Drug testing on FAA third class medical?

Silvaire said:
It's funny how they consider it okay if you have used an illegal substance as long as it was two years ago. Explain the logic that was used to construct that rule. :dunno:
Click to expand...

well, most of the people who apply for a 3rd class are on a 2 year cycle - the youngin's under 40 usually have a Commercial/ATP and use it for profit so are on a Second Class and ALL of them are on a 2 year cycle . . . which is essentially a 1 year if you use it for profit.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Make alcohol illegal? Nah they tried that in the movies and it didn't work.
Click to expand...
In real life! I realize you know that, but... think about the reality of it. Crack open a beer after mowing the lawn and you were committing a Federal offense. In America!!! The mind boggles.
An amendment to the Constitution, and 12 years of (surprise!) not increased sobriety and whatever else the temperance people expected, but mayhem.
Rampant alcoholism, proliferation of dangerous homemade stuff, the Feds poisoning industrial alcohol to try to discourage its theft for use in illegal booze-making (killing or sickening thousands), and of course a boom in organized crime... it was the opportunity the wise guys were waiting for. This of course led to a boom in gang violence, which was the opportunity Hoover was waiting for to give his personal army- er, I mean the FBI- an exciting public image. And of course many politicians rode high on the wave of hysteria. Then there was the inevitable corruption in law enforcement, on every level. WWI vets were doing hard time for drinking or selling beer while people drank cocktails on Capitol Hill. I can't help thinking that the only reason such a bill actually got passed was so that those who made and enforced the law could rake in all that black market money, and make a big name for themselves while pretending to actually fight it.

It all seems so familiar... hmmmm... :rolleyes:
 
ClimbnSink said:
Make alcohol illegal? Nah they tried that in the movies and it didn't work.
Click to expand...
What really made prohibition fail (it was destined to, anyway), was
(1) the hypocracy of congress. The parties kept going on with congresscritters in attendance.
(2) the hypocracy of congress.
(3) the hypocracy of congress.

...and some other lessons that our "governmental activists" seem to have forgotten. You can't legislate behavior. But on a narrow spectrum of highly motivated individuals (with a stack of individuals just WAITING to replace them), they CAN be made to comply.

Really hard when our examples are Tip O'Neill and the likes of them. Why do you think the Bandy Rabbit had to "resign" (resignation letter in the drawer from the moment of apointment)?

....did I fail to mention....
(4) The hypocracy of congress?
 
The simple explanation for why it all sounds so familiar is that most of the people in Washington are lawyers - and they simply were not paying attention in history class. . . . and once they went to law school what happened before simply was no longer important because their job was to affect the present and the future. . .
 
bbchien said:
What really made prohibition fail (it was destined to, anyway), was...
Click to expand...

...the fact that alcohol consumption was part and parcel for everyday life for many many Americans. Thus when it was made illegal the act of supplying it carried little moral impediment. Narcotics on the other hand have a terrific moral stigmal in this country, allowing the government to heavily stigmatize their purveyors and keep a prohibition going for decades at huge cost both financially and socially.

It didn't help that prohibition was really an act of war of old America against new America. Old America was rural, white, protestant, rich and dry. Urban America was immigrant, often Catholic, poor and used alcohol in daily life.
 
dell30rb said:
I am a recent college grad from a big state university and I can say that based on my experience you are incorrect. Except for the drinking and driving part.
Click to expand...

Lol, you aren't old enough to have grown up in the 70s before the government figured out how they could make tons of unregulated money by starting the 'War on Drugs". Before the great Nancy Reagan "Just Say No" campaign, the US was a much different place.
 
steingar said:
...the fact that alcohol consumption was part and parcel for everyday life for many many Americans. Thus when it was made illegal the act of supplying it carried little moral impediment. Narcotics on the other hand have a terrific moral stigmal in this country, allowing the government to heavily stigmatize their purveyors and keep a prohibition going for decades at huge cost both financially and socially.

It didn't help that prohibition was really an act of war of old America against new America. Old America was rural, white, protestant, rich and dry. Urban America was immigrant, often Catholic, poor and used alcohol in daily life.
Click to expand...

Alcohol and drugs have been part and parcel of human life through all of recorded history, so has being a control freak. All this is about is who gets to get laid.
 
Henning said:
Alcohol and other drugs have been part and parcel of human life through all of recorded history, so has being a control freak. All this is about is who gets to get laid.
Click to expand...
Alcohol is a drug.
 
Ok - lets look at it this way: The FAA has some absolutely ridiculous medical disqualifications. For example - Kidney Stones. Yeah, the chances of me passing a stone at the exact time it would be dangerous (that would be within 10 feet of the ground on landing or takeoff) is almost negligible (probably about the same as overdosing on THC), but yet I can't get my ******ned medical.

If something that stupid keeps me from flying, then why is anyone surprised that something that actually does show a possibility of impaired judgment, even days after consumption, wouldn't? If you honestly think that there's no correlation between THC ingestion and dumb decisions, you probably smoked some yourself within the last few days.
 
SkyHog said:
Ok - lets look at it this way: The FAA has some absolutely ridiculous medical disqualifications. For example - Kidney Stones. Yeah, the chances of me passing a stone at the exact time it would be dangerous (that would be within 10 feet of the ground on landing or takeoff) is almost negligible (probably about the same as overdosing on THC), but yet I can't get my ******ned medical.

If something that stupid keeps me from flying, then why is anyone surprised that something that actually does show a possibility of impaired judgment, even days after consumption, wouldn't? If you honestly think that there's no correlation between THC ingestion and dumb decisions, you probably smoked some yourself within the last few days.
Click to expand...


Actually you would have a better chance of passing a stone then OD'ing on weed, since you can NOT OD on Pot, weed, whatever you want to call it.

I know I never said smoking anything gave you better decsion making skills. not drinking nor taking anything.

What I said was out of all the evils Pot is the lesser evil.

Its a fact...You can not OD from weed, pot, maryjane.
 
1600vw said:
Actually you would have a better chance of passing a stone then OD'ing on weed, since you can NOT OD on Pot, weed, whatever you want to call it.

I know I never said smoking anything gave you better decsion making skills. not drinking nor taking anything.

What I said was out of all the evils Pot is the lesser evil.

Its a fact...You can not OD from weed, pot, maryjane.
Click to expand...

Having passed a few stones I can also say with certainty that even if a stone passed right as I flared I would not crash. Doesn't matter to the FAA.
 
pilot_dude said:
No, a statement. It drives me batty when people say "drugs and alcohol". It's redundant.
Click to expand...


I would have to agree. But some believe a drug is in pill form and comes in nothing else. Some of us know better.
 
How about 'other drugs and alcohol' it is not incorrect the way people write it they are naming a specific drug and including others. Society makes a big distinction so specifying both is relevant for people.
 
cg2112 said:
Nothing I've read indicates that a medical includes a drug test.
However, question 18m on Form 8500-8:

HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH, HAD, OR DO YOU PRESENTLY HAVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING?:
Substance dependence or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years.

Answering "no" to this question is a federal offense, with possible serious penalties, including jail time. Answering yes will require you to explain your use, which will probably disqualify you.
Click to expand...

A while back I was talking to a person who had becoming a pilot on the bucket list. The subject of pot use came up and I mentioned that he/she would have to be clean for the two years prior to the medical exam to truthfully answer no to the question. This person then mentioned that his/her use within the previous two years was legal in the country where he/she was at the time. So, I didn't know how to respond to that.
 
tlglenn said:
A while back I was talking to a person who had becoming a pilot on the bucket list. The subject of pot use came up and I mentioned that he/she would have to be clean for the two years prior to the medical exam to truthfully answer no to the question. This person then mentioned that his/her use within the previous two years was legal in the country where he/she was at the time. So, I didn't know how to respond to that.
Click to expand...

The FAA also doesn't specify which jurisdictional "illegality" they are referring to. Anyone in Colorado would probably not be lying if they didn't check the box.
 
tlglenn said:
A while back I was talking to a person who had becoming a pilot on the bucket list. The subject of pot use came up and I mentioned that he/she would have to be clean for the two years prior to the medical exam to truthfully answer no to the question. This person then mentioned that his/her use within the previous two years was legal in the country where he/she was at the time. So, I didn't know how to respond to that.
Click to expand...

The question is have you used an "illegal" substance in the past two years, not have you used a "legal" substance. IF you used pot where it was legal then you can truthfully answer that question 'no.'
 
ScottM said:
The question is have you used an "illegal" substance in the past two years, not have you used a "legal" substance. IF you used pot where it was legal then you can truthfully answer that question 'no.'
Click to expand...

Wrong FAA is Federal . And Pot is illegal under Federal law even if its legal in your state.
 
FSL747 said:
Wrong FAA is Federal . And Pot is illegal under Federal law even if its legal in your state.
Click to expand...

This whole thing is so confusing:

Fed law supersedes state law, then why are these pot laws allowed to be passed in the first place?

If selling pot is illegal at the Federal level, then how can the IRS collect taxes for years from business' openly selling pot? Why doesn't the FBI take the federal tax returns that say... "this business sells pot" and use that as undisputed evidence to bust every one of them? Seems hypocritical.

If a pot prescription is illegal at the federal level, then why are the doctors that prescribe it not losing their FDA numbers?

So I could be a professional bus or train driver in CA, stoned out of my gourd every night... and carrying passengers all day; but I can't fly a 152 by myself if I smoked a joint in the last two years.
 
Alexb2000 said:
So I could be a professional bus or train driver in CA, stoned out of my gourd every night... and carrying passengers all day; but I can't fly a 152 by myself if I smoked a joint in the last two years.
Click to expand...
Bad example since DOT drug and alcohol testing would still apply to people employed in these jobs.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Anyway, still a confusing topic.
Click to expand...
The way I look at is is that no matter how you feel personally about using drugs, alcohol, or various other substances, there are limits that the FAA puts on pilots. Like it or not, you need to stay within these limits if you want to be a pilot.
 
Everskyward said:
The way I look at is is that no matter how you feel personally about using drugs, alcohol, or various other substances, there are limits that the FAA puts on pilots. Like it or not, you need to stay within these limits if you want to be a pilot.
Click to expand...

No question. I mean the whole topic is confusing with different entities deciding different rules, thresholds, etc.
 
FSL747 said:
Wrong FAA is Federal . And Pot is illegal under Federal law even if its legal in your state.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal in every country on earth, though, and that's the question as posed - if you're in a country where it's legal, do you have to say "yes?"

It's very possible to have smoked marijuana, quite legally, in another country. In that case, I'm not sure how you'd answer the question. It's not asking "have you used a drug that is illegal in the United States", so it's actually a pretty good question.

I think you could answer "no" and not be in jeopardy of violating federal law, in this case. That's probably a better question for a lawyer to answer.
 
cg2112 said:
It's not illegal in every country on earth, though.

It's very possible to have smoked marijuana, quite legally, in another country. In that case, I'm not sure how you'd answer the question. It's not asking "have you used a drug that is illegal in the United States", so it's actually a pretty good question.

I think you could answer "no" and not be in jeopardy of violating federal law, in this case. That's probably a better question for a lawyer to answer.
Click to expand...

Its also not stating jurisdiction, and I'm sorry, because the FAA is a federal agency does not mean they are automatically referring to federal law (after all, I'm pretty sure there's no federal DUI law or federal driver's license).

The question reads to me (and I'd bet, almost any lawyer) that they are asking if you used a drug that was illegal at the time it was consumed in the jurisdiction that it was consumed in.
 
Alexb2000 said:
So I could be a professional bus or train driver in CA, stoned out of my gourd every night... and carrying passengers all day; but I can't fly a 152 by myself if I smoked a joint in the last two years.
Click to expand...

Pot is still illegal in CA except for medicinal use on the recommendation of a physician. Perhaps you meant CO or WA?
 
SkyHog said:
Its also not stating jurisdiction, and I'm sorry, because the FAA is a federal agency does not mean they are automatically referring to federal law (after all, I'm pretty sure there's no federal DUI law or federal driver's license).

The question reads to me (and I'd bet, almost any lawyer) that they are asking if you used a drug that was illegal at the time it was consumed in the jurisdiction that it was consumed in.
Click to expand...

Actually there are numerous federal DUI laws covering federal installations and federal geographic jurisdictions. That aside, one can look at one's CDL as a pseudo federal driver's license when you are exercising it in a manner that engages USDOT regulations. And the DOT regs do provide for federal criminal penalties for willful misconduct such as intentional DUI while operating a truck and having an accident though I've no idea how much that happens vs letting the state take care of it.

I bring it up because the DOT in its regs doesn't care where on the planet you were when you used the prohibited substance, or that you have a medical marijuana card, only that it was in your bloodstream when you were doing something covered by its regulations. Game over. I imagine the FAA and an appeals decider would think similarly but that is opinion.

And marijuana - as stated before - is still a regulated schedule I drug therefore you can't exactly plead to a federal agency that it was legal when you consumed it in Colorado (or wherever.)
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Pot is still illegal in CA except for medicinal use on the recommendation of a physician. Perhaps you meant CO or WA?
Click to expand...

Actually I did mean CA vs. CO or WA. Perhaps a better example than the driving one above: You have a federally licensed physician prescribing a drug. You take this lawfully prescribed pot, declare it, and get on an airplane in CA. The TSA does nothing since it is legal in CA even though they are a Federal agency. You try to come back to CA from another state where medical marijuana is illegal and the TSA turns you over to law enforcement. So if the federal government doesn't recognize medical pot, how come you were allowed to declare it and board the plane in CA with no problem, yet get arrested on your return leg?

That's what I mean by confusing. Seems like entrapment to me.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Actually I did mean CA vs. CO or WA. Perhaps a better example than the driving one above: You have a federally licensed physician prescribing a drug. You take this lawfully prescribed pot, declare it, and get on an airplane in CA. The TSA does nothing since it is legal in CA even though they are a Federal agency. You try to come back to CA from another state where medical marijuana is illegal and the TSA turns you over to law enforcement. So if the federal government doesn't recognize medical pot, how come you were allowed to declare it and board the plane in CA with no problem, yet get arrested on your return leg?

That's what I mean by confusing. Seems like entrapment to me.
Click to expand...

"Does nothing" /= "is legal." To a federal agency there is no valid prescription for a schedule I narcotic and because they have a policy that they don't call the authorities doesn't change the underlying facts. Entrapment? Not hardly. Confusing? You betcha. "May you live in interesting times..."
 
Last edited:
Alexb2000 said:
Actually I did mean CA vs. CO or WA. Perhaps a better example than the driving one above: You have a federally licensed physician prescribing a drug. You take this lawfully prescribed pot, declare it, and get on an airplane in CA. The TSA does nothing since it is legal in CA even though they are a Federal agency. You try to come back to CA from another state where medical marijuana is illegal and the TSA turns you over to law enforcement. So if the federal government doesn't recognize medical pot, how come you were allowed to declare it and board the plane in CA with no problem, yet get arrested on your return leg?

That's what I mean by confusing. Seems like entrapment to me.
Click to expand...

Well, one reason I can think of is that the TSA is not a law enforcement agency, so they'd have to turn you over to the local heat. Guess what they won't do once their called in California....

However, in Nebraska, they know that if they call the fuzz and you have a Schedule I narcotic on you, you're cooked.
 
alaskaflyer said:
"Does nothing" /= "is legal." To a federal agency there is no valid prescription for a schedule I narcotic and because they have a policy that they don't call the authorities doesn't change the underlying facts. Entrapment? Not hardly. Confusing? You betcha. "May you live in interesting times..."
Click to expand...

I don't know how you define entrapment, but here is their policy saying it is not allowed carry on or checked and that the TSA doesn't recognize medical pot as being any different.

http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/prohibited-items

Yet here is a TSA agent checking medical marijuana through security:

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/11/seatac_tsa_agents_you_are_free.php

Then the same TSA busts Montel Williams for a pipe:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-piper/montel-williams-cited-for_b_804784.html

How is that not entrapment? Something should be either legal or not and treated consistently.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I don't know how you define entrapment, SNIP
Click to expand...

As I said "Does nothing" /= "is legal." Human nature being what it is (I got away with it therefore it must be OK) notwithstanding.

Inconsistent enforcement isn't entrapment. It might be something else undesirable but you need to find another word. Reminds me of the guy who is pulled over for doing 75 in a 55 and complains that the officer didn't get the guy doing 80 instead.

And I might point out that the incidents in question both resulted in the owner being stopped (or whatever you want to call it) by the TSA. The difference was that the local police at the airport - operating under state law and their own department policies, not those of the TSA - made different decisions on what to do from there.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Its also not stating jurisdiction, and I'm sorry, because the FAA is a federal agency does not mean they are automatically referring to federal law (after all, I'm pretty sure there's no federal DUI law or federal driver's license).

The question reads to me (and I'd bet, almost any lawyer) that they are asking if you used a drug that was illegal at the time it was consumed in the jurisdiction that it was consumed in.
Click to expand...

In the United States, smoking pot is never completely legal. You are always breaking the law when you purchase or use marijuana. It doesn't state jurisdiction, no, but it doesn't need to - marijuana is still illegal everywhere, even in states that have voted to legalize it.

Yet here is a TSA agent checking medical marijuana through security:
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...u_are_free.php
Then the same TSA busts Montel Williams for a pipe:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-p..._b_804784.html
Click to expand...

That could be because medical marijuana was legal in Washington State at the time, but not legal in Wisconsin. Also, Montel Williams had paraphernalia, which is almost more illegal than marijuana in some states.

In Ohio, where it's been largely decriminalized for decades, possession of paraphernalia is still an automatic loss of license (whether you're caught with it while driving, or in your living room) and whatever fine they give you, where as possession of the drug itself is a $100 ticket.
 
Geez............:mad2::mad2::mad2:..

Wouldn't it be alot easier, cheaper and safer to just drink a beer or two ?:dunno:
 
N801BH said:
Geez............:mad2::mad2::mad2:..

Wouldn't it be alot easier, cheaper and safer to just drink a beer or two ?:dunno:
Click to expand...

Probably not, on all three counts.
Unless you're caught doing it, of course (or need to pass an FAA medical).
 
bbchien said:
But the biggest thing of all is pot makes you stupid for an unspecified amount of "tail" time after the hit ...
Click to expand...

Hey Doctor B, do you have any reference for this statement? With my kids, I've used the logic that, at the end of the day, pot is illegal. Doesn't matter if the laws make sense or not, it is illegal. Get caught and it can be a BIG deal. When we lived overseas and drinking was legal, I told my son he could have a beer with us at dinner. When we lived in IN and it is illegal even at home, the answer was no. I told him that, in my opinion, alcohol is MUCH more dangerous than pot, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING since it is illegal.

I've never seen anything on pot that indicated an impact on intelligence other than some studies that showed excessive use impacts. Would be nice to have something to show him. Any references?
 
Alexb2000 said:
Actually I did mean CA vs. CO or WA. Perhaps a better example than the driving one above: You have a federally licensed physician prescribing a drug. You take this lawfully prescribed pot, declare it, and get on an airplane in CA. The TSA does nothing since it is legal in CA even though they are a Federal agency. You try to come back to CA from another state where medical marijuana is illegal and the TSA turns you over to law enforcement. So if the federal government doesn't recognize medical pot, how come you were allowed to declare it and board the plane in CA with no problem, yet get arrested on your return leg?

That's what I mean by confusing. Seems like entrapment to me.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but the TSA is a federal agency, and is thus bound by federal law regardless of which state the flight begins or ends in. I think it would be foolish to assume otherwise.

The allowance of medical marijuana in California and other states, and the allowance of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington State, only mean that you can't be prosecuted for it under STATE law. I was clear on that on the day I voted for it.
 
FSL747 said:
Wrong FAA is Federal . And Pot is illegal under Federal law even if its legal in your state.
Click to expand...
What makes you think I was talking about using in the US?

I merely mentioned that if using a substance in a geographic area where it was legal then you could answer as not using an illegal substance truthfully on the FAA form.

It is a big planet, try not jumping to conclusions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top