Random Drug Testing...........

[unformed 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Dangerous argument...

Could Be.

  Quote

If you've got nothing to hide, why would you object to random warrantless searches of your home? Anyone who objects to a random warrantless search of their home must be a crook, right?

Foolish remarks. Not worthy of reply.

you can't notice the correlation? man i envy you.

This ad space for sale.

[chuckbrown 0]

  Quote

  Quote

drug tests are not like alcohol tests
they only can show if you have imbibed in the last 30 days not if you are under the influence at the time.

that's not true. drug tests can tell how much has been ingested. for instance if you drink 6 or more beers and take a breathalizer 5 minutes later, surely you will blow a .80 or more but take the same test 6 hours later and the level will drop like an anvil. on the other hand, a ua does the same thing, the concentration level will be higher if the ingestation has been more recent, rather than 2 weeks ago. time is the only thing that will cause the concentration level to drop. these tests have been refined over the years to improve accuracy and to guard the employer against a civil law suit.

I don't think that's quite accurate. Most urinanalyses merely determine the presence of the substance, not the amount. I might be wrong though.

In any event, impairment is not the issue with drug tests, it's use. Drug tests seek to screen out people who use illegal drugs period, irrespective of whether they're a hard core user, or take a puff at a party in a social setting. Alcohol tests, by contrast, screen people for levels of impairment.

My .02 is that impairment is the issue in skydiving, not use. What somebody does on their own time and in their own home, is none of my business, as long as it doesn't impair their ability to skydive safely. And I'm not crazy about the argument that drug tests will guarantee that no one will jump impaired because you're not looking to put breathalyzers at manifest.


P.S. Don't do drugs. Drugs are bad. Mmmkay.

[rwieder 0]

  Quote

you can't notice the correlation? man i envy you.

Cyclic Redudency Failure........

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[unformed 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

drug tests are not like alcohol tests
they only can show if you have imbibed in the last 30 days not if you are under the influence at the time.

that's not true. drug tests can tell how much has been ingested. for instance if you drink 6 or more beers and take a breathalizer 5 minutes later, surely you will blow a .80 or more but take the same test 6 hours later and the level will drop like an anvil. on the other hand, a ua does the same thing, the concentration level will be higher if the ingestation has been more recent, rather than 2 weeks ago. time is the only thing that will cause the concentration level to drop. these tests have been refined over the years to improve accuracy and to guard the employer against a civil law suit.

I don't think that's quite accurate. Most urinanalyses merely determine the presence of the substance, not the amount. I might be wrong though.



Urinalysis tests do check concentration levels but it really doesn't mean much. All it means is that extremely high levels of concentration pretty much guarantee it's not a false positive. But as you said, they can't differentiate between levels of impairment.

This ad space for sale.

• Quote

[craddock 0]

  Quote

Foolish remarks. Not worthy of reply

applies to yourself as well as anybody. Many have stopped responding for this very reason.

You ask a question " What do ya'll think? " and then try to label everyone who's opinion differs from yours as a druggie. You lack of comprehention amazes me on this thread and you have basically attacked everyone who has disagreed by insinuating they are a druggie.
You will jump with someone who drank week before?, but not with someone who smoked pot the week before. Is it just the legal issue? What if I made an illegal BASE jump the day before would you still jump with me? What if I sped to the DZ.

I will not submit to a ua to jump and I am as clean as a whistle. nevermind my reasons. You obviously would not understand.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[slug 1]

Hi

Exxon Valdez.

The captain was a known drunk Wonder what his BAL was at the time of the big oil slick in alaska.

Why didn't Exxon management send the captain to rehab befor the fact There's a very good reason your industry needs to have a zero tolerence policy for critical positions.

The clerk/president back at the office

R.I.P.

[rwieder 0]

  Quote

Hi Exxon Valdez.

That's uncalled for, and it's a personal attack.

  Quote

The captain was a known drunk Wonder what his BAL was at the time of the big oil slick in alaska.

Agreed. I don't know what his BAL was, but he was blitzed.

  Quote

Why didn't Exxon management send the captain to rehab befor the fact There's a very good reason your industry needs to have a zero tolerence policy for critical positions.

I conceed to your point. But for my personal safety record, no incidents, no accidents, no equipment damage, no dead men/women and no harm to the environment under my watch. As you can tell i'm fairly serious when it comes to my profession. As for remarks made by others in this thread about me specifically calling an individual names, didn't happen. There is a difference between a "blanket" statement and an individual ststement.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[Rookie120 0]

  Quote

You will jump with someone who drank week before?, but not with someone who smoked pot the week before.

  Quote

I never said I would or wouldn't jump with anybody. All I said is that I support ua tests at random or for pre-employment. If somebody want to jump stoned off there ass by all means do so. I watched someone do that once. He double femured and has some really cool hardware in his legs and pelvis.

What if I made an illegal BASE jump the day before would you still jump with me? What if I sped to the DZ.
***

What does that have to do with taking a UA? If you worked for me and I suspected you to be cranked up, do you think I have the right to send you to get tested. If your not why not go just to show your employer that he's a dumb ass! If you were all cranked up thats when you will probably hear the "Taking a drug test imposes on the principle morals" BS.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[skydyvr 0]

  Quote

  Quote

If you've got nothing to hide, why would you object to random warrantless searches of your home? Anyone who objects to a random warrantless search of their home must be a crook, right?

Foolish remarks. Not worthy of reply.

You've stated twice in this thread that you've got absolutely no problem with authorities conducting warrantless searches in your home.

Bizarre.

. . =(_8^(1)

[slug 1]

Hi

My reference toward the exxon valdez wasn't a personnel attack towards you or your industry.

It's part of history, it happened and some folks learned a very expensive lesson.

Being impaired when other peoples lives/property are at stake is very serious.

Impairment can be caused ingesting various substances legal/illlegal, physical/mental illnesses, lack of sleep, lack of experience etc.

As we stated befor you see something you don't like about a person (whatever reason) you don't have to jump with them
Jumping is supposed to be fun, and your paying for it. Your in control of when, where, and who, you jump with
Don't worry be happy! and careful

R.i.P.

[justinb138 0]

  Quote

What does that have to do with taking a UA?

It's pretty much the same thing.

  Quote

If you worked for me and I suspected you to be cranked up, do you think I have the right to send you to get tested.

If someone is asked to be tested because they appear to be under the influence, then it isn't a random test. There is cause to believe they are under the influence of drugs.

  Quote

If you were all cranked up thats when you will probably hear the "Taking a drug test imposes on the principle morals" BS.

Personally, I think it is an invasion of privacy. If someone comes to work under the influence, test them, fire them, whatever.

If my employer feels the need to randomly drug test me every so often because they don't trust me when I told them I don't use drugs, why did they hire me in the first place?

It's being guilty until proven innocent.

[rwieder 0]

  Quote

You've stated twice in this thread that you've got absolutely no problem with authorities conducting warrantless searches in your home.

This is a quote from a previous response earlier in this thread.

  Quote

No one would be allowed to come to my home in an official capacity to just "Have a look around" without the proper documentation,

"Proper documentation" being the key words. With the proper documentation, i have absolutely no probelm. As i said i have a lot of friends in law enforcement, and they visit me regularly, as my wife and i visit them as much. Neither them, or us have anything each other is not aware of, no big deal.

My observations from this thread topic and the responses that it drew from others surprised me. What i sensed was hostility that anybody with the thought anywhere near their mind to ask anyone to submit to a random ua is absolute BS. While i don't understand it, maybe i'm not supposed to. Then there were those of you who felt the same way for what ever your reason(s) I can only speak for my industry and my profession. As far as my sky diving activities are concrened i know who the people are doing things they shouldn't and i elect to stay away from these few and far between individuals.

In any event, i wish all here the best, regardless of who you are, where you stand on this issue. Thanks for everybody's participation.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[craddock 0]

  Quote

All I said is that I support ua tests at random or for pre-employment. If somebody want to jump stoned off there ass by all means do so.

No you asked "How do you feel about "Sharing The Sky" with someone who "may" be UTI of some type of illicit substance? And would you submit to a random drug screen? " to which many people said no and you label them as a druggie.

  Quote

If you worked for me and I suspected you to be cranked up, do you think I have the right to send you to get tested. If your not why not go just to show your employer that he's a dumb ass!

Do you even know what random means?

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[Rookie120 0]

***If my employer feels the need to randomly drug test me every so often because they don't trust me when I told them I don't use drugs, why did they hire me in the first place?***

[Rookie120 0]

  Quote

If someone comes to work under the influence, test them, fire them, whatever.

  Quote

Well pot heads will say thats an invasion of there privacy also.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

• Quote

[Rookie120 0]

  Quote

No you asked "How do you feel about "Sharing The Sky" with someone who "may" be UTI of some type of illicit substance?

  Quote

Ahhhhh, dont know who you have me confused with but I never said that! If you gonna quote me make sure it was me who said it!

  Quote

Do you even know what random means?

  Quote

Why yes I do. There were some people however that dont want to piss for anything because it goes against there so call principle morals or some crap like that and I was trying to make a point there also.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

• Quote

[skydyvr 0]

  Quote

"Proper documentation" being the key words. With the proper documentation, i have absolutely no probelm.

So you think authorities should need a warrant to enter your home against your will? Is that what you mean by "proper documentation"? In the context of what you wrote before, it sure doesn't sound like it.

  Quote

What i sensed was hostility that anybody with the thought anywhere near their mind to ask anyone to submit to a random ua is absolute BS.

The point people are trying to make here is that objecting to random UA is not necessarily an indication of guilt. There are legitimate complaints against it, invasion of privacy being the biggest.

  Quote

While i don't understand it, maybe i'm not supposed to.

Take the bull by the horns and give it a try. It's a privacy issue.

  Quote

As far as my sky diving activities are concrened i know who the people are doing things they shouldn't and i elect to stay away from these few and far between individuals.

Great argument against random UA.

  Quote

Thanks for everybody's participation.

Do I get a prize?

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

  Quote

There were some people however that dont want to piss for anything because it goes against there so call principle morals or some crap like that and I was trying to make a point there also.

Keep trying. Maybe you'll eventually make one.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Rookie120 0]

  Quote

Keep trying. Maybe you'll eventually make one.

  Quote

Would you go take a UA if you were told to? If no why not?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

• Quote

[wmw999 2,555]

I went to take one when instructed. Why? Because it's part of my current job. I was sold into this job, and yes, my pissed-off-ness can be bought with a continued paycheck. I would never think less of someone who held themselves to be a little more expensive than that.

Do I think it's an invasion of privacy? Yes, I do.

Am I scared of what they'll find? No, I'm not.

But I sure don't think that everyone who objects is a pothead.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[craddock 0]

  Quote

Ahhhhh, dont know who you have me confused with but I never said that! If you gonna quote me make sure it was me who said it!

My mistake. I must have been stoned. I was confusing you with the original poster.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[Rookie120 0]

  Quote

But I sure don't think that everyone who objects is a pothead.

  Quote

But those are the ones who always refuse. I'm not making this stuff up I'm just reporting about things that I have seen.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

• Quote

[rwieder 0]

I'm going to take the "High Road" here. While my gut instinct is to crack wise on you, i'm not going to. Don't misconstrue my words to fit your agenda, whick in my opinion is "Off Base"

Later, and please, find someone else to litigate with, i don't have the time for it. Thanks.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[Rookie120 0]

***My mistake. I must have been stoned. I was confusing you with the original poster.
***

[craddock 0]

  Quote

But those are the ones who always refuse.

There are several people in this threas alone that object that are not using. How are you missing this?

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.