drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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.

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

"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

"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

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.

"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

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.

"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

"gatt" wrote in message
...

Casual debate he

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.

"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.