Question 1

What is the difference between routine/random drug and alcohol testing and suspicion-based testing, and why do most companies use both?

Accepted Answer

Routine/random testing applies to everyone on a scheduled or random basis regardless of any specific concern, acting as a general deterrent; suspicion-based testing is triggered by a specific observed concern (such as the smell of alcohol or unusual behaviour) — using both gives broader, fairer coverage than relying on suspicion alone, which can be inconsistently applied or biased Relying purely on suspicion-based testing risks being applied unevenly (consciously or not) based on who seems more likely to a particular observer, while routine/random testing applies the same standard to everyone regardless of perception, supporting a fairer and more consistent safety culture overall. Most flag states and major shipping companies use a combination of both.

Question 2

You notice a colleague smells of alcohol shortly before they are due to start a safety-critical watch. What is the correct immediate action?

Accepted Answer

Report your concern immediately to the officer in charge or master — do not attempt to assess "how drunk" they are yourself or decide whether it is serious enough to mention; this is exactly the kind of judgement call that should be escalated, not made informally by a peer A zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policy on commercial vessels exists because impaired judgement in a safety-critical role is a direct risk to the whole crew and vessel. Reporting promptly to someone with the authority to act (rather than self-assessing or covering for a colleague) protects everyone, including the colleague themselves if there is an underlying problem that needs addressing.

Question 3

As the officer who receives this report, what is the correct procedure before the watch begins?

Accepted Answer

Follow the ship's drug and alcohol testing procedure (commonly a breathalyser test, with results and chain of custody documented) rather than relying on a subjective assessment alone, and stand the individual down from safety-critical duty pending the result if there is genuine cause for concern A formal testing procedure removes subjective guesswork and protects everyone — the individual gets a fair, objective assessment rather than being judged on appearance alone, and the company/master have a documented, defensible basis for any action taken. Standing someone down from safety-critical duty while this is sorted out is the responsible precaution, not an overreaction.