Let me see, rec.aviation.soaring, if having fun is not at least part of the
purpose of this newsgroup,
then I am in the wrong place. (I'm certain that some would argue that I'm
in the wrong place
Anyway.)

Let's cut directly to the crux of the matter:

You state:

If the FARs say one must not fly when a reasonable person would know that
one is
impaired in some manner, then all the verbal acrobatics in the world will
not
change the fact that one is morally and legally liable if one injures
someone
else while operating with said impairment.

As always, if they have to ask then the answer is, "No."

The FARs do not say that. They do not mention reasonable persons, doctors
or publish a prohibited medication list
when referring to gliders. The only verbal acrobatics practiced here are by
those who can not read and understand
plain (bureaucratic) English.
It's rather like arguing about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. If you can
read, it is quite clear.
The FARs are similar, if you can read, it's quite clear.

Allan

"Jack" wrote in message
gy.com...
ADP wrote: