Denied medical / Alcohol & Drug Rehab

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.

moo

"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?

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?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
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?

--
Peter

The two year recidivism rate for those undergoing drug & alcohol treatment
is around 70%.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr
When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean?

--
Peter

The two year recidivism rate for those undergoing drug & alcohol treatment
is around 70%.

So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about ten?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr
When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean?

--
Peter

The two year recidivism rate for those undergoing drug & alcohol
treatment is around 70%.

So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about
ten?


The number I gave you was for 2 year recidivism (The time period in
question). The 70% is made up of those who walked out of rehab and had a
drink within the hour, those that did so on day 729 and everyone in between.

Since you seem to have trouble understanding this that means that 7 out of
every 10 people who go through rehab will start using within the first 2
years after they get out.

While I don't have the 2+ recidivism rate info handy I'd bet it is much
lower but you are right five or ten would be lower still.

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

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message

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.

That is correct.... and this policy is quite permissive compared with many
other countries.

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

www.flyimc.com

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote
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.

So? Whay not make it ten years just to be sure?

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.

I'll bet they don't. I think it's a CYA rubber stamp policy for which
numerous exceptions are made. Do you think that every person with a Medical
who goes through rehab gets it revoked for two years? And, I'll also bet
that this sort of policy encourages people to lie to their medical
examiners.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote

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.

I'll bet they don't. I think it's a CYA rubber stamp policy for which
numerous exceptions are made. Do you think that every person with a
Medical who goes through rehab gets it revoked for two years? And, I'll
also bet that this sort of policy encourages people to lie to their
medical examiners.


Why would you think they don't there is plenty of recidivism rate date
available/

I think they do if they don't lie about it.

So do you think all disqualifing conditions just encourage people to lie to
the medical examiners? Of course they do. But if you get caught the chances
of getting a waiver are going drop signifigantly. Not to mention 61.59.