OldChinaHand
"But believe me, there is no room for Alcohol or the after effects of Alcohol on the flight deck. You seem to be making an argument in the opposite."
Where? 
We seem to be at cross-purposes. That may be my fault for not expressing myself sufficiently clearly.
Of course alcohol is a flight safety issue. So are, for example, medical fitness, appropriate qualifications and currency. I am distinguishing between issue and problem; there is an important difference.
"Does every citizen who commits an offence through alcohol go home and phone the Central Statistics office to make sure their statistics are correct?"
Of course not.
”How much time have you spent working on the flight deck of Airliners?”
None. I'm not a professional pilot. I've been down route in the jumpseat with friends several times (before the UK rules changed post 9/11) but I don't rely on those limited experiences in support of my argument.
”How many times have you been on crew overnights?”
10-12 approx. (More if I include evenings with friends and their colleagues overnighting in the UK over the past 25+ years.) It would be daft to rely on those occasions in support of my argument, and I do not.
”Has a member of your crew ever reported for duty in a state that they had to be advised to report sick?”
No, I’m not a professional pilot.
Statistics are fine, but they dont show what happens behind closed doors ....... etc
Whatever does or doesn’t happen behind closed doors: Where is the evidence of accidents in airline ops being caused or contributed to by alcohol?
The ATSB study found none in 31+ years to March 2006,
and that the results of their research were consistent with other international experience.
Are you suggesting that should be ignored as irrelevant when considering whether there is a flight safety problem?
"In my years of flying, Europe, MIddle East, Asia, U.S etc" onwards.
I haven’t suggested all offences are detected. I said it was "reasonable to assume that not all such instances are detected and prosecuted."
"the small number of individuals that infringe cannot be allowed on the flight deck."
I haven’t suggested they should be.
Nor have I condoned breaking the law.
You've focused on infringements.
I’ve focused on accidents.
Which do you say is the better measure of whether there is actually a flight safety problem?
FL
(Edit)
lordsummerisle
"people have to get rid of the fallacy of 8 hours bottle to throttle."
I agree.
When explaining the new law in December 2003, in readiness for it coming into force in 2004, I suggested:
It is impossible to construct any meaningful chart that an individual can use to predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking. We absorb and excrete alcohol at very different rates.
Warning:
Flight crew and cabin crew should not commence duty for at least eight hours after taking small amounts of alcohol, and proportionally longer if larger amounts have been consumed.
Although it's likely that if a person consumes a maximum of five units of alcohol dispersed over some hours before the eight hour ban, his or her blood alcohol level will be zero at the end of the ban, it cannot be guaranteed.
Rough Guide: Half a pint of ordinary strength beer (3-3.5%) contains one unit of alcohol.
Link:
Alcohol and Flying: The New Law
It's important to remember that, under the 2003 Act, you still commit an offence if the proportion of alcohol in your body exceeds the 'prescribed limit'
even if the amount of alcohol is so small that your ability to perform your 'aviation function' is not impaired.