Do You support Rule G?

[csxengineer98]

lol rixfix
well said...lol

[rixflix]

No,No,No.....I don't support Rule G. Along with recent legislation, zealous do-gooders. so-called family and friends, people at work, et cetera, it would be an intrusion on my God-given right to live as recklessly as I please. Lord help me from these people with axes to grind who aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed themselves.
Whether it's John Barleycorn, Irish Rose, PBR, PCP, meth, ecstasy, horse, crack, maryjane, nicotine, uppers, downers, whatever, I'm gonna do it if I want to. I live in a constant rush of substances and edgy events in which I run stop signs, skirt crossing gates, and the occasional old lady with shopping bags. People don't like to hear this, but I'm having a ball!!!
If I was in charge of something really large and mobile, like a train, I would have a cheap six-year scotch close at hand and run restrictives 'til the cows come home. Or was it until pigs fly?
Oink,oink....!!!

Serenity y'all

[Rick Gates]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

In years gone by the railroads operated on three subsatances....nicotene, cafeen and alachol....

Thanks to Ricky Gates and his MaryJane mistake the Feds got involved and put teeth into the Companies Rule G. The testing was long overdue when it began and in addition to testing the normal Conductor, Engineer, Trainman the testing also applies to Operators, Train Dispatchers and operating Officials. It was long overdue and sadly needed.

Rule G. The use of alcoholic beverages, intoxicants, or narcotics by employees subjuect to duty is prohibited. Being under the influence of alcoholic beverages, intoxicants or narcotics while on duty, or their use or possession while on duty is prohibited. Taken from Penn Central Rules For Conducting Transportation Effective April 28, 1968. This was the rule before I hired on the RR and was mandated by law. Long before I had anything to add! Pre-employment, crash, and suspicion testing was in use at that time as well.

[Rick Gates]

For an average height person, weighing 160 lbs. one drink (12 ounce beer, one shot 86 proof whiskey, glass of wine -- all the same amount of alcohol), a liitle under 0.5 once of pure alcohol. End of an hour his blood alcohol level will be 0.02. 2.5 drinks will achieve a 0.05 BAL. Five drinks in an hour 0.10 BAL. The law at this point considers anyone drunk and it will take 5 hours to metabolize this amount to get the BAL down to 0.02 or less. Just an example. This varies according to the weight of a person and is different for women with a higher composition and distribution of body fat. The BAL in women will be higher than for men because more body fat in propoprtion to body fluid.The easiest rule of thumb is that it will take one hour of not drinking for each drink consumed, to metabolize it from your body. Marijuana, on the other hand, has THC which is fat soluable and can stay in the body for two months. This can be detected far longer that that if a hair folicle test is administered. And so on. Not going to say a whole lot more for those who are wondering how to use this info to keep from getting caught. I used marijuana, for example on my vacation and was tested over two weeks later and it would still show up on a blood test. There is not a level to indicate how much detected proves one is under the influence when it comes to drugs. Bottom line. If you work in the tranportation industry, or any dangerous occupation, don't do DRUGS! Just a suggestion from the results of experience! [banghead]

[BaltACD]

In years gone by the railroads operated on three subsatances....nicotene, cafeen and alachol....

Thanks to Ricky Gates and his MaryJane mistake the Feds got involved and put teeth into the Companies Rule G. The testing was long overdue when it began and in addition to testing the normal Conductor, Engineer, Trainman the testing also applies to Operators, Train Dispatchers and operating Officials. It was long overdue and sadly needed.

[Anonymous]

Some states have added driving laws for "driving while impaired"- that is, while you are under the influence of drugs, prescription or not. The old defense of "I'm a diabetic, I missed my pill or shot" is out now too. I suspect the airlines, shipping lines, and railroads are not far behind.

Erik

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

Do you support Rule G it means you can't be drink at least 4 hrs. from going duty I think some one correct me if I'm wrong
I support becuase it besures you are mot drunk before going on duty when you responable for hundres of lives and We need it for Truck Drivers, all Airline Crews even ticket Agents, Taxi Cab drivers, and others

DOGGY

Aviation has had a much more stringent rule in place for decades Doggy. Many airlines have taken it a step further. For a private pilot ...just some guy that likes to fly not even for hire. A private pilot can lose his pilot's priviledges for a period of time for DUI in a car. For good if it happens again. Drug related one strike he's out. Airlines usually let them go on a first offense. This has been brought up before.

[Anonymous]

The only people that wouldn't support it are the guilty people. Nobody, from a fast food worker to a executive, should be drunk or under the influence of drugs while at work. It is unfair to everyone. Employers sufferer from a less productive, more hazardous workplace. Consumers don't get their money worth.

I also think smokers who smoke during working hours should lose their job. At a place I work, one guy smokes. Every 30-45 minutes he stops for 5 minutes to smoke. Ignoring the secondhand smoke and other problems, he works at least five minutes less than me an hour, and gets paid the same. Unfair.

I have nothing to hide, and you can test me any time you want for any drug or alcohol.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

By all means. Rule G or its equivalent applies to any transportation system when you stop to think of it. For example, most states consider drivers with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 legally drunk. I too would like to know how long railroad employees must stay away from alcohol before reporting for duty.

[rrnut282]

This should be a no-brainer for those involved , but unfortunately, we have many examples of why there has to be a Rule G.

[kenneo]

Absolutely.

There are two really high-profile examples -- the AMTK/CONRAIL collision in Maryland and the EXXON VALDES stranding in Alaska --- both had "operating under the influence" as a major cause

[pmsteamman]

YES YES YES YES....

[Anonymous]

Railroaders, Airplane Pilots, Doctors, Taxi Drivers, Bus Drivers, Sea Captains...

I have no problems with those kinds of jobs getting regular drug testing, and by no means should any of the above be working while they are drunk.

It's a simple safety issue as far as I'm concerned.

Of course up here in Canada, the laws are really strict on drug testing....

Basically they can only test you when you apply for employment, and then again if you are involved in a crash or you break a cardinal rule resulting in disaster.

Seems the drug testing is much more liberal in the states, and as far as the occupations mentioned above, I would have no problems if they were going to get tested on a regular basis here in Canada.

[Anonymous]

Do you support Rule G it means you can't be drink at least 4 hrs. from going duty I think some one correct me if I'm wrong
I support becuase it besures you are mot drunk before going on duty when you responable for hundres of lives and We need it for Truck Drivers, all Airline Crews even ticket Agents, Taxi Cab drivers, and others

DOGGY