drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

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

"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.

And heck, if you have to wrongly destroy a few careers and wreck some
families, it is worth it, eh?

C J Campbell wrote:
"Brian Burger" wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, C J Campbell wrote:


"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..

"C J Campbell" wrote in

message

It is not the alcohol that is considered beneficial.

Not true. The healthful benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have

been

well established for about a hundred years now.


As a child of alcoholic parents I have a rather dark view of any

supposed

'benefits' from drinking alcohol.

*Moderate* alcohol consumption, C.J., *moderate*. Alcoholics aren't known
for moderation.


Surprisingly, many are. Be that as it may, I have spent three of the last
five Christmas days in the hospital, visiting alcoholics who are on
respirators or who are locked in "First Ward South" at Harrison Hospital. I
spend an inordinate amount of time counseling kids who have become pregnant
after "moderate" alcohol consumption. Most of my life, when I am not
teaching flying or taking time for photography, is spent in the hospital, in
court, in convalescent centers and elsewhere, dealing with family abuse,
drunk drivers, broken homes, unwanted pregnancies, drug dependencies, and
many other problems. And you know what? Every single one of these people
thinks that a couple of drinks a day is beneficial to their health.

My life would be a lot easier without alcohol.


I understand both sides. My grandfather on my mother's side was an
alcoholic; My mother dislikes alcohol. Ther was a heavy drinker on my
wife's side of the family; my wife is concerned about alcohol. My
brother is an alcoholic. I can see how "moderation" can be a problem if
a person "has" to have a martini upon arriving home from work. That is
one side of the issue.

The other side is that every male in my family has had a heart attack
except me. My father and grandfather died of heart attacks, by uncle
had a heart attack and bypass surgery, my brother was in cardiac care
when he "coded". I had 90% blockage and have had a stent inserted. The
studies I have seen say that both the antioxidents in grape skin "and"
alcohol are good for heart health. I like wine with dinner and, due to
my family history, I would like to assure that I get at least one glass
of wine per day. I just don't get around to it every day. I suppose
my average is about 3-4 glasses per week.

There is no answer to the abuse issue that you raised. We will never
remove alcohol from society. From what I have seen, most abuse issues
are related, not to the alcohol, but rather to addictive personality
traits. I believe the most success is not in attacking alcohol or
drugs, but the personality trait. The most successful seem to be
replacing a destrucive obsession with a possitive obsession.

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chip Jones wrote:
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.

No, the bottom line is that the rate of use in aviation is so low (as
indicated by the results) that most if not all of the positives are
false positives. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right - and
since nobody seems willing to spend the money to do it right
(eliminating the false positives) I have to assume it's not worth
doing.

Michael


It isn't that expensive to do away with 99.99999% of the false positives.
Get rid of the instant tests. I handle the HR for over 1200 employees spread
over 3 states. Every last one of them peed in a cup the day they were hired
and are subjuect to random, probable cause and post accident drug screens.

I can the screens run through a REAL lab and have a Medical Review Officer
recheck and background all positives. in the last 3 years I have not had a
positive result that I din't end up getting the employee to admit was indeed
a true positive.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message

Not true. The healthful benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have
been well established for about a hundred years now.

As a child of alcoholic parents I have a rather dark view of any supposed
'benefits' from drinking alcohol.

Understandable, but slightly off the mark. Some people react differently
to alcohol than others, the same as any chemical or drug. In some cases
it's addiction, in other cases it's not much of anything. In my case, I get
ill before I get drunk, so I'm not too likely to develop the disease that
runs in my family. (works for me.)

-c

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

The bottom line is that the THREAT of being popped positive on a random
drug
test seriously deters drug use.

Besides, the bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever that this
threat does any such thing.

Chip Jones wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:25:36 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote in
t::

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.

You're probably right about detecting impaired judgment, but physical
coordination can be measured:
http://isc.temple.edu/pe204/HandCorrelationReport.htm

Let's see, that wouldn't be a TEST, would it? As in, a TEST to detect
physical impairment? :-)

Chip, ZTL


But that test doesn't indicate whether or not the person lacking
coordination was on pot or Benadryl. Or just hadn't slept in three days.

As regards flight safety this would be the kind of test that makes sense.
Testing for pot|booze|crack only serves an agenda that puts social issues
ahead of safety.

--
Frank....H

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message

Not true. The healthful benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have
been well established for about a hundred years now.

As a child of alcoholic parents I have a rather dark view of any
supposed
'benefits' from drinking alcohol.

Understandable, but slightly off the mark. Some people react differently
to alcohol than others, the same as any chemical or drug. In some cases
it's addiction, in other cases it's not much of anything. In my case, I
get
ill before I get drunk, so I'm not too likely to develop the disease that
runs in my family. (works for me.)

I suspect that if you are getting ill before you get drunk that you are
already an alcoholic.

"Michael" wrote in message No, the bottom line is that the rate of use
in aviation is so low (as
indicated by the results) that most if not all of the positives are
false positives

Where are your statistics to prove this? It certainly is NOT the case as
concerns the lab I use.

D.

"gatt" wrote in message 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.

My 135 drug testing program is a very small percentage of my operating
costs.

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?

Before drug & alcohol abatement programs, post accident testing wasn't
required unless local law enforcement suspected impairment.
No testing what-so-ever was required unless suspicions arose. Chronic
drinkers and users were not detected because they could function without
causing suspicion. I know pilots who have left the bar and flown trips
without anyone realizing they were impaired. A small part of the commercial
pilot group partaked in their desires before flying because the chances of
getting caught were slight. They could function on an acceptable level while
impaired.

Those people have slowly been weeded out by randon testing. Randon testing
is the one thing that has deterred the chronic users and drinkers. Either
they quit or were caught. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.
Contemporary commercial pilot groups (in general) place greater emphasis on
abiding by drug and alcohol regulations than their earlier piers. I don't
have statistics to back this up, just my 27 years of commercial flying
experience.

In the old days, an employer could demand a drug test as a condition for
employment, but incurred a legal exposure. The company that shared a
negative result with other prospective employers was sure to get sued. With
federal drug and alcohol testing requirements, a company's legal exposure
is greatly reduced. Perhaps the operators who still complain about the
expense of mandated testing forget about the expense of lawyers?

Then there are the pre-employment tests. The prospective employee knows that
pre-employment testing is required. The prospective employee knows that s/he
can decline or postpone the testing. Yet still, there are a few who fail
pre-employment testing. Do we want these lowly intelligent people flying our
families?

Testing isn't the only part of the program. Many forget, or don't know, that
education about recognizing impaired individuals is part of the program.
Recognizing colleagues who need help with a dependency problem is part of
the training. Steering these people with problems to professional help and
rehabilitation is part of the program. Those operators who complain about
the cost probably don't care much about their employees.

What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?

I am a Part 135 operator. I am a Part 121 pilot. Drug and alcohol abatement
programs are here to stay. I welcome them.

D.

in the last 3 years I have not had a
positive result that I din't end up getting the employee to admit was
indeed

And how did you get the employee to admit this?

No admissions obtained by letting the employee get any benefit from the
admission that he would not otherwise get (like keeping his job) counts
as legitimate.

Michael