If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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/empl...ugtesting.html No bias on that page, eh? My god, I never knew it was so bad. Please, save us! ;-o |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Testing Stick Ribs | Bob Hoover | Home Built | 3 | October 3rd 04 02:30 AM |
Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 20 | July 2nd 04 04:09 PM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 1 | April 9th 04 11:25 PM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 07:31 PM |