Denied medical / Alcohol & Drug Rehab

Look at cigarette smokers for the proof most can not go 3 months! October
will be my 2 years cold turkey from 3 pack's a day. Surprisingly the same
day I quit was the same day as my first solo! Yep I swapped one for the
other Cigarette's for altitude & adrenalin.


"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:23:15 -0400, "Peter R."
wrote in
:

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait
two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.

Why would that seem unreasonable?

When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean?

I'm not a professional in the field, but I do have some experience
with folks coming out of rehab.

Just doing some time away from one's drug of choice is a
great way to get started on the "clean and sober" life, but
it is no guarantee of success.

Someone who has put together two years is much, much more likely
to be able to keep up with the process of staying in recovery
than someone fresh out of rehab.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
the two-year rule.

Marty

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:56:23 -0700, "NW_PILOT"
wrote:

Look at cigarette smokers for the proof most can not go 3 months! October
will be my 2 years cold turkey from 3 pack's a day.

Do you still follow strangers down the street, sniffing at the pretty
blue fumes?

Do you still dream that you slipped and began smoking again?

(Congratulations, in any event


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.

Why would that seem unreasonable?

Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the risk is
significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to whether everyone who
goes through rehab gets their medical revoked for two years. I really doubt
it.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in
:

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait
two years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function
regularly tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or
alcohol. That sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're
going to appeal.

Why would that seem unreasonable?

Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the risk
is significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to whether
everyone who goes through rehab gets their medical revoked for two
years. I really doubt it.

moo

So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider someone
who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be addicted?

2 Months?

2 Days?

2 Hours?

2 Minutes?

When it comes to government regulation, there needs to be a standard
defined for what qualifies someone as being recovered. The FAA chose 2
years, probably based on some set of statistics somewhere, or perhaps based
on someone else's standard. What is the basis for your dispute?

"Judah" wrote in message
Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the risk
is significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to whether
everyone who goes through rehab gets their medical revoked for two
years. I really doubt it.

So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider
someone
who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be addicted?

2 Months?
2 Days?
2 Hours?
2 Minutes?

Somewhere between the last one and never. You?

When it comes to government regulation, there needs to be a standard
defined for what qualifies someone as being recovered. The FAA chose 2
years, probably based on some set of statistics somewhere, or perhaps
based
on someone else's standard. What is the basis for your dispute?

"Probably"? That's my issue. I haven't seen an explanation of why this
figure was chosen or whether it's negotiable. Those are reasonable
questions, no?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in
:

"Judah" wrote in message
Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the
risk is significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to
whether everyone who goes through rehab gets their medical revoked
for two years. I really doubt it.

So then what seems reasonable to you? At what point do YOU consider
someone who has stopped using drugs or alcohol to no longer be
addicted?

2 Months?
2 Days?
2 Hours?
2 Minutes?

Somewhere between the last one and never. You?

Doesn't really matter what I think - I'm not the one who told the
student what he had to do to get his medical...


When it comes to government regulation, there needs to be a standard
defined for what qualifies someone as being recovered. The FAA chose
2 years, probably based on some set of statistics somewhere, or
perhaps based on someone else's standard. What is the basis for your
dispute?

"Probably"? That's my issue. I haven't seen an explanation of why
this figure was chosen or whether it's negotiable. Those are
reasonable questions, no?

Sure. But your OP indicated that you felt that 2 years was
unreasonable. In fact, up until this post, your comments seemed to be
consistent along the lines that you believed 2 years was too long. Even
your quoted comment at the top of this message, "I don't see how the
risk is significantly changed by waiting," seems to be consistent with
that sentiment.

Did you ask the people who handed down the requirements to the student
if the decision is negotiable? Did you ask them what their basis was?
What did they say?

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.


Based on the procedure outlined in the AIP (LRA 3.4.5), it does not look
promising :-(

Even if you "win" the appeal, that only gains you "reconsideration".
Basically, "winning" just seems to kick the case upstairs to the National
office, and having the Director make the decision, instead of the Regional
medical officer.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message

The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me.

Why is that unreasonable?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com