Denied medical / Alcohol & Drug Rehab

"Margy" wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still too
high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions. The
mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny zealots
toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems. No answers
save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go through rehab a
greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Margy" wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions.
The mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny
zealots toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems. No
answers save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go through
rehab a greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?


Inflammatory rhetoric? Your the guy who thinks that people with a KNOWN drug
or alcohol problem shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time after
treatment before they get thier flight privlages back. Jeez.

The report I listed was just to counter your proposal that the FAA didn't
even study the issue.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
"Margy" wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683. The
rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is still
too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions.
The mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny
zealots toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems. No
answers save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go through
rehab a greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?


Inflammatory rhetoric? Your the guy who thinks that people with a KNOWN
drug or alcohol problem shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time
after treatment before they get thier flight privlages back. Jeez.

I didn't say that.

The report I listed was just to counter your proposal that the FAA didn't
even study the issue.

That either. So get stuffed.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
"Margy" wrote in message news:rChDe.9$fb1.
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Between 1994-1998 765 FATAL accidents involving drugs or drink.
Did you READ the report. It was 7% not 76% percent 124 out of 1683.
The rate varied by year from 4% to 9%. Now I would argue that 1% is
still too high, but I know perfection isn't going to ever happen.

You can argue that .00001% is still too high. But, no matter what you
argue, guys like gig will still waste time with inflammatory rhetoric.
Watch. This will get us no closer to answering the original questions.
The mere mention of drugs or alcohol brings out the government as nanny
zealots toute de suite. The results are predictable. Same problems.
No answers save more regulations and enforcement. Are people who go
through rehab a greater risk or not? Simple question, eh?


Inflammatory rhetoric? Your the guy who thinks that people with a KNOWN
drug or alcohol problem shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time
after treatment before they get thier flight privlages back. Jeez.

I didn't say that.

You were against the 2 year period.


The report I listed was just to counter your proposal that the FAA didn't
even study the issue.

That either. So get stuffed.

Sure you did I believe the phrase used was "This is just rubber stamp BS"