Marijuana in skydiver's system

[happythoughts 0]

"I agree they can be beat" The tests that would definitively determine if you are using drugs are expensive, but mainly they aren't that interested really. Most employers wink at what their employees do when not working because most jobs are not life-threatening. They don't want to test you after you have the job because then it becomes an insurance problem. They can't fire you for having a "drug problem". They are required to pay for your rehab.

[WFFC 1]

Quote

Thanks for looking up that article Michael.

Anytime...A friend of mine was actually involved in the lawsuit so I knew a bit more about it than I cared to.

Bluez~~~

-----
~~~Michael

[christoofar 0]

Quote

If he went up to swoop a pond high, its also possible he went up with students high. And say said student goes out of control or whatever and the same poor reaction that caused him to hit the pond cause him to miss helping the student he is responsible for. Hmm, random testing might not seem like such a bad idea there huh? Of course the AFF-I doesnt have any money, so the lawsuit is directed at the "deep pockets" of the DZO (who of course doesnt have any money either, so the DZ closes).

Bad for all of us.

Hmm, now that I think about this and I'm rereading it again...

This actually might be the deterring factor here. If a couple of DZs were shuttered over an incident like this one... you better believe there is going to be some cleaning out of some clocks!

Yes, I know it would suck to see SDC shut down over something like this and I'm just talking hypo here... but all it takes is one turbine DZ to go down in flames before you'll see some quick action.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[PhillyKev 0]

Damn you...i wrote a long reply to your "hypothetical" and you deleted it before I could post it.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

BTW false-positive rates average around 1-5% depending on what you eat and drink, and how you take the test

That sounds about right, assuming you have intelligent, competent people doing the testing. The problem with random, not-for-cause drug screening, is you will probably have less than 5% of the group who actually do drugs. What that translates into, with up to 5% false positves, is that around 50% of the people you accuse of using drugs are actually innocent.

For-cause drug testing is different, because when you have other evidence, such as erratic behavior, or outright possession of drugs, you are dealing with a much larger positive set, so your error rate of 1-5% false positive doesn't throw things off as much.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[christoofar 0]

Quote

Re: cop who pulled you over wanting to search your car. I've found that simply being respectful in how you speak to the officer goes a long way towards helping them decide they don't need to see what's in your car... on more than one occasion it's even gotten me out of tickets that I richly deserved. Generally if you give them a reason to give you a break, they will. Discretion is a wonderful thing

My father was pulled over long long ago in an old Ford pickup. Had several toolboxes and compartments in the back seat.

Was pulled over in Kingsville, TX. Officer looking for pot and concealed firearms. He let the officer search the vehicle, and when he was done he was pissed!

My father opened all sorts of compartments in the toolbox where there were deep wells. "Look here! I could have put a 30-06 in that!" "Look at all these other places you missed! You didn't even look under the hood!"

It went on and on and on. The cop abruptly left after being critiqued on the job.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[PhillyKev 0]

What I'd like to see is someone post some 3rd party un-biased statistical evidence that any industry has become any safer or more productive directly due to the implementation of random drug screening. I've yet to see that information anywhere and I'd think if it existed it would be getting thrown around left and right as justification.

[rgoper 0]

You and I both accepted employment with the condition that we would submit to such testing.***

negative...i clearly stated that i am NOT subject to the uranaylasis when they come, i do it out of my own free will, to set an example, my men that work for me get the warm fuzzy for me for doing this, although i do it to assure them i am no better than they are, no more, no less.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[PhillyKev 0]

So you're volunteering for testing. That's pretty much the same thing as what he said. You're not being randomly forced to provide a sample of your bodily fluids so that someone can examine them under a microscope.

[Dumpster 0]

I have actually heard some companies dropped the pre-employment screening due to the fact they were turning otherwise very well qualifed candidates away- How much truth there is to that I don't know--- can anyone support it?

Easy Does It

[skybytch 259]

Quote

can anyone support it?

Only anecdotally. Personally, any job that requires peeing in a cup before or during employment is one that I won't be applying for.

[happythoughts 0]

My cousin works in insurance. The "rehab" for weed is basically a one-day group chat session. Everyone knows it's window-dressing, but the insurance company pays for it. He said that the president of one ins company has put out the figure of 3 out of 10 IT employees regularly use something illegal. Not sure where to look that up though.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Would it bother you if you tested false-positive and couldn't work for the 2-5 days it took to get the better test (a GC/MS) done? Or would you just work anyway, thus sort of negating the purpose of the drug test?

BillVon:

"NO" it would not bother me. i've been on the administrative side of this testing thing for so many years, and have never had a problem, it's fairly simple really, don't do it! i've never had a problem, nor do i anticipate one in the future. i'm "high" on life, why in the heck would i do dope? if someone wanted to search my vehichle (and it's happened in the last year, more than once) there welcome to it, all they'll find is a .45 Colt Commander Series # 80 in "condition # 1" for which i have a permit. nothing to hide, my life is an open book, i like it that way.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[WFFC 1]

Quote

Damn you...i wrote a long reply to your "hypothetical" and you deleted it before I could post it.

Sorry...Thought more about it after I hit the post button...

-----
~~~Michael

[Dumpster 0]

I had to pee in a cup before I took this job- , but it's no big deal to keep your shit clean for a few days before going for the test- It's the random testing I think is BS-

Easy Does It

[WFFC 1]

Quote

What I'd like to see is someone post some 3rd party un-biased statistical evidence....

What it primarily does is helps the business owner remove themselves from a possible liability issue before it happens. People for the most part really don't like drugs and the "stereotypical" bad things that follow them and if something happens when someone is under the influence of something, they blame the entire fault on the substance and the user.

-----
~~~Michael

[bbarnhouse 0]

When applying for the airlines not only was there an initial background check but once through that fiinger printing and and FBI check. Then....p in a cup....course we all know I'm a goody two shoes...BUT that doesn't mean I'm not fun!

[Deuce 1]

I worked with a cop who had a dirty test for marijuana, was off while they did the "real" test, it was dirty too, and he got a month off at a retreat in Sonoma County somewhere to "rehab". Unpaid leave.

He got busted within the year for falsifying a report and was finally terminated for that.

That intreatment stuff works sometimes, I just don't know if it's worth the expense to the rest of us for the few who benefit from it.

I'm personally libertarian regarding drugs. Do whatever you want so long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else (pretty hard with heroin, pretty easy with marijuana) and doesn't cost me anything (I'd prefer not to contribute to buying your methadone when you change your mind about heroin)

I don't think there should be anything stonger than Mountain Dew (soda) used while skydiving.

[jraf 0]

Quote

Next thing you know there will be random testing for the presence of sheep secretions on your willy. A wise man once said, "He who make sweet love to wooly animals is a danger to himself and others."

That is iso true! I most definitely oppose drug testing, random or not. It is an invasion of my privacy. It is a step towards an orwelian society. We are already so scanned, CCTV'd, controlled in every possible fashion. The regulation of civil liberties leads to crime.

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[christoofar 0]

I like to chain smoke at the DZ... but that's about as far as I go.

If you leave your pack sitting on the table other chainers will swipe them before you know it... so start getting used to smoking Marlboro Menthols!

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[freeflir29 0]

Another important point. In Michael's hypothetical post for those of you that got to read it. I think he came up with a solution to the "DZ liability" problem. Have the DZ employees sign in like they do at most DZs. On the sign in sheet have a "waiver" saying that by signing in...and thereby accepting employment for that day you are certifying that you are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. That takes the responsibility off the DZ and puts it ON the individual instructor. Not sure how much water that will hold in court because I'm not a lawyer but it sounds like a good argument to me.
Another thought is to have some sort of contract that anyone who works at the DZ signs which makes it clear they are INDEPENDANT contractors and ARE NOT employed by the DZ. Once again....takes away the liability from the DZ.

[billvon 2,435]

>"NO" it would not bother me.

So it wouldn't bother you to get put on unpaid leave for a while while they did a second test? And it wouldn't bother you to get fired for the .5% chance that the GC/MS test is wrong as well?

I have never smoked pot in my life. I would have tested positive for THC via GC/MS at least three times in my life (once after a pink floyd concert) due to stuff in the air I was breathing; I would have tested positive a lot more than that on the cheaper (urinalysis) tests when I was taking antibiotics, anti-inflammatories or painkillers. (all legal.)

OTOH, it's easy to beat the urinalysis test if you know what you're doing and you prepare carefully. There are dozens of websites that tell you how to do it.

Another way of looking at that is, if I accept a job at a company that does drug testing, there is a better chance of me getting fired for "drug use" than someone who does do drugs and knows how to beat the tests. I choose not to play those odds.

>nothing to hide, my life is an open book. . . .

Doesn't matter. If you test positive you'll be fired, and all your protestations that "I have nothing to hide" will sound like the excuses of a habitual drug user. Doesn't matter if you do drugs or not; companies that do drug testing rely on the results of those tests, not what you say (or even what you do.)

[rgoper 0]

So it wouldn't bother you to get put on unpaid leave for a while while they did a second test? And it wouldn't bother you to get fired for the .5% chance that the GC/MS test is wrong as well?***

BillVon:

asked and answered. NO it wouldn't bother me. i'm aware of some of the tactics that are improvised to beat the test, i've NEVER done it. honest to god, i'm a "staright arrow" ask anyone who has ever jumped with me.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[sitflyr 0]

Quote

how is this helpful information?

A couple of things come to mind:

First, I'll bet that most of us have encountered someone who needs to learn a lesson about jumping while impaired. (I can think of several.) Maybe this information will serve as a wake up call to some people before they get hurt or cause someone else to get hurt.

Second, I seem to remember that people who knew this jumper expressed surprise that he would have attempted to swoop that pond. Apparently, he had very little experience with swooping; and this was a very difficult swoop to execute. The finding that he was impaired while jumping may help to explain why he attempted to perform a risky maneuver which was beyond his capabilities.

Julie

[billvon 2,435]

>asked and answered. NO it wouldn't bother me.

OK, fair enough. Suffice to say that getting fired for a drug offense, given that I've never done them, would bother me - and it bothers me enough that I'd pass up a better paying job for a job that did not have drug testing.