28 Days Between Bong and Throttle

bbchien said:
How are they going to prove that?
Click to expand...
As someone who has random drug testing for work. I can say this.

They say the urine test is good for 30 days. Hair tests go back 90 days. The hair test is costly from what I hear, urine tests are cheap compared the hair test.
 
Clip4 said:
I suppose they believe 28 days is long enough to not have a positive drug result.
Click to expand...
Remember when drunk driving threshold was .10%, then the feds pushed states (by holding back road funds) to reduce the threshold to .08%? They kept saying it was to reduce accidents, how .10% was too high for safe driving, blah blah blah.
The “coincidence” of that move was the new SFST, Standardized Field Sobriety Test that came out at the same time, which included a test called HGN, horizontal gaze nystagmus. Funny coincidence that hgn provides a false positive at .10%, but not at .08%.
We can now expect BS from Canada how marijuana effects motor skills for 28 days, blah blah blah. The standards have to do with how it’s tested, not how it effects people. Government then lies saying it’s not about the test.
 
Last edited:
I’m confused. I thought Transport Canada oversaw pilot regulation.
 
Heavy users can be positive for three months. FAA sez, we don't care when you used, your pee had better be negative.
 
Marijuana and flying really don't mix. You can have the stuff in your system forever and be utterly straight. For motorists it's even worse, all the LEO has to do is decide you're under the influence. If you've used the stuff in the last month you WILL test positive, thus if you use marijuana you give the police a great deal of power over you.
 
steingar said:
Marijuana and flying really don't mix. You can have the stuff in your system forever and be utterly straight. For motorists it's even worse, all the LEO has to do is decide you're under the influence. If you've used the stuff in the last month you WILL test positive, thus if you use marijuana you give the police a great deal of power over you.
Click to expand...

In the case of driving, it’s even worse than that, the “probable cause” power is abused. A cop can claim he smells marijuana and that’s probable cause; you can see the problem there. Some cops (I like to believe most are honest) use that to fish for civil asset forfeiture cash. You don’t even need to test positive or be charged with anything for them to keep your cash.

As a pilot I would stay far away from marijuana and the Canadian airlines agree, they’re telling their pilots no pot, ever, not just the 28 day rule. I’ve known enough “pot heads” in my day. While they are very mellow and happy people to be around, I don’t want them in physical control of a machine I’m riding in.

I don’t smoke pot but I think an analogy is alcohol. I will drink one or two alcoholic beverages per year. Maybe on my birthday and maybe on New Year’s Eve. I see zero problem if someone smokes marijuana in such a fashion. As long as they don’t fly until the effects wear off I see no danger from it. It’s when people indulge regularly that it becomes a problem. The people I knew who smoked pot daily had, I believe, some underlying condition that made them seek self medication with substances. So it’s not only the direct effect of the substance, it’s the underlying condition creating a danger.

The problem is discerning the types, it’s easier to ban it altogether than to try to prove you are only a once a year toker. There is also the problem of not being able to measure impairment. As you say, it can be positive in your blood weeks later, when you have no impairment whatsoever. This differs from alcohol. But I believe even that is problematic. In the case of alcohol, if you are an addict with a tolerance, you can paradoxically be more impaired with none in your system than you are with your accustomed level. I think the FAA recognizes this as a huge danger; the alcoholic pilot who endeavors to not drink the day he flies is as dangerous as one who does.

Because of these problems, managing addiction and substance abuse in pilots has to be zero tolerance. But at the same time we need a lot better understanding of the underlying causes and bio-chemical mechanisms of substance abuse, while at the same time, it’s my opinion marijuana has tremendous medical benefits. (It should be 100% legal for terminal cancer patients.) Alcohol not so much, alcohol is literally just a poison. But marijuana, as a plant, like many plants, I believe humans co-evolved so that our neurotransmitters respond to the chemicals made in the plant. It’s no accident.

But there is no reason we can’t pursue research into the medical benefits while at the same time banning use completely in pilots, especially commercial pilots. And bus drivers, and surgeons, and Ferris wheel operators.
 
Yep, the urine assays are terrible tests as they show neither intoxication level and can be very long lived as the metabolites are fat soluable. Further, the metabolites aren't necessarily THC specific, if you're taking a lot of other non-THC cannabis, you can show positive reactions.

The actual THC intoxication tests are still pretty expensive (gas chromatography involved). Of course, with the larger scale legalization of medical and recreational marijuana use, the testing industry is certainly working on improving this. Development of a "pot breathalizer" would be a big money maker.
 
Ever see the one with the “trained” drug dog, more like trained to alert on cue. Funny it happened on Independence Day too


Be interesting to see a real study with sims as far as how long that stuff actually causes any issues.
 
James331 said:
Ever see the one with the “trained” drug dog, more like trained to alert on cue. Funny it happened on Independence Day too


Be interesting to see a real study with sims as far as how long that stuff actually causes any issues.
Click to expand...

Our conceal carry instructor (certified by the state’s DOJ) taught us rolling the window down partway like that was correct. I got pulled a couple times in the city and the officer was fine with it. But when we moved to a rural area and there was a checkpoint, I did what I was trained, rolled the window down only 1/3, put my hands on the steering wheel and informed him I have a CCW and am armed, the guy freaked out, he jumped back and put his hand on his gun like he was going to pull it, and yelled for his buddy to come over. The other guy came over and waved me on my way, and IIRC didn’t even ask to see my DL or ask if I’d been drinking.

I figured maybe the guy was new and I was the first CCW holder he’d come across? Ever since then, and seeing videos like this one, I wonder if it is right or wrong to leave the window mostly up. Or are city cops different than country ones? I’m no sovereign citizen, I’m a frumpy old woman in a 30 year old sedan. I was just doing like I thought state law wanted me to do.
 
Rushie said:
Our conceal carry instructor (certified by the state’s DOJ) taught us rolling the window down partway like that was correct. I got pulled a couple times in the city and the officer was fine with it. But when we moved to a rural area and there was a checkpoint, I did what I was trained, rolled the window down only 1/3, put my hands on the steering wheel and informed him I have a CCW and am armed, the guy freaked out, he jumped back and put his hand on his gun like he was going to pull it, and yelled for his buddy to come over. The other guy came over and waved me on my way, and IIRC didn’t even ask to see my DL or ask if I’d been drinking.

I figured maybe the guy was new and I was the first CCW holder he’d come across? Ever since then, and seeing videos like this one, I wonder if it is right or wrong to leave the window mostly up. Or are city cops different than country ones? I’m no sovereign citizen, I’m a frumpy old woman in a 30 year old sedan. I was just doing like I thought state law wanted me to do.
Click to expand...

Are you in a state where you have to tell the cop you’re carrying?
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/
If not I would really not do that, or answer any questions at all for that matter, asking questions is good though.
 
Rushie said:
In the case of driving, it’s even worse than that, the “probable cause” power is abused. A cop can claim he smells marijuana and that’s probable cause; you can see the problem there. Some cops (I like to believe most are honest) use that to fish for civil asset forfeiture cash. You don’t even need to test positive or be charged with anything for them to keep your cash.
Click to expand...

All they need to seize your cash is probable cause. To recover it you need to show at a civil proceeding that the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is legally your cash.

Of course to do that often requires hiring an attorney and you can’t normally recover legal fees. So for smaller amounts, most people don’t bother trying to recover and law enforcement keeps it.

We really need to eliminate civil asset forfeiture. It should require a criminal conviction to keep someone’s property. Some states are starting to address this.
 
If you have a CC license they already know before they approach you, assuming the car is registered to you. Declaring is the smart thing to do. They're supposed to take the gun and disassemble it to disable it before handing it back. Gun on the dash, hands on the wheel is what I've been told to expect. I live in a Constitutional Carry state. My gun is usually in a backpack while driving. I've told an officer it was there. He asked if I intended to use it. I said no. He said it was no problem.

Back to the original post, the FAA and other authorities are expected to take action against impairment. 28 days is asking them to enforce social judgement. That should be tested in court. Especially in places where marijuana is legal to possess and use.
 
I always thought the fact the cc permits are flagged on the registration lookup was somewhat pointless. It's not like there is any more or less likely that the permit holder has a gun in the car.
What it has done is open up the cc permit holder to abuse by the police (at least in Maryland). Down here most people get the CC permit because it's shall issue and not open to the racist whims of the local sheriff as the pistol purchase permits are.
 
Stewartb said:
Especially in places where marijuana is legal to possess and use.
Click to expand...

Marijuana is illegal to possess and use in all 50 states and DC. It has been decriminalized/legalized only under state laws. But federal law remains clear. It is a schedule I drug under federal law. It is only by administrative policy that the feds do not enforce the federal laws in states that have removed their state law based restrictions on marijuana. The Feds could choose to reverse that policy at any time.
 
I don't think it's the FAA's duty to tangle with state laws. This is a perfect example of how eff'd up US Government is.
 
Stewartb said:
I don't think it's the FAA's duty to tangle with state laws. This is a perfect example of how eff'd up US Government is.
Click to expand...
I probably agree with your general sentiment, but I don’t see how this is the FAA tangling with state laws.
 
Impairment doesn't last 28 days. If there's a violation they should have to prove impairment was a factor. Past use isn't evidence of that. But in truth I don't really care. I'm just not a fan of government.
 
It's only 28 days in Canada. Any use in the US is disqualifying. Having had to deal with a bunch of pothead drivers when I lived in Colorado (and it wasn't even pretend legal back then), I'm not for any liberalization of driving/flying laws and pot use.
 
Stewartb said:
If you have a CC license they already know before they approach you, assuming the car is registered to you. Declaring is the smart thing to do. They're supposed to take the gun and disassemble it to disable it before handing it back. Gun on the dash, hands on the wheel is what I've been told to expect. I live in a Constitutional Carry state. My gun is usually in a backpack while driving. I've told an officer it was there. He asked if I intended to use it. I said no. He said it was no problem.

Back to the original post, the FAA and other authorities are expected to take action against impairment. 28 days is asking them to enforce social judgement. That should be tested in court. Especially in places where marijuana is legal to possess and use.
Click to expand...

While I can see a CCW while checking a DL status, I generally don’t do this until after making contact. If someone is carrying and tells me, I just tell them “don’t show me yours and I won’t show you mine”. Usually lightens the mood with most people.
 
In my state, I'm obliged to tell the officer on a stop that I'm carrying. It's the law.

The officers in my the two states I've lived in recently do a registration check on the stop. They know before they even approach the car the info about the registered owner(s).
I've always found the CCW listing to be silly. You have to assume the driver is armed even if he doesn't have the permit. You can carry guns legally in the car without one and you can do whatever you like if you don't care about the law.
 
flyingron said:
I've always found the CCW listing to be silly. You have to assume the driver is armed even if he doesn't have the permit. You can carry guns legally in the car without one and you can do whatever you like if you don't care about the law.
Click to expand...
Yup. The ones carrying legally generally aren’t the ones I need to worry about anyways.
 
KaiGywer said:
While I can see a CCW while checking a DL status, I generally don’t do this until after making contact. If someone is carrying and tells me, I just tell them “don’t show me yours and I won’t show you mine”. Usually lightens the mood with most people.
Click to expand...

In some agencies the information automatically populates on the ADT when the dispatcher enters the stop data.
 
flyingron said:
I always thought the fact the cc permits are flagged on the registration lookup was somewhat pointless. It's not like there is any more or less likely that the permit holder has a gun in the car.
What it has done is open up the cc permit holder to abuse by the police (at least in Maryland). Down here most people get the CC permit because it's shall issue and not open to the racist whims of the local sheriff as the pistol purchase permits are.
Click to expand...

KaiGywer said:
Yup. The ones carrying legally generally aren’t the ones I need to worry about anyways.
Click to expand...

So does it differ by state? I would think, like Kai says, it would ease the tension at a stop. He knows right away that you’ve been through a background check and whatever other vetting the state requires and are much less likely to be a criminal or a threat.

What’s going on in Maryland where the police would dislike you more if you’re a licensed carrier?
 
My speculative take (not toke). TransportCanada is using 28 days as a starting point. Due to it's log-term illegality, even for research purposes, there have not been many generally-accepted ("legal?") studies on the length of time marijuana impairment continues to be a factor. So they start with a very conservative number and work from there.
 
Rushie said:
So does it differ by state? I would think, like Kai says, it would ease the tension at a stop. He knows right away that you’ve been through a background check and whatever other vetting the state requires and are much less likely to be a criminal or a threat.

What’s going on in Maryland where the police would dislike you more if you’re a licensed carrier?
Click to expand...

Just because somebody has a CCW does not mean they are they aren’t nuts or a drug abuser. All it means is they haven’t got caught committing a felony.
 
Clip4 said:
Just because somebody has a CCW does not mean they are they aren’t nuts or a drug abuser. All it means is they haven’t got caught committing a felony.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but it does improve the statistical odds that they are law abiding. Kai did say they “generally” aren’t the ones he worries about, not “never” worries about them.
 
Clip4 said:
Just because somebody has a CCW does not mean they are they aren’t nuts or a drug abuser. All it means is they haven’t got caught committing a felony.
Click to expand...

In general, holders of a CCW commit crimes at something like 1% of the general population. Much more law abiding on average.
 
Rushie said:
What’s going on in Maryland where the police would dislike you more if you’re a licensed carrier?
Click to expand...
CCW in MD is an act of God....very hard to get and if you are so lucky the background investigation is very intense. Secret security background checks are less intense.

Not sure what you're reference is with regards to the police issue with CCW in MD. I have one and every LEO I've spoke with encourages CCW carry.....in fact they are disappointed when I mention that I don't always carry.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
CCW in MD is an act of God....very hard to get and if you are so lucky the background investigation is very intense. Secret security background checks are less intense.

Not sure what you're reference is with regards to the police issue with CCW in MD. I have one and every LEO I've spoke with encourages CCW carry.....in fact they are disappointed when I mention that I don't always carry.
Click to expand...

I was referencing what flyingron said, “What it has done is open up the cc permit holder to abuse by the police (at least in Maryland)”. I wasn’t sure what he meant.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top