Urinalysis Drug Tests

Gatt wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

5) Was it worth it?

Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was
before we put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5%
discount on work comp.


Thanks for the info. I have friends who are ex-probation officers,
college professors, youth drug and alcohol counselors, etc, so we
talk about this kind of stuff (usually while drinking beer or whiskey
and eating enough barbequed red meat to kill us all.) Definately
interesting hearing different perspectives.

-c

Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be
legalize pot. Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it
that are in place for alcohol. THe additional factor that makes me not want
to hire an applicant that smokes pot is that if they are willing to break
one law they are probably more willing to break others. The same goes for an
applicant with DUI or other alcohol related crimes.

Gatt wrote:
but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot
stories,

Of which, this one has always stood out for me.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07LA118&rpt=p

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200711/1

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote in news:7b2c50e23c020@uwe:

Gatt wrote:
but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot
stories,

Of which, this one has always stood out for me.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07LA118&rpt=p


Another fine old airplane rendered envirnmentally safe.



Bertie

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be
legalize pot.

Ditto. Fight the war on drugs against the hard or imported stuff and
legalize and tax pot to pay for it.

Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it that are in
place for alcohol. THe additional factor that makes me not want to hire an
applicant that smokes pot is that if they are willing to break one law
they are probably more willing to break others.

That's a tricky call, because there are a few facets we see here in Oregon:
People who wouldn't take a dollar off an empty street without looking around
to see if somebody might have dropped it, and who wouldn't ever hurt anybody
or mess with their property, but who would violate the MJ laws because they
simply don't like the government telling them what they can't do with their
own bodies.

Another example is a guy I know of who was mugged, stabbed and crippled.
He's been on heavy pain medication for so long it started to change his
personality, so he quit and started smoking pot instead. The state will
allow him to use it for medicinal purposes, but he refused to get licensed
for it because he believes as soon as he does, the Feds have his name on a
list of known users.

The same goes for an applicant with DUI or other alcohol related crimes.

Well, in Oregon you don't go to jail for possessing or using pot but they'll
hammer you for a DUI, which makes sense because the police have figured out
that drunk drivers kill people and pot smokers don't. I liked what some
comedian said about Jerry Garcia, which is that he smoked all the pot in the
world but what actually killed him was too many Twinkies.

-c

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote in news:7b2c50e23c020@uwe:
but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot stories,

Of which, this one has always stood out for me.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07LA118&rpt=p


Another fine old airplane rendered envirnmentally safe.

"During the course of the interviews detectives determined that both the
pilot and passenger had each consumed between 8 to 10 beers between 1800 and
2400 on March 29, 2007. Prior to the flight, the pilot and passenger had
departed from a local bar in Los Banos where patrons had overheard
discussions between them about doing some "crazy" aerobatics."

Yeeesh!

My favorite so far is the guy, iirc, that did a loop near Tacoma Narrows and
fell out.

-c

"Gatt" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote in
news:7b2c50e23c020@uwe:
but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot stories,

Of which, this one has always stood out for me.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07LA118&rpt=p


Another fine old airplane rendered envirnmentally safe.

"During the course of the interviews detectives determined that both
the pilot and passenger had each consumed between 8 to 10 beers
between 1800 and 2400 on March 29, 2007. Prior to the flight, the
pilot and passenger had departed from a local bar in Los Banos where
patrons had overheard discussions between them about doing some
"crazy" aerobatics."

Yeeesh!

My favorite so far is the guy, iirc, that did a loop near Tacoma
Narrows and fell out.



Must have been a pretty crappy loop.



Bertie

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...


Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it that are in
place for alcohol. THe additional factor that makes me not want to hire an
applicant that smokes pot is that if they are willing to break one law
they are probably more willing to break others.

That's a tricky call, because there are a few facets we see here in
Oregon: People who wouldn't take a dollar off an empty street without
looking around to see if somebody might have dropped it, and who wouldn't
ever hurt anybody or mess with their property, but who would violate the
MJ laws because they simply don't like the government telling them what
they can't do with their own bodies.


Another good example are alot of otherwise law abiding folks that carry
concealed weapon for their own protection.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Gatt wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Not even close and I paid for over 450 drug screens on employees this
year.

Fascinating. I have questions for you, if you don't mind.

1) What do the employees do?

Everything from Bank officers to minimum wage labor. The bell curve on
this group skews towards the lower end of the spectrum though.


2) What was the ballpark failure rate?

On new hires and random in service it is about 10% and all but 2 or 3 a
year come from the low end of the labor pool.

On post accident it is around 30% failure. By it's very nature the post
accident skews more towards the lower end of the wage base.

I did look about a year ago at only the $10.00/hr applicants and it was
about 20% positive on new hires.

3) What drugs/alcohol are most likely to show up?

THC (The Stuff that makes Pot enjoyable) is number one with about 70% of
the positives showing THC.

40% show Amphetamines

10% show Cocaine

The other stuff tested for only shows up occasionally though PCP is up
because there seems to be a bunch of pot out there that is laced with it.

And those percentages don't add up to 100 because several have multiple
drugs in them. Most notably I don't remember the last positive for
Amphetamines I saw that didn't also have THC.


4) How did postive or negative results align with job performance. IE,
were you -surprised- that somebody failed (or passed) based on
their performance, were otherwise-stellar employees let go because of
the results? And, lastly:


We've only got 4 or 5 positives from random over the last couple of years
and we the 2 probable cause tests we did this year both were positive.

Because most of the positives come from pre-hire tests it's hard to say.
Though on the rare occasion that we have allowed a positive applicant to
reapply and retest at a latter date they don't usually work out. Off the
top of my head I can only think of 1 out of 10 over the last 3 years that
failed, reapplied, was hired and was actually a good worker.



5) Was it worth it?

Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was before we
put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5% discount on work
comp.




Usually you hear statistics from police, users, activists or just
people like me who simply view it as a (sometimes necessary) invasion
of privacy, so your insight is valuable.

-c




Yea, but if they disclose a prescription for an Opiate they will pass the
test or if they have other prescriptions for other controlled substances
they cannot be claimed positive in a drug test as it's a legal prescription.
I know people that are prescribed THC pill and Cannabis form and all pass
their drug tests are work! Most other drugs are not even tested for unless
it's sent to a lab and specifically checked. Then ask your self who is smart
and buy's urine and uses a heat pack or condom full of clean urin to avoid
detection usually the paid class that is paid more money?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Gatt wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

5) Was it worth it?

Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was
before we put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5%
discount on work comp.


Thanks for the info. I have friends who are ex-probation officers,
college professors, youth drug and alcohol counselors, etc, so we
talk about this kind of stuff (usually while drinking beer or whiskey
and eating enough barbequed red meat to kill us all.) Definately
interesting hearing different perspectives.

-c

Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be
legalize pot. Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it
that are in place for alcohol. THe additional factor that makes me not
want to hire an applicant that smokes pot is that if they are willing to
break one law they are probably more willing to break others. The same
goes for an applicant with DUI or other alcohol related crimes.


Cannabis is legal in a lot of states for medical!

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be legalize
pot. Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it that are in
place for alcohol.

IF you did that, are tests accurate to tell you if the person smoked last night,
or if he had a small amount before he came to work that morning, and got tested
two hours after he got to work that morning?

It just seems like it would be tough to impossible to enforce, to me.
--
Jim in NC