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 04:34 AM

"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

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 04:37 AM

"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

C J Campbell

December 16th 04, 06:18 AM

"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.

Peter Duniho

December 16th 04, 06:40 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I do have an opinion which of these two camps you fall into.

And you had been doing so well since changing your email address.

Oh well...guess we're back to "the good ol' days".

Brian Burger

December 16th 04, 08:03 AM

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "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.

*Moderate* alcohol consumption, C.J., *moderate*. Alcoholics aren't known
for moderation.

Brian.
www.warbard.ca/avgas/index.html

Morgans

December 16th 04, 11:34 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote
>
> Oh well...guess we're back to "the good ol' days".

I see you haven't changed, either.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

December 16th 04, 11:36 AM

"Happy Dog" > wrote

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
>
I can't believe ANYONE could complain about off topic, in this post.

Yeah, I could.
--
Jim in NC

Matt Barrow

December 16th 04, 11:52 AM

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

And your qualification to make that assessment are...?

Are you a psychologist that got into his head in detail, or are you merely
self-professedly psychic?

Gee...ever heard of "cause and effect"?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow

December 16th 04, 11:55 AM

"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.

Evidently some of their reasoning problems rubbed off on you with such a
knee-jerk reaction.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO.

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 01:54 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message

>> > > going in. As you might expect, he soon saw falling school grades,
>> > > low
>> > > energy, no motivation, etc., the classic results of habitual pot use.

>> > And you're sure that it was the dope that was the problem and not a
>> symptom?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> And your qualification to make that assessment are...?

This was attributed to me but I didn't say it. I do note that the poster
said only that he didn't know the source of this individual's problems. No
qualification is necessary for that.

m

Jim Fisher

December 16th 04, 02:08 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

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

I figured as much. I'm sure I'd feel the same as you if placed in those
circumstances.

--
Jim Fisher

Michael

December 16th 04, 03:26 PM

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

C J Campbell

December 16th 04, 03:34 PM

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >
> > "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.
>
> *Moderate* alcohol consumption, C.J., *moderate*. Alcoholics aren't known
> for moderation.

Surprisingly, many are. Be that as it may, I have spent three of the last
five Christmas days in the hospital, visiting alcoholics who are on
respirators or who are locked in "First Ward South" at Harrison Hospital. I
spend an inordinate amount of time counseling kids who have become pregnant
after "moderate" alcohol consumption. Most of my life, when I am not
teaching flying or taking time for photography, is spent in the hospital, in
court, in convalescent centers and elsewhere, dealing with family abuse,
drunk drivers, broken homes, unwanted pregnancies, drug dependencies, and
many other problems. And you know what? Every single one of these people
thinks that a couple of drinks a day is beneficial to their health.

My life would be a lot easier without alcohol.

C J Campbell

December 16th 04, 03:35 PM

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

And heck, if you have to wrongly destroy a few careers and wreck some
families, it is worth it, eh?

m pautz

December 16th 04, 04:53 PM

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Brian Burger" > wrote in message
> ia.tc.ca...
>
>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"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.
>>
>>*Moderate* alcohol consumption, C.J., *moderate*. Alcoholics aren't known
>>for moderation.
>
>
> Surprisingly, many are. Be that as it may, I have spent three of the last
> five Christmas days in the hospital, visiting alcoholics who are on
> respirators or who are locked in "First Ward South" at Harrison Hospital. I
> spend an inordinate amount of time counseling kids who have become pregnant
> after "moderate" alcohol consumption. Most of my life, when I am not
> teaching flying or taking time for photography, is spent in the hospital, in
> court, in convalescent centers and elsewhere, dealing with family abuse,
> drunk drivers, broken homes, unwanted pregnancies, drug dependencies, and
> many other problems. And you know what? Every single one of these people
> thinks that a couple of drinks a day is beneficial to their health.
>
> My life would be a lot easier without alcohol.
>
>
I understand both sides. My grandfather on my mother's side was an
alcoholic; My mother dislikes alcohol. Ther was a heavy drinker on my
wife's side of the family; my wife is concerned about alcohol. My
brother is an alcoholic. I can see how "moderation" can be a problem if
a person "has" to have a martini upon arriving home from work. That is
one side of the issue.

The other side is that every male in my family has had a heart attack
except me. My father and grandfather died of heart attacks, by uncle
had a heart attack and bypass surgery, my brother was in cardiac care
when he "coded". I had 90% blockage and have had a stent inserted. The
studies I have seen say that both the antioxidents in grape skin "and"
alcohol are good for heart health. I like wine with dinner and, due to
my family history, I would like to assure that I get at least one glass
of wine per day. I just don't get around to it every day. I suppose
my average is about 3-4 glasses per week.

There is no answer to the abuse issue that you raised. We will never
remove alcohol from society. From what I have seen, most abuse issues
are related, not to the alcohol, but rather to addictive personality
traits. I believe the most success is not in attacking alcohol or
drugs, but the personality trait. The most successful seem to be
replacing a destrucive obsession with a possitive obsession.

Gig Giacona

December 16th 04, 05:38 PM

"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
>

It isn't that expensive to do away with 99.99999% of the false positives.
Get rid of the instant tests. I handle the HR for over 1200 employees spread
over 3 states. Every last one of them peed in a cup the day they were hired
and are subjuect to random, probable cause and post accident drug screens.

I can the screens run through a REAL lab and have a Medical Review Officer
recheck and background all positives. in the last 3 years I have not had a
positive result that I din't end up getting the employee to admit was indeed
a true positive.

gatt

December 16th 04, 06:18 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

> > 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.

Understandable, but slightly off the mark. Some people react differently
to alcohol than others, the same as any chemical or drug. In some cases
it's addiction, in other cases it's not much of anything. In my case, I get
ill before I get drunk, so I'm not too likely to develop the disease that
runs in my family. (works for me.)

-c

C J Campbell

December 16th 04, 06:32 PM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> The bottom line is that the THREAT of being popped positive on a random
drug
> test seriously deters drug use.

Besides, the bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever that this
threat does any such thing.

Frank

December 16th 04, 06:33 PM

Chip Jones wrote:

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

But that test doesn't indicate whether or not the person lacking
coordination was on pot or Benadryl. Or just hadn't slept in three days.

As regards flight safety this would be the kind of test that makes sense.
Testing for <pot|booze|crack> only serves an agenda that puts social issues
ahead of safety.

--
Frank....H

C J Campbell

December 16th 04, 06:34 PM

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>
> > > 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.
>
> Understandable, but slightly off the mark. Some people react differently
> to alcohol than others, the same as any chemical or drug. In some cases
> it's addiction, in other cases it's not much of anything. In my case, I
get
> ill before I get drunk, so I'm not too likely to develop the disease that
> runs in my family. (works for me.)

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

cylon

December 16th 04, 06:46 PM

>"Michael" wrote in message > 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

Where are your statistics to prove this? It certainly is NOT the case as
concerns the lab I use.

D.

cylon

December 16th 04, 06:46 PM

>"gatt" wrote in message >commercial pilots and operators say that the cost
of a
> Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
> so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
> Aviation.

My 135 drug testing program is a very small percentage of my operating
costs.

> 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?

Before drug & alcohol abatement programs, post accident testing wasn't
required unless local law enforcement suspected impairment.
No testing what-so-ever was required unless suspicions arose. Chronic
drinkers and users were not detected because they could function without
causing suspicion. I know pilots who have left the bar and flown trips
without anyone realizing they were impaired. A small part of the commercial
pilot group partaked in their desires before flying because the chances of
getting caught were slight. They could function on an acceptable level while
impaired.

Those people have slowly been weeded out by randon testing. Randon testing
is the one thing that has deterred the chronic users and drinkers. Either
they quit or were caught. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.
Contemporary commercial pilot groups (in general) place greater emphasis on
abiding by drug and alcohol regulations than their earlier piers. I don't
have statistics to back this up, just my 27 years of commercial flying
experience.

In the old days, an employer could demand a drug test as a condition for
employment, but incurred a legal exposure. The company that shared a
negative result with other prospective employers was sure to get sued. With
federal drug and alcohol testing requirements, a company's legal exposure
is greatly reduced. Perhaps the operators who still complain about the
expense of mandated testing forget about the expense of lawyers?

Then there are the pre-employment tests. The prospective employee knows that
pre-employment testing is required. The prospective employee knows that s/he
can decline or postpone the testing. Yet still, there are a few who fail
pre-employment testing. Do we want these lowly intelligent people flying our
families?

Testing isn't the only part of the program. Many forget, or don't know, that
education about recognizing impaired individuals is part of the program.
Recognizing colleagues who need help with a dependency problem is part of
the training. Steering these people with problems to professional help and
rehabilitation is part of the program. Those operators who complain about
the cost probably don't care much about their employees.

> What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

I am a Part 135 operator. I am a Part 121 pilot. Drug and alcohol abatement
programs are here to stay. I welcome them.

D.

Michael

December 16th 04, 06:49 PM

> in the last 3 years I have not had a
> positive result that I din't end up getting the employee to admit was
indeed

And how did you get the employee to admit this?

No admissions obtained by letting the employee get any benefit from the
admission that he would not otherwise get (like keeping his job) counts
as legitimate.

Michael

gatt

December 16th 04, 07:01 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
news:to2wd.2559

> 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 disagree. I know laywers, professors, engineers, programmers and, well,
parents who have smoked pot most of their adult life who don't demonstrate
those characteristics.

One, as I think I mentioned earlier, was UAL/PDX' employee of the year three
or four times in his 23-year career. He got a special award for not missing
a day of work in five years. I know for a fact he's smoked pot daily since
before I was born. Hasn't been in a traffic accident in as long as I can
remember (drove as a courier after UAL closed down his unit and laid the
entire crew off), never been arrested.

Having said that, I am absolutely not condoning mixing drug use of any kind
with flying. I've done my share of, eh, sampling, but I won't even eat
curry before flying because it makes me drowsy, and coffee is a diuretic
which is a distraction so I limit that as well.

I guess what torques me off is, the vast majority of commercial pilots make
squat, and yet every time they take off they put their lives and their
passengers' lives in danger. Every single time. They're not paid in
accordance with the risk of their OWN lives, and yet it takes some well-paid
group of bureaucrats somewhere to legislate safety to people who risk their
lives every damned minute they're working. My thinking, of course, may be
way off.

> 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!

LOL! My grandparents broke down in southeast Oregon on a hunting trip and
chartered a pilot to take them to Reno for the car part. In Reno, the
pilot rented a car and drove them to the part place. My grandfather (a
cop) said the guy was as good a pilot as those he rode with in WWII, but
that he ran four stop signs in the short amount of time they were with him.
:>

-c

Larry Dighera

December 16th 04, 07:08 PM

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:33:01 -0600, Frank > wrote in
>::

>Chip Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:25:36 GMT, "Chip Jones"
>>> > wrote in
>>> >::
>>>
>>> >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
>
>
>But that test doesn't indicate whether or not the person lacking
>coordination was on pot or Benadryl. Or just hadn't slept in three days.
>
>As regards flight safety this would be the kind of test that makes sense.
>Testing for <pot|booze|crack> only serves an agenda that puts social issues
>ahead of safety.

That was my point. Thank you.

It makes more sense to test for performance than drug use unless
safety isn't the objective.

gatt

December 16th 04, 07:35 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message news:Ni7wd.10243

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

That has been my experience with four people that I know out of, oh, maybe a
hundred pot smokers. (Let me elaborate: I'm a performing and recording
musician AND one of my parents was a regular pot smoker, so it comes with
the turf. I'm fine working with -most- pot smokers but refuse to deal with
drunks or anybody using anything stronger than pot. And the pot smokers I
know who've been as addicted as you describe are not the caliber of people
who fly planes anyhow.)

What I'm refuting is the "vast majority" part of your post. It CAN be
exactly as you describe in people who already have addictive tendencies. I
know a physicist and programmer who smoked pot daily and, unfortunately, is
an alcoholic. He quit smoking pot when he felt like doing so, but can't
shake the alcoholism despite the toll it has taken on him.

So, my direct experience has been exactly the opposite when it comes to pot,
but exactly as you describe when it comes to alcoholics. And meth users,
which is an epidemic here in the northwest, but, like I said, nobody trusts
'em.

-c

gatt

December 16th 04, 07:37 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message news:9v7wd.18717$%

> > Using pot, in the vast majority of users, becomes more important than
> > almost anything.
>
> You mispelled "crack".

Alternately, meth. More commonly, alcohol.

-c

gatt

December 16th 04, 07:42 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
news:uj3wd.3254$

> 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.

Interesting point. A woman I know told me that the most cocaine she's ever
seen was being snorted by a group of airline pilots in her stepfather's
kitchen during a New Year's party sometime in the early '80s.

-c

gatt

December 16th 04, 07:44 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message news:Ni7wd.10244

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

Neither. You're simply incorrect.

And I'd wager, as a performing and recording musician, that I have more
experience with pot users and alcoholics than both of you combined.

-c
(not an addict.)

gatt

December 16th 04, 07:53 PM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:718wd.606

<>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.

Except the professor I know. PhD in--get this--criminology. Dude's an
expert in drug abuse arrest demographics. He and his father smoke pot
together, and his father is a very successful lawyer in Alaska. They spent
a month together with their families in New Zealand, bungee jumping and
sailing and surfing and scuba diving, while non-users like the CFIs on this
group struggle to pay their bills. I also know a habitual smoker who is
an accomplished physicist and progammer, just bought a 44' ketch once owned
by the Disneys, and works from his sailboat which, last I heard, was at the
Catalina Islands.

I also know two pot-smoking engineers, a former US Army Major who asked me
if I wanted to partake (I declined) and a woman who smoked pot in college
and graduated Suma Cum Laude from a university in Texas. Let's see...I
know a music teacher who smoked pot daily when we were in college together.
She quit five years ago and hasn't been **** tested yet. Geologist, a
jeweler, a crane operator...

Habitual aviatiors aren't motivated to give a rat's ass about much more than
flying.

-c

Gig Giacona

December 16th 04, 07:55 PM

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> in the last 3 years I have not had a
>> positive result that I din't end up getting the employee to admit was
> indeed
>
> And how did you get the employee to admit this?
>
> No admissions obtained by letting the employee get any benefit from the
> admission that he would not otherwise get (like keeping his job) counts
> as legitimate.
>
> Michael

No benefit was offered. I have them in my office and I act like the fine
human I am an they roll everytime.

gatt

December 16th 04, 07:57 PM

"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:

> 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!

....and...

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

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.

-c

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 08:01 PM

"cylon" > wrote in message
> causing suspicion. I know pilots who have left the bar and flown trips
> without anyone realizing they were impaired. A small part of the
> commercial
> pilot group partaked in their desires before flying because the chances of
> getting caught were slight. They could function on an acceptable level
> while
> impaired.
>
> Those people have slowly been weeded out by randon testing. Randon testing
> is the one thing that has deterred the chronic users and drinkers.

They administered breathalyzers? Drug testing is different from alcohol
testing. There's a big difference between being impaired on the job and a
few days before, no?

moo

Chip Jones

December 16th 04, 08:06 PM

"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/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2001_0148

http://www.asma.org/Publication/abstract/v72n2/v72n2p120.html

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

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones

December 16th 04, 08:06 PM

"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

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 08:10 PM

"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

Chip Jones

December 16th 04, 08:18 PM

"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

Larry Dighera

December 16th 04, 08:37 PM

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.

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 08:39 PM

"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

gatt

December 16th 04, 08:45 PM

"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

Corky Scott

December 16th 04, 08:53 PM

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

gatt

December 16th 04, 08:55 PM

"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

gatt

December 16th 04, 08:59 PM

"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

gatt

December 16th 04, 09:02 PM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message news:b4mwd.1157

> 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.

LOL! I have no idea how to respond to that. Hey, peeeace, maaaaan.

> People entrust their lives to me every day. I'm an air traffic
controller.

Keep 'em flying.

-c

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 09:03 PM

"Chip Jones" >
>> 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-occasional 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."

Get a grip. You understand my statement in context or you're an idiot.
Pick one. And, the claim is that we're saving lives by spending millions on
random drug testing. But the evidence is lacking.

>>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.

*Most* people DO believe in psychic phenomena.

> 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

"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. "

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

Nothing here about the supposed dangers to the public from moderate
recreational use.

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".

moo

Frank Ch. Eigler

December 16th 04, 09:05 PM

"Chip Jones" > writes:

> [...] "The discussion is, is the aviation community's drug and
> alcohol habit--or lack thereof--influenced by drug testing policy
> [...]"
>
> 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.

But there's the problem. The claim that "drug use is significantly
detrimental to air safety" does not wash, because it equivocates use
and impairment, despite your protestations.

- FChE

gatt

December 16th 04, 09:06 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

> 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 and I are on opposite ends of the continent, then. Despite our
difference, I think we have one thing in common: I certainly wouldn't want
a pilot or controller operating under the influence of -ANY- impairing
circumstance, whether it's alcohol, pot, speed, Benadryl, lack of sleep, a
bitchy wife or a plain ol' short attention span.

What Chip does off the job is his business.

-c

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 09:13 PM

"gatt" > wrote in message
> Chip and I are on opposite ends of the continent, then. Despite our
> difference, I think we have one thing in common: I certainly wouldn't
> want
> a pilot or controller operating under the influence of -ANY- impairing
> circumstance, whether it's alcohol, pot, speed, Benadryl, lack of sleep, a
> bitchy wife or a plain ol' short attention span.
>
> What Chip does off the job is his business.

His point is that it is your business. Everybody's business. Not his
business.

moo

gatt

December 16th 04, 09:14 PM

"Michael" > wrote in message \

< This won't actually work if the person has enough
> of the drug in his system to be actively impaired or if he has a very
> high concentration due to chronic use, but it works pretty reliably if
> the person is only an occasional user who has been clean for a couple
> of days or more. Why we should care that the person is an occasional
> user who last used days ago has never been adequately explained.

A probation officer I know who administers drug tests to, eh, "clients,"
says the test for MJ will show clean after only about three to five days if
it's a rare or occasional users. Habitual users can be detected longer than
a month after they quit.

Most POs aren't looking for pot, though, and aren't so concerned if the
client inhaled two weeks ago although a probation/parole violation is a
violation. They're usually looking for opiates and amphetamine.

-c

Morgans

December 16th 04, 09:58 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote

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

Boy, now *that's* a jump.

How do you figure/what is your reasoning for say that?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

December 16th 04, 10:30 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote

> They administered breathalyzers? Drug testing is different from alcohol
> testing. There's a big difference between being impaired on the job and a
> few days before, no?
>
> moo

I can't speak to the part 135 operators, but I have a commercial driver's
license, and yes, they come to your place of employment and do a
breathalyzer, on the spot.
--
Jim in NC

Newps

December 16th 04, 11:09 PM

Chip Jones wrote:

>
>
> FACT: If you get popped on a random drug test, you are unemployed,

Not from the FAA you aren't.

Newps

December 16th 04, 11:11 PM

Chip Jones wrote:

>
> 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?

You guys need to reread the drug test regs. We get to go in the
bathroom alone up here. No hand holding needed.

Happy Dog

December 16th 04, 11:20 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message > "Happy Dog"
> wrote
>
>> They administered breathalyzers? Drug testing is different from alcohol
>> testing. There's a big difference between being impaired on the job and
>> a
>> few days before, no?
>>
>
> I can't speak to the part 135 operators, but I have a commercial driver's
> license, and yes, they come to your place of employment and do a
> breathalyzer, on the spot.

And, like I said, that's a very different kind of test. I have no issues
with it. Operating a commercial vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol is very different from operating a commercial vehicle a couple days
after you smoked a joint.

moo

Michael

December 17th 04, 12:13 AM

>Then there are the pre-employment tests. The prospective employee
knows that
>pre-employment testing is required. The prospective employee knows
that s/he
>can decline or postpone the testing. Yet still, there are a few who
fail
>pre-employment testing.

Are there? These people would have to be total idiots. Now, what is
more likely:
We have these total idiots applying for jobs, often with some pretty
impressive looking credentials, OR
The tests aren't quite as accurate as you think they are, and have a
fairly high false positive rate?

The question can be answered thus - what kind of GUARANTEE does the
drug testing operation give you? In other words, how much will they
pay in DAMAGES if they are wrong? If the answer is "a whole lot less
than a ruined career and reputation is worth" well, then, you have your
answer.

Michael

C J Campbell

December 17th 04, 01:00 AM

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

It was my mother, if you must know. 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. Anyway, she vomited, aspirated some of the vomit and nearly drowned.
She had to be on a respirator for three weeks.

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

C J Campbell

December 17th 04, 01:03 AM

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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?
>

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.

> 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.

C J Campbell

December 17th 04, 01:04 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
>
> >
> > I suspect that if you are getting ill before you get drunk that you are
> > already an alcoholic.
>
> Boy, now *that's* a jump.
>
> How do you figure/what is your reasoning for say that?

See my reply to Gatt.

C J Campbell

December 17th 04, 01:12 AM

"cylon" > wrote in message
...
>
> Testing isn't the only part of the program. Many forget, or don't know,
that
> education about recognizing impaired individuals is part of the program.
> Recognizing colleagues who need help with a dependency problem is part of
> the training. Steering these people with problems to professional help and
> rehabilitation is part of the program. Those operators who complain about
> the cost probably don't care much about their employees.
>
> > What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?
>
> I am a Part 135 operator. I am a Part 121 pilot. Drug and alcohol
abatement
> programs are here to stay. I welcome them.

The testing is worthless. Otherwise I think the biggest factor in weeding
out problem pilots has been a cultural change.

The truth is that if someone really tests positive on the tests, then his
co-workers probably already knew about his problem. I think most testing
centers would be hard pressed to come up with an example of actually finding
genuine abusers that no one knew about already.

Michelle P

December 17th 04, 01:16 AM

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

Bob Gardner wrote:

>It's a feel-good program for the government, allowing them to show the
>public that they are "doing something." It has no practical effect.
>
>Bob Gardner
>
>"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>Casual debate here:
>>
>>Something like .1% of the pilots randomly tested for alcohol and drugs
>>(one
>>was .5%, I believe) tested positive in 2004. That's one in a thousand.
>>As
>>a result of this percentage, the random test rate will stay at 25% for
>>drugs
>>and something similar for alcohol.
>>
>>Meanwhile, commercial pilots and operators say that the cost of a
>>Part-135-type drug and alcohol testing program is nearly cost prohibitive,
>>so it can be argued that this sort of testing program hurts General
>>Aviation.
>>
>>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?
>>
>>What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?
>>
>>-c
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Happy Dog

December 17th 04, 01:16 AM

"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"?

Le Moo

"They're *all* vampires!"

- can't remember

C J Campbell

December 17th 04, 01:21 AM

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
nk.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

December 17th 04, 01:31 AM

"Michelle P" >
....
> Bob,
> It may be a feel good program but I know that it keeps some of my
> co-workers from drinking during the week.

Of course it does. But at what cost? And what is the safety benefit? You
sure that the resources couldn't be better spent elsewhere?

moo

Morgans

December 17th 04, 02:07 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote
>
> > 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.

But Not LIMITED to alcoholics.

For example. My mom could have one drink, and pay for it all next day. She
never had drunk to excess, or on a regular basis.
--
Jim in NC

Capt.Doug

December 17th 04, 05:21 AM

>"Happy Dog" wrote in message Operating a commercial vehicle while under the
>influence of
> alcohol is very different from operating a commercial vehicle a couple
days
> after you smoked a joint.

It may be unfair that one can not partake in getting high when one has
several days to recover. You have any reasonable way to accomodate the
casual user and still weed out the chronic users?

In the end, most professional pilots accept that they can't partake. It's a
compromise and flying is full of compromises.

D.

Capt.Doug

December 17th 04, 05:21 AM

>"Happy Dog" wrote in message > They administered breathalyzers?

Yes.

D.

Capt.Doug

December 17th 04, 05:22 AM

>"C J Campbell" wrote in message > The testing is worthless. Otherwise I
think >the biggest factor in weeding
> out problem pilots has been a cultural change.

That cultural change didn't come about until drug testing was instituted.
Chicken and egg kind of thing.

> The truth is that if someone really tests positive on the tests, then his
> co-workers probably already knew about his problem. I think most testing
> centers would be hard pressed to come up with an example of actually
finding
> genuine abusers that no one knew about already.

I agree with you as far as social abusers are concerned (drinking alcohol
and smoking marijuana). However, I disagree with you when it comes to
prescription drug abusers. People addicted to pain-killers,
anti-depressants, and other illicit pills may be closet users. Many times
their own families aren't aware of their dependency. How about heroin? Ever
see any pilots shooting up at the bar? Is a heroin user going to want his
colleagues to know about his habit? Will his non-aviation user friends care
if he flies at less than 100%?

Eventually, the abuser will have to decide if they want to get high with
drugs or with an airplane. That is the worth of testing. It doesn't happen
overnight. Without drug testing regulations, it may never happen, until it's
too late.

D.

Capt.Doug

December 17th 04, 05:22 AM

>"Michael" wrote in message - what kind of GUARANTEE does the
> drug testing operation give you?

To provide for the non-believers, the collection method was modified. The
specimen is split into 2 containers. Only one is tested. If the results are
positive, the individual who provided the sample may have the second half
tested at the laboratory of his/her choice.

To answer your first question, yes, there are idiots that fail their
pre-employment tests.

D.

C J Campbell

December 17th 04, 05:44 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
> >
> > > 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.
>
> But Not LIMITED to alcoholics.
>
> For example. My mom could have one drink, and pay for it all next day.
She
> never had drunk to excess, or on a regular basis.

Neither did I say that it is a certainty that Gatt is an alcoholic. Given
his own stated behavior, however, I would give it a high probability.

C J Campbell

December 17th 04, 05:48 AM

"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.

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

Chip Jones

December 17th 04, 07:00 AM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" >
> >
> > 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."
>
> Get a grip. You understand my statement in context or you're an idiot.
> Pick one. And, the claim is that we're saving lives by spending millions
on
> random drug testing. But the evidence is lacking.

It's likely that I'm an idiot, but I sure as hell don't understand your
statement "in context". The "right to privacy" does not extend to drug
testing aviation professionals.

>
> >>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.
>
> *Most* people DO believe in psychic phenomena.

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.

>
> > 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
>
> "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.

>
> > 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?

> >
> > 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
there is no way to test for intoxication, but there is an easy and accurate
way to test for use. Since use is illegal anyway, and no one has a right to
break the laws of the state, and since cannabis use is a significant flight
safety hazard, drug testing is a good way to deter cannabis use.

Not mention other drugs, like coke, MDMA, heroin, codeine, oxycontin etc
etc...

> >
> > 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
experience acute anxiety or have paranoid thoughts. Marijuana causes
difficulty with short-term memory. It also tends to distort perceptions, and
slows reaction time.
Because of these side effects, there are serious indirect risks associated
with marijuana use--often worse than the direct side effects. Users are at
particularly high risk for automobile accidents and unsafe sex. In one study
at a shock-trauma unit, 15% of patients who were involved in traffic
accidents had been smoking marijuana, and an additional 17% had both THC and
alcohol in their bloodstream. Also, students may have difficulty studying
and learning, and athletic performance may be negatively affected."

This is intimately related to the "supposed" dangers to the public from
moderate recreationl use of cannabis by air safety professionals. Gee, just
what we need to add to the margin of air safety, a bunch of acutely anxious,
paranoid, perceptually distorted, slow-to-react commercial pilots and air
traffic controllers. Even routine communications might lead to moments of
chaos:

"Center, Delta 123, flight level 350."

"Delta 123, uhhh, like, roger, dude." [Oh man! Does he know I'm high?
Does he know I think he knows I'm high? He KNOWS! I KNOW he knows...
gasp! What if THEY pull this tape? THEY are everywhere. THEY can probably
even hear me thinking! Gotta...stop... thinking. Paranoia paranoia
paranoia!!! Geeze, my mouth is dry. Pull it together man! it's not like
THEY drug test any more. Holy smokes, I wonder what that flasing there on
the scope means? It sure is a pretty green color! I wonder if there are
any doughnuts left in the coffee shoppe?]

>
> 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.

Chip, ZTL

Happy Dog

December 17th 04, 09:58 AM

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
> >"Happy Dog" wrote in message Operating a commercial vehicle while under
> >the
>>influence of alcohol is very different from operating a commercial vehicle
>>a couple
> days after you smoked a joint.
>
> It may be unfair that one can not partake in getting high when one has
> several days to recover. You have any reasonable way to accomodate the
> casual user and still weed out the chronic users?
> In the end, most professional pilots accept that they can't partake. It's
> a
> compromise and flying is full of compromises.

The issue I was raising is efficacy and cost effectiveness. And, the
pro-testing camp don't have solid evidence that random drug testing of
aviation professionals is either. The debate quickly degrades into
name-calling and accusations that people who oppose it are crazy or drug
users themselves. But, stick to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness issues
and it doesn't look justified. It's promoted by hype and hysteria.

moo

Happy Dog

December 17th 04, 10:03 AM

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
>> The truth is that if someone really tests positive on the tests, then his
>> co-workers probably already knew about his problem. I think most testing
>> centers would be hard pressed to come up with an example of actually
> finding genuine abusers that no one knew about already.
>
> I agree with you as far as social abusers are concerned (drinking alcohol
> and smoking marijuana). However, I disagree with you when it comes to
> prescription drug abusers. People addicted to pain-killers,
> anti-depressants, and other illicit pills may be closet users. Many times
> their own families aren't aware of their dependency. How about heroin?
> Ever
> see any pilots shooting up at the bar? Is a heroin user going to want his
> colleagues to know about his habit? Will his non-aviation user friends
> care
> if he flies at less than 100%?

Nobody always flies at 100%. I agree that it's hard to detect closet
abusers. 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.
>
> Eventually, the abuser will have to decide if they want to get high with
> drugs or with an airplane. That is the worth of testing. It doesn't happen
> overnight. Without drug testing regulations, it may never happen, until
> it's
> too late.

With more invasive monitoring and spending we could weed out other potential
problems too. Government as nanny. Spend more money. Yesss...

moo

Happy Dog

December 17th 04, 10:06 AM

"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

Happy Dog

December 17th 04, 10:22 AM

"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

Corky Scott

December 17th 04, 01:17 PM

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

Michelle P

December 17th 04, 02:38 PM

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
nk.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?
>
>
>
>

C J Campbell

December 17th 04, 03:33 PM

"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.

Chip Jones

December 17th 04, 04:55 PM

"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

Chip Jones

December 17th 04, 05:14 PM

"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 here: http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm

Chip, ZTL

Happy Dog

December 17th 04, 05:58 PM

"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

Jim Fisher

December 17th 04, 06:03 PM

"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/Misc/driving/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

gatt

December 17th 04, 06:05 PM

"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

gatt

December 17th 04, 06:07 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

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

> If someone continues to drink even though it makes him sick, I would say
> that person may be an alcoholic,

Notice the "If." IF I jump off a bridge, I'll die. That is fact. Saying
so doesn't make me suicidal.

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

Well, I admit to being a caffeine addict.

-c

gatt

December 17th 04, 06:10 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message news:RKmwd.25324$%

<>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. "

The off-net conversation I had went in this direction as well. The
secondary concern, beyond safety, is perception of safety by passengers.
Ultimately, the next question has been: Is it worth it to General Aviation
to test for drugs simply to ease the fear of the public?

-c

Jim Fisher

December 17th 04, 07:47 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
I don't see enough evidence of that in
> this case.

Only 'casue you're not lookin:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p1.htm

--
Jim Fisher

Happy Dog

December 17th 04, 09:20 PM

"Jim Fisher" >
>> 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:

Adorable. Feel better now? Gotta love Usenet, eh?

> "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). "

Hey stoopid, the topic is random drug testing. The above isn't about drugs
and does not address use of intoxicants away from the job.
>
> "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 problem of intoxication by drugs in aviation accidents was almost
non-existent. Read the part labled "Aviation". Where is the decline in
accident related drug intoxication?
>
> "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.

One. Wow. Serious problem. And I'd like to see how they concluded (they
did) that cocaine intoxication was a factor in the crash.

> (******)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(*******)."

Exactly what progress? Show me the numbers that identify a significant
safety problem that has been effectively reduced by random drug testing.
And, if it's so effective, why are they reducing the test rate? Hello?
Does that make sense to you?

arf

Jim Fisher

December 17th 04, 10:58 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> Exactly what progress? Show me the numbers that identify a significant
> safety problem that has been effectively reduced by random drug testing.
> And, if it's so effective, why are they reducing the test rate? Hello?
> Does that make sense to you?

You can't read with your head up your ass, Mooboy. Try again. The article
I posted is exactly what you've been requesting and is complete with plenty
of sources for the facts presented. The main fact presented is that DRUG
TESTING IS EFFECTIVE.

Happy Dog

December 17th 04, 11:52 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
>> Exactly what progress? Show me the numbers that identify a significant
>> safety problem that has been effectively reduced by random drug testing.
>> And, if it's so effective, why are they reducing the test rate? Hello?
>> Does that make sense to you?
>
> You can't read with your head up your ass, Mooboy. Try again. The
> article I posted is exactly what you've been requesting and is complete
> with plenty of sources for the facts presented. The main fact presented
> is that DRUG TESTING IS EFFECTIVE.

Kind of makes you look lame when you snip almost the entire response and
then drop a few insults and shout your claim again. Children are welcome on
Usenet though. The article you posted isn't what I requested and I
explained why. What is it EFFECTIVE at doing? Hey stoopid, if there wasn't
a significant problem with drug related accidents, what, exactly is the
purpose it serves? How are we all significantly safer because of it? The
evidence posted here does not address this issue. So, wise guy, tell us how
it's effective and how this justifies the cost and invasion of privacy.

moo

Capt.Doug

December 18th 04, 03:35 AM

>"Happy Dog" wrote in message >
> The issue I was raising is efficacy and cost effectiveness. And, the
> pro-testing camp don't have solid evidence that random drug testing of
> aviation professionals is either. The debate quickly degrades into
> name-calling and accusations that people who oppose it are crazy or drug
> users themselves. But, stick to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness
issues
> and it doesn't look justified. It's promoted by hype and hysteria.

How would the pro-testing camp measure the lost productivity caused by a
chronic marijuana smoker? Even if the chronic user isn't under the
influence, studies have shown that his/her performance is not 100%. Chronic
users exhibit less ambition (more sick days), more anxiety (less likely to
get along with customers and co-workers), and short term memory impairment
(forget the landing gear). These traits are measured in scientific
laboratories.

A pilot exhibiting symptoms similar to those of a chronic user can cost me
more in one day than my drug abatement program costs for a whole year. It's
hard enough to contain costs for stupid pilot tricks without adding dopers
to the roster. Are you including these costs in your cost-effectiveness
study?

Add this cost to your study. If an accident happened, what would the
plaintif's lawyers have to say about employing a doper? "Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, consider the negligence of this operator who put a
stoner in command of a airplane transporting the public. He unneccessarily
endangered my clients." At that point, it doesn't matter if the pilot wasn't
stoned. The image that a failed test will imprint on a jury will still be
there. Is this cost in your cost-effectiveness study?

Here's a cost you may have forgotten in your study. Eighty-five percent of
my clientele are repeat customers. They (most anyway) are of high social
standing. My business would suffer immeasureably if word of mouth spread
that I was using stoners for pilots. How does your study quantify this cost?

Life is unfair. All things aviation are a compromise. You want to get paid
to fly, or you want to join former Miami Dolphin Ricki Williams?

D.

Capt.Doug

December 18th 04, 03:35 AM

>"Happy Dog" wrote in message > Kind of makes you look lame ...

You stooped to name calling too, which doesn't help your argument.

> The article you posted isn't what I requested and I explained why.

Actually, the Metroliner accident is what you requested. The coroner
concluded that the captain wasn't high at the time of the accident, but his
prior cocaine usage had left him fatigued which did contribute to the crash.
He had used cocaine during his time off, which you argue in favor of, and
then crashed because of the after effects. Kind of ruins your argument.

> How are we all significantly safer because of it? The
> evidence posted here does not address this issue. So, wise guy, tell us
how
> it's effective and how this justifies the cost and invasion of privacy.

You argue that this crash was statistically insignificant. I ask you-
WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THOSE 17 LIVES?
How many lost lives will justify drug testing? How many crashes does it take
for you to justify drug testing?

Without passengers, there would be no airlines. The evidence from the NTSB
justifies testing if for no other reason than public perception. Most people
are very afraid of flying. Drug and alcohol testing lends a little bit more
confidence to them. Would you want a stoner pilot with your family aboard?

As for privacy, you give that up long before the drug testing phase of
training.

D.

Happy Dog

December 18th 04, 10:24 AM

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message

>> The issue I was raising is efficacy and cost effectiveness. And, the
>> pro-testing camp don't have solid evidence that random drug testing of
>> aviation professionals is either. The debate quickly degrades into
>> name-calling and accusations that people who oppose it are crazy or drug
>> users themselves. But, stick to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness
> issues and it doesn't look justified. It's promoted by hype and hysteria.
>
> How would the pro-testing camp measure the lost productivity caused by a
> chronic marijuana smoker? Even if the chronic user isn't under the
> influence, studies have shown that his/her performance is not 100%.
> Chronic
> users exhibit less ambition (more sick days), more anxiety (less likely to
> get along with customers and co-workers), and short term memory impairment
> (forget the landing gear). These traits are measured in scientific
> laboratories.

Aviation professionals do all the above just fine without the use of drugs.
And, for god knows how many times, nobody is advocating that addicts or
chronic abusers of anything be in a position to put others at risk.
>
> Add this cost to your study. If an accident happened, what would the
> plaintif's lawyers have to say about employing a doper? "Ladies and
> gentlemen of the jury, consider the negligence of this operator who put a
> stoner in command of a airplane transporting the public. He unneccessarily
> endangered my clients."

If that was more than a very remote possibility, I'd agree. But it isn't

> Here's a cost you may have forgotten in your study. Eighty-five percent of
> my clientele are repeat customers. They (most anyway) are of high social
> standing. My business would suffer immeasureably if word of mouth spread
> that I was using stoners for pilots. How does your study quantify this
> cost?

Again, this scenario wasn't a problem before testing so it hasn't been
significantly reduced. Did you note the quote about the reduction in random
testing? If it was effective, why on earth is would it be reduced? Doesn't
this sort of logic look like the FAA at its worst?
>
> Life is unfair. All things aviation are a compromise. You want to get paid
> to fly, or you want to join former Miami Dolphin Ricki Williams?

That logical fallacy is called "False Dilemma". Your position is not backed
by the evidence.

moo

Happy Dog

December 18th 04, 10:46 AM

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message news:fANwd.4675
> >"Happy Dog" wrote in message > Kind of makes you look lame ...
>
> You stooped to name calling too, which doesn't help your argument.

Only after the other poster resorted to it. Look it up.
>
>> The article you posted isn't what I requested and I explained why.
>
> Actually, the Metroliner accident is what you requested. The coroner
> concluded that the captain wasn't high at the time of the accident, but
> his
> prior cocaine usage had left him fatigued which did contribute to the
> crash.
> He had used cocaine during his time off, which you argue in favor of,

Huh? Did I argue that? No, I didn't.

> then crashed because of the after effects. Kind of ruins your argument.

Only if you're unable to follow it.
>
>> How are we all significantly safer because of it? The
>> evidence posted here does not address this issue. So, wise guy, tell us
> how it's effective and how this justifies the cost and invasion of
> privacy.
>
> You argue that this crash was statistically insignificant. I ask you-
> WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THOSE 17 LIVES?

You're big on hyperbole but short on facts. Did I argue that this crash was
statistically insignificant? No, I didn't. BTW, the pilot could have had a
similar problem with alcohol and had it go undetected.

> How many lost lives will justify drug testing? How many crashes does it
> take
> for you to justify drug testing?

Very few. But I want to see where there's been a reduction. And this
hasn't been demonstrated.
>
> Without passengers, there would be no airlines. The evidence from the NTSB
> justifies testing if for no other reason than public perception. Most
> people
> are very afraid of flying. Drug and alcohol testing lends a little bit
> more
> confidence to them. Would you want a stoner pilot with your family aboard?

Do you have a particular thing for the False Dilemma fallacy? Again, you
support your argument with claims not in evidence. Where were the stoner
pilots? In any good commercial operation, pilots who act like they're
somewhere else, for any reason or no reason, are dealt with. Where's the
evidence that there has been a significant drop in accidents because of
random testing? (I'm in favour of testing where there's probable cause.)
If you wish to argue that random testing is justified because it gives the
flying public a false sense of reduced danger, go ahead. But that's like
arguing in favour of the crazy things being dome in the name of security
now. Or do you think we're safer because of them too? Do you think that
drug testing is the best use of the funds allocated to it? Again, if public
perception is your goal, we can agree to disagree. But I still haven't seen
the evidence that the accident or incident rate has been reduced. It's more
"drugs are bad so anything that reduces their use must be good". FWIW, I
have seen pilots with alcohol abuse problems whos ability is impaired
because of them. I'll bet almost anyone who's been around a commercial
operation for long has. They don't fly while intoxicated, but they're
affected just the same. But they can't be busted by any kind of testing.
They are dealt with other ways. Just they always have been.
>
> As for privacy, you give that up long before the drug testing phase of
> training.

Sure. My medical records are in half dozen different places now. I don't
like it but I can't see any easy way to improve that part of the process.
But I see no reason for people to give up more privacy without good reason.

moo

Chip Jones

December 18th 04, 12:39 PM

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...

[snipped]

>
> Aviation professionals do all the above just fine without the use of
drugs.
> And, for god knows how many times, nobody is advocating that addicts or
> chronic abusers of anything be in a position to put others at risk.
>

Actually, you are indeed advocating a higher risk that addicts and chronic
abusers be in a position to put others at risk. Without drug testing, there
is no way to weed drug users out of the commercial airman pool. Your
position is nothing but an increased risk to air safety. Your justification
of
that increased risk seems to be that the costs of drug testing are not worth
the safety benefits of drug testing commercial airmen. You are mistaken.

Chip, ZTL

Happy Dog

December 18th 04, 04:59 PM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message

>> And, for god knows how many times, nobody is advocating that addicts or
>> chronic abusers of anything be in a position to put others at risk.
>
> Actually, you are indeed advocating a higher risk that addicts and chronic
> abusers be in a position to put others at risk. Without drug testing,
> there
> is no way to weed drug users out of the commercial airman pool. Your
> position is nothing but an increased risk to air safety. Your
> justification
> of that increased risk seems to be that the costs of drug testing are not
> worth
> the safety benefits of drug testing commercial airmen. You are mistaken.

So you keep saying over and over and over. But nobody's posted the evidence
that "addicts and chronic abusers" were a significant problem in aviation to
begin with. And, information has been posted stating that random testing is
being reduced. Why has nobody tried to make sense of this? If it's
beneficial, why reduce it? I think that it isn't beneficial but the FAA
doesn't want to eliminate it because it gives the public a false sense of
security. Whatever the reason, it makes no sense to scale back an effective
program that purports to solve a very serious issue. Can you explain it?

moo

Gary Drescher

December 18th 04, 07:05 PM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...
> 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...
>
> You can read all about it here:
> http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm

Nothing at that web page states that the test has a low false-positive rate.

The false-positive rate isn't even inherent in a test itself. Specificity is
an inherent property of a test--but even an excellent test with very high
specificity can still have an arbitrarily high false-positive rate if
applied to a population in which positive examples are sufficiently rare.
(The web page says nothing about the test's specificity either, by the way.)

Do you have support elsewhere for your "virtually no false positives" claim?

--Gary

Capt.Doug

December 18th 04, 07:47 PM

>"Happy Dog" wrote in message >
> But nobody's posted the evidence
> that "addicts and chronic abusers" were a significant problem in aviation
to
> begin with.

Those statistics are hard to come by. Federally mandated testing relieves
employers of legal liabilities arising from slander and defamation lawsuits
and the like. Before the liability issues were settled by federal mandate,
statistics of the kind you request were not kept because they could have
been used in court. Chemical dependency problems were kept very quiet.

> And, information has been posted stating that random testing is
> being reduced.

"Is?" No. It WAS reduced, in 1995. Every new program needs tweaking. The 25%
level has been in place 9 years now and isn't being changed.

> I think that it isn't beneficial but the FAA
> doesn't want to eliminate it because it gives the public a false sense of
> security.

If it wasn't beneficial, wouldn't the airlines be lobbying Congress to have
the federal government pay for it? The airlines see a benefit. What is it
that they see and you don't?

> Whatever the reason, it makes no sense to scale back an effective
> program that purports to solve a very serious issue. Can you explain it?

Again, it isn't being scaled back.

D.

Capt.Doug

December 18th 04, 07:47 PM

>"Happy Dog" wrote in message> Only after the other poster resorted to it.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You impugn yourself by stooping to the lower
level of your debator.

> Huh? Did I argue that? No, I didn't.

You argued that a drug test will show positive even if the user is no longer
under the influence. You argued that casual use during time off shouldn't be
cause for failing a drug test. This crash, involving a casual user no longer
under the influence, undermines your argument.

> Only if you're unable to follow it.

I am not very intelligent. Perhaps you could write so that I can follow it.

> You're big on hyperbole but short on facts.

Where are *your* facts?

> Where's the evidence that there has been a significant drop in accidents
because
> of random testing? (I'm in favour of testing where there's probable
cause.)

Where's the evidence that there hasn't been a significant drop? The problem
with reasonable suspicion is that usually it comes too late- after the
crash. Random testing keeps pilots from using before a probable cause test
is needed. It's called prevention.

> If you wish to argue that random testing is justified because it gives the
> flying public a false sense of reduced danger, go ahead. But that's like
> arguing in favour of the crazy things being dome in the name of security
> now. Or do you think we're safer because of them too? Do you think that
> drug testing is the best use of the funds allocated to it? Again, if
public
> perception is your goal, we can agree to disagree. But I still haven't
seen
> the evidence that the accident or incident rate has been reduced.

You haven't produced evidence that is hasn't been reduced. In the last few
years, how many airline accidents have occurred in the US due to impairment?
None. Prevention is the key. Has drug testing prevented any accidents? Can't
measure something that hasn't happened.

Nor have you haven't produced evidence that the costs are significant. I
have already stated that the costs for my 135 operation are very, very low.

In pure speculation, do you think that the Metroliner captain would have
used cocaine casually if he knew that he could be randomly tested and the
metabolites would cause a positive for up to 3 days afterward? I don't know
about that individual, but most of my colleagues have long ago decided it
isn't worth it.

> It's more "drugs are bad so anything that reduces their use must be
good".

Then you haven't paid much attention to my posts.

> But I see no reason for people to give up more privacy without good
reason.

We agree about privacy. We disagree about the good reason.

D.

Blueskies

December 18th 04, 07:57 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message ...
<snip>
> many other problems. And you know what? Every single one of these people
> thinks that a couple of drinks a day is beneficial to their health.
>
> My life would be a lot easier without alcohol.
>
>

A couple of drinks a day is beyond the level where a person will benefit from drinking alcohol. I think that everything
I have read says that anything in excess of the equivalent of one shot of whiskey is excessive...

Happy Dog

December 18th 04, 09:12 PM

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message

> You argued that a drug test will show positive even if the user is no
> longer
> under the influence. You argued that casual use during time off shouldn't
> be
> cause for failing a drug test.

None of that is an argument in favour of flying while affected by anything.
I can be hungover and not fit for flying but have a zero BAC. That argument
applies to anything that might affect an avaition professional's ability to
perform up to standard.

>This crash, involving a casual user no longer
> under the influence, undermines your argument.

You know it was a "casual" user how? Without knowing the details of the
investigation, you can't conclude this. This pilot could have been similarly
affected by any number of things. There's nothing special about fatigue
from amphetimine abuse.
>
>> You're big on hyperbole but short on facts.
>
> Where are *your* facts?

You are the one making the claim and trying to present evidence in favour of
it. Trying to shift the burden of proof is so unbecoming.
>
>> Where's the evidence that there has been a significant drop in accidents
> because of random testing? (I'm in favour of testing where there's
> probable
> cause.)
>
> Where's the evidence that there hasn't been a significant drop?

Accident reports. Lordy. If there was a problem with impaired pilots and
accident reports showing this, you'd be all over it. Someone here would
shove the stats in my face and I'd have to admit I was wrong. (It does
happen.)

> The problem with reasonable suspicion is that usually it comes too late-
> after the crash.

Where are the statistics showing this?

> Random testing keeps pilots from using before a probable cause test
> is needed. It's called prevention.

I'm OK with that as long as someone shows me that something is being
prevented.

>
>> If you wish to argue that random testing is justified because it gives
>> the
>> flying public a false sense of reduced danger, go ahead. But that's like
>> arguing in favour of the crazy things being dome in the name of security
>> now. Or do you think we're safer because of them too? Do you think that
>> drug testing is the best use of the funds allocated to it? Again, if
> public perception is your goal, we can agree to disagree. But I still
> haven't
> seen the evidence that the accident or incident rate has been reduced.
>
> You haven't produced evidence that is hasn't been reduced.

You just don't get this debate thing, do you? FWIW, the lack of evidence
where there should be some and easily obtained *is* evidence that it hasn't
been reduced.

> Nor have you haven't produced evidence that the costs are significant. I
> have already stated that the costs for my 135 operation are very, very
> low.

Your company, your rules. I've no problem with that. I don't think that
random testing should be outlawed. I just don't think it's effective at
reducing accidents. If you sleep better at night because of it, the worst I
can say is that you may be misguided or erring on the side of caution. (And
I don't think, in this case, that's a bad thing.)

> In pure speculation, do you think that the Metroliner captain would have
> used cocaine casually if he knew that he could be randomly tested and the
> metabolites would cause a positive for up to 3 days afterward?

Likely not. But we can't know this. Obviously he was enough of an idiot to
be flying while severely fatigued. So, maybe.

le moo

Chip Jones

December 19th 04, 11:25 AM

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > 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...
> >
> > You can read all about it here:
> > http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm
>
> Nothing at that web page states that the test has a low false-positive
rate.
>
> The false-positive rate isn't even inherent in a test itself. Specificity
is
> an inherent property of a test--but even an excellent test with very high
> specificity can still have an arbitrarily high false-positive rate if
> applied to a population in which positive examples are sufficiently rare.
> (The web page says nothing about the test's specificity either, by the
way.)

This is an issue that I can neither defend or attack, because I can't
quantify in my mind what an "arbitrarily high" false positive rate would be
in a test group like commercial aviators, where positive examples are, I
agree, very rare. To me, it is sufficient that GC/MS testing is very
accurate at detection and errs on the side of the person being tested (see
the false positive rate in the link below from a study from NIDA comparing
self reporting to GC/MS testing, which mentions the false-positive rate of
the GC/MS test across the spectrum).

>
> Do you have support elsewhere for your "virtually no false positives"
claim?
>

Here are a few links:

Here's one from NIDA, where the false positive rate in GC/MS drug testing
for THC was 0.3 to 3.1%, and this was before any MRO action as per the DOT
CFR.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/monograph167/017-036_Harrison.pdf

Here are some on the accuracy of GC/MS testing from some "how to beat the
test" camps. The first one says:

"Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)
GC/MS is the most precise method of testing, it is so precise that
guidelines set by NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) require positive
immunoassay (emit ), and gas chromatography tests be confirmed by a GC-MS
test. Only the Federal Government is required to follow these guidelines and
unfortunately most companies due not follow these guidelines. In other words
should you test positive falsely the GC-MS will confirm that you are not a
drug user, however the odds your tester confirms positive tests with GC-MS
are miniscule (why? It is expensive)."

http://www.streetdrugtruth.com/testing/testtypes.php4

And some more from pro-drug, anti-test groups on GC/MS testing accuracy:

http://cocaine.org/drugtestfaq/index.html

http://www.neonjoint.com/passing_a_drug_test/test_standards_and_accuracy.html

http://www.ushealthtests.com/dtbasics.htm

http://www.onlinepot.org/misc/****tests.htm

Chip, ZTL

Gary Drescher

December 19th 04, 02:07 PM

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>> > 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...
>> >
>> > You can read all about it here:
>> > http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm
>>
>> Nothing at that web page states that the test has a low false-positive
> rate.
>>
>> The false-positive rate isn't even inherent in a test itself. Specificity
> is
>> an inherent property of a test--but even an excellent test with very high
>> specificity can still have an arbitrarily high false-positive rate if
>> applied to a population in which positive examples are sufficiently rare.
>> (The web page says nothing about the test's specificity either, by the
> way.)
>
> This is an issue that I can neither defend or attack, because I can't
> quantify in my mind what an "arbitrarily high" false positive rate would
> be
> in a test group like commercial aviators, where positive examples are, I
> agree, very rare.

Well, here are some illustrative numbers to help envision how an accurate
test could produce an arbitrarily high false-positive rate. Suppose the test
has a specificity of 99% and also a sensitivity of 99%. Specificity refers
to the proportion of negative examples that correctly test negative;
sensitivity is the proportion of positive examples that correctly test
positive.

Now, suppose you apply this very accurate test to a population of one
million, among whom there are 1,000 positive examples. Among the 1,000
positive examples, about 990 will test positive, and about 10 will test
negative. Among the 999,000 negative examples, about 989,010 will test
negative, and about 9,900 will test positive.

Thus, among the 10,890 who test positive, 990 are actually positive
examples, and 9,900 are actually negative examples. Thus, the false-positive
rate (the proportion of the positive test results that are false) is about
90.9%. Despite the use of an accurate test (99% sensitivity and
specificity), more than 90% of those who test positive will actually be
negative.

> Here's one from NIDA, where the false positive rate in GC/MS drug testing
> for THC was 0.3 to 3.1%, and this was before any MRO action as per the
> DOT
> CFR.

Again, the false-positive rate *is not a function of just the accuracy of
the test*. A highly accurate test (high sensitivity and specificity) might
have an arbitrarily high or arbitrarily low false-positive rate, depending
on the proportion of actual positive and negative examples in the tested
population. Thus, a test's false-positive rate applied to one population
tells you nothing about the same test's false-positive rate applied to a
different population.

--Gary

Chip Jones

January 28th 05, 06:19 AM

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> >> k.net...
> >> > 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...
> >> >
> >> > You can read all about it here:
> >> > http://www.aviationmedicine.com/drugtest.htm
> >>
> >> Nothing at that web page states that the test has a low false-positive
> > rate.
> >>
> >> The false-positive rate isn't even inherent in a test itself.
Specificity
> > is
> >> an inherent property of a test--but even an excellent test with very
high
> >> specificity can still have an arbitrarily high false-positive rate if
> >> applied to a population in which positive examples are sufficiently
rare.
> >> (The web page says nothing about the test's specificity either, by the
> > way.)
> >
> > This is an issue that I can neither defend or attack, because I can't
> > quantify in my mind what an "arbitrarily high" false positive rate would
> > be
> > in a test group like commercial aviators, where positive examples are, I
> > agree, very rare.
>
> Well, here are some illustrative numbers to help envision how an accurate
> test could produce an arbitrarily high false-positive rate. Suppose the
test
> has a specificity of 99% and also a sensitivity of 99%. Specificity refers
> to the proportion of negative examples that correctly test negative;
> sensitivity is the proportion of positive examples that correctly test
> positive.
>
> Now, suppose you apply this very accurate test to a population of one
> million, among whom there are 1,000 positive examples. Among the 1,000
> positive examples, about 990 will test positive, and about 10 will test
> negative. Among the 999,000 negative examples, about 989,010 will test
> negative, and about 9,900 will test positive.
>
> Thus, among the 10,890 who test positive, 990 are actually positive
> examples, and 9,900 are actually negative examples. Thus, the
false-positive
> rate (the proportion of the positive test results that are false) is about
> 90.9%. Despite the use of an accurate test (99% sensitivity and
> specificity), more than 90% of those who test positive will actually be
> negative.
>
> > Here's one from NIDA, where the false positive rate in GC/MS drug
testing
> > for THC was 0.3 to 3.1%, and this was before any MRO action as per the
> > DOT
> > CFR.
>
> Again, the false-positive rate *is not a function of just the accuracy of
> the test*. A highly accurate test (high sensitivity and specificity) might
> have an arbitrarily high or arbitrarily low false-positive rate, depending
> on the proportion of actual positive and negative examples in the tested
> population. Thus, a test's false-positive rate applied to one population
> tells you nothing about the same test's false-positive rate applied to a
> different population.

Thanks Gary, that's clearer to me now.

Chip, ZTL