Air Tindi Fatal TSB Report To Be Released March 20, 2013

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You have a right to your life and privacy, and we should not give that up. I don't care if you are the biggest booze hound or smoke the biggest bag of weed I have ever seen (although I am not thrilled about helping to pay your medical bills through taxes). So long as it does not affect the below paragraph.

There is no way on earth that anyone can the bigget booze hound or smoke the biggest bag of weed on their off time and not become physically and mentally sub standard over time.

Flying or repairing aircraft is not an occupation for substance addicts......period.

[Koalemos]

Lol I agree with you .. Exaggeration doesn't always translate well to forum posts I suppose.

My point is there's a line between personal and professional. It's up to the person to manage the former to meet the requirements of the latter. TC have the right to enforce the latter, and not interfere in the former. They can pull your medical and license, but can't tell you what to do with your personal life. Random drug testing while on duty (if done in an acceptable manner) is one way to try and remove those being criminally negligent. Is it the best way? I dunno, but its an option I'm willing to entertain if implemented correctly (see my previous posts before taking that line out of context).

Maybe there's a better way.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I have been in aviation for sixty years and try as I may I can not recall even one instance of T.C. charging a pilot or airplane mechanic with impairment on the job.

So don't hang your hat on enforcement by T.C.

[BverLuver]

TC have the right to enforce the later, and not interfere in the former. Random drug testing is one way to do so.

Koalemos,

This is Absolutely untrue. It fits exactly with Docs scenario of the police stopping you and randomly testing you. They are enforcement, out to create a safe environment for the traveling public on the highways for example. Yet, unless there is a specific suspicion that you are under the influence, they cannot test you. Once again, the Canadian Human Rights Act protects and specifically states, that random drug testing is NOT an acceptable method of doing so.

Further to the point, the discussion is getting away from the basis which is Employers, NOT TC, doing random drug tests. Not that there is a difference, but there is a difference, if you follow.

BL

[Koalemos]

BL, the distinction between TC doing the testing and employers doing the testing is a good one. I stand corrected.

The question of wether it is legal or is still tied up in the courts, with various judges sending down different rulings. I have heard, from a lawyer, that is not so simple as you say. I am not a lawyer, so I do not think I can accurately explain the terms it was explained to me in. Maybe you have a better understanding than I do here. I have been (trying to) follow the news regarding various groups (not just pilots) and drug testing, and haven't seen a clear answer.

I understand the police analogy, but disagree that it applies. I see a differentiation between personal life (getting pulled over and not being bullied out of your rights, in this scenario) and professional responsibilities. Your commercial license says you have the required knowledge and experience. Your medical says you are healthy. Who or what says you are fit to fly in other regards? The honesty system seems to be failing in these cases.

Note: edited to remove repeatedly belaboring points I already made.

[Doc]

Kaolemos.....why pilots? Why not COPS, taxi drivers, bus drivers, lion tamers, doctors, nurses, and any host of others where the public safety is involved? I'll tell you why. Rights. These people are willing to stick up for their rights. Why are you not?

[Koalemos]

The employers want to test us to confirm we are acting within the requirements we *agreed to* when accepting our license and our jobs.

The word rights keeps getting tossed around. Maybe a clarification will help here. Keeping in mind not being stoned or drunk is both a legal, and contractual obligation, what right(s) exactly are we talking about? This is a honest question, my hope would be isolating people's objections would lead to an acceptable solution.

[Doc]

We will have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to go to the mat to defend my rights, not only as I see them, but as defined by our constitution. Random drug tests are not acceptable. Period.
Until these rights are struck down by due process, I will refuse random drug tests.

[Koalemos]

The following is what the government says. The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Alcohol and Drug Testing can be found Here

3. General Policy Statement

In accordance with current case law on the issue of drug and alcohol testing1, and consistent with the Act’s prohibition of discrimination on the ground of real or perceived disability, drug and alcohol testing are prima facie discriminatory2.

Given that a drug test cannot measure impairment at the time of the test, requiring an employee or applicant for employment to undergo a drug test as a condition of employment may be considered a discriminatory practice on the ground of disability or perceived disability.

Requiring an employee in, or an applicant for, a safety-sensitive position3 to undergo alcohol testing as a condition of employment may be acceptable, given that alcohol testing can measure impairment at the time of the test, but only if the employer accommodates the needs of those who test positive and who are determined to be dependent on alcohol.

So, this document states that it is discriminatory for a drug test, but not an alcohol test given certain situations. However.

2. Policy Objective

The objective of this policy is to clarify the rights and responsibilities of employers, employees, and job applicants regarding employment-related drug and alcohol testing. It sets out the Commission’s interpretation of the human rights limits on drug and alcohol testing programs, and provides practical guidance on compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Act.

This policy is subject to decisions by human rights tribunals and the Courts, and should be read in conjunction with those decisions and the Act. This policy is not a substitute for legal advice. Any employer considering adopting a drug and alcohol testing program should seek legal guidance on this issue.

So, you have to look at specific tribunals and court cases for precedents. I'm assuming this is what the companies who went to the courts are arguing. The Act says its discriminatory, but ask a lawyer cause they may find a way around it. You may not actually have the right that you insist you do. So, at this time it seems it is in limbo. If they decide that we do have that right and it is discriminatory to ask us for the random drug test, I will be right there behind you in defending our right.

Doc, you have made it clear you don't agree with the drug testing. Fair enough, perhaps you may want to be able to explain what your rights are instead of using police analogies. Kudos to BL, he was the first who could actually do so (that I saw, maybe i missed it).

So, what is your suggestion to the issue of operating while on a prohibited substance? While resolving the challenge to the Act is important, preventing the body count from increasing is just as pressing. The honesty system doesn't seem to be holding up.

[Doc]

Just curious, what are reasonable passengers rights, and how are those protected?

We take passengers aloft on a regular basis in single engine airplanes in hard IFR. They have the right to expect to make it back if an engine fails. They won't.
We have pilots who break limits, resulting in accidents that shouldn't happen.
Hell, we even take Airbus loads of passengers for midnight swims in the Atlantic Ocean because highly paid airline captains working for flag carriers can't recover from a simple stall!
We push limits, fly overweight......you tell me. What are passenger rights?
I feel, they have the right to survive the trip?

[shimmydampner]

They have caught or stopped exactly 0 (ZERO) bombs from getting on planes since their inception.

I'm not a fan of the TSA dog and pony show either, but that is seriously flawed logic. Just because they have not intercepted any explosives does not necessarily mean it has been ineffective in improving security. It would be akin to suggesting that because no airliners have been brought down, it is completely effective. Really, at the end of the day, we will never truly be able to quantify it's full measure of success or failure.

With regards to drug testing, it isn't as though anyone can be forced to submit to one. If that were the case, then it would most certainly be a violation of rights. I have endured a few employment related piss tests for both aviation and non-aviation jobs. No one had a gun to my head nor was I coerced in any way. I was aware in advance of the company's zero tolerance policy, and that I would be required to prove that I was compliant by means of a simple test. I suppose a person might view that as a violation of their rights. If so, they have the option to exercise their rights and not submit to it and seek employment elsewhere.

As to the accident itself, I personally think it's much simpler than many people are making it out to be. Some are trying to point to a lack of oversight, as though someone with authority should have known he was going to drive into a cliff 100 miles from home. Others are suggesting it's a "northern" or "north of 60" thing. What a load of crap. What it comes down to is that despite having all the tools necessary to do the job safely, the guy made the necessary dumb decisions to scatter himself across the countryside, just like almost every other CFIT accident ever. And the thing is, I don't believe for one second that being a pothead led to those decisions. Too many pilots are constantly trying to push VFR into IMC. Most get away with it, this one didn't. Guys just need to realize that they don't have to make it so hard on themselves. Just turn around and go home. Little Mary Rottencrotch and her bucket of chicken and pop would rather get home tomorrow than be terrified today.
My feelings are that the accident itself is just another run-of-the-mill typical CFIT. However, the revelation of drug use is an almost separate, parallel and more compelling storyline.

[shimmydampner]

Just curious, what are reasonable passengers rights, and how are those protected?

We take passengers aloft on a regular basis in single engine airplanes in hard IFR. They have the right to expect to make it back if an engine fails. They won't.
We have pilots who break limits, resulting in accidents that shouldn't happen.
Hell, we even take Airbus loads of passengers for midnight swims in the Atlantic Ocean because highly paid airline captains working for flag carriers can't recover from a simple stall!
We push limits, fly overweight......you tell me. What are passenger rights?
I feel, they have the right to survive the trip?

Every so often we are required to prove that we have the necessary knowledge and skills to ensure those "passenger rights."

[BverLuver]

So, this document states that it is discriminatory for a drug test, but not an alcohol test given certain situations.

Koalemos,

Alcohol tests can prove impairment, drug tests simply can not. Therein lies the difference in your statement.

I actually embarrassed myself when explaining my views to a friend this afternoon, I could not even think of a name for a Marijuana cigarette (joint etc). So, needless to say (I also do not drink), I certainly have nothing to hide, except perhaps the protection of my rights as a citizen!

BL

[Doc]

Just curious, what are reasonable passengers rights, and how are those protected?

We take passengers aloft on a regular basis in single engine airplanes in hard IFR. They have the right to expect to make it back if an engine fails. They won't.
We have pilots who break limits, resulting in accidents that shouldn't happen.
Hell, we even take Airbus loads of passengers for midnight swims in the Atlantic Ocean because highly paid airline captains working for flag carriers can't recover from a simple stall!
We push limits, fly overweight......you tell me. What are passenger rights?
I feel, they have the right to survive the trip?

Every so often we are required to prove that we have the necessary knowledge and skills to ensure those "passenger rights."

And those rights do not include the right to collect body fluids from pilots. Take the bus. Bus drivers might not be dopers. Apparently because one pilot was, we all are.
People not willing to defend their rights, don't deserve them.

[Koalemos]

@BL, from reading through the Act, I see what you are saying in regards to the difference between the tests.

@Doc, you asked me about professions other than pilots. Reading through the Act, from the link in my previous post I found the following. It allows for random drug tests for commercial bus drivers and trucking operations. This may open it up to us as well, I could not find anything that said straight out if it does or not.

If testing is part of a broader program of medical assessment, monitoring and support, employers can test for drugs in any of the following situations:

for "reasonable cause," where an employee reports for work in an unfit state and there is evidence of substance abuse;
after a significant incident or accident has occurred and there is evidence that an employee’s act or omission may have contributed to the incident or accident; or
following treatment for drug abuse, or disclosure of a current drug dependency or abuse. (Usually, a physician or substance abuse professional will determine whether follow-up testing is necessary for a particular individual.)

Furthermore, in accordance with a 2003 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision10, commercial bus operators can subject their drivers to pre-employment and random alcohol and drug testing as long as they accommodate employees who are found to be drug or alcohol dependent. The Commission has extended the Tribunal’s decision to trucking operations.

If an employer, other than those in commercial bus and trucking operations, believes that it may be able to justify random and pre-employment testing of its employees in safety-sensitive positions, these are the some of the factors that may be considered by the Commission in determining whether testing is a bona fide occupational requirement:

whether employees are under direct supervision;
whether there are less invasive alternatives to drug and alcohol testing that may help employers determine whether employees in safety-sensitive positions are impaired on the job;
whether there is evidence of a high incidence of drug use in the workplace or industry;
whether the employer offers a comprehensive employer-supported rehabilitation program; and
whether the employer is required to comply with legislation or regulations, such as occupational health and safety legislation, or U.S. Department of Transportation regulations.

[shimmydampner]

Athletes get tested.

[Doc]

Athletes get tested.

Male dogs have their nuts checked at dog shows. What's your point?

[flyinthebug]

Athletes get tested.

Only in certain sports. If you pay me $6 Million a year, feel free to infringe on my rights... ill pee in anything you ask me to. Your missing the point.

[AuxBatOn]

So, this document states that it is discriminatory for a drug test, but not an alcohol test given certain situations.

Koalemos,

Alcohol tests can prove impairment, drug tests simply can not. Therein lies the difference in your statement.

I actually embarrassed myself when explaining my views to a friend this afternoon, I could not even think of a name for a Marijuana cigarette (joint etc). So, needless to say (I also do not drink), I certainly have nothing to hide, except perhaps the protection of my rights as a citizen!

BL

Don't need to prove impairment. It's illegal period. Just using drugs invalidates your medical.

[CD]

Most of the discussion here now could likely be merged with our earlier discussions at the following thread from last fall:

AvCanada: Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

As well, here are some various articles from over the last few years with respect to testing:

July 5, 2007

PSAC Wins Drug Testing Grievance

Toronto – Random workplace drug testing is intrusive and an unreasonable exercise of management rights an arbitrator ruled on June 28. The policy grievance against the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) was launched by PSAC for Local 00004 in February 2001.

The GTAA’s Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy, which was developed and implemented without union input, cast a wide net and called for provocative measures such as random drug testing involving urine samples, pre-appointment testing and the imposition of discipline upon a positive test. Noting that a positive drug test does not indicate impairment, the Arbitrator also rejected employer arguments that positive tests legitimately alert the employer to increased safety risks.

Highlighting the disconnect between drug test results, impairment and safety, the Arbitrator pointed to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Meiorin and ruled that the employer could not justify the discriminatory aspects of the policy because the testing could not be shown to be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of a work-related purpose.

The ruling follows on several years of persistent work by PSAC local union representatives supported by union staff and union legal counsel.

“This is a step forward for the rights of workers at GTAA and at every other airport across Canada. Management crossed the line with the imposition of these tests. The arbitrator’s decision sends a clear message that our members have the right to work in dignity against invasive examinations that violate their personal privacy,” said Gerry Halabecki, Regional Executive Vice-president for the PSAC in Ontario.

PSAC Local 00004 represents 720 administrative, maintenance, safety and trades workers at the GTAA.

http://www.psac.com/news/2007/releases/23-0707-e.shtml

Ferry operators says tough-on-drugs Conservative government must act now

20 Oct, 3:16 PM

VICTORIA - Canada's ferry operators want the Conservative government to apply its tough-on-drugs policy to legislate mandatory random drug testing not just in their sector but across the Canadian transportation industry.

Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon says ferry companies already have the power to test workers for drug use after BC Ferries was rocked by revelations by the Transportation Safety Board last week that some of its crew members smoked pot on the job.

But ferry companies appear to want a legislated crackdown.

"I don't believe that we have to wait for the TSB to make a recommendation," said Capt. David Miller, president of the Canadian Ferry Operators Association. "Let's move now, before somebody does lose a life."

That view is backed by BC Ferries president David Hahn, who says ferry operators need clarification from Ottawa.

"We're not looking for a public debate on whether there should be this type of testing, but action," Hahn told The Canadian Press.

"I know I'm pushing the envelope with the people in Ottawa, but quite frankly, this agenda needs to be pushed. There needs to be clear direction around public safety."

The issue came into sharp focus when the safety board issued an extraordinary warning in the final stage of its review into last year's sinking of BC Ferries' Queen of the North.

The ship carrying 101 passengers and crew ran aground after failing to make a late-night course change a few hours after leaving North Coast port of Prince Rupert. It sank with the loss of two passengers.

The board published a notice last week saying its review had turned up evidence crew members regularly smoked pot between shifts, both on and off the ship.

The board stressed there was no evidence crew members on the bridge of the doomed ferry were high when it slammed into Gil Island, tearing a long gash in its hull and causing it to sink in just over an hour.

But as a result of follow-up interviews by its investigators, the board felt that pot smoking may not have been restricted to BC Ferries' former flagship.

There was evidence it may be a problem in the company's northern fleet, where crew live aboard the ships for several days at a time.

BC Ferries has had a zero-tolerance for drug use since 2005 and Hahn said people have been fired when caught.

But he said it's a much bigger issue and can't be restricted to ferry operators.

His company, which transports more than 20 million passengers annually, was already revising its existing alcohol-and drug-awareness education and rehabilitation programs when the board issued its warning.

Hahn said he is certain that if the top 50 leaders in Canadian transportation companies were asked if they want mandatory drug and alcohol testing, they'd say "Give us the legislation, we'll implement it tomorrow."

"That's the backbone that needs to be built into this process," he said, adding that Canada is a decade behind most other countries on drug testing.

Ferry crews on ships in neighbouring Alaska and Washington are subject to mandatory testing under federal law, Hahn pointed out.

After the board's report, Cannon issued a statement that the government "has a clear tough-on-drugs agenda" and he would write to all ferry operators in Canada to "remind them of their powers related to regular drug testing of their employees."

It offered little comfort to Hahn, who said Transport Canada has made it clear that enforcing mandatory drug testing is extremely difficult due to a number of entrenched rights.

He's anxious for Cannon's letter to arrive because there appears to be a "grey area" about what his company can do.

"They're telling (us) that the law is not clear," Hahn said. "And that's what we're looking for, clarity around the law to back up and make our program even more successful."

A spokeswoman for the Canadian Human Rights Commission said policies regarding mandatory drug testing are being revised.

Senior policy adviser Karen Izzard said certain types of mandatory drug testing are taking place in Canada.

For instance, trucking companies whose drivers regularly cross the border and become subject to testing under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations have been able to argue that it is a genuine occupational requirement.

But elsewhere, companies adopting mandatory and/or random drug testing still run the risk of human rights complaints.

Izzard said specific federal legislation could circumvent that.

"I think that if there was that legislation then employers would be in a much better position to withstand human rights scrutiny," she said from Ottawa.

The warning about the use of marijuana by BC Ferries crew did not come as a complete shock.

Miller noted that by all accounts recreational drug use across society appears to be on the rise, and the same could be true in the ferry fleet.

"They finger the Queen of the North but I'd be awfully surprised if it wasn't elsewhere," he said .

B.C. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, seemed to react to the safety board's warning as if it had stated the obvious.

"I don't think there is anyone in the province that thinks marijuana use is probably a new thing on BC Ferries," he said.

Falcon balked at Hahn's demand for federally legislated mandatory testing. But he said he will work with BC Ferries and its major union this week "so that we can come forward with a position to take to the federal minister, if necessary, to bring about changes to make sure the public is safe."

Pilots to be screened for drugs and alcohol (Australia)

October 2007

PILOTS flying domestic and international routes will be subjected to random alcohol and drug tests for the first time from early next year.

A blood-alcohol content less than 0.02 per cent will be set for pilots and tests for cocaine, cannabis, opioids and amphetamines will be conducted under the long-anticipated changes to aviation safety standards.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been negotiating the new standards with aviation industry representatives for four years, but the changes will now be introduced just months before the Government-sponsored random drug testing of elite sportsmen and women.

It is also likely to increase pressure for emergency and essential service industries and personnel to tackle alcohol and drug abuse in the workplace.

Drug and alcohol testing for the Australian aviation industry was recommended by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau after a fatal accident on Hamilton Island in September 2002.

While the bureau was not able to conclusively establish the reasons for the crash, the then federal transport minister, John Anderson, warned it was time to consider the "impacts of alcohol and drug use on aviation safety".

The current regulations prohibit flight crew from being under the influence of drugs and alcohol, but the system is self-regulatory. The US already conducts random testing and in Britain there is a legal blood alcohol limit of less than 0.02 per cent.

The pilots' federation wants to see the standards enforced across the aviation industry to include engineers, maintenance workers, catering staff and parts manufacturers and suppliers.

Their argument highlights other debates over workplace drug testing, including a five-year stand-off between the Victoria Police and the Police Association.

Victoria's police force has no drug or alcohol testing regime, although random testing is conducted in other states when there is a reasonable suspicion an officer is under the influence or impaired while on duty.

Meanwhile, Qantas flight crews have been affected by toxic cancer-causing fumes on international flights — and pilots are warning that there could be a disaster.

An engineer was off work for a week after inhaling toxic fumes on the flight deck of a Qantas Boeing 747 flying from Los Angeles to Auckland in July.

Pilots on other airlines have blacked out at the controls of their jets because of the build-up of toxic fumes in the cockpit. Passengers are also exposed to the carcinogenic toxicants in the cabin.

Australian International Pilots Association general manager Peter Somerville said: "People don't need to stop flying but there is a problem and it needs to be fixed."

The problem stems from a cost-cutting design in jet aircraft that bleeds warm air off the engines and pumps it straight into the cabin without any filtration.

If the engine has an oil leak, the warm air that enters the cabin is laced with chemicals that attack the nervous system and can cause brain damage.

FAA: Industry Drug and Alcohol Testing Program

The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 requires drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive transportation employees in aviation.

The Drug Abatement Division develops and implements regulations for DOT/FAA drug and alcohol testing. These regulations cover employers, safety-sensitive employees and service agents. These rules are encompassed in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 40 and 14 CFR Part 120.

The division also oversees the aviation industry’s compliance with drug and alcohol testing regulations. This oversight is accomplished with on-site inspections, guidance documents, and policies.

A Message from the Secretary: Why this Program is so Important (PDF)
Contacts
Drug Abatement Division
Drug and Alcohol FAQs
Email: drugabatement @ faa.gov

More than 100 airline employees have tested positive to drugs or alcohol over 17 months (Australia)
The tests included 80 positive drug detections and 24 alcohol breaches.

Mark Dunn
Herald Sun
October 30, 2012 12:00AM

MORE than 100 airline industry employees have tested positive to drugs or alcohol in internal tests over a 17-month period, data from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has revealed.

The tests, which included 80 positive drug detections and 24 alcohol breaches, are those taken by air and cabin crew, maintenance personnel, air traffic control staff, ground and baggage workers, refuellers and security screening employees who have a direct effect on air safety.

The results of internal tests, administered by commercial airlines and private aviation firms, have previously not been made public but were released by CASA for transparency reasons on the basis they did not identify individual operators or personnel.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said despite the positive results, they reflected breaches by 0.41 per cent of the 19,402 drug tests and 0.087 per cent of the 27,459 alcohol tests.

While CASA said any positive results for people operating in "safety sensitive" aviation positions was concerning, it is believed only two breaches were recorded by pilots or flight crew with most instances relating to ground staff, baggage handlers or cabin crew.

In a two-tier testing system introduced in 2008, random testing by CASA turned up a further 45 positive drug or alcohol results from 51,000 tests, of which 18 were subsequently overturned following medical reviews that identify prescription medication breaches.

The second tier of testing sees industry operators undertaking internal testing of SSAA (safety sensitive aviation activity) personnel for alcohol and drugs including amphetamines, cannabis, heroin, LSD, Ecstasy, cocaine, sleeping pills and PCP (Phencyclidine).

The legal alcohol limit for airline staff is 0.02 per cent.

A Qantas captain suspected of having consumed alcohol was stood down from the controls of a Boeing 767-300 shortly before it was due to take-off from Sydney on July 30.

It is believed cabin crew raised concerns about the pilot amid suspicions the captain had been drinking prior to the flight.

Eight cabin crew tested positive, five aircraft engineers, one refueller, a security guard, four baggage handlers and two foreign staff.

Complete article here...

Feds warn pilots, truck and bus drivers about pot
December 3, 2012

The U.S. Department of Transportation, in now-hear-this language, has warned that it will continue to test for drug use and make no allowance for those who say they are “recreational” users of marijuana — even in states that have legalized its use.

The USDOT even used a favorite phrase — “perfectly clear” — of Richard Nixon, the president who launched the federal government’s vast, costly and failed War on Drugs more than 40 years.

“We want to make it perfectly clear that the (Washington and Colorado) state initiatives will have no bearing on the Department of Transportation’s regulated drug testing program,” said a notice from Jim L. Swart, head of DOT’s Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance.

“The Department of Transportation drug and alcohol testing regulation — 49 CFR Part 40 — does not authorize the use of Schedule 1 drugs, including marijuana, for any reason.”

According to the DOT, transportation workers in a variety of fields — “pilots, school bus drivers, truck drivers, train engineers, subway operators, aircraft maintenance personnel, transit fire-armed security personnel, ship captains and pipeline emergency response personnel” — are subject to both post-accident and random screening for drug and alcohol use.

“Medical review officers will not verify a drug test as negative based upon learning that the employee used ‘recreational marijuana’ when states have passed ‘recreational marijuana’ initiatives,” Swart wrote. “We also firmly reiterate that an MRO will not verify a drug test negative based upon information that a physician recommended that the employee use ‘medical marijuana’ when states have massed ‘medical marijuana’ initiatives.”

Washington and Colorado, which voted Nov. 6 to legalize recreational use of marijuana, have waited for reaction from the federal government.

Marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I drug — the most severe classification — despite calls for change from Govs. Chris Gregoire of Washington and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Gregoire talked with the Dept. of Justice about Initiative 502 — which legalizes, regulates and taxes growing and sale of pot to adults — but has not commented on her discussions.

The Department of Transportation notice is the first hard-line response to come from Washington, D.C., bureaucrats.

“It remains unacceptable for any safety-sensitive employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation’s drug testing regulations to use marijuana,” said the notice from DOT’s Swart. “We want to assure the traveling public that our transportation system is the safest it can possibly be.”

I-502 passed by a substantial margin in the November election. It carried areas from populous, liberal King County to conservative rural counties in northeast Washington. Two ex-U.S. attorneys, John McKay and Kate Pflaumer, and Seattle’s former FBI agent-in-chief Charles Mandigo, spoke strongly for the initiative.

[shimmydampner]

If you pay me $6 Million a year, feel free to infringe on my rights... ill pee in anything you ask me to. Your missing the point.

I get it now: for the right price, you'll give up your rights. Very admirable. Exactly what is your price point at which you feel good about selling out?
Thanks for proving my point though. I'm not saying it is or isn't a violation of rights. I'm just saying every one has a choice. If you feel it is a right you don't want to give up, work elsewhere.
Would you say that firemen give up their right to personal safety every time they run into a burning building to save a life?

[Doc]

The Americans are doing it! By all means, lets jump right in!
Off the top of my head:
There is 1% of the American population incarcerated at any one time. That's 3.5 million persons. The population of the GTA.!
1.6 million Americans have died in gun violence since 1968! That's more Americans than have died in wars...EVER! Total!
The Americans have random school shootings about ever six months. Sometimes more often than that.
You can buy a handgun in Arizona with a LIBRARY CARD! I was there in Feb, and asked at the Scottsdale Gun Club.
Other than Libya and Burma, the USA is the ONLY country in the world to be non-metric..(irrelevant, I know..sort of)
The Americans have random drug testing, because the Americans NEED, and DESERVE random drug testing. We do not!
So, for sure! Lets do what the Americans do! Great idea.....NEXT!

[Rookie50]

Apparent callous attitude towards passengers, and their right to a duty of care, is not good.

I recognize I only have ever flown small stuff, and have perhaps a tenth or less experience of most others here, but personally I feel incredible responsibility for those lives who accompany me in my aircraft.

They don't understand the risks like I do, so its up to me, to determine if the aircraft, and myself,
and the weather, are at an acceptable level of risk. Otherwise I don't fly.

If I had to occasionally verify this, for the greater safety of the system, I would have no problem with that.

[mbav8r]

All this talk about rights, this is not a rights issue. It is NOT your right to be employed in a safety sensitive position, as someone mentioned earlier, you have a right to smoke all the pot you want and go to work at Walmart.
Every day I go to work and take the chance I may or may not be scrutinized by some overly eager CATSA screener, I feel violated, but it's a choice I MAKE, either submit to the "randomizer" or don't go to work. They've made it abundantly clear, that refusing to be searched will result in a loss of RAIC priviledges. I've had some CATSA screeners, without "just cause" open my suitcase and rifle through it. I have a choice to let them find out I'm a cross dresser or into bondage or I have shit stains or whatever else, or I can not submit and choose to go home.
Doc, what are you gonna do, when a RAIC for all pilots is mandated and they force you to go through screening at the Picklelake airport, you gonna stand up for your rights or quit flying and become a Walmart greeter?

[station60]

No matter what the cause of the crash was, let's all remember that this was somebody's son, somebody's cousin, somebody's entire reason for being. Let's be respectful towards him and his family/friends no matter what was found in his body.