drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

Chip Jones wrote:




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

Not from the FAA you aren't.

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.