Drug Testing

Mahalo mate

Actually I understand that the hair follicle test goes back as far as that hair has been growing. I also think it is rediculous that you have to be worried about whether your deckhand smoked a joint while home for Thanksgiving 2 1/2 months ago. Not to say that you don't; just that it is rediculous. Many yachts cruising up north during the summer will hire students on summer break. What do you think the odds are on finding a college student, willing and with the time to work on a yacht, that won't click positive after a year away at school? Even if they did nothing, where they at a party where they may have inhalled some second hand smoke. And once they click positive it's on their record. That could hurt future job prospects. I've always considered the tests an invasion except as an investigative or evidence gathering tool in the event of an incident. By the standards of a hair folicle test I agree that you could definitely find that there is a drug problem, but on the basis of is the crew debilitated on duty or bringing drugs on board I sincerely doubt it and haven't seen it. I have however seen drunk and hungover, but that's legal.

Actually,

so the overzealous can indeed check as far back as they desire if they'd happen to enjoy ruining some kid's life to help themselves feel more superior.

What exactly are the ways to deal with that without being descriminatory or selective? And it wouldn't bother you to fire and ruin "your great crewperson who has been working for you a long time"? And if he was such a great, long time crewperson do you really feel that if he smoked a joint last Thanksgiving that makes him worth getting rid of? Is it OK if he got drunk last night and is hung over today? There's no test for that and the substance he used is legal.

First, I believe that is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and only says the person cleaned up for the test since he could have done cocaine 72 hours ago and you wouldn't know by the normal urine test which is what most employers give. Second The cost is not justified by the results. Third, with the dirth of good employees out there I'd hate to lose one or spend 6 months training a new one if the one I have is great but he smoked a joint 2 months ago. To go back further than a month is looking for an excuse to not hire or to fire.
And finally:

That phrase smacks of superiority and has been quoted to justify every abuse of power from paying women less for the same work to being physically and verbally abusive to employees to segregation.
Being an employer gives you a responsibility to give a fair days pay for a fair days work. It does not give you ownership rights to that individual when he goes home.

No need to talk with the crew. That conversation happened a long time ago. I also wouldn't insult or bemuse Mr.& Mrs. middle America. But if I had 'Rock Star' on board I might wisper in his ear because I would really hate to see a guest arrested.

What does this mean? NO DRUGS means "NO DRUGS". It doesn't matter who you are or where you're from.

I’ve been doing a little reading. According to Wikipedia’s listing for Drug Testing, everyone’s hair grows about .5” per month, which means that if a captain requires their crews to have very short hair then the look back period is shorter. Even so, the client can determine how far back they are looking simply by cutting the hair, which is what is typically done for the test by using only the newest 1.5” of hair growth, ie 90 days.

Also, I should be noted that a false positive is quite possible if the hair is not adequately cleaned by the lab before the test and many labs do not. (So if that person was at a concert, the beach, a party or in a bar where marijuana was being smoked by others, they could get a false positive reading.)

On all drug tests, there must be a significant enough amount of the drug in the system to be statistically significant. With a urine test, just because they found signs of the drug does not mean they will fail the test, but most likely means they were around second hand smoke. All test results will show the level of the drug in the system and that threshold will determine if they pass or fail. Any employer can determine what is statistically significant for them by getting more information from the testing company.

This means you can tell if someone is blazing up every evening or just playing around on the weekends.

If a test does come back positive, then the testing company will always test again, (They split the specimen in half for this purpose. Both tests must agree with each other to be significant.)

It would be foolish for any employer to perform a home administered drug test on an employee which could result in terminating an employee since there is no professional third party involved to support your grounds. (Unless, of course, you live in my State since you can fire anyone at any time for any reason or no reason at all.)

The history of random drug testing began with the US Military and then spread to the public sector when initially only Pilots or other high-consequence jobs were tested. The debate then was that if you allow pilots to be tested now then soon enough everyone will be being randomly tested later. This is exactly what has happened since now even the mail boy who may do his job very well in spite of owning a bong as long as his arm, can be tested and fired.

The truth is Marijuana is NOT a junkie drug, like cocaine, meth, opiates and heroin. Also, there is absolutely no statistical significance to the idea that “Marijuana is a gateway drug.” Making a statement that anything is a gateway anything is completely a political statement and has no significance in the science behind it. If you must choose a “gateway drug” then statistically, the most significant link between junkie drugs (another political statement) and “beginner” drugs is tobacco. If you use tobacco you are far more likely to use junkie drugs than someone that smokes weed only. (I researched all this because I wanted the truth about drugs, not just Reagan’s and Bush’s dogma. My background in Stats helped too.)

(On a side note: The recent national campaign about the effects of alcohol and the development of teens is completely political too. Most alcohol use by most teens will have absolutely no affect on their development at all. Only in large quantities and prolonged use will alcohol affect the development of teens. I strongly oppose underage drinking, but I also oppose being lied too. ...and they're using our tax dollars to do it.)

Hi,

Geez Pascal- Haven't you ever wondered if your in the wrong job- there might be an opening at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 in 4 yrs time so start smoking now if you want to apply

"Not good to have this hitting the mainstream press ..."

Yachting World isn't really the "mainstream press," it isn't selling to the rockbound masses but nevertheless it doesn't bode well when things get bad enough to pierce the veil. It's hardly surprising though, considering that most yachties appear to place the blame on the townies. We can't expect them to just take the heat and not point back when there may be some complicity.

"He felt that the answer to the problem should start with the owners and management companies ..."

It's hard enough to make sure the officers hold current and valid certificates much less prove they are drug-free. When flag states and/or port states take yachting seriously we might be able to do something.

Until an owner loses his yacht to confiscation, or a UHNWI or family member is videotaped being carried off in a bag due to a drug related incident onboard - one that really does make the 6 o'clock news in Kansas City and Entertainment Tonight - nothing is likely to change.

If the local constabulary believes there are drug problems onboard visiting yachts they should excercise the powers they already have and conduct searches or test watchstanders for drugs. Until they take their role seriously they can hardly expect someone else to do the job for them. They are the port state for heaven's sake, they have the power to deal with this issue. The question is, do they have the will?

Wow, with a drug problem that bad yachts must be crashing and people falling overboard at an alarming rate. How are these yachts conducting charter operations with passengers, crew and property getting hurt so often?

"How are these yachts conducting charter operations with passengers, crew and property getting hurt so often?"

Who said they were? If the dayboat business was as safe as the large yacht charter business there wouldn't be all those neat pictures of boat wrecks to post on the net.

Marmot,

Your disdain is palpable. Earlier you talked about the lack of professionalism among the yachting community. It’s perfectly okay that you or anyone else don’t agree with each other, but I would guess that a professional could disagree without being disagreeable.

Besides, Ad hominem arguments are always invalid and always unprofessional.

From that article one would assume that these yachts are being operated by a bunch of stoned out hippy freaks. I just don't believe it. Could a crewmember smoke a joint while the boat is hanging on the dock for several weeks? Sure, and he may drink a beer as well. I do not see a captain operating one of these yachts while impaired by anything or putting up with a crewmember being impaired while on board whether it be drugs, booze, sickness or a spat with his girl. No drug test needed. If a crewmember can't operate at 100% efficiency for whatever reason he's gone.