drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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

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

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
news [snipped]

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

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

Chip, ZTL

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

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

--
Jim Fisher

"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

"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.

"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

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

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.

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" 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.

"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