Alcohol limits for pilots

[Methusala]

Wondering what the legal limit for PCA is for pilots according to CASA rules?

 

 

[kasper]

Wondering what the legal limit for PCA is for pilots according to CASA rules?

CASR 256 is the legal requirements ... and CASA have variously made a hash of it as its not a clear 0.xx rate but a rather old fashioned shall not be intoxicated, impaired and cannot consume within 8 hours of flight - a mess especially as they are strict liability sections of the regs - a mess as CASA appear to be running variously 0.00% as the requirement ie ANY alcohol = intoxication up to the infamous posters of 0.02% which was effectively 0.00% with BAC instrument errors.And for clarity RAAus aircraft are within this reg as it is not one that is excluded by the CAOs - Reg 256 applies as its not in a part excluded by the CAO nor is it specifically stated eg see CAO95.10 (3)

 

RAAus Ops manual is exceedingly unhelpful as it incorporates as a comment the FALSE legal requirement of 0.00% BAC:

 

eg see Ops 4.01, 14

 

"Pilots must NOT consume any alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances within EIGHT (8) hours immediately prior to flying a recreational aeroplane. An adequate time should be applied in excess of eight hours if the quantity of alcohol consumed would deem a person’s Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) be above legal limits (effectively 0.00%)."

 

First half parallels the legal requirements of CAR 256 second half is garbage in terms of the legal limit statement as it is only effectively 0.00% if you consider that 0.01% is intoxicated as set out under the reg ... but as its only a guide its not an enforcable requirement within RAAus Ops manual.

 

For ref here is the actual reg

 

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 256

 

Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft

 

(1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any aircraft.

 

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

 

(2) A person acting as a member of the operating crew of an aircraft, or carried in the aircraft to act as a member of the operating crew, shall not, while so acting or carried, be in a state in which, by reason of his or her having consumed, used, or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug, pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her capacity so to act is impaired.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(4) A person who is on board an aircraft as a member of the operating crew, or as a person carried in the aircraft for the purpose of acting as a member of the operating crew, shall not consume any alcoholic liquor.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(5) A person shall not, while acting in any capacity in either air traffic control or Flight Service, be in a state in which, by reason of his or her having consumed, used, or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug, pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her capacity so to act is impaired.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(6) A person shall not act in any capacity in either air traffic control or Flight Service if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the commencement of the period of duty in which he or she so acts, consumed any alcoholic liquor.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(7) A person who is on duty in either air traffic control or Flight Service shall not consume any alcoholic liquor.

 

Penalty for a contravention of this subregulation: 50 penalty units.

 

(8) An offence against subregulation (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

[aro]

"capacity so to act is impaired" "by reason of his or her having consumed ... any alcoholic liquor" arguably includes being hung over, even if BAC is 0.00.

 

 

[kasper]

"capacity so to act is impaired" "by reason of his or her having consumed ... any alcoholic liquor" arguably includes being hung over, even if BAC is 0.00.

Yep, said it was a mess. Strict liability and imprecise terminology are not good bedfellows

[DrZoos]

Under CASA it is 0.02

 

If you're flying on your Pilot Certificate then its 0.00% and 8 hours in accordance with the ops manual Section 4.01 - 2 ISSUE 7.1 –AUGUST 2016 Item 14. The ops manual is our rules so if your operating using a Pilot Certificate those are the rules. We operate under exemptions, so we can't pick and choose which exemptions we want to apply and when. If the ops manual says 0.00% then that is the rule.

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 99.010

 

Definitions for Part 99

 

" permitted level " means:

 

......... (b) for alcohol--a level of alcohol of less than 0.02 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath.

 

And from The Permitted Limits | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

The Permitted Limits

 

The Permitted Limits and Test Result procedures

 

Both DAMP testing and CASA random testing may test for alcohol as well as drug groups that contain cocaine, cannabis, opioids and amphetamines.

 

The limits for alcohol and testable drugs will be as follows:

 

• for alcohol - a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of below 0.02%.
   
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[kasper]

Under CASA it is 0.02 

If you're flying on your Pilot Certificate then its 0.00% and 8 hours in accordance with the ops manual Section 4.01 - 2 ISSUE 7.1 –AUGUST 2016 Item 14. The ops manual is our rules so if your operating using a Pilot Certificate those are the rules. We operate under exemptions, so we can't pick and choose which exemptions we want to apply and when. If the ops manual says 0.00% then that is the rule.

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 99.010

 

Definitions for Part 99

 

 

" permitted level " means:

 

......... (b) for alcohol--a level of alcohol of less than 0.02 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath.

 

And from The Permitted Limits | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

The Permitted Limits

 

The Permitted Limits and Test Result procedures

 

Both DAMP testing and CASA random testing may test for alcohol as well as drug groups that contain cocaine, cannabis, opioids and amphetamines.

 

The limits for alcohol and testable drugs will be as follows:

 

• for alcohol - a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of below 0.02%.
   
   
   
  

Will disagree - the Ops Manual does not state 0.00% but requires "An adequate time should be applied in excess of eight hours if the quantity of alcohol consumed would deem a person’s Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) be above legal limits" the bracketed '(effectively 0.00%)' is not a legal requirement within the Ops manual - it either is or is not 0.00% so the word effectively ONLY adds a flavour/narrative to the actual require for compliance with 'legal limits' .. and those legal limits are:CASR 256 - as quoted above (its the bit of the book they throw at you in court)

 

whilst

 

CASR 99 is all about the DAMP testing ... and yes that is a permitted level of 0.02% per 210L of breath ... but that is NOT the reg you get charged under ... DAMP is all about setting up testing and programs for nominated entities required to have them ... and a pilot certificate holder is not a nominated entity BUT part 145 organisation s are ... so when RAAus becomes one we all then fall under it for all ops... but at the moment we only fall under it when we are operating in or out of a a registered aerodrome because they are required to have a DAMP.

 

Happy to be corrected but CASR256 is the one you get charged with when D&D in ANY aircraft whilst CASR 99 is used to enable and require compliance with random testing and sets an acceptable BAC for that purposes - two different areas - whilst RAA OPs is frankly a pigs breakfast of hard requirement and illustrative guidance massed into single paragraph that does nothing to clarify an already messy area.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Hi Kasper

 

Possibly true, possibly not. Here is my opinion why I believe its 0.00%

 

We operate under exemptions and whilst I take your point and it makes a lot of sense, the only limit mentioned in the ops manual is (effectively 0.00%) . So I would suspect to a judge, given that we operate under an exemption, would say the CASA rule would not apply, except if someone was being tested in accordance with a DAMP. In all other circumstances the intention and reasonable interpretation of the RAA Ops manual would in my opinion apply. It is the only set of rules and its intention is pretty clear.

 

Otherwise item 14 should simply refer to clauses in Part 99, or repeat what they say.

 

I think you would be very hard pressed getting any insurance or fending off a lawsuit if you caused an accident and blew 0.018

 

 

[SSCBD]

Gone are the days when you drank around the camp fire and flew the net day. However I did know of a couple of flyins / airshows years ago when the GA side and Sport side were not looking in great shape, but the show went on.

 

Also was funny at Bankstown on Sundays (again years ago) hearing the inbound calls (they were pretty average or not sounding well ) from the pvt GA guys who had been at the wineries over the weekend.

 

 

[Yenn]

One of the reasons for the ambiguity is that they cannot test for the small doses of alcohol. There is no accuracy in a reading under .02 or thereabouts. As usual CASA have made a mountain out of a molehill, especially with their strict liability clause.

 

Many many years ago we farewelled one of our flying instructors who was going to Ansett or TAA. Next morning I was feeling a bit seedy when I went solo to practice steep turns and stalls. Wouldn't do it now.

 

I learnt my lesson sailing which is much more forgiving than flying. Made a quick, bad decision after having a beer and went aground. Nothing damaged and a very good lesson in how only a tiny amount of beer can have serious consequences.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

George Moffat, in his book "Winning on the wind" described his learning days in France.

 

Just when the thermals started in the middle of the day, they would stop for a French lunch, complete with wine.Then after an hour or so, they would resume gliding.

 

 

[kasper]

Hi KasperPossibly true, possibly not. Here is my opinion why I believe its 0.00%

We operate under exemptions and whilst I take your point and it makes a lot of sense, the only limit mentioned in the ops manual is (effectively 0.00%) . So I would suspect to a judge, given that we operate under an exemption, would say the CASA rule would not apply, except if someone was being tested in accordance with a DAMP. In all other circumstances the intention and reasonable interpretation of the RAA Ops manual would in my opinion apply. It is the only set of rules and its intention is pretty clear.

 

Otherwise item 14 should simply refer to clauses in Part 99, or repeat what they say.

 

I think you would be very hard pressed getting any insurance or fending off a lawsuit if you caused an accident and blew 0.018

Operate under exemption yes - but only to nominated parts of the regs and the two areas being discussed on alcohol are not within the exemption so apply.Yes as you note the exemption orders require compliance the RAAus ops and tech manuals but the problem is that unclear and poor drafting in these docs is making an area worse.

 

Just consider. We have been told by the current RAAus upper management that all this change has set us up to become a part 145 organisation ... really??? Well why would we be putting 0.00% in the ops now when as a part 145 we then fall under reg99 and RAMP 0.02% testing of all RAAus pilots? So either my construct is correct or our highly skilled and knowledgable ops manager and the rest of RAAus completely overlooked in drafting for part 145 compliance one if the stated part 145 requirements.

 

Sorry but I just tired of the issues with the RAAus docs and in this area I'll prefer my interpretation ... and that is not an issue for me unless I gave just gargled after brushing my teeth because I do not drink.

 

 

[jetjr]

Because 0.00% is much clearer to most than the mess you outlined.

 

 

[kasper]

Because 0.00% is much clearer to most than the mess you outlined.

But it can't be tested on BAC equipment with sufficient accuracy ... that is why Reg 99 DAMP checking is at 0.02% ... and once you become a part 145 organisation (which we have been told the re-write of the both the ops and tech manual were design to achieve and align with) we will not be allowed a 0.00% per our Ops manual because our DAMP must be to 0.02.The nice old 1960's version of 8 hours bottle to throttle is still there as is the very imprecise impaired by intoxication which of course is a subjective test ... which unfortunately is in the middle of a strict liability regulation - that needs addressing but CASA avoided the problem with Reg 99 DAMP that sets an acceptable level on random test and that was put into the CASA adverts when DAMP was introduced ... and people, many people, still think that means that its ok to have a drink with lunch and then go back to work in a maintenance organisation or an aircraft manufacturer or even as a pilot because .02 is OK.

 

 

[jetjr]

Gets back to actually getting real message across or having many pilots confused or tuned out after first paragraph - the fact this thread exists says the regulations as written are ineffective and that should be the measure of it. Not how technically correct the phraseology is.

 

Technology can change faster and accurate testing could detect lower limits maybe next week. Setting limits on anything at MDL (minimum detectable Limits) is a slippery slope as equipment improves and you find limits attached to that not common sense.or the intent of the limitation.

 

You cannot have any alcohol in your system to fly, End of story

 

Isnt there also some wording around "preparing to fly an aircraft" This includes planning etc.

 

 

[kasper]

Gets back to actually getting real message across or having many pilots confused or tuned out after first paragraph - the fact this thread exists says the regulations as written are ineffective and that should be the measure of it. Not how technically correct the phraseology is.Technology can change faster and accurate testing could detect lower limits maybe next week. Setting limits on anything at MDL (minimum detectable Limits) is a slippery slope as equipment improves and you find limits attached to that not common sense.or the intent of the limitation.You cannot have any alcohol in your system to fly, End of story

 

Isnt there also some wording around "preparing to fly an aircraft" This includes planning etc.

Yep - read post #2 - its all in Reg 256 - and I think its (3) of that reg you are thinking of

[M61A1]

One of the reasons for the ambiguity is that they cannot test for the small doses of alcohol. There is no accuracy in a reading under .02 or thereabouts. As usual CASA have made a mountain out of a molehill, especially with their strict liability clause.Many many years ago we farewelled one of our flying instructors who was going to Ansett or TAA. Next morning I was feeling a bit seedy when I went solo to practice steep turns and stalls. Wouldn't do it now.I learnt my lesson sailing which is much more forgiving than flying. Made a quick, bad decision after having a beer and went aground. Nothing damaged and a very good lesson in how only a tiny amount of beer can have serious consequences.

This has nothing much to do with the regs, but a lot to do with alcohol and anything you do.....As a defence contractor, we are required to under DAMP training and refreshers every year. For the most part, it is the same stuff rehashed every year, except for one year we had a brilliant lecture from a doctor who was into studying such stuff. He spoke about all manner of addictive stuff and how it worked within your body in a very engaging manner, alcohol was interesting, as he explained how most people think it's all good if you're under 0.05, but apparently alcohol anaesthetises the brain cells, starting at the frontal lobe where the decision making process and forethought occurs. Unlike being quite drunk where you can easily recognised that you are physically impaired, the range between 0.02 and 0.05 is quite dangerous, because you are not physically impaired, but this is the range where bad decisions are made.

 

Your post would appear to offer a practical experience in support of this.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I don't have a problem with any of this anti-alcohol stuff except:

 

1. Is it all properly verified by testing? How were these tests done and by whom?

 

2. What about other conditions? For example, I have read that being a little bit dehydrated ( whatever that means) is worse than being .05 percent alcohol. And there are many other conditions that are relevant. But there have been many crashes where dehydration has been identified as the main factor.

 

My guess is that alcohol is indeed a thing to be avoided, but I have a deep distrust of people with puritan agendas,

 

and I want to know the whole story.

 

 

[SSCBD]

I have a deep distrust of people with puritan agendas,

Bruce I agree with the puritan comment.I have noticed some members are going for sainthood or are just so PC that no common sense comes into play.

 

How did we ever commit aviation before the RAA? How about human factors - You are not supposed to fly after a argument with the misses because of the stressful situation - Really

 

Also

 

What about drugs with flying these days. Drivers of cars are getting done at high numbers now. So I think I will stay with a beer and a good red.

 

 

[old man emu]

Just a couple of things.

 

The requirement for an organisation to implement a Drug and Alcohol Management Program CASR 99.030 only applies if

 

(a) the organisation:

 

(i) has an employee; or

 

(ii) has a contractor (including the employee of, or a subcontractor for, the contractor);

 

who performs or is available to perform a SSAA; and

 

(b) the organisation is listed in subregulation (2).

 

SSAA = Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity

 

(2) For paragraph (1)(b), the organisations are as follows:

 

(a) an AOC holder;

 

(b) a person issued with a production certificate under regulation 21.134;

 

© the holder of an aerodrome certificate granted under regulation 139.050;

 

(d) a person approved as an ARFFS under Division 139.H.5;

 

(e) an ATS training provider within the meaning of Part 143;

 

(f) an ATS provider within the meaning of Part 172;

 

(g) the provider of any of the following services within the meaning of Part 171:

 

(i) a telecommunication service;

 

(ii) a radionavigation service;

 

(h) the operator of a registered aerodrome under regulation 139.265;

 

(i) the holder of a certificate of approval within the meaning of subregulation 2(1) of CAR;

 

(j) a Part 145 organisation;

 

(k) a Part 141 operator conducting flying training in aircraft;

 

(l) a screening authority within the meaning of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005.

 

That means that, in the GA world, a person who is not carrying out an SSAA for payment or reward (owner pilot) is not required to undergo drug/alcohol screening test under Part 99.

 

CASR 256 (2) sets a subjective limit:

 

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 256

 

Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft

 

(2) A person acting as a member of the operating crew of an aircraft, or carried in the aircraft to act as a member of the operating crew, shall not, while so acting or carried, be in a state in which, by reason of his or her having consumed, used, or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug, pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her capacity so to act is impaired.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units

 

The problem here is, how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is in a certain state due to consumption of alcohol or other drug? This is the difficulty in proving "Drive under the Influence" when there are no results from analysis of breath or body fluids. Leaving a discussion of the various facts that may show that a person was in a state of intoxication, it is archaic for CASA to define impaired capacity in this way.

 

The regulation should be amended by the addition of a sub-paragraph that defines minimum acceptable levels for alcohol and other drugs in breath or body fluids. These levels can be found in Part 99, as the levels quoted there are the ones which usually apply in other areas regulated by law.

 

It appears to me that CAR 256 applies to all persons piloting aircraft, be they under the CASA licence system or RAAus certificate, or GFA system.

 

Here's another legal term that needs clarification:

 

(3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor.

 

As has been said, is sipping an ale, or glass of Grange permitted while roughing out a flightplan the night before a flight?

 

OME

 

 

[planedriver]

Gone are the days when you drank around the camp fire and flew the net day. However I did know of a couple of flyins / airshows years ago when the GA side and Sport side were not looking in great shape, but the show went on.Also was funny at Bankstown on Sundays (again years ago) hearing the inbound calls (they were pretty average or not sounding well ) from the pvt GA guys who had been at the wineries over the weekend.

Think I might have heard a few of those calls myself in the distant past. Mudgee was a popular place to go for a quick fly-away, apart from the Rothbury Estate strip in the Hunter, with a few over-priced bottles rattling in the rear seats on touchdown.

 

 

[kasper]

Just a couple of things.The requirement for an organisation to implement a Drug and Alcohol Management Program CASR 99.030 only applies if

(a) the organisation:

 

(i) has an employee; or

 

(ii) has a contractor (including the employee of, or a subcontractor for, the contractor);

 

who performs or is available to perform a SSAA; and

 

(b) the organisation is listed in subregulation (2).

 

SSAA = Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity

 

(2) For paragraph (1)(b), the organisations are as follows:

 

(a) an AOC holder;

 

(b) a person issued with a production certificate under regulation 21.134;

 

© the holder of an aerodrome certificate granted under regulation 139.050;

 

(d) a person approved as an ARFFS under Division 139.H.5;

 

(e) an ATS training provider within the meaning of Part 143;

 

(f) an ATS provider within the meaning of Part 172;

 

(g) the provider of any of the following services within the meaning of Part 171:

 

(i) a telecommunication service;

 

(ii) a radionavigation service;

 

(h) the operator of a registered aerodrome under regulation 139.265;

 

(i) the holder of a certificate of approval within the meaning of subregulation 2(1) of CAR;

 

(j) a Part 145 organisation;

 

(k) a Part 141 operator conducting flying training in aircraft;

 

(l) a screening authority within the meaning of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005.

 

That means that, in the GA world, a person who is not carrying out an SSAA for payment or reward (owner pilot) is not required to undergo drug/alcohol screening test under Part 99.

 

CASR 256 (2) sets a subjective limit:

 

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 256

 

Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft

 

(2) A person acting as a member of the operating crew of an aircraft, or carried in the aircraft to act as a member of the operating crew, shall not, while so acting or carried, be in a state in which, by reason of his or her having consumed, used, or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug, pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her capacity so to act is impaired.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units

 

The problem here is, how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is in a certain state due to consumption of alcohol or other drug? This is the difficulty in proving "Drive under the Influence" when there are no results from analysis of breath or body fluids. Leaving a discussion of the various facts that may show that a person was in a state of intoxication, it is archaic for CASA to define impaired capacity in this way.

 

The regulation should be amended by the addition of a sub-paragraph that defines minimum acceptable levels for alcohol and other drugs in breath or body fluids. These levels can be found in Part 99, as the levels quoted there are the ones which usually apply in other areas regulated by law.

 

It appears to me that CAR 256 applies to all persons piloting aircraft, be they under the CASA licence system or RAAus certificate, or GFA system.

 

Here's another legal term that needs clarification:

 

(3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor.

 

As has been said, is sipping an ale, or glass of Grange permitted while roughing out a flightplan the night before a flight?

 

OME

Yep. As I pointed out they throw reg256 at you if they think your under the influence - and while it's strict liability there is not cut and dry measure of what you need to do to be one side or the other if the guilty line. It should probably be turned into a cut and dry measure.On DAMP I think you're slightly off. Yes you only need a DAMP as an organisation if you meet set criteria BUT once you are required to have one anyone doing one of the specified actions within the operations of your organisation is within the testing regime. That is how an RAAus pilot flying into a licences aerodrome is subject to test because the licenced aerodrome has a DAMP and you are undertaking an act as prep to or as pilot on the aerodrome.

 

Messy but that's life

 

 

[aro]

I think people make too much of strict liability. They still have to demonstrate that the offence occurred. Strict liability just means that if they prove that the offence occurred, your excuses are very limited. If the offence is poorly defined it might actually make it more difficult to prosecute.

 

However, I suspect that reg 256 deliberately does not exclude the case where the alcohol has left your system but you are still impaired. If your excuse for cocking up a radio call is "I had a couple of glasses of red last night and have had a shocking headache all day" you probably admitted to an offence, even if your actual BAC is 0.00. This is probably as it should be, if you accept that aviation is unforgiving enough that you should not be flying while impaired.

 

 

[SSCBD]

I think, --- these (no fun with no humor) people who keep issuing all these rules and regs and in the future are just trying to stop the common sense fun in PVT aviation. Why do we fly - to have fun or Not!

 

RE RAA aircraft - If you training and experience is at a good level you have no problem flying these go carts of the sky - its a different matter when flying commercial sardine packed Boeings or Airbus etc. Come on guys get a grip on reality or you all become the sky police.

 

 

[M61A1]

Bruce I agree with the puritan comment.I have noticed some members are going for sainthood or are just so PC that no common sense comes into play.How did we ever commit aviation before the RAA? How about human factors - You are not supposed to fly after a argument with the misses because of the stressful situation - Really

 

Also

 

What about drugs with flying these days. Drivers of cars are getting done at high numbers now. So I think I will stay with a beer and a good red.

The whole crux of the aforementioned lecture was "everyone has their addiction". Alcohol, coffee and tobacco are just 'legal', society has just for some reason decided that alcohol is ok and heroin is not, while alcohol causes more damage, but good luck finding a politician with enough balls to outlaw it.The fact that you enjoy your red or a beer enough to get cranky about the very idea of having it removed from you, speaks very loudly about what it does in your brain. You physically enjoy the mild impairment that it creates.

 

I'm not suggesting don't drink, just understand how it works in your body.

 

 

[SSCBD]

The whole crux of the aforementioned lecture was "everyone has their addiction". Alcohol, coffee and tobacco are just 'legal', society has just for some reason decided that alcohol is ok and heroin is not, while alcohol causes more damage, but good luck finding a politician with enough balls to outlaw it.The fact that you enjoy your red or a beer enough to get cranky about the very idea of having it removed from you, speaks very loudly about what it does in your brain. You physically enjoy the mild impairment that it creates.I'm not suggesting don't drink, just understand how it works in your body.

"Well it sounds you like telling people what to do, and pushing you own agenda.And thankyou M61A1 for letting me know what I should like or prefer or not. Sorry M61A1 another person telling me what I can do or not personally, this gets me right offside.

 

That you, and I quote in your post "CRANKY" , why have you the right to do something or not and you re telling me I have no right to do something or not.? It is legal because you cant find a politicians with balls to ban or outlaw items you don't agree with. They will have those (balls) cut off if they tried to ban alcohol and coffee, etc. I also believe that anything can be abused by some. I also believe that people can use heroin for cancer or justified medical reasons.

 

Really- to be clear yes I drink coffee and have a scotch or class of red socially, never been booked with DUI or been ugly drunk. Also I know how alcohol affects me and my doctor has some dam fine reds I drink with him. I certainly would drink a lot more If I had to here you spout off for any time on your crusade.

 

But please do not take to the pulpit here and preach to me or other people as it is my life and I do as I please within reason.

 

I am Cranky with an aforementioned minority trying to control and tell what a person or a majority should do.

 

How did we ever fly and survive 20 or 30 years ago without these people's help and divine guidance.