Marijuana Possession

[Unregistered]

I thought his question was about a medical marijuana user carrying it on an aircraft as a passenger.

It was. This thread ended up covering marijuana in general, however.

To reorganize this thread and keep the discussion meaningful, I will say the following.

1. I (the OP) am not the only person posting anonymously. Don't think everyone who has posted with the username "unregistered" is the OP (me).

2. I am not a pot head.

3. Directed to Bruce, by alcohol being legal in the FAA's eyes, I meant, they have thresholds (8 hours and under .04 BAC) for alcohol. When weed IS LEGALIZED federally, I hope the same is true for marijuana.

4. Never in this thread did I say or even bring up the idea of it being okay to be the pilot of an aircraft while under the influence of marijuana LEGAL OR NOT.

5. In my original post, I asked two questions. Those were answered by the second page, I am not arguing with the answers. I am no longer interested in weather I would need to report a marijuana related incident to the FAA now, with current laws. Stop telling me I am delusional... I am agreeing with you.

6. My posts now are not even aviation related. They are futuristic. It is not a matter of IF marijuana will be legalized federally, but when. Visit http://www.mpp.org/ for more info.

7. I've asked numerous times for Dr. Bruce's opinion on Alcohol USAGE v. Marijuana USAGE. There are very few comparisons between the two from the medical field. My bet would be that this is true because studying marijuana is difficult because the GOVERNMENT (DEA) controls who can and can't receive a license to handle to drug for scientific purposes. I can't hold Dr. Bruce responsible for knowing either, but perhaps he has some insight of his own.

 

[Palmpilot]

My question here on the "Pilot's of America" message board was to see how the FAA will deal with it. As pointed out above in §91.19.b, it says marijuana may be carried as authorized by "any federal OR state statue." Carrying marijuana with a card would be legal under state statue, therefore legal to carry on an aircraft anywhere the person's MMJ license is legal. That's how I read it.

Take another look at the wording of 91.9(b):

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to any carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances authorized by or under any Federal or State statute or by any Federal or State agency.

Your interpretation would make sense if it was referring to substances that are authorized, but it appears to me that it is actually referring to situations where the carriage of those substances is authorized.

For example, if law enforcement helicopters were used to clean out a pot farm from the side of a mountain, the pilots of those helicopters would not be in violation, because their carriage of the marijuana to a place where it could be disposed of would be authorized by whichever federal or state agency ordered them to do it.

 

[Unregistered]

And...

8. Why the name calling? I am trying to have a discussion, but am being called "delusional", "pot head", etc... Think what you want, but calling someone names because they do not agree with you is straight up childish. I know multiple people who are marijuana users, keep it to themselves, and are extremely successful. A marijuana user doesn't automatically classify somebody as a "pot head", "delusional", "druggie" or otherwise.

 

[Gary F]

2. I am not a pot head.

Sorry. I'll take your word for it. I am not sure what qualifies somebody as a pot head other than the use of mj. I edited my previous post.

3. Directed to Bruce, by alcohol being legal in the FAA's eyes, I meant, they have thresholds (8 hours and under .04 BAC) for alcohol. When weed IS LEGALIZED federally, I hope the same is true for marijuana.

4. Never in this thread did I say or even bring up the idea of it being okay to be the pilot of an aircraft while under the influence of marijuana LEGAL OR NOT.

How can we prove that a marijuana user is not impaired? I do not know of any objective way to assess this.

 

[Unregistered]

Sorry. I'll take your word for it. I am not sure what qualifies somebody as a pot head other than the use of mj. I edited my previous post.

How can we prove that a marijuana user is not impaired? I do not know of any objective way to assess this.

Thank you.

As for the second question. Currently, there is now way to determine if a person is impaired because of marijuana or not. I've talked to LEOs I know about the matter of marijuana legalization in general, and the consensus is that there are methods currently being developed right now that will be able to accomplish such a thing similar in ease to a breathalyzer. I haven't done any research on my own about the topic though.

 

[Palmpilot]

How can we prove that a marijuana user is not impaired? I do not know of any objective way to assess this.

Isn't that a problem for legal drugs as well? The AOPA Web site has guidelines for how long to wait after taking specific drugs. Perhaps if it is ever legalized, in addition to an "eight hours bottle-to-throttle" rule, we will have a "three days toke-to-yoke" rule.

 

[elmetal]

Isn't that a problem for legal drugs as well? The AOPA Web site has guidelines for how long to wait after taking specific drugs. Perhaps if it is ever legalized, in addition to an "eight hours bottle-to-throttle" rule, we will have a "three days toke-to-yoke" rule.

Only 2 problems:

1. How many pilots will go 3 days without flying?
and more impotantly
2. How many people will say hmm, tonight I won't smoke, because I am flying in 2 days.

How much time needs to go by before you're left without any effects from mj?

I've done it in the past, and I will say that in my experience, the day after smoking left me pretty useless which is nice if it's a weekend, but not so nice if I had had to fly.

That's way in the past though

 

[Everskyward]

I'm guessing you are of my generation or older. If you were younger you would presume that you already are. Start with a decent percentage of younger 135 pilots and CFIs and go from there.

Don't think the older generation is any more innocent. I've heard stories from people who are older than me. They would be in their 60s by now.

 

[Gary F]

Don't think the older generation is any more innocent. I've heard stories from people who are older than me. They would be in their 60s by now.

Plenty of it going around when I was growing up.

 

[bbchien]

3. Directed to Bruce, by alcohol being legal in the FAA's eyes, I meant, they have thresholds (8 hours and under .04 BAC) for alcohol. When weed IS LEGALIZED federally, I hope the same is true for marijuana.

FAA doesn't determine the legality of anything. You're confused. Department of Justice does that. Job standards for substance cleanliness have nothing to do with legality.

************

Now to set the record straight. Its completely BS to say that alcohol is worse that dope. Totally BS.

Long term use, marijuana is associated with dropout of neuron mass in the periaqueductal areas of the brain. Even worse, long (decade) after the last exposure, reactive PET scanning shows long term disruptions in the normal activity patterns in the cortex. There is getting to be, very soon, a PET scan dynamic profile of the marijuana smoker. PET scans cost about $4,000 per. Quite a traffic stop no? County bankrupted by the PET scan bills. We can get it out of hair, but there's no "bedside" method for that one (takes a few days), and it doesn't speak to behavior ONE HOUR ago.

Long term use, Alcohol is associated with the same, but reversal begins in about 6 mos-2 years since exposure. It actually IS more benign than weed in regard to the brain. As for the traffic stop we have behavioral assesment training, breathalyzer and serum levels- all quite inexpensive.

The difference is we have a variety of tests that can well characterize the progress and impairments of alcoholic brain, liver, and kidney disease. It's like having a Hemoglobin A1c test for "hows my diabetes doing?". There is none such for marijuana, unless you want to use that very expensive battery (the battery we use for SSRI patients in remission on SSRIs) which contains among other studies, Cogscreen AE (don't get me going about that one). The trouble here is that the active agent is fat soluble, so it resides in neurons, liver and brain tissue where it is not reflected in the serum. Thus the PET scan work. I don't think our liberal society is going to allow for Roadside punch biopsy of the brain on demand. Uh, no.

So, owing to the great expense that has to be expended to determine when the cognitive and motor associative aspects of marijuana are becoming critical, under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, the Federal Government has simply said, "prohibited" for all licenses- Locomotive, Mariner, Aircraft.

Now legalization of possession or of use for medical purposes- there isn't a company on the planet who, knowing this would allow its CEO to remain CEO if he needed exposure for pain. He'd be on medical leave. FAA has the same view.

Now, never mind that eventually, I too believe that possession of an ounce will cease being a federal offense, with presumption that over one ounce = intent to deliver. But that is because of economics, not science.

Right now the problem isn't so much marijuana as it is Heroin, Fentanyl and a few other synthetic narcotics. One recent haul in SoCal or Arizona had a street value of twice that of the agency that took it down.

Say we were successful and cutoff 90% of the supply. Then the big haul would have a street value TWENTY times that of the ageny pursuing them. Clearly something has to give. In the most recent example, it was the corruption of a supply sargeant working for Southern Command. US Army RPG equipment used in a cartel operation was traced back to a depot and to the sargeant.

However, from the medical point of view, the devil you have not characterized well, which is every bit as bad as (if not worse than) alcohol in short and long term organic destruction, is worse than the devil you know.

We actually know how to regulate narcotics. The opium dens of China would be more manageable than in 1870 in China, because we have dipstick style testing for those items. But politically that one is not going to be legalized and taxed. Our representatives fear the media bites "Senator XYZ is soft on drugs!" Thus the cartels roll on, and they are going to eventually subvert most of the RioGrande Valley and all of the Mexican Federal Government.

 

[Gary F]

FAA doesn't determine the legality of anything. You're confused. Department of Justice does that. Job standards for substance cleanliness have nothing to do with legality.

************

Now to set the record straight. Its completely BS to say that alcohol is worse that dope. Totally BS.

Long term use, marijuana is associated with dropout of neuron mass in the periaqueductal areas of the brain. Even worse, long (decade) after the last exposure, reactive PET scanning shows long term disruptions in the normal activity patterns in the cortex. There is getting to be, very soon, a PET scan dynamic profile of the marijuana smoker. PET scans cost about $4,000 per. Quite a traffic stop no? County bankrupted by the PET scan bills. We can get it out of hair, but there's no "bedside" method for that one (takes a few days), and it doesn't speak to behavior ONE HOUR ago.

Long term use, Alcohol is associated with the same, but reversal begins in about 6 mos-2 years since exposure. It actually IS more benign than weed in regard to the brain. As for the traffic stop we have behavioral assesment training, breathalyzer and serum levels- all quite inexpensive.

The difference is we have a variety of tests that can well characterize the progress and impairments of alcoholic brain, liver, and kidney disease. It's like having a Hemoglobin A1c test for "hows my diabetes doing?". There is none such for marijuana, unless you want to use that very expensive battery (the battery we use for SSRI patients in remission on SSRIs) which contains among other studies, Cogscreen AE (don't get me going about that one). The trouble here is that the active agent is fat soluble, so it resides in neurons, liver and brain tissue where it is not reflected in the serum. Thus the PET scan work. I don't think our liberal society is going to allow for Roadside punch biopsy of the brain on demand. Uh, no.

So, owing to the great expense that has to be expended to determine when the cognitive and motor associative aspects of marijuana are becoming critical, under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, the Federal Government has simply said, "prohibited" for all licenses- Locomotive, Mariner, Aircraft.

Now legalization of possession or of use for medical purposes- there isn't a company on the planet who, knowing this would allow its CEO to remain CEO if he needed exposure for pain. He'd be on medical leave. FAA has the same view.

Now, never mind that eventually, I too believe that possession of an ounce will cease being a federal offense, with presumption that over one ounce = intent to deliver. But that is because of economics, not science.

Right now the problem isn't so much marijuana as it is Heroin, Fentanyl and a few other synthetic narcotics. One recent haul in SoCal or Arizona had a street value of twice that of the agency that took it down.

Say we were successful and cutoff 90% of the supply. Then the big haul would have a street value TWENTY times that of the ageny pursuing them. Clearly something has to give. In the most recent example, it was the corruption of a supply sargeant working for Southern Command. US Army RPG equipment used in a cartel operation was traced back to a depot and to the sargeant.

However, from the medical point of view, the devil you have not characterized well, which is every bit as bad as (if not worse than) alcohol in short and long term organic destruction, is worse than the devil you know.

We actually know how to regulate narcotics. The opium dens of China would be more manageable than in 1870 in China, because we have dipstick style testing for those items. But politically that one is not going to be legalized and taxed. Our representatives fear the media bites "Senator XYZ is soft on drugs!" Thus the cartels roll on, and they are going to eventually subvert most of the RioGrande Valley and all of the Mexican Federal Government.

Let me translate for non-medical members of this forum: That S*** is not good for you and you can't use it if you want to be a pilot.

 

[pilot_dude]

I do not understand why you consider any person who consumes alcohol to be a druggie.

Because alcohol is a drug by definition?

 

[Gary F]

Because alcohol is a drug by definition?

So we can't call somebody who uses marijuana a pot head but if you have a glass of wine with dinner you are a druggie.

 

[Unregistered]

Thank you Dr. Bruce for your informative post.

Although I will admit I did not understand some of what you said, I am happy I am finally getting some information.

I guess I was confused. I honestly did not know that it is the Department of Justice who makes the rules like "8 hours bottle to throttle" and under .04 and not the FAA.

As far as the "BS" I spew about alcohol being "worse" than marijuana (where in the world did I mention "dope"!?), I guess that is quite ambiguous. I have witnessed people "high" on marijuana, and I have seen people drunk from alcohol intake. It is quite obvious to me that those who were drunk were WAY more impaired than those high. Long-term, maybe I am wrong.

As I said, research on marijuana, especially by any non-biased institution, is rare. I have never heard that the effects of alcohol on the brain were reversible and marijuana is not. I am not going to doubt you... you are a doctor, but can you elaborate more on that or at least give me a source?

I realize there is currently no portable and inexpensive way for LEOs to check if somebody is under the influence of marijuana. LEOs I have spoken too suspect legalizing marijuana would cause development of such a technique though.

Do you think the interstate commerce clause is something that would change should marijuana become legalized though?

If marijuana was legalized, it wouldn't matter if someone was using it medically or not. Obviously, medical marijuana cards are a "loophole" to the law. Recreational users use it because of the stress relief and euphoria it provides them with. The only reason a CEO would no longer remain CEO of a company is because the social norms surrounding it. 20 years from now, we'll look back and see how ridiculous that really is.

Federal legalization of marijuana might be economics related and no science, but that doesn't mean legalization is wrong. Tobacco is known to cause pretty significant health issues in long-term users. Most people have family members who have died from a tobacco related illness. THAT is legal, it would only be right for marijuana to be legal too.

Honestly, who cares what the ratio of the size of a bust to the value of the busting agency is? Marijuana has have little monetary value to the government because it is illegal. In no way do I support heroin, fentanyl, heroin, meth, MDMA, etc... I support agencies seeking that out. Marijuana is an entirely different animal though. Marijuana doesn't make people homicidal, suicidal, or otherwise.... it will only over-relax a person.

 

[Gary F]

Not everybody who drinks a beverage containing alcohol is trying to get drunk but everybody who smokes marijuana is trying to get high. People who drink in strict moderation have a statistically lower mortality than those who abstain. I do not recommend that anybody start drinking for health reasons but please do not try to equate responsible alcohol consumption with illegal drug use.

 

[Unregistered]

Not everybody who drinks a beverage containing alcohol is trying to get drunk but everybody who smokes marijuana is trying to get high. People who drink in strict moderation have a statistically lower mortality than those who abstain. I do not recommend that anybody start drinking for health reasons but please do not try to equate responsible alcohol consumption with illegal drug use.

You do make a point about most people not drinking to get drunk, but people do smoke to get "high." There is still a line that can be crossed between use and abuse though.

Those who do drink to get drunk are a MUCH bigger problem to society than those who are "high."

It could very well be true that marijuana users (not abusers) also have a lower mortality than those who don't. Some researchers have hypothesized this, and I've mentioned it in previous posts. Contrary to many beliefs, cancer has never been definitively linked to marijuana and research shows cannabis can not only help treat individuals with certain cancers, but also helps prevent some types cancers.

 

[bbchien]

Thank you Dr. Bruce for your informative post.

Although I will admit I did not understand some of what you said, I am happy I am finally getting some information.

I guess I was confused. I honestly did not know that it is the Department of Justice who makes the rules like "8 hours bottle to throttle" and under .04 and not the FAA.

You don't get arrested for being over 0.04. You get grounded. You don't know much about the difference between civil, regulatory and criminal law, do you?

As far as the "BS" I spew about alcohol being "worse" than marijuana (where in the world did I mention "dope"!?), I guess that is quite ambiguous. I have witnessed people "high" on marijuana, and I have seen people drunk from alcohol intake. It is quite obvious to me that those who were drunk were WAY more impaired than those high. Long-term, maybe I am wrong.

Yes you are.

As I said, research on marijuana, especially by any non-biased institution, is rare. I have never heard that the effects of alcohol on the brain were reversible and marijuana is not. I am not going to doubt you... you are a doctor, but can you elaborate more on that or at least give me a source?

No, I'm not going to because you have already demonstrated that you discount anything you don't agree with, and have also demonstrated that your comprehension of criminal penalty vs. civil penalty is nil. In short your are trolling purporting to be a voice of reason. But you are transparent. It's also apparent you can't understand the research method, so what's the point. You need to return to school. I'm not here to be your professor.

I realize there is currently no portable and inexpensive way for LEOs to check if somebody is under the influence of marijuana. LEOs I have spoken too suspect legalizing marijuana would cause development of such a technique though.

Do you think the interstate commerce clause is something that would change should marijuana become legalized though?

How likely are constitutional amendments to remove said clause? How long do we wait for the federal courts to get up to the appeals courts to change the presumption of >1 oz = intent to deliver. Stop trolling.

If marijuana was legalized, it wouldn't matter if someone was using it medically or not. Obviously, medical marijuana cards are a "loophole" to the law. Recreational users use it because of the stress relief and euphoria it provides them with. The only reason a CEO would no longer remain CEO of a company is because the social norms surrounding it. 20 years from now, we'll look back and see how ridiculous that really is.

Another example of trolling. It's obvious you've never run an enterprise. You should spend more time and effort in making sure your randoms really remain negative. It's a matter of GREAT concern to enterprises, Boards of Directors, and CEOs. The affect on Judgement is enormous. I'n not going to launch into a description of the difference between good judgement and being smart. That's way outta the park for this discussioni.

Federal legalization of marijuana might be economics related and no science, but that doesn't mean legalization is wrong. Tobacco is known to cause pretty significant health issues in long-term users. Most people have family members who have died from a tobacco related illness. THAT is legal, it would only be right for marijuana to be legal too.

Honestly, who cares what the ratio of the size of a bust to the value of the busting agency is?

Right. The big issue is the amounts of $$ involve in the Cocaine, Heroin and Fentany trade are starting to corrupt our institutions.

Marijuana has have little monetary value to the government because it is illegal.

You obviously have no LEO experience either..

In no way do I support heroin, fentanyl, heroin, meth, MDMA, etc... I support agencies seeking that out. Marijuana is an entirely different animal though. Marijuana doesn't make people homicidal, suicidal, or otherwise.... it will only over-relax a person.

and affect his judgement. But you don't know what that is, do you.

I'm done. Have a nice relaxed life.
This board has been amazing the last two weeks. Bevis and all his relatives have suddenly roosted here.......

 

[Gary F]

I'm done. Have a nice relaxed life.
This board has been amazing the last two weeks. Bevis and all his relatives have suddenly roosted here.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ho_VWslkM&feature=related

 

[pilot_dude]

So we can't call somebody who uses marijuana a pot head but if you have a glass of wine with dinner you are a druggie.

I'm not one for labels but alcohol is a drug no different than mj from a definition stand point.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've seen it destroy ambition, curiosity, initiative and creativity. And, to quote one of my favorite artists, "and then one day you find 10 years have got behind you. No one told you when to run. You missed the starting gun."

Oh, the irony - You KNOW those guys were stoned, it didn't destroy their creativity.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Contrary to speculation from older studies, newer studies show that marijuana-only smokers are at significantly lower risk of cancer than compared to tobacco users.

Isn't that somewhat akin to saying "It's better to shoot yourself with a .22 than a .44." ???

 

[bbchien]

Pink Floyd. Always stoned. Beavis it appears had a technicolor out of body experience, too......

 

[weilke]

Isn't that somewhat akin to saying "It's better to shoot yourself with a .22 than a .44." ???

It IS certainly better to shoot yourself with a .22 than pretty much anything else.

 

[Henning]

Pink Floyd. Always stoned. Beavis it appears had a technicolor out of body experience, too......

But that was eating peyote buttons which interestingly enough are not illegal...

 

[jesse]

It IS certainly better to shoot yourself with a .22 than pretty much anything else.

I'd rather take the BB gun - or preferably nothing at all. A .22 wound can indeed be very very fatal - nearly as fatal as any other round - it's more about shot placement than caliber.

 

[Unregistered]

But that was eating peyote buttons which interestingly enough are not illegal...

Sure it is. http://www.erowid.org/plants/peyote/peyote_law.shtml

Yes, there are exceptions for actual religious ceremonies.

Also this thread infuriates me (well admittedly I skipped from page 2 to the last page). Instead of fighting about whether drugs should or should not be legal for "recreational" purposes, or whether pot is worse than cigarettes or booze. Imagine if effort was put into moving the vast amount of wasted money we throw at law enforcement locking up addicts and moving that money into treating addiction and drug use as to what it really is: a public health issue.

Drugs and addiction are a public health problem, not a law enforcement problem. Period. Our current situation of locking up addicts is just as ridiculous as the TSA groping people at the airport. It's theater for the 6 o'clock news, no more no less.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It IS certainly better to shoot yourself with a .22 than pretty much anything else.

Point is, it's best not to shoot yourself at all.

I'd rather take the BB gun - or preferably nothing at all. A .22 wound can indeed be very very fatal - nearly as fatal as any other round - it's more about shot placement than caliber.

Yup. Ask RFK... Er, ya can't. Killed by a .22.

 

[Henning]

Sure it is. http://www.erowid.org/plants/peyote/peyote_law.shtml

Yes, there are exceptions for actual religious ceremonies.

Also this thread infuriates me (well admittedly I skipped from page 2 to the last page). Instead of fighting about whether drugs should or should not be legal for "recreational" purposes, or whether pot is worse than cigarettes or booze. Imagine if effort was put into moving the vast amount of wasted money we throw at law enforcement locking up addicts and moving that money into treating addiction and drug use as to what it really is: a public health issue.

Drugs and addiction are a public health problem, not a law enforcement problem. Period. Our current situation of locking up addicts is just as ridiculous as the TSA groping people at the airport. It's theater for the 6 o'clock news, no more no less.

Incorrect, it's an unregulated revenue stream for law enforcement and politicians. It's a huge cash cow...

 

[Gary F]

I'm not one for labels but alcohol is a drug no different than mj from a definition stand point.

So? What point are you trying to make? OTC pain meds like tylenol are drugs can be lethal if you overdose. You can even get sick and die if you drink too much water. http://www.kcra.com/r/10842107/detail.html
I don't care what any adult consumes as long as I do not suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, taxpayers are often stuck with the bill for people's inability to provide for themselves and medical care so it is not that simple. I agree that the misuse of alcohol results in a lot of problems but the legality of alcohol was determined decades ago and will not likely change. We all share the sky so I will defer to experts like Dr. Bruce on what meds or drugs pilots can take before they fly.

BTW, the Beavis youtube link was just for fun, not trying to prove anything with it. It was for those who were not familiar with this reference in previous posts.

 

[pilot_dude]

So? What point are you trying to make?

Please go back and read how we got here. That should help answer your question.

 

[Unregistered]

Please keep in mind again that not all "unregistered" posts are from me, the OP.

This is my response to Dr. Bruce's post on the previous page:

Dr. Bruce,

I find you to be an extremely knowledgeable individual, much more so than I.

You are being extremely ignorant.

Who cares if it is civil law, criminal law, or regulations? I never said anything about getting arrested.

How can you accuse me of discounting things I do not believe in? I am doing nothing but voicing my opinion and advancing the discussion. If anything, the exact opposite is true and you are discounting anything I am saying because of your credentials.

And you say I am a troll? You are again stooping to name-calling because you don't like what I have to say. How could I possibly be trolling? What part of this topic am I disrupting? Honestly, I have been more on-topic here than any of your own posts...

I really do think you offer great medical advice on this board, and you have helped me out in the past a couple of times. Although I had refrained from mentioning it before now, marijuana is clearly not your area of expertise. You most likely have no experience with marijuana considering you practice in a state where it is not yet legal even for medical use.

You are right when you say how obvious it is I have never run an enterprise. What does that have to do with this topic though? You are EXTREMELY ignorant if you really think CEOs don't smoke marijuana. I assure you, a bigger portion than you think probably do. Decision making abilities are very important to CEOs; I never said they go to work high, although I would assume it has happened many times.

I suppose you and I can "agree to disagree" on the topic of marijuana. I would really recommend you rethink calling me a troll though. I have done nothing to provoke emotions out of anyone here. That's not the case for some of the posters in this thread.

 

[poadeleted20]

Let's put this in an aviation context.

If you show up at the FSDO for a practical test at 9 am, and tell them you had one beer yesterday, absent a SI medical requiring sobriety, you get to fly the ride. If you tell them you had one marijuana cigarette yesterday, you don't, no matter what it says on your medical certificate or what state you're in.

Simple enough?

 

[Unregistered]

Let's put this in an aviation context.

If you show up at the FSDO for a practical test at 9 am, and tell them you had one beer yesterday, absent a SI medical requiring sobriety, you get to fly the ride. If you tell them you had one marijuana cigarette yesterday, you don't, no matter what it says on your medical certificate or what state you're in.

Simple enough?

Yes, I never argued that.

What seems to be the argument now is when marijuana IS LEGAL federally, should pilots be allowed to use it.

I think they should, but there needs to be standards similar to alcohol. I don't know WHAT the standards to be (i.e. "3 days toke-to-yoke") or any method that will be developed in the future that will be able to measure THC concentrations on the fly and inexpensively.

It appears not many people agree with me though.

 

[Unregistered]

As far as the analogy of it being like "shooting yourself with a .20 instead of a .40", even if that is true for arguments sake, it wouldn't make a difference. Responsible marijuana use is no different than responsible use of any other drug including alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco.

 

[poadeleted20]

What seems to be the argument now is when marijuana IS LEGAL federally, should pilots be allowed to use it.

Objection -- question assumes facts not in evidence. Change the "when" to "if ever," and you may have a valid question. However, even that is not one to which I have an answer -- I'll not jump off that bridge until I get to it. For now, all I care about is the legal fact that having pretty much anything to do with marijuana is unacceptable to the FAA for pilots, and that should be enough for us here. The rest is a medical issue, and I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that. In fact, I'm not sure anyone here besides Bruce (and maybe Stephen the PhD, if he's in this one) is.

 

[Unregistered]

Objection -- question assumes facts not in evidence. Change the "when" to "if ever," and you may have a valid question. However, even that is not one to which I have an answer -- I'll jump off that bridge only when I get to it.

Because it is no way a matter of "if". Marijuana WILL be legal sometime in the future. Read all the stats, facts, and what ever else you want here: http://mpp.org/

Support for legalization has rose every year for the last 6 or 7 years, and is now at a point where it is almost 50-50. If you have any idea as to the demographics of who is for and against marijuana, it is quite clear that a very significant majority of the country's population will be in support.

 

[Gary F]

Please go back and read how we got here. That should help answer your question.

I still don't get it. Just because you have not convinced me does not prove that I am too stupid to understand what you are arguing.

As far as the analogy of it being like "shooting yourself with a .20 instead of a .40", even if that is true for arguments sake, it wouldn't make a difference. Responsible marijuana use is no different than responsible use of any other drug including alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco.

More false logic. Alcohol is drug, caffeine is drug, tobacco is drug, therefore all drugs are equal. BS. I don't care what you believe or put in your body, none of my business until you take control of a vehicle or airplane.

Because it is no way a matter of "if". Marijuana WILL be legal sometime in the future.

Probably, but this is speculation and not fact. This suggests that you are not engaging in critical reasoning and are heavily influenced by what you want to believe.

 

[steingar]

Gad, Steingar, I look like Hunter S. Thompson?(!)

Compared to the OP, you look like Andy Warhol!

If the Federal Government ever legalizes marijuana, smart folks like the good Dr. Warhol, er, I mean Chien will use data on the pharmacokinetics of tetrahydrocannabinol and its pals to figure out how long you have to ground after using the substance, the same as they do for all the substances that are currently verboten for pilots, like benedryl.

I personally think the odds of the Federal government legalizing marijuana are slightly longer than those of me becoming an astronaut, but that's just my opinion. Like Henning said, it's a real cash cow for law enforcement agencies, and this country is becoming more socially conservative by the minute. Don't get me wrong, the illegality of recreational chemicals is bad policy that is ruinous to our neighbors and soon will be to us. But we Americans are far from allergic to folly.

This whole alcohol vs. pot debate is fairly meaningless, one is illegal and the other is not.

 

[tdager]

Because alcohol is a drug by definition?

Depends on the definition. By this* broad definition, EVERYTHING is a drug; A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.

So then sugar is a drug, so could Gatorade I guess.

The reality is that while "a drug by definition" no one calls someone that drinks alcohol recreationally a druggie, that is just stupid. Perhaps an abuser, but just normal use? Not so much.

 

[Gary F]

What are the restrictions on illegal drug use for balloon and glider pilots since they are not required to hold a medical certificate?