Quote emu".....YOU CANNOT REFUSE a test and you may not even be on duty and be asked to do a test......how will they determine who is on duty and who is not....etc etc etc...walking from one hangar to the next at a country aerodrome (like you have done for 30 years) after having a couple on Friday afternoon....how do you convince the man/lady that jumps out of the bushes that you are not on duty....make no mistake this will occur and you need safeguard legislation...YOU CANNOT REFUSE A TEST!"
Mate,Ihave to use the same quote,and hopefuly you dont regard it as "mouthing off"
I use your example for my situation,and as an expat flying in the states these rules apply here only and have no bearing downunder...currently......but the thinking still remains similar...
What constitutes a test here whilst being on "duty" is that ...even if you are not on "duty",you are NOT a required crew-member on "duty",BUT if you are in a restricted area,if you are on airport property,if you are engaged in activities for your company,even if not in uniform,even if you are going to the hangar,even if you are on staff travel displaying your ID .....IF YOU ARE WEARING AN I.D....on your person that is displayed FOR ALL TO SEE....you technically can be tested.....and prosecuted under those laws....
I have heard of cases whereby,individuals(wearing I.D.) have been held because of their behaviour....not sure of the consequences,and by the sounds of it,youd have to be a right w@#ker for it to happen.......
I can see this happening all over.....due to the sensitive and security nature of todays aviation scene,these types of laws,whether you agree or not ,will be inacted to presumambly,"protect" all those concernred.....
theres a big difference between doing the "right thing" and arguing the point because you think your individual rights are being taken away,just because it doesnt involve you personally......these laws are designed for the good of the "game" and the" individual."........and the "game" is always bigger than the "individual."..