drug/alcohol testing policy: effective?
Related Topics
"gatt" g...@freeradical.nyet
Casual debate here: 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 ***ociated expenses? 'Cause if you have an accident, they're going to test you anyway, correct?
What are peoples' thoughts and experiences?
-c
"Bob Gardner" bob...@comcast.net
It's a feel-good program for the government, allowing them to show the public that they are "doing something." It has no practical effect.
Bob Gardner ...
"OtisWinslow" OtisWins...@hotmail.com
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. Most pilots I know take good care of their health for the same reason. There's always going to be the occasional fool who feels differently.
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.
...
Frank a...@me.4it
<snip> If they were really serious about highway safety they'd give people a 'driving' test, not a drug test. Same applies to pilots.
I don't much care if you're high, liquored up, haven't slept in three days, or just plain incompetent. The victims are just as dead.
--
Frank....H
Larry Dighera LDigh...@att.net
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:32:06 GMT, "OtisWinslow" <OtisWins...@hotmail.com> wrote in <qZIvd.846126$SM5.55...@news.easynews.com>:: Very BIG: http://www.questdiagnostics.com/employersolutions/drugtesting.html
"Jim Fisher" spamaddyTAKE...@bellsouth.net
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
"Peter Duniho" NpOeStPe...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com
Did you quit smoking pot because they were doing drug testing? Or because the job was incompatible with smoking pot?
The former is a pretty idiotic approach to the issue, but the latter seems more consistent with what you wrote about smoking pot and flying, and does not invoke drug testing as a solution.
$10/person isn't too bad for a company with 25 people to test. But there are plenty of one-man operations that are also required to undergo drug testing (they contract with a testing company, who randomly selects from their "clients" to determine who will be tested). I admit, I don't know what the cost is, but I can easily imagine that it's prohibitive at small scales.
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.
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).
Pete
"G.R. Patterson III" grpph...@verizon.net
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.
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.
"Blueskies" nospamedbluesk...@ameritech.net
No bias on that page, eh? My god, I never knew it was so bad. Please, save us!
;-o
"NW_PILOT" N76...@gmail.com
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.
"NW_PILOT" N76...@gmail.com
Yep, I quit smoking the day I soloed been over a year not cold turkey I was a 3 pack a day smoker.
"NW_PILOT" N76...@gmail.com
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.
"NW_PILOT" N76...@gmail.com
P***ing a Piss 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 piss in a jar.
Most people that self medicate or use for recreation don't do it at work anyway.
"NW_PILOT" N76...@gmail.com
Takes one hell of a lot of popyseeds to test posotive.
"C J Campbell" christophercampbellNOS...@hotmail.com
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.
"Jim Fisher" spamaddyTAKE...@bellsouth.net
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.
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.
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.
Then we will agree to disagree.
--
Jim Fisher
"Jim Fisher" spamaddyTAKE...@bellsouth.net
No it doesn't.
You'd know that if you were a regular "Mythbusters" viewer.
--
Jim Fisher
Corky Scott charles.k.sc...@dddartmouth.edu
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:32:06 GMT, "OtisWinslow" Drinking in moderation is now considered beneficial to your health.
Moderation is usually defined as a gl*** or two of wine per night.
Corky Scott
"C J Campbell" christophercampbellNOS...@hotmail.com
It is not the alcohol that is considered beneficial. You could get the same benefits from drinking grape juice without poisoning yourself with alcohol.
"C J Campbell" christophercampbellNOS...@hotmail.com
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.
"gatt" g...@freeradical.nyet
They might as well administer a sleep test. "How much sleep did you get last night? Four hours?! Well, clearly you're a hazard to aviation." So it boils down to bureaucracy and public image after all. Just making sure. Drugs and alcohol just don't seem to be a significant source of aviation accidents. If it's cost prohibitive to the extent that it hurts the small-time commercial pilot, it just doesn't seem worth it.
(If it's not cost prohibitive after all, it's probably not an issue.)
-c
"gatt" g...@freeradical.nyet
To this extent, I know a woman whose adult daughter worked for a company who provided drug-masking chemicals as a urine additive...they'd sell that for six months or a year, and then release the agent to detect the chemical.
Then they'd sell another masking chemical....
The employee, by the way, smoked pot.
-c
"gatt" g...@freeradical.nyet
Granted, there are plenty of pilots who do plenty of stupid things, but that's how I look at it.
Heh. I applaud your honesty!
-c
"G.R. Patterson III" grpph...@verizon.net
That would certainly be a great idea, if they could do it. Several of the existing regulations on airline pilots, truck drivers, and railroad engineers have no other purpose than to ensure that these people have at least the opportunity to get enough sleep.
And there's no way to tell to what extent that's due to the fact that random testing is required in some fields of employment.
George Patterson The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.
"Peter Duniho" NpOeStPe...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com
Yes. A non-idiotic approach to the issue would be to base one's decision on quitting on real facts, not some economically-motivated rule-making.
A jillion you say? Uh, right. Whatever. I'd bet a lot more than a dollar that the number is well below that, and in any case I'm not really concerned about pot-heads flying, as long as they aren't under the influence while flying. What do I care whether they quit or not?
I disagree that even "more-than-occasional drug use" is necessarily a problem, as long as that drug use doesn't occur when it would interfere with a person's obligations. But nevertheless, your qualification of "more-than-occasional drug use" is not observed by drug testing. Even occasional users will get strung up by it.
Indeed.
Pete
| To Top |