An Unexpected Finding Among Commercial Pilots

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

It's clear that you don't understand addiction at all. There is ample
information available on the web that you should be able to enlighten
yourself about addiction without too much difficulty.

There's also plenty of information on the Web indicating why it's stupid to
take drugs and operate vehicles at the same time.

There are *many* reasons why flying after even a single drink is not
equivalent to driving under the same conditions. I know of no one of the
hundreds of members in our flying club who will fly after a drink.

And they are willing to drive after drinking?

There is also a reason why no DUI laws begin at 0.001%.

Some do. They are called zero-tolerance laws, and are based on the premise
that no impairment is small enough to be acceptable impairment.

Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad science. You
can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with lab-grade equipment.
That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying. (Balloon tests,
often used in driving enforcement, are inherently less accurate than lab
breathalyzers or a blood sample, which is why they aren't used in enforcing the
FARs.)

John Mazor writes:

Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad science.

They get a lot of cases because some people still cannot prevent themselves
from drinking and driving. Those people often go to jail. There's nothing
wrong with the science.

You can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with
lab-grade equipment.

All you have to do is prove that it's not alcohol.

That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying.

It should be zero.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Mazor writes:

Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad
science.

They get a lot of cases because some people still cannot prevent
themselves from drinking and driving. Those people often go to jail.
There's nothing wrong with the science.

You can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with
lab-grade equipment.

All you have to do is prove that it's not alcohol.

That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying.

It should be zero.


no it souldn't moron.

Besides, you don't fly so it's none of your business


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
John Mazor writes:

Then they must get a lot of cases that go to court because that's bad science.

They get a lot of cases because some people still cannot prevent themselves
from drinking and driving. Those people often go to jail. There's nothing
wrong with the science.

If the law will convict anyone on 0.01% BAC then the law is a ass.

You can get a non-zero reading without consuming alcohol, even with
lab-grade equipment.

All you have to do is prove that it's not alcohol.

1. One kind of false positive doesn't involve ingestible alcohol.
2. And "consuming" is a clue to a second source of false positives.

That's why the FAA allows up to a .02% BAC reading before flying.

It should be zero.

Nope. That would be bad science.

John Mazor writes:

If the law will convict anyone on 0.01% BAC then the law is a ass.

Why? Because it inconveniences people who want to take drugs all the time,
even while driving or flying?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Mazor writes:

If the law will convict anyone on 0.01% BAC then the law is a ass.

Why? Because it inconveniences people who want to take drugs all the
time, even while driving or flying?


Whoosh,.

Well, it's pretty obvious why you don't feel the need to take drugs,
anyway..





Bertie