Ben Franklin
4 Likes
Of course. I stand corrected.
I do feel our privacy & personal freedoms are slowly eroding away but have no problem with the, āEveryone entering this facility is subject to drug screening ā¦ā placards. They protect management & master & gives the individual the choice to do business on the premises under a certain set of conditions or not. With prior warning it should lighten the burden of the person requesting the test & make them feel less like Big Brother if that kind of thing bothers them. I know I donāt want the responsibility of asking people delivering me mail to pee in a cup before they leave. It seems to me bridge officers have shitty jobs most of the time.
Sounds like a good way to stop getting mail. 
1 Like
That doesnāt help without knowing who is, and isnāt a ācrewmember.ā Also consider that the source op the Coast Guard requirement is the DOTās regulations, so there might be an applicable requirement from a DOT agency even if the test is not required by the Coast Guard.
The question is whether the crane operator was in possession of a permit to operate under DOT jurisdiction.
If so, I believe the CG personnel may have been legally authorized to administer a drug test.
This is interesting.
I doubt the CG has jurisdict to enforce their drug testing on non-mmc people, however, a ship owner or the contractor CAN make it a requirement for people working on their property/ship or site. Also, to work on properties where a TWIC is required, you are subject to those drug-testing rules (DISA).
None of that is up to the union. The union needs to provide people who pass drug tests.
This sounds kind of hinky. Should have been clarified on contracting.
The guys told me the boss said no way crane operator coming on barge without a drug test so job didnt happen that day.
It was clear the CG knew they couldnt force a test he tells me.
This isnāt a discussion about how weed affects intelligence. This is about someone who thought it would be a great idea to come here and ask professional mariners how to dodge a drug test that all of us are subject to. If you are asking this here, you donāt have the maturity and judgment it takes to work out here. Itās not like a 9-5 job where you go home and what you do there is on you.
6 Likes
Actually itās not about dodging the test. He knew he was dirty, so he refused. He was just wondering how long til he hears anything from the Coast Guard about it, so he can begin his penance.
1 Like
That explains it. Completely different. 
Since c.cap isnāt here to say it, Iāll say it for him: Please just go away.
1 Like
Thatās dodging the test. He might as well have taken it and popped dirty. The result from the Coast Guard on his MMC would have been the same.
Regardless, thatās the type of person I donāt want working on my ship anyway. As others have said, if you want to do drugs, find a different career, thereās no place for that on boats.
3 Likes
Not to sound too snarky (and I donāt see a huge difference realistically between weed and alcohol), but if you use that metric then there wouldnāt be enough people left to crew a drillship in the GOM. Many of the people Iāve worked with are some of the most raging alcoholics Iāve ever seen when off the rig. It has no effect on their work while on the rig though.
But to the point of the OPs judgement, I completely agree that if you canāt handle your sh#& and need to dodge/refuse a drug test, then yes Iād question your responsibly and suitability to work on boats.
2 Likes
Blood alcohol levels start to diminish after one hour. Canabanoids are detectable for up to 30 days.
1 Like
Fair enough, and according to the NIH heroin can be out of your system and undetected in 1-2 days, and cocaine 2-22 days depending on consumption.
Maybe itās because I live in a state where weed is legal (I know, not federally) and is a billion dollar industry. And society is still fully functional because most people consume responsibly similarly to alcohol.
That is why Iād say that while I donāt partake myself, if there were a test for marijuana similar to a breathalyzer for alcohol then I donāt think Iād differentiate between the two when it comes to our industry.
Obviously weāre not there yet though.
4 Likes
Bottom line mariner just canāt smoke weed while At work. Truth be told, while in port Iād rather have a guy who smoked a joint the night before then a guy who pounded 15 beers. The stoner will be fine, but the the drinker will be hungover and a danger
5 Likes
Itās the detectable part that has become the issue when it should be actual impairment.
As no end of studies over the past 75 years have shown, alcohol hangovers and fatigue produce impairment that is a real threat.
If industry and government were really worried about the dangers of impairment in the workplace they would test for that in the workplace at the start of the workday. Random checks for traces of chemicals that show nothing other than what someone did at some point a month ago do nothing but demonstrate the degree of control we have ceded to the government.
11 Likes
I should have omitted the reference to alcohol. I was getting at the cavalier attitude towards professional credentials and career ending consequences for behavior ashore.
1 Like
I think we agree. Regards the cavalier attitude, it is difficult to understand how someone would risk such hard earned and valuable credentials for a few moments of giddiness.
If the real purpose of drug testing was related to impairment then the tests would be for impairment. They are not. If testing were to indicate drug or alcohol use within the length of time impairment would exist from those intoxicants then fair enough, it is a test for impairment, not social activity or personal practices. Since both drugs and alcohol create impairment and in some cases indicate the possibility of addiction and the problems associated with habitual use then devise a test for alcohol use within the past 30 days. Letās see how far that goes.
As long as I am dreaming, I think every elected or appointed public official at every level and should be subject to the same testing rules as we are.
5 Likes
If it came off as cavalier that wasnāt the intent. I think @Steamer put it more eloquently than I re: testing for impairment vs substance.
Iāll have a few beers when at the house, but I donāt drink and drive. That is not for fear of losing my credential, itās because itās the right thing to do and I donāt want to harm myself or someone else.
But I will absolutely say that the reason I donāt smoke is strictly for fear of failing a drug test and losing my credential and career. If not for that, would I regularly?..I donāt know since I havenāt tried.
However, I live amongst teachers, doctors, lawyers, and bankers who regularly smoke when not at work. It might sound frightening to those not familiar. These too are credentialed people in their own fields with a lot of respect and a lot to lose for themselves and others. I just have yet to see a detrimental result, so that is where my current opinion is coming from. Not saying I canāt be convinced otherwise.
2 Likes