Marijuana Use

[Warmi]

Furthermore, our road tests to get a license in the states is a joke compared to most western nations. I got my license at 17 in NJ and didn't even leave a parking lot. It was a stop sign, 3 point turn, parallel park and you're good to go for the rest of your life. We should have stricter road tests, as well as re-testing, especially as you get in the 70+ range. My step-grandfather insisted on driving until he died at age 90. He definitely should not have been driving but nothing we could say would stop him.

Driving standards are seemingly so low here because the US is so incredibly car centric in its urban/sub-urban planning. Other nations can afford to have strict standards because they actually have public transit infrastructure that people can use to go about their daily lives. In the US only a few cities have public transit to the level where the majority of its inhabitants can survive with not having a car, and even then it's a joke compared to most of western (and some of eastern) Europe.

Growing up on the other side of the pond and having spent all my youth utilizing public transport to get pretty much anywhere .. I will take US style sprawling suburbs with enormous parking lots and enough parking space for a small city ….I will take that over public transport anytime.. but that’s just me.
Grass is always greener on the other side.

 

[Racerx]

Several GA planes are available with Garmin's Safe Return, a one-button hands-off landing system, right now.

Is several 3? Tbm 940. Vision jet. Piper M600

 

[Racerx]

Alcohol is also legal. As are pharmaceuticals. Once you start testing positive at random times people start to perk up.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

Nothing will change with the FAA if marijuana becomes legal nationally, for the simple reason that it’s required to wait 5 half-lives from taking an FAA-forbidden drug before flying. For instance, Valium has a half life of 30 hours or (much) longer. So, even though you took Valium on Monday and stopped feeling its effects within a few hours, you aren’t legal to fly until at least Saturday.

So it will be with hypothetically legal marijuana. And since some cannabinoids have a half life of 10 days or more, that’s almost two months from last use to legal flying.

 

[AKiss20]

Growing up on the other side of the pond and having spent all my youth utilizing public transport to get pretty much anywhere .. I will take US style sprawling suburbs with enormous parking lots and enough parking space for a small city ….I will take that over public transport anytime.. but that’s just me.
Grass is always greener on the other side.

I grew up in suburbs that required a car to get literally anywhere, including my friends' houses and several high school jobs that required car commuting. I then moved away to Boston for university and have stayed here ever since. I take public transit every day for work, even a *dreaded* bus, and would never go back.

 

[Warmi]

I grew up in suburbs that required a car to get literally anywhere, including my friends' houses and several high school jobs that required car commuting. I then moved away to Boston for university and have stayed here ever since. I take public transit every day for work, even a *dreaded* bus, and would never go back.

Well, my beef is not with public transportation per se but rather with the lifestyle that promotes/requires public transportation.

When I was in my early 20s I was attracted to , what can be best describe as “ activity and noise” – the more the better.
20 years later I literally dread going to a large city – which in my case generally means Chicago. It is an awful place to visit ,let alone live in.
American large cities , with some exceptions - mostly due to naturally beautiful locations , are just dreadfully dull and frankly ugly , a lot more than than their European counterparts which tend to benefit from centuries of organic growth often financed by people with expensive taste and , more often than not , purchased advise on aesthetics.

American suburbs, on the other hand, are just how people were meant to live – unlimited space, well organized zoning with everything readily accessible etc etc..
A freaking dead-end residential road in front of my house is almost twice as wide as a typical main street in a comparable (small ) city in Europe – and I just love it.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

My mom’s uncle was like that…somebody reported him for unsafe driving, and it was somehow determined that he should take a driving test to be reevaluated. My mom spent a bunch of time training him prior to the recheck, but he failed the test.

So there is the possibility that it can be addressed.

Many states have a confidential reporting provision, where concerned family members can notify the DMV of a questionable driver and ask that they require a re-test. Virginia is one.

 

[Daleandee]

Many states have a confidential reporting provision, where concerned family members can notify the DMV of a questionable driver and ask that they require a re-test. Virginia is one.

Perhaps we need a program where a driver goes every two years for some oral questioning and then time in the car demonstrating that they can still drive safely ...

 

[aterry1067]

Perhaps we need a program where a driver goes every two years for some oral questioning and then time in the car demonstrating that they can still drive safely ...

Agree. And towing a trailer would be an additional endorsement that required training/testing, part of which would be securing your load.

 

[172andyou]

Nothing will change with the FAA if marijuana becomes legal nationally, for the simple reason that it’s required to wait 5 half-lives from taking an FAA-forbidden drug before flying. For instance, Valium has a half life of 30 hours or (much) longer. So, even though you took Valium on Monday and stopped feeling its effects within a few hours, you aren’t legal to fly until at least Saturday.

So it will be with hypothetically legal marijuana. And since some cannabinoids have a half life of 10 days or more, that’s almost two months from last use to legal flying.

It seems ridiculous to think that someone could smoke a joint at a party and still be too impaired to fly a plane a week later, much less two months, but this would still be *vastly* less absurd than the current baseless puritanical nonsense.

BTW, five times the half life of alcohol is 25 hours. Not the eight hours and half drunk (.04bac) that the FAA requires.

Honestly, the more I write about this stuff here and the more I read about this stuff, the more absurd the FAA position becomes.

 

[Dry Creek]

Marijuana will become legal in the US sometime soon, or at least legal in a majority of states. That said, it will never be compatible with aviation, never. @bbchien has the right of it. You can choose marijuana or aviation, but you don't get both, at least not for very long.

The above quote is exactly the same as it pertains to my continued employment in the nuclear power industry. I can abide by that. The pay is above average, and benefits are OK. Not a bad trade off.

 

[flyingron]

.04 and .08 are not "legal limits" below which you're not violating the regs/laws. It's just the point where the government doesn't have to prove impairment.
The more I listen to your complaints, the more I agree with the FAA.

 

[bflynn]

Growing up on the other side of the pond and having spent all my youth utilizing public transport to get pretty much anywhere .. I will take US style sprawling suburbs with enormous parking lots and enough parking space for a small city ….I will take that over public transport anytime.. but that’s just me.
Grass is always greener on the other side.

Grass is not always greener. Most Americans will take the huge parking lots over mass transit too.

 

[Daleandee]

Grass is not always greener.

Bonus points for that quote in a marijuana thread ...

 

[steingar]

The above quote is exactly the same as it pertains to my continued employment in the nuclear power industry. I can abide by that. The pay is above average, and benefits are OK. Not a bad trade off.

A pity nuclear power has gotten such a bad rap. Nuclear power has hurt far fewer people than fossil fuels, and I bet could be done quite safely today with modern technology. Moreover, a switch to thorium from uranium would triple the fuel supply. Fusion is a pipe dream, but fission is here and now. Yeah, the waste is bad, but there's plenty of toxic stuff belched out of the fossil fuel industry, and CO2 is a pretty big pollutant too.

But yeah, ganja and nuclear fission just don't mix.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Is several 3? Tbm 940. Vision jet. Piper M600

Three is several, and more are awaiting approval. Right now only turbines are in the queue.
Back to topic, why does anyone want to alter their reality in the first place?
Yeah, I don't smoke or drink or even drink caffeine.

 

[Lachlan]

Three is several, and more are awaiting approval. Right now only turbines are in the queue.
Back to topic, why does anyone want to alter their reality in the first place?
Yeah, I don't smoke or drink or even drink caffeine.

Mostly because of the people around them that don’t drink, smoke or like coffee.

 

[172andyou]

.04 and .08 are not "legal limits" below which you're not violating the regs/laws. It's just the point where the government doesn't have to prove impairment.
The more I listen to your complaints, the more I agree with the FAA.

So you agree that the FAA should have to prove impairment at .03 bac, but that having smoked a joint a month ago should be enough to assume impairment? Seriously? Tell me true, you would rather get in a plane with guy recovering from a bender the night before that was so drunk that he's still blowing a .03 eight hours later than a guy who smoked a joint at a party a month ago? Because this is the reality of todays rules.

You can call me a complainer all you want, but I think these rules are an absurd and puritanical leftover from a bygone era and I would, in a heartbeat, get on the plane with the guy who smoked a month ago versus the guy still blowing a .03 after last nights party, even though the first guy is presumed impaired and the second guy is not.

 

[172andyou]

A pity nuclear power has gotten such a bad rap. Nuclear power has hurt far fewer people than fossil fuels, and I bet could be done quite safely today with modern technology.

Just a note: Nuclear power is *currently* the most expensive mass produced power out there. Several times more expensive than solar and wind, in particular - since they reached the tipping point of mass production a while back, and are now among the cheapest power sources available even before considering the economic cost of the pollution caused by their competition.

I'm willing to reconsider on the basis of future improvements, but so far there hasn't been a single demonstration of nuclear power that is both safe and affordable (much less cheap).

 

[Rushie]

Just a note: Nuclear power is *currently* the most expensive mass produced power out there. Several times more expensive than solar and wind, in particular - since they reached the tipping point of mass production a while back, and are now among the cheapest power sources available even before considering the economic cost of the pollution caused by their competition.

I'm willing to reconsider on the basis of future improvements, but so far there hasn't been a single demonstration of nuclear power that is both safe and affordable (much less cheap).

Before or after subsidies?

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Before or after subsidies?

Which energy industry isn't subsidized? There is no way practical, objective way to unweave that blanket.

 

[172andyou]

Before or after subsidies?

In a sense, both, I guess. Subsidies were necessary to bootstrap the industry. It was an investment that many countries made to level the playing field (since polluters rarely pay for the cost of their pollution) and now solar and wind are cost leaders even without needing to be subsidized.

 

[TCABM]

Just a note: Nuclear power is *currently* the most expensive mass produced power out there. Several times more expensive than solar and wind, in particular - since they reached the tipping point of mass production a while back, and are now among the cheapest power sources available even before considering the economic cost of the pollution caused by their competition.

I'm willing to reconsider on the basis of future improvements, but so far there hasn't been a single demonstration of nuclear power that is both safe and affordable (much less cheap).

Tell me again how much baseload is generated by solar or wind and how solar/wind responds to demand requirements.

 

[steingar]

Just a note: Nuclear power is *currently* the most expensive mass produced power out there. Several times more expensive than solar and wind, in particular - since they reached the tipping point of mass production a while back, and are now among the cheapest power sources available even before considering the economic cost of the pollution caused by their competition.

I'm willing to reconsider on the basis of future improvements, but so far there hasn't been a single demonstration of nuclear power that is both safe and affordable (much less cheap).

Moat of the expense in nuclear is due to regulation, while the parsimony of renewable sand fossil fuels due to subsidies.

 

[Rich Holt]

Nuclear Power plants are less likely to freeze when it gets cold outside. Nor do they require the wind to blow, or the sun to shine, or to be located over an appropriate geothermal hotspot. Their average cost per MW will drop, just like the solar/wind did, when they get subsidized and reach the production "tip-over" point. There is far less industry, mainly due to regulations, that will benefit from switching to nuclear. Fewer pockets to fill means the switch to nuclear power is unlikely to happen.

NIMBY!

 

[midwestpa24]

From the way this thread drifted from marijuana use to nuclear power versus solar power, that there may be a few people here needing a drug test.

I have never used, but I knew a lot of guys in college that did, and this was the way their conversations used to flow as well.

 

[unsafervguy]

So you agree that the FAA should have to prove impairment at .03 bac, but that having smoked a joint a month ago should be enough to assume impairment? Seriously? Tell me true, you would rather get in a plane with guy recovering from a bender the night before that was so drunk that he's still blowing a .03 eight hours later than a guy who smoked a joint at a party a month ago? Because this is the reality of todays rules.

You can call me a complainer all you want, but I think these rules are an absurd and puritanical leftover from a bygone era and I would, in a heartbeat, get on the plane with the guy who smoked a month ago versus the guy still blowing a .03 after last nights party, even though the first guy is presumed impaired and the second guy is not.

it simple, make a choice. do you want to fly airplanes or get baked? because if you decide that you need dope in your life, and can't give it up to fly i don't want to share the airspace with you. simple enough.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

So you agree that the FAA should have to prove impairment at .03 bac, but that having smoked a joint a month ago should be enough to assume impairment? Seriously? Tell me true, you would rather get in a plane with guy recovering from a bender the night before that was so drunk that he's still blowing a .03 eight hours later than a guy who smoked a joint at a party a month ago? Because this is the reality of todays rules.

You can call me a complainer all you want, but I think these rules are an absurd and puritanical leftover from a bygone era and I would, in a heartbeat, get on the plane with the guy who smoked a month ago versus the guy still blowing a .03 after last nights party, even though the first guy is presumed impaired and the second guy is not.

There are lots of drugs on the forbidden list that make much less sense than forbidding month-ago marijuana.

 

[172andyou]

Tell me again how much baseload is generated by solar or wind and how solar/wind responds to demand requirements.

Not every power source has to fit every power requirement.

Now that said, it does happen to be true that solar follows demand cycles pretty effectively - and many base load solutions don't.

 

[172andyou]

From the way this thread drifted from marijuana use to nuclear power versus solar power, that there may be a few people here needing a drug test.

I have never used, but I knew a lot of guys in college that did, and this was the way their conversations used to flow as well.

I'm a teetotaler, so you can't blame the thread drift on substances with me.

I'm pretty sure the other person involved in that lane change is also a teetotaler, or pretty darn close.

My beef with all this is because I tend to be pretty libertarian and, so long as someones actions don't effect others, the gov should stay out.

There are lots of drugs on the forbidden list that make much less sense than forbidding month-ago marijuana.

Yup. I'm opposed to those also. They just hadn't come up until now. There are a lot of things that are, at least, broken and often time even counter productive because they lead to pilots hiding health issues to avoid losing licenses and jobs.

Make the case that a drug, or a medical condition, risks pax (or people on the ground) and I'm with you. But, as I think you were alluding to, there are a lot of rules that don't rise to that level.

 

[steingar]

Not every power source has to fit every power requirement.

Now that said, it does happen to be true that solar follows demand cycles pretty effectively - and many base load solutions don't.

Most of the places best for renewables are in areas of low population density. Nuclear is more portable. That said I suspect nuclear power is dead in the West.

 

[172andyou]

Moat of the expense in nuclear is due to regulation, while the parsimony of renewable sand fossil fuels due to subsidies.

And most of the regulation is due to safety.

I'm with you on sand fuels though. I oppose those subsidies. We shouldn't be subsidizing pollution, we should be subsidizing solutions to pollution. (IMO)

 

[172andyou]

Most of the places best for renewables are in areas of low population density. Nuclear is more portable. That said I suspect nuclear power is dead in the West.

Yeah, we need better transmission capacity for solar to be a more completely solution. Agreed.

 

[TCABM]

Not every power source has to fit every power requirement.

Now that said, it does happen to be true that solar follows demand cycles pretty effectively - and many base load solutions don't.

I’m not sure you understand demand driven power production in it’s entirety nor the importance of base load generation capability for a grid.

There’s many hours of days and almost all hours of night where solar cannot ramp up to meet peak demand.

Much like everything else, power production is pretty complex and to quantify one method as better than another based on optimum use cases ignores pretty much the rest of the entire grid requirements.

Are there good use cases for alternative and/or renewable energy production methods? Sure, especially in an off grid scenario with storage capability to meet base load requirements.

To alternative/renewables are a self-licking ice cream cone is off the mark.

 

[SkyChaser]

I think the newest sustainable power source should be generators powered by hamsters using hamster wheels. That way, even if it's the third week of 800' IFR, winds 050 @ 4kts, people would still have power. Or every house could be powered by an in-house, bicycle-operated generator. Solves two problems at once - the obesity issue and the electricity dilemma! And neither take up prime farm land or result in vast amounts of non-biodegradable waste. Genius, eh?

 

[172andyou]

I’m not sure you understand demand driven power production in it’s entirety nor the importance of base load generation capability for a grid.

There’s many hours of days and almost all hours of night where solar cannot ramp up to meet peak demand.

Yup. That's why I mentioned that energy available from solar matches well with demand. Demand is highest during the day and so is the ability for solar to produce energy.

Much like everything else, power production is pretty complex and to quantify one method as better than another based on optimum use cases ignores pretty much the rest of the entire grid requirements.

Yup. I have not and will not claim that solar or wind are, by themselves, a total solution. However, I wouldn't make that claim of nuclear, coal or gas either.

They all have advantages and disadvantages.

I stated, accurately, that solar and wind are among the cheapest power out there. I think it's it's pretty cool that the least polluting sources are now also the cheapest sources and hope we can continue to make them more and more broadly useful. YMMV.

 

[TCABM]

… I think it's it's pretty cool that the least polluting sources are now also the cheapest sources and hope we can continue to make them more and more broadly useful. YMMV.

Nuclear contributes the exact same amount of air pollution and greenhouse gas as solar and wind do when producing power.

Cheerlead it all you want…like I said earlier, I don’t think you understand much about power generation. All three are pretty dirty when it comes down to what it takes to make the final, clean product. All three leave an environmental trace measured in half-lives when decommissioned.

I also think you don’t know why increasing intermediate load capacity at the expense of base load capacity is more likely to result in a catastrophic grid event.

 

[DaleB]

I challenge anyone to drive for 15 minutes in the LA Basin and not encounter one incredibly obvious example of the the above statement.

Or the majority of the drivers in the NJ/NY/CT corridor on I95.

Or the vast numbers of twits in "driverless vehicles"... there's someone occupying the left front seat, but they're far too busy playing around with their phones to actually drive.

 

[Warren Dunes]

From the way this thread drifted from marijuana use to nuclear power versus solar power, that there may be a few people here needing a drug test.

I have never used, but I knew a lot of guys in college that did, and this was the way their conversations used to flow as well.

Who is making a burrito run?

 

[172andyou]

Nuclear contributes the exact same amount of air pollution and greenhouse gas as solar and wind do when producing power.

Yes, if you ignore the pollution that nuclear energy produces by only focusing on one part of life cycle then it looks very clean.

And, in fairness, it's not a super terrible option from an environmental perspective. A lot of its harmful pollutants can be controlled and sequestered, which is not something you can say of fossil fuels.

However, because even small amounts of waste are terribly toxic, its a very, very expensive source of power because of the cost of doing things safely. It was advertised for a long time as being power that would be too cheap to meter. It just didn't turn out that way because of the immense cost of doing it safely.

Cheerlead it all you want…like I said earlier, I don’t think you understand much about power generation. All three are pretty dirty when it comes down to what it takes to make the final, clean product. All three leave an environmental trace measured in half-lives when decommissioned.

You welcome to think anything you like about me and try to discredit me instead of my statements. But it's notable that you haven't disputed a single fact I've typed. ‍

I mean, it's a fact that nuclear power is vastly more expensive than other sources. It's a fact that the reason for this is because it's expensive to do safely. I'm not sure how you could possibly dispute those statements.

I also think you don’t know why increasing intermediate load capacity at the expense of base load capacity is more likely to result in a catastrophic grid event.

I think you should read my plainly written statements again without inserting your own thoughts into them. If you do so you will note that I never once advocated the "at the expense of base load" position that you have attempted to put in my mouth.