drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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

"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

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