Drug Testing

[Nathan]

As others have said, unless this is a documented problem, then there's no point of going on this witch hunt.

The fact is that if it takes a drug test to figure out that someone's smoking pot at home, then obviously, the pot-smoking wasn't affecting the member significantly enough at CAP for it to affect their work. If the drug use is evident at CAP, then we don't need a drug test to justify kicking them out.

Just apply the same rational to illegal drugs as you would to legal ones. If it's affecting a CAP activity, then it's our business. If there doesn't appear to be any problems at CAP, then it's not enough of a problem for us to NEED to go looking for these people. We have a zero-tolerance policy as it is. If the person isn't advertising their pot-smoking, isn't coming in to CAP stoned, and isn't tagged by law enforcement, then I don't feel that they're enough of a problem for me to worry about, at least not to the level of wanting a nation-wide (expensive) drug testing policy.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I wonder how that mindset would work for police military EMS and large corporations that require drug testing? It wouldn't work for them. If doing drugs at home is not okay for them, then why is it for us?

[PA Guy]

^^^^^^

Comparing CAP to law enforcement, military and EMS as a rationale for drug testing is an apple and oranges comparison.  What would be the cost benefit ratio of doing mandatory drug testing in CAP?

[manfredvonrichthofen]

^^^^^^

Comparing CAP to law enforcement, military and EMS as a rationale for drug testing is an apple and oranges comparison.

Really? So CAP never as the lives of others in their hands? CAP doesn't have military assets? CAP doesn't use government funding? I think we do. So it's not apples and oranges, it's more along the lines of fuji and red delicious. They are both apples, they just taste different. And remember, to sell both apples and oranges, they both have quality control, and they have to be fresh or they won't get sold.

[caphornbuckle]

Aren't pilots required to be drug tested through their FAA physicals anyways?  Not being a pilot, I don't know.

[RADIOMAN015]

Personally, I hated the random drug testing while in the Air Force.  It cost a lot of money, and in my opinion was not a deterrent to those that would use illegal drugs.

My understand now is the US military is going to start randomly testing for legal drugs and other legal substances (besides alcohol) that may cause intoxication.

In the military we had a much higher find rate % with commander directed testing than the random tests  (e.g. normally given because of an accident or a disciplinary problem).    Today when someone has a serious accident, even as a civilian there's a good chance that a drug test/screen is going to be performed.   

I would think that CAP could very easily put in an agreement with pilots/air crew members & vehicle drivers that in case of an accident they are subject to alcohol and drug testing.   The problem is with the implementation, e.g. who takes the sample, how is it controlled OR even if a test facility (most likely procedure) is used who brings the member(s) there; what if the member refuses, etc

What's interesting is a lot of the impairment today isn't really caused by illegal drugs, but by legal drugs that are utilized improperly.    Sometimes people, even when properly complying with the physician's instructions can find themselves with issues because of other factors that they don't necessarily have control over at the time.  In other words the perfect physiological storm arrives without warning.    So the person who becomes impaired may not be a bad/criminal type person at all but has an incident or near incident

RM                 

[Nathan]

I wonder how that mindset would work for police military EMS and large corporations that require drug testing? It wouldn't work for them. If doing drugs at home is not okay for them, then why is it for us?

I'm not saying "it's okay."

I'm saying that if there is no other way for us to tell that a person is doing drugs than using a drug testing kit, because their work at CAP is completely unaffected by their drug habits, then the problem is not big enough to warrant the insane expense of testing the entire membership just to root out these people.

We're a volunteer, non-profit organization. We have much better ways to be spending our money than looking for the people who, despite breaking CAP policy on drugs, are still doing no measurable harm to the organization in the first place. As was pointed out, if we were an actual company that had the money to blow on this sort of testing, then we can have a different conversation. But since that is not the case, then you're arguing just to argue.

[spacecommand]

Many police departments also have new recruits go through polygraph tests as well, sounds great for CAP to do so too! 

::sarcasm off::

This really is a solution looking for a problem.  IS THERE a problem in CAP?  Not that I can see.   The OP mentions lack of incentives, I think there are many incentives not to do drugs like jail time, body damage, for pilots, taking away their pilot's certification would pretty much be over for them, needless to say CAP.

At the moment, self-monitoring of members, watching out for signs for people you work with in your unit is the best thing to do.

[sarmed1]

Cost is not really that much of an issue.  My work uses something like this:
http://www.oralert.com/

baiscally its an oral swab that you hold in your mouth for like 5 minutes: detects the presence of alcohol, opiates, cocaine, meth and marajuana.We usue them for random as well as post vehicle incident assessment.  If it comes up positive,then they send you/take you to our contracted ocupational health clinic for a full urine or blood test.

the cost for the swab is around $3.

mk

[Nathan]

If it comes up positive,then they send you/take you to our contracted ocupational health clinic for a full urine or blood test.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you end up doing the full test for any positive results because a $3 version is not trustworthy.

Which, again, means that we'd still be paying an unnecessary amount of money for a problem that is not actually documented to be a problem. This is pretty much a definitional witch-hunt.

[ZigZag911]

I really think that this is a solution looking for a problem.

Exactly!

[abdsp51]

Just to chime in here, most of those base tests do not test for the item itself but the chemicals used to create the products.  And the AF is starting to test for prescription items because it is a big item right now along with spice.  Not to mention many states have an implied consent clause to operate a motor vehicle within their borders and I'm sure the FAA has something similar to fly as well.  I concur this is an answer looking for a problem. 

[sarmed1]

If it comes up positive,then they send you/take you to our contracted ocupational health clinic for a full urine or blood test.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you end up doing the full test for any positive results because a $3 version is not trustworthy........

I dont think its not a non trustworthy, but more of that you wouldnt want to go to court over a $3 test, that you cant show a chain of custody or specific substances or amounts etc etc.  But why would you pay the big ticket amount everytime for something that usually comes up negative.

I dont think that random drug test are really useful for CAP, I would be interested in seeing the $3 option as something involved in accident investigation maybe.  From a who controls the purse strings sort of perspective; I would tell a member who damages a corporate asset (air or ground) that tested positive for an illegal substance when they had the accident, "You are on your own for the damages and medical bills, and NO federal workmans comp payments to you."  (many many companies I have run into require you to submit for a drug/alcohol test as part of your OJI treatment)

mk

[PA Guy]

^^^^^^

Comparing CAP to law enforcement, military and EMS as a rationale for drug testing is an apple and oranges comparison.

Really? So CAP never as the lives of others in their hands? CAP doesn't have military assets? CAP doesn't use government funding? I think we do. So it's not apples and oranges, it's more along the lines of fuji and red delicious. They are both apples, they just taste different. And remember, to sell both apples and oranges, they both have quality control, and they have to be fresh or they won't get sold.

No, its apple and oranges.  I think you are being melodramatic and projecting a grandiose view of CAP in trying to prove your point.

[PA Guy]

If it comes up positive,then they send you/take you to our contracted ocupational health clinic for a full urine or blood test.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you end up doing the full test for any positive results because a $3 version is not trustworthy........

I dont think its not a non trustworthy, but more of that you wouldnt want to go to court over a $3 test, that you cant show a chain of custody or specific substances or amounts etc etc.  But why would you pay the big ticket amount everytime for something that usually comes up negative.

I dont think that random drug test are really useful for CAP, I would be interested in seeing the $3 option as something involved in accident investigation maybe.  From a who controls the purse strings sort of perspective; I would tell a member who damages a corporate asset (air or ground) that tested positive for an illegal substance when they had the accident, "You are on your own for the damages and medical bills, and NO federal workmans comp payments to you."  (many many companies I have run into require you to submit for a drug/alcohol test as part of your OJI treatment)

mk

This approach makes somewhat more sense.  However, issues still make it a logistical nightmare.  The $3 test is sensitive but not specific.  A pos. test would require followup in a medical facility.  Then we are getting into chain of custody issues, HIPPA problems and what if alcohol is suspected who orders the BA?  Although in a MVA presumably law enforcement would be involved and depending on the state can order a BA under the state's Implied Consent law if they have one. Who is cleared in CAP to receive this info?  How is it maintained?  Is there a documented need to jump through all these hoops.  Personally I don't think so.

[sarmed1]

Is there a documented need to jump through all these hoops.  Personally I don't think so.

Why would it be documented.  If CAP isnt doing any sort of drug testing, there would be no documentation showing drug/alcohol involvemnt as a mishap factor unless done by LE as part of a bigger "investigation"

In a non injury accident it might be difficult to get someone tested, but when I worked ER many employer's requested a drug and alcohol screen as part of workmans comp related treatment.  I would imagine that info as well as any other "HIPPA" type stuff still has to get reported/collected by the workmans comp "people" if a claim is filed. (and I am sure you sign some sort of release statement once that ball gets rolling that allows them that level of access to you "private" medical info/lab reslts and likely allows them to order/request things like drug and alcohol screening)

I am sure the USAF/fed gov would be interested in knowing that as well if you are collecting on their dime for a AF auth mission related injury/mishap.
(I would feel pretty safe in assumig if there is a zero tolerance for their employees, CAP would fall under that umbrela in an AUX on status)

mk

[PA Guy]

Maybe a better way to put it would have been have there been any documented incidents where substance abuse has been suspected?  If we are in Aux On status I would feel much more at ease with how the info is handled within that system.  In Aux Off status I'm not so sure.  However I would still be concerned who in CAP would have access to my medical info and to what degree.  And as you said what about consent in a non-injury incident or a non Workmens Comp situation?  Workmens Comp is pretty clear cut, if you want to file a claim you play the game.

[Al Sayre]

I personally have no issue with the idea of random testing, but I see it as kind of like a padlock, it just helps keep honest people honest.  Where really I see a problem is in the implementation.  The biggest issue is cost and administration.  In order to use the results for any negative action, you are going to have to:
Show chain of custody from the time the ($3 swabs?) testing materials are manufactured.
Maintain adequate stocks (how many? What kind of storage requirements?).
Ensure that they are within their use by date.
Ensure that random is truly random.
Ensure that "for cause" is actually reasonable and not "for vindictiveness"
Have a battery of lawyers to address all of the lawsuits that will arise over any negative actions.

Even if a "for cause" test comes back positive, you couldn't turn it over to LE as evidence unless every i is dotted and t is crossed.  If squadrons have trouble keeping track of half a dozen radios and a few pieces of SAR gear do you really expect them to be able to administer a legal and effective drug testing program? 

In the end, because CAP is a volunteer organization, and has no power to enforce any laws, the only real negative action available is to expel the member from the organization.  You obviously couldn't demote them, or put them on some kind of probation, because you have no way to enforce or prevent them from re-offending.  You can't have them retesting every month for X years, and as an organization, we couldn't afford the legal liability of someone who had been caught being allowed to operate our aircraft or vehicles, or mentoring cadets.

[AngelWings]

CAP doesn't have the same problems the military does. The military can attract people looking for the benifits college, training, money, and etc. CAP attracts people looking to do something right in their lives. Of course there is an exception, but exceptions are easy to handle with a 2B when they are caught doing drugs/being alcoholics, or suspensions, demotions, "get treatment or leave" can work too.

[BillB]

Most of the posts apply to illegal drugs. But what about legal precriptions that would show up on a drug test? How would that be handeled compared to an illegal substance that would have the same drug tests results?