On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:15:13 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .

As do many over-the-counter meds. You take them for a while to see if
there is any adverse side effects and if none, you fly.

Quite some time back I took an antibiotic which killed all the good
critters as well as the bad. I didn't fly, of course part of that was
because I didn't dare get more than about a 100 feet from the can for
a while.

Many people have some reaction to specific foods and probably most
haven't even made the connection. I don't know the numbers, but my
understanding is, it's quite a large number. Just because a bunch
of people have a reaction to ... say tomatoes, they are not a banned
substance and if you have an allergy or reaction to them you report
it, and stay away from tomatoes.

I agree with Ron, if the person has no adverse effects from the drugs
and does not have physiological problems then why ban them when the
purpose for the prescription is not a problem.




There is a wide difference from the effects of a food allergy and that of a
psychoactive drug. The psychoactive drug effect can be very slow onset and
not outwardly visible. Add to that the fact the effect may be that you want
to kill yourself or someone else I think the FAA has a pretty good set of
rules in effect on this one.


In my view, this attitude is tragic and uninformed. It ignores the
living experiences of many who benefit from these medications and who
function better with them than without them in all aspects of their
lives.