Facts on why this drug issue started

[skymedic 0]

Quote

also only if you assume (as the ignorant public does) that the drugs were the cause of the fatality. Of course they do make a convenient scapegoat since they are already demonized by the government advertising, allowing a tidy summation of cause without any actual evidence.

There is nothing to assume...Ron was so loaded he could've made the whole plane high!!!!!! his condition directly lead to him hitting the water at a HIGH rate of speed....yes...it did lead to his death....no ASUMPTIONS about it!!!!!!!!!

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[Joyner 0]

Quote

No, the word has many meanings in english too. Somebody who refuses to test for reasons of privacy absolutely has that right. I don't have a problem with that. But I sure like knowing that my pilots and packers, and the instructors instilling safety standards in the new students here, and leading by example (not to mention strapping a student to their chest before jumping!), are willing to prove they're clean.

So basically we aggree on the same point. People on drugs or people refusing to be tested has no business in taking other peoples lives in their hands!?

[skymedic 0]

Quote

Reasons for testing being stereotypes, covering your ass as DZO, being a hard ass or whatever, the fact still remains:
When you skydive you assume responsability not only for your own life. One argument I've often enough heard from addicts "Why should you tell me what to do with my own life" doesn't apply here! There are others involved!!!

Exactly....thank you....

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

It is a negative point when you are using it under the disguise of safety.

Quote

I don't really think it's a big deal. But then again, I'm not in any danger of failing a drug test.

~Samantha

Then how about if everytime you go into work or get pulled over you get strip searched looking for "drugs". You don't have anything to worry about since you don't use drugs. It is all about them taking a slice of the pie. If you don't stand for something. You will fall for anything!

Baloney - there are plenty of other employment opportunities that don't require testing. If the test becomes too onerous, no-one will work there and the draconian employer will go out of business or change his policies. That's capitalism in action.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydivegirl 0]

Quote

Then how about if everytime you go into work or get pulled over you get strip searched looking for "drugs".

Gosh, if I got strip searched everytime I went into work I'd probably just change jobs.

I think I saw some strip searching go on at Rantoul last year... although I don't think that was drug test related.

Pink Mafia Sis #26

[Deuce 1]

Well, I was subject to drug testing for a long time and I despised it. It is a search without probable cause. I am aware of all the arguments, that's where I stand on it.

So when the paperwork asks if I voluntarily comply, I check the "no" box, and the supervisor, who should have some clue about whether I'm intoxicated, would then have to order me to comply as a condition of employment and I'd submit.

Whatever. It's a lazy supervisor's answer to a problem. If you've got a skydiver with a drug problem, you know it. Testing everybody to get at that individual is just lazy and cowardly. Confront the individual, inform him of the objective observations that lead you to believe he's intoxicated, and give him the chance to test or be fired.

I also have never had any reason to be concerned over a drug test. There's also nothing contraband in the trunk of my car, or in my house, but you have to get a search warrant to look there. My position is you should have probable cause to look in my body too.

JP

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

also only if you assume (as the ignorant public does) that the drugs were the cause of the fatality. Of course they do make a convenient scapegoat since they are already demonized by the government advertising, allowing a tidy summation of cause without any actual evidence.

There is nothing to assume...Ron was so loaded he could've made the whole plane high!!!!!! his condition directly lead to him hitting the water at a HIGH rate of speed....yes...it did lead to his death....no ASUMPTIONS about it!!!!!!!!!

really? and here i thought initiating the turn to low led to the fatal impact. why did he turn low? well your certainly welcome to assume that it was because of drug use, but you have ZERO evidence to support that claim.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,408]

>I'd prefer jumping with a hard ass than with a drug addict any day!

Well:

1. The issue is instructor drug testing, not other skydiver drug testing. You'd still have to rely on your own judgement rather than a drug test to decide who you want to jump with (which is how it should be.)

2. If you were a student this could affect you. However, an experienced drug user can beat the test pretty easily. So the question becomes - are you OK as a student jumping with an experienced drug user who knows how to beat the test? If not, then a better system (such as a chief instructor who uses _his_ judgement as to who to send up with students) might help keep you safer in the air.

>I'd say anyone who claims integrity more important than safety, has
>something to hide!

I've often chosen integrity over safety. There are a few people I simply don't want to jump with because of what they've done to other people or the sport, even though they are safe jumpers. Most skydivers make decisions like this, I think. Most of them have nothing to hide.

>When it comes to safety involving others than yourself, I feel it is up
> to you to prove that you are fit to perform the task.

Agreed. That should be the bottom line.

[skymedic 0]

Quote

really? and here i thought initiating the turn to low led to the fatal impact. why did he turn low? well your certainly welcome to assume that it was because of drug use, but you have ZERO evidence to support that claim.

He was incapacitated...many witnesses to prove it....that simple..now why people didn't stop him is beyond me...

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[KenKnight 0]

Quote

Anyone who uses illegal drugs that show up on a drug screen know how to beat the system.

If that were the case, no one would ever be popped on a piss test.

_______________
D28695 PoPs #9237
"Mix ignorance with arrogance at low altitude and the results are almost guaranteed to be spectacular"
— Bruce Landsberg

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

really? and here i thought initiating the turn to low led to the fatal impact. why did he turn low? well your certainly welcome to assume that it was because of drug use, but you have ZERO evidence to support that claim.

He was incapacitated...many witnesses to prove it....that simple..now why people didn't stop him is beyond me...

well then by your same logic he died because no one stopped him from jumping when he was clearly unable to do so, no drug test required.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

This sound to me like you think the line "You either have to be crazy or on drugs to jump out of a perfectly good airplane" is the way the non skydiving population actually thinks of us.

That is exactly what I think. The publics perception of us is a bunch of crazies. The point I was making is this: A skydiver died with drugs in his system. Skymedic got drug tested because of the existing perception because he is a skydiver.

If another bowler was killed while high, other bowlers at his workplace would not have been "randomly" tested. That is all I said. It did not appear that he was "randomly" selected.

[covey 0]

My thoughts got ahead of my typing speed. Not hard to do in my case. I meant to add on a regular basis. My goof. This is my last post on this subject. I do believe a private company has the right to do what every they feel like. If you don't like the way they do things then don't go there. But don't say you are doing something for reasons your not. If you know someone is unsafe then confront them. If it is because of drugs or stress or anything. Everyone at the DZ is responsible for safety. If you see something that you feel uncomfortable with bring it up to management. If they don't do anything about it don't get on the plane. The final decision for your safety is you.

Believe those who are seeking truth. Doubt those who find it. -Andre Gide

[b1jercat 0]

And a good time was had by all.

[lawrocket 3]

It appears that we have ourselves another of these delightful conflicts of personality and individual values. I'll try to strip it to the issues as I see them here.

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" vs. "employer's legitimate interests in imposing the drug test." An epic battle.

On the one side, we have a number of people who feel or think (two different things) that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they choose to do drugs, they have that right, and it it nobody's business but theirs. This is a valid point. They expect complete privacy. Ah, but is this expectation reasonable?

There are many situations where the expectation can be unreasonable. For example, in the military, anyone expecting privacy is clearly on drugs, as most privacy rights were contracted away.

On a drop zone? I understand that a number of nefarious events are rumored to occur on drop zones throughout the land. Indeed, due to the past, an expectation of privacy might be reasonable, since this is the way it always has been done.

In addition, the employer has never done drug tests in the past. That guy working for 8 years as an instructor may well have said reasonable expectation through time.

However, the employer's interest is stated as safety. Unstated is the liability issue and money interest (take it from a dirtbag shyster ambulance chaser lawyer: this DZ operator is doing something that limits his liability greatly. Vicarious liability can be imposed if the employer reasonably should have known the danger, and did nothing to control it).

I take it that the employer thinks that he is averting what he believes to be a dangerous situation. He opened a can of worms now! If he doesn't follow through with this policy, given his stated beliefs, it would be tantamount ot recklessness if he does nothing to cure what he thinks is a danger. And recklessness often cannot be contractually waived.

Balance his interests - personal and financial - with the interests of the employees - personal and financial - as well as the customers - personal and financial.

A shit sandwich.

I think this can battle can also be entitled "ideology v. pragmatism." I think the DZO is trying to be pragmatic here. Whether his pragmatism is correct remains to be seen. Think both sides here.

p.s. Warrantless searches apply to state actors. Each state may have laws that protect employees somewhat from this, as California does.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[stylin 1]

Youre not in control of your system when youre on drugs, but as far as drug testing, I want to follow up with this input.

Drug testing usually involves things like marijuana, cocaine, street drugs in other words. As far as being concerned with these types of drugs, you may be missing a more importand issue. Its any kind of drugs, period, that you have to look out for. This includes perscription drugs, and especially perscription drugs.

Let me cite an example. A year ago, I had borderline high blood pressure. The doctor pushed this perscription on me and I took it for a few weeks. It caused massive dizzy spells, to the point where I would nearly fall down, these were caused by moving from a horizontal to vertical position. The doctor said it wouldnt cause any kind of dizzy spells. Can you see where this might affect skydiving? Flying an airplane?

For anybody in ANY extreme sport, you need to choose one thing or the other. If someone cant make a few sacrifices to be in an extreme sport, then why do it at all? I dont think drug testing is in any way too harsh, it makes a clear statement, choose one thing or the other. Either get serious about it, or get out. I dont think having to submit to a drug test is too big of a sacrifice, youre already doing that with your life.

What do they say in skydiving, its an unforgiving sport, you can do everything right and still get killed? Dont worry about being tested for drugs, worry about that. Thats plenty to worry about.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

However, the employer's interest is stated as safety. Unstated is the liability issue...

... He opened a can of worms now! If he doesn't follow through with this policy, given his stated beliefs...

A lot of large corporations implement "initial" drug testing to prove to their insurance provider that they are "drug-free". This reduces a variety of insurance costs. That is their reasoning.

However, it does open a "can of worms" and so most will never do drug testing again. The problem with re-testing is that you may discover that an employee tests positive.

If an existing employee tests positive:
1-Many times, you can't fire them based on the test.
2-You must place them in an expensive drug treatment program until their program is complete.

Employers want the primary benefit of reduced insurance, but they don't want the expensive treatment problem of really knowing. Companies really don't care because most employees aren't in life-risk situations. Generally, companies just use the "drug-free" label to lower expenses.

[rmsmith 1]

[reply1. The issue is instructor drug testing, not other skydiver drug testing.

[betzilla 56]

Quote

So basically we aggree on the same point. People on drugs or people refusing to be tested has no business in taking other peoples lives in their hands!?

I don't know that I'd say categorically that if someone refuses to be tested they shouldn't take someone's life into their hands. Just not mine.
I know some people who are stoned so much of the time (NOT skydivers thank god!) that when they're SOBER they seem impaired, just because of the contrast. Who's to say there aren't DZ staffers out there doing the same thing? Would I work at a DZ that didn't test? Sure, but I'm proud to work at one that does.

But yes, we DO agree that people who ARE on drugs should not be risking other peoples' lives (again, especially mine or my loved ones').

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Let me cite an example. A year ago, I had borderline high blood pressure. The doctor pushed this perscription on me and I took it for a few weeks. It caused massive dizzy spells, to the point where I would nearly fall down, these were caused by moving from a horizontal to vertical position. The doctor said it wouldnt cause any kind of dizzy spells. .

I had exactly this experience about 10 years ago - taking the beta blockers also had a negative effect on my sex life. I told the physician I'd rather live with mild hypertension than be falling down every time I got up from a chair.

But people in general have no reason to conceal their prescription drug use.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

really? and here i thought initiating the turn to low led to the fatal impact. why did he turn low? well your certainly welcome to assume that it was because of drug use, but you have ZERO evidence to support that claim.

He was incapacitated...many witnesses to prove it....that simple..now why people didn't stop him is beyond me...

Like the entire USPA board?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[betzilla 56]

Quote

2. If you were a student this could affect you. However, an experienced drug user can beat the test pretty easily. So the question becomes - are you OK as a student jumping with an experienced drug user who knows how to beat the test? If not, then a better system (such as a chief instructor who uses _his_ judgement as to who to send up with students) might help keep you safer in the air.

Is there a DZ out there that's going to do drug tests, and then say, "well, Pete does seem to be baked, but he passed that drug test last month, so he's clean. Let him take that student?"

In the case of my DZ (obviously I can't speak for the others), drug testing is not intended to be a substitute for personal accountability, but a supplement to it.

Where's my dixie cup? I gotta pee.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

***In the case of my DZ (obviously I can't speak for the others), drug testing is not intended to be a substitute for personal accountability, but a supplement to it.

and apparently that minor (as it is a very minor supplement to proper supervision) is more important than the founding freedoms our country was based on.

how many skydiving deaths have been directly attributed to drug use? how many skydives were made during that same time period? do you honestly believe that possibly saving a few lives is worth the continuing erosion of personal responsibility, privacy and trust implied by drug testing policies?

how many people have died to create the unique culture of freedom we used to enjoy? actions and policies (by individuals, the government, private businesses or dropzones) that take away from those founding principles devalue, and demean their sacrifice

it has become a cliché of late, but safety is not worth freedom..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[betzilla 56]

Quote

and apparently that minor (as it is a very minor supplement to proper supervision) is more important than the founding freedoms our country was based on.

Our country, but not the huge investment in my Drop Zone. You can bet I'd be pissed off (nice pun, eh?) if I had to piss test to get a passport or a soical security card.

But sorry, I don't have a "right" to teach skydiving. It's a privelege I have earned. There ARE people out there who have earned it, but shouldn't have. Or whose lives have changed to the point where they shouldn't have that privelege any longer. Maybe this will help weed some of them out, before they weed themselves out by going in on or off the clock, or even with a student. Maybe not, but I'm willing to try it.

[Zenister 0]

oh yeah i forget money is more important than freedom too:rollseyes: and its easier to knuckle under to the continual erosion than it is to say NO..no farther i know its not the dropzones fault that our legal system has been come so litigiously corrupt, but somehow i expected skydivers to care more about freedom in general.

every little chip may seem insignificant, until the pillar falls..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.