Decriminalized marijuana possession ticket

U

Unregistered

Guest
Hello forum!. So I got a possession ticket in a state where marijuana is decriminalized.
This was a year ago or so.
There is no arrest or jail time since it's decriminalized (for small amounts). I got a fine, payed it.
I'm renewing my medical in a couple of months, third class, and when going over the form online couldn't find a place where I should report this. Is this correct?

Many thanks.
 
Haha. More funtimes. The holier then thou will be by to damn you for smoking pot, I'll just mock you for getting caught. In a decriminalized state you have to be super stupid to get one of those tickets. Oh well. Either lie or wait two years. So much fun.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Haha. More funtimes. The holier then thou will be by to damn you for smoking pot, I'll just mock you for getting caught. In a decriminalized state you have to be super stupid to get one of those tickets. Oh well. Either lie or wait two years. So much fun.
Click to expand...

He only possesed it, he didn't use it.

Hey if it works for the president!

Now cigars are another story :)
 
This is a case where the top of the line AME might be the best for you. Seek out Dr. Bruce Chien in Peoria. Be more than 100% honest with him and follow his instructions without question or stray.
 
Actually, I think Bart hit the nail on the head. There is nothing to report.

Ron arrives in three...two...one...
 
You don't have to report a non-criminal citation unless it resulted in restriction of your driving privs.

If you actually used the drug in addition to possessing it in the past two years, you had better answer YES to 18 n. and explain yourself to the AME.

We can not recommend you lie on your application. We might recommend you hold off applying until you can truthfully answer NO to all the pertinent questions.

You do UNDERSTAND that the use of Marijuana whether it is a crime where you are or you have a medical recommendation or whatever IS INCONSISTENT with maintaining an aviation medical?
 
This is a legal question, not a medical one. For truly reliable advice on what to do, you need to ask an aviation attorney familiar with both Federal aviation law and the laws in the state in which you were picked up. As noted above, there is no question that regardless of whether you have to report that "ticket", you are required to report any use of marijuana within the preceding two years.

In summary, my advice to you is twofold -- call a lawyer, and stay away from that stuff.
 
Seriously, you are LOOKING for a place to report this?

You are a pilot, you surely have some smarts, you know the Feds position about MJ.

18n. Doesn't say anything about possession, it asks about use and testing.

The bigger issue is WTF were you thinking? I'm 100% fine if someone wants to smoke a little dope, you are just asking for big trouble if you choose to do so as a pilot. Time to make a choice.
 
Alexb2000 said:
18n. Doesn't say anything about possession, it asks about use and testing.
Click to expand...
But it does ask if you have ever had any "nontraffic conviction(s) (misdemeanors or felonies)". I'm thinking the Feds would consider that ticket to be such unless it ended with a "not guilty" finding. Does this qualify as such? :dunno: Again, a question to be answered by an attorney familiar with both that state's laws and Federal aviation law.
 
It sounds more and more like State legalized weed is becoming the new Adderall/Ritalin gotcha for first time pilots. (except it isn't a lifetime ban)
 
Ron Levy said:
But it does ask if you have ever had any "nontraffic conviction(s) (misdemeanors or felonies)". I'm thinking the Feds would consider that ticket to be such unless it ended with a "not guilty" finding. Does this qualify as such? :dunno: Again, a question to be answered by an attorney familiar with both that state's laws and Federal aviation law.
Click to expand...

Feels like Déjà Vu doesn't it.
 
Unregistered said:
Hello forum!. So I got a possession ticket in a state where marijuana is decriminalized.
This was a year ago or so.
There is no arrest or jail time since it's decriminalized (for small amounts). I got a fine, payed it.
I'm renewing my medical in a couple of months, third class, and when going over the form online couldn't find a place where I should report this. Is this correct?

Many thanks.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute - who ticketed you? State/County/City, or the Feds? And what was the violation? I mean the exact description, and code number.
 
Ron Levy said:
But it does ask if you have ever had any "nontraffic conviction(s) (misdemeanors or felonies)". I'm thinking the Feds would consider that ticket to be such unless it ended with a "not guilty" finding. Does this qualify as such? :dunno: Again, a question to be answered by an attorney familiar with both that state's laws and Federal aviation law.
Click to expand...

And what does "decriminalized" mean? He likely got a citation for a civil infraction/violation (like a traffic ticket) so it doesn't even make it to misdemeanor. Read the state laws (or even the back of the ticket) and proceed. No attorney needed.
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
And what does "decriminalized" mean? He likely got a citation for a civil infraction/violation (like a traffic ticket) so it does even make it to misdemeanor. Read the state laws (or even the back of the ticket) and proceed. No attorney needed.
Click to expand...
They are a joke. I've heard(but haven't confirmed) here in MA there is no penalty for not paying the decriminalized small quantity pot fine. As such they rarely bother to write them. Which means to get one you have to be really really stupid.
 
Clark1961 said:
And what does "decriminalized" mean? He likely got a citation for a civil infraction/violation (like a traffic ticket) so it does even make it to misdemeanor. Read the state laws (or even the back of the ticket) and proceed. No attorney needed.
Click to expand...

Well that's exactly it, something isn't adding up here. 99% of the time a "ticketable offense" is an infraction and if it was "decriminalized" there should be no ticket anyway unless some minimum amount was exceeded. But possession at least a misdemeanor by Federal standard. Kind of depends on who wrote the ticket.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Well that's exactly it, something isn't adding up here. 99% of the time a "ticketable offense" is an infraction and if it was "decriminalized" there should be no ticket anyway unless some minimum amount was exceeded. But possession at least a misdemeanor by Federal standard. Kind of depends on who wrote the ticket.
Click to expand...

Generally when it's decriminalized you can still get a ticket for possession - it's just a civil fine - not a criminal offense.
 
jesse said:
Generally when it's decriminalized you can still get a ticket for possession - it's just a civil fine - not a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

Like the automated speed camera tickets that dont carry points.
 
A reasonable interpretation of the simple language of the form would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the offense itself need not be reported if was neither a misdemeanor nor a felony.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if buried deep in some obscure volume of federal law, the federal definitions of "misdemeanor" and "felony" include any offenses that would be misdemeanors or felonies under federal law, even if they are not such under state law.

My advice: Ask a lawyer.

-Rich
 
Actually the federal equivalency is not based on what the same charge federally would bring (which there often isn't an analog) but what the maximum possible punishment for the charge. If you can't get 60 days or more for it, then as far as the feds are concerned it's an infraction.
 
Check nothing. IF under some alternate space time construct it was ever questioned, claim ignorance. What is the definition of decriminalized after all. Why does it seem that we are always advising people to lose their ticket?
 
Alexb2000 said:
Check nothing. IF under some alternate space time construct it was ever questioned, claim ignorance. What is the definition of decriminalized after all. Why does it seem that we are always advising people to lose their ticket?
Click to expand...

Possession is still illegal under federal law. The current administration being derelict in enforcing those laws does not change that. As it is still a schedule I controlled substance and he is not using it under one of the narrow exemptions for schedule I drugs he is an 'unlawful user' both barred from holding a medical and doing other things like purchasing firearms.
 
Clark1961 said:
And what does "decriminalized" mean? He likely got a citation for a civil infraction/violation (like a traffic ticket) so it doesn't even make it to misdemeanor. Read the state laws (or even the back of the ticket) and proceed. No attorney needed.
Click to expand...
Do you also recommend self-performed appendectomies? Understanding the law enough to handle issues like this takes years of training, and despite how much I've self-studied the law on my own, I wouldn't even think of trying to handle this one myself. Unless you don't care much whether you ever fly again legally or not, this is one for a real attorney who knows both the laws of the state involved and the FAA's regulations.
 
flyingron said:
Actually the federal equivalency is not based on what the same charge federally would bring (which there often isn't an analog) but what the maximum possible punishment for the charge. If you can't get 60 days or more for it, then as far as the feds are concerned it's an infraction.
Click to expand...
I've never seen anything from the FAA or any other Federal agency saying that is the interpretation of the language on FAA Form 8500-8. You want to bet your future flying on that, go right ahead, but if you're an AOPA Legal Services subscriber, you've already paid for the advice and you'd be downright foolish not to get what you've paid for. As for anyone else, I think it would be $200 well spent on insurance, but YMMV.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Check nothing. IF under some alternate space time construct it was ever questioned, claim ignorance.
Click to expand...
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a well-tested legal fact. Ask the guy who quit flying before 61.15 came into existence, got a DUI several years later, and then several years after that applied for a new medical properly reporting that DUI in block 18v. He got the medical, but he also got a 6-month suspension for not reporting the DUI within 60 days of when it happened.

What is the definition of decriminalized after all.
Click to expand...
Good legal question.
Why does it seem that we are always advising people to lose their ticket?
Click to expand...
Also a good question, which is why I'm always appalled by those saying "don't ask a lawyer, don't report it, don't worry". :no:
 
flyingron said:
Actually the federal equivalency is not based on what the same charge federally would bring (which there often isn't an analog) but what the maximum possible punishment for the charge. If you can't get 60 days or more for it, then as far as the feds are concerned it's an infraction.
Click to expand...

You know, I've always been impressed by your breadth of knowledge. Unlike Levy who thinks he know a lot, you actually do!

You also don't run around this forum screaming that the sky is falling.

Thanks!
 
timwinters said:
You know, I've always been impressed by your breadth of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Just because he says something you want to hear doesn't make him right. When I see something from the FAA Chief Counsel or the US Court of Appeals that says what he said, I'll buy it unconditionally. Until then, get your important legal advice from a real attorney, not from either FRon or me.
 
Ron Levy said:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a well-tested legal fact. Ask the guy who quit flying before 61.15 came into existence, got a DUI several years later, and then several years after that applied for a new medical properly reporting that DUI in block 18v. He got the medical, but he also got a 6-month suspension for not reporting the DUI within 60 days of when it happened.

Good legal question.
Also a good question, which is why I'm always appalled by those saying "don't ask a lawyer, don't report it, don't worry". :no:
Click to expand...

Sure he put a DUI on his medical, giant red flag. The FAA did a quick search, found out the dates, then issued a suspension. HE SELF INCRIMINATED! This isn't a surprise on any level and in fact makes my point. They didn't say, "thanks for your honesty no action taken". This is bureaucracy 101, they have to act if you force them to. IF the FAA had staff doing comprehensive random searches of private pilots who reported nothing, then we would have a 1000 posts a day from these people.
 
Alexb2000 said:
IF the FAA had staff doing comprehensive random searches of private pilots who reported nothing, then we would have a 1000 posts a day from these people.
Click to expand...

On DUIs they do those random searches as drivers license actions conveniently go into a interstate database the FAA has access to. Doesn't require much staff intervention, just a batch job they run ever so often.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Makes sense, although this article makes me wonder because the certificate actions were so low, only 4800 falsifications over 19 years. :dunno:

http://avstop.com/editorials/jim_trusty/alcohol_related_problems.htm
Click to expand...

A couple of years ago they ran a pilot-project cross-checking with disability databases. Spawned a administrative law case that made it all the way to the supreme court (Cooper vs. the FAA et al). It went against the pilot, but not really on the merits of the underlying question but because as a private pilot he could not prove damages from the FAAs improper actions.
 
weilke said:
A couple of years ago they ran a pilot-project cross-checking with disability databases. Spawned a administrative law case that made it all the way to the supreme court (Cooper vs. the FAA et al). It went against the pilot, but not really on the merits of the underlying question but because as a private pilot he could not prove damages from the FAAs improper actions.
Click to expand...

I don't think it went against the pilot other than he wasn't awarded the damages. He got his certificate and medical restored by the FAA in 2008 following a ruling in his favor. I would say he prevailed on the primary issue.
 
You don't 'have to' do a ****ing thing the government says, you just have to be ready for the fight that may ensue. You can be afraid of the government or you can ignore the government, it's up to you; free will and all that. Think for yourself or let others think for you, the choice is yours.
 
Henning said:
You don't 'have to' do a ****ing thing the government says, you just have to be ready for the fight that may ensue.
Click to expand...
Thas right! But for those who aren't happy slaving away in salt mines instead of soaring with the eagles in the morning--don't hoot with the owls all night.

dtuuri
 
Alexb2000 said:
I don't think it went against the pilot other than he wasn't awarded the damages. He got his certificate and medical restored by the FAA in 2008 following a ruling in his favor. I would say he prevailed on the primary issue.
Click to expand...

He didn't go to court to get his certificate and medical back. The FAA gave both back just based on standard administrative process (they had changed their medical policies on the underlying disease). He went to court because he wanted money for the pain and suffering of having his certificate pulled. The 'hook' to get that payout was a formality (that the FAA had not published the fact that they cross-match with SSA). He was a former SSA employee and tried to turn his knowledge of this formality into money.

The case went against him at the supreme court because he didn't claim actual financial damage. A professional pilot who could have shown financial damage from having his career put on hold for several years may have prevailed.

He admitted to lying on his medical, pled guilty and paid a $1,000 fine. His argument at the supreme court level was 'yes I lied but you shouldn't have caught me' which always struck me as rather odd.
 
Last edited:
I've met Stan Cooper on a few occasions and have talked with him about the case. To claim that he was "in it for the money" isn't remotely related to the truth. The case to him was about punishing the government for violating its own privacy policies, something I would hope all Americans would support. When the government won't follow it's own rules, we all suffer the consequences. His attorneys did the case pro-bono, if he had won a real monetary judgement, they are the ones who would have seen the benefit, not Stan.
 
Back
Top