REMOVED

If you really need the meds, then screw the flying, because if you smoke it, you're gonna screw the flying.
 
As long as it remains a Federal felony I don't see much hope. If you need med for health reasons, consider Light Sport
 
As FAR as the FAA is concerned your state card means nothing. Any use of marijuana while holding a medical certificate is disqualifying. There's no "I can wait n days and be OK" procedure. Your next renewal you will have to answer truthfully the question about drug abuses and unless you can convince your AME that you are continuously abstinent (that is YOU"VE COMPLETELY GIVEN UP USING DRUGS, not just I don't do them while flying), you will be denied/deferred.

Getting a medical marijuana card is pretty much indicating to the FAA that you intend to have a substance abuse problem. I don't know if they're monitoring, but why take the risk.

If you are seriously considering flying on a medical certificate, I suggest you forgo illegal drugs (and marijuana is federally illegal despite what Pennsylvania thinks). On basic med, it may descend to a conscience thing (and the opinion of your doctor).
 
Aren't many of the medical conditions that would cause someone to desire and/or use marijuana a DQ-ing condition? Or at least one that would require an SI?

@Jordan Seanor .... you say
Jordan Seanor said:
I have been interested in getting my medical marijuana card which is here in PA.
Click to expand...
May we know the reason that you have this interest? If for an actual medical condition, can we know which one? Or are you seeking it so that you can use MJ for recreational purposes

What I am getting at is there may be an FAA permitted alternative for the former. But if your interest is for the latter, then you'll need to surrender your pilot and medical certificate now.
 
The Feds consider it an illegal drug, and the rules around flying, firearms, even Student loans, etc reflect that.
 
Here are the Colorado condition more a MMJ card.
A. Debilitating medical conditions are defined as cancer, glaucoma, and infection with or positive status for human immunodeficiency virus. Patients undergoing treatment for such conditions are defined as having a debilitating medical condition.
B. Debilitating medical condition also includes a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition other than HIV infection, cancer or glaucoma; or treatment for such conditions, which produces for a specific patient one or more of the following, and for which, in the professional opinion of the patient’s physician, such condition or conditions may reasonably be alleviated by the medical use of marijuana: cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those that are characteristic of epilepsy; or persistent muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

Not all will preclude flying like a bad back but most do.
 
How about CBD oil? I know people who have gotten incredible relief from it for RA.
 
I had a twenty something in my office (this week) who wanted coaching on his medxpress as in "what do I have to say to get the certificate?". "Hey, I got my medical card".

Well a least he didn't reek.

"Party on, Wayne"
I showed him the door. :(
 
I work in PA and the uses approved list is growing. The program that you do online for the medical card is interesting. I had a patient that was applying, after being approved by a MMJ doc, the program online would not let him apply because he had an active CDL on file.
Wonder how long until the states pull of a federal database, like FAA
 
Hell, In komnifornia you don’t need a medical card, recreational is legal. People will lie, until something bad happens, then it’s over.
 
Last edited:
1RTK1 said:
Hell, In komnifornia you don’t need a medical card, recreational is legal. People will lie, until something bad happens, then it’s over.
Click to expand...
And 10 other states with many more pending. It isn't going away. Folks will have to deal with it. Colorado is still trying to define driving under the influence. Unlike alcohol no direct measure for pot so they go by road side behavior/tests.
 
[Putting on the flame suit]

Which MedExpress questions require the applicant to disclose a Dr's recommendation for THC (aka medical marijuana) OR use of marijuana that has never resulted in a motor vehicle action?

Not taking a side, and not even asking for a friend, since I have none.

[flame suit off]
 
From a high level (see what I did there) perspective, what is the real (physiological) difference between having smoked week a few days ago and having consumed alcohol yesterday? Is there a real difference in motor ability or anything else?
 
Ravioli said:
[Putting on the flame suit]

Which MedExpress questions require the applicant to disclose a Dr's recommendation for THC (aka medical marijuana) OR use of marijuana that has never resulted in a motor vehicle action?

Not taking a side, and not even asking for a friend, since I have none.

[flame suit off]
Click to expand...
18n. Substance dependence or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years.

As far as the FAA is concerned use of marijuana is use of an illegal substance since it is illegal under federal law.
 
Wheels said:
18n. Substance dependence or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years.

As far as the FAA is concerned use of marijuana is use of an illegal substance since it is illegal under federal law.
Click to expand...

Not sure where OP is on that portion, but yes. could be trap door to fall through.
 
kyleb said:
You might legitimately dodge that one if your state has legalized it.
Click to expand...

How so? Since OP removed his content, I don’t know his story, but 18.n is quite clear: use of an illegal substance under federal law within the past 2 years.
 
TCABM said:
How so? Since OP removed his content, I don’t know his story, but 18.n is quite clear: use of an illegal substance under federal law within the past 2 years.
Click to expand...

If it clearly states "Federal", you're right.
 
kyleb said:
If it clearly states "Federal", you're right.
Click to expand...

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ces/aam/ame/guide/media/applicant history.pdf

18.n. Substance dependence; or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years. "Substance" includes alcohol and other drugs (e.g., PCP, sedatives and hypnotics, anxiolytics, marijuana, cocaine, opioids, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and other psychoactive drugs or chemicals). For a "yes" answer to Item 18.n., the Examiner should obtain a detailed description of the history. A history of substance dependence or abuse is disqualifying. The Examiner must defer issuance of a certificate if there is doubt concerning an applicant's substance use.
(See Item 47, page 115).
 
TCABM said:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/media/applicant history.pdf

18.n. Substance dependence; or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years. "Substance" includes alcohol and other drugs (e.g., PCP, sedatives and hypnotics, anxiolytics, marijuana, cocaine, opioids, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and other psychoactive drugs or chemicals). For a "yes" answer to Item 18.n., the Examiner should obtain a detailed description of the history. A history of substance dependence or abuse is disqualifying. The Examiner must defer issuance of a certificate if there is doubt concerning an applicant's substance use.
(See Item 47, page 115).
Click to expand...
I still think that legal marijuana would justify a “no” answer as it isn’t an illegal substance by that definition. It is a substance by their definition, but the question adds “illegal” as a qualifier without a reference to jurisdiction.

The FAA can suck it. Smoke on brother, and tell the truth here. Let the FAA either change their question to accurately ask about the use of legal marijuana or accept that their lack of medical knowledge continues to be more evident every day (no surprise there).
 
SkyHog said:
...It is a substance by their definition, but the question adds “illegal” as a qualifier without a reference to jurisdiction.

The FAA can suck it...
Click to expand...

Is this more clear:

Submit the following for FAA review:
Airman statement that describes all of the following:
1. Primary drug used.
2. Any additional drugs/substances used in
the airman’s lifetime (This includes marijuana even if allowed in some states, illicit drugs, prescription medications, or others).
3. Describe for each:
a) Frequency of use;
b) Amount used;
c) Setting in which used; and
d) Dates use started and stopped.
4. Did you attend any treatment program(s)? If yes, provide beginning and end dates.
If no, this should be stated.
5. Any economic, legal problems, or
other adverse consequences from use?

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...m/ame/guide/media/DrugUseDispositionTable.pdf
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
Is this more clear:

Submit the following for FAA review:
Airman statement that describes all of the following:
1. Primary drug used.
2. Any additional drugs/substances used in
the airman’s lifetime (This includes marijuana even if allowed in some states, illicit drugs, prescription medications, or others).
3. Describe for each:
a) Frequency of use;
b) Amount used;
c) Setting in which used; and
d) Dates use started and stopped.
4. Did you attend any treatment program(s)? If yes, provide beginning and end dates.
If no, this should be stated.
5. Any economic, legal problems, or
other adverse consequences from use?

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...m/ame/guide/media/DrugUseDispositionTable.pdf
Click to expand...
That is guidance for the AME after the airman answers yes. What is the airman presented with in the question? I’ll bet it’s not that verbose.
 
SkyHog said:
I still think that legal marijuana would justify a “no” answer as it isn’t an illegal substance by that definition. It is a substance by their definition, but the question adds “illegal” as a qualifier without a reference to jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're trolling or serious, but there's no need for a "reference to jurisdiction". Federal law still says marijuana is illegal. Thus, if you're in the US and using marijuana, you're using an illegal substance as far as the feds are concerned.

Federal law supersedes local laws. Google "constitution supremacy clause" for more info.
 
SkyHog said:
That is guidance for the AME after the airman answers yes. What is the airman presented with in the question? I’ll bet it’s not that verbose.
Click to expand...

You win.
 
TCABM said:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/media/applicant history.pdf

18.n. Substance dependence; or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years. "Substance" includes alcohol and other drugs (e.g., PCP, sedatives and hypnotics, anxiolytics, marijuana, cocaine, opioids, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and other psychoactive drugs or chemicals). For a "yes" answer to Item 18.n., the Examiner should obtain a detailed description of the history. A history of substance dependence or abuse is disqualifying. The Examiner must defer issuance of a certificate if there is doubt concerning an applicant's substance use.
(See Item 47, page 115).
Click to expand...

That list (bolded) obviously isn't defining what the FAA views as illegal since alcohol is included. It is defining substances that you can be dependent on.

At least that's the way I interpret it.
 
timwinters said:
That list (bolded) obviously isn't defining what the FAA views as illegal since alcohol is included. It is defining substances that you can be dependent on.

At least that's the way I interpret it.
Click to expand...
"... or use of illegal substance ...", which, in this case, means per federal law.
 
Jim_R said:
Not sure if you're trolling or serious, but there's no need for a "reference to jurisdiction". Federal law still says marijuana is illegal. Thus, if you're in the US and using marijuana, you're using an illegal substance as far as the feds are concerned.

Federal law supersedes local laws. Google "constitution supremacy clause" for more info.
Click to expand...
That’s great. But the FAA needs to specify the jurisdiction when asking someone to self-incriminate. Because in Colorado, while federal law may still consider marijuana illegal, an airman can buy it and consume it just like any other consumer product. And if someone asks them if it’s illegal they’re not going to think about federal law when giving the answer.
 
1RTK1 said:
Hell, In komnifornia you don’t need a medical card, recreational is legal. People will lie, until something bad happens, then it’s over.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're stating this as though the NTSB has never found THC in toxicology after fatal accidents before and that because states are low legalizing recreational use accidents in which the presence of THC is a factor will be start to happen. Those accidents have been happening for as long as the NTSB has been keeping score. The individuals who were inclined to lie on the medical and smoke even though they knew the FAA didn't allow it, were doing it anyway. Legal recreational use changes nothing for that group. So the demographic we're talking about here is an individual who is ethical enough to not want to lie on the medical form but stupid enough to think that because certain states have legalized it, the FAA is now ok pilots using it.

And yeah, adding those particular individuals might cause an uptick in THC presence in accident investigations. But I suspect it won't be much of an uptick.


TCABM said:
How so? Since OP removed his content, I don’t know his story, but 18.n is quite clear: use of an illegal substance under federal law within the past 2 years.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out, the word federal does not appear anywhere in the text of 18.n. So your argument here is extremely weak. The FAA's stance is not clear. Lots of us including myself agree the FAA most likely will favor the federal law with it comes to the definition of illegal. But the FAA is not clear on that. Including the word federal in the text would make their stance clear as would issuing an official letter of interpretation on the subject. But until either of those things happen, we're left to assume their feeling on it IMO.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
... As has been pointed out, the word federal does not appear anywhere in the text of 18.n. So your argument here is extremely weak. The FAA's stance is not clear. Lots of us including myself agree the FAA most likely will favor the federal law with it comes to the definition of illegal. But the FAA is not clear on that. Including the word federal in the text would make their stance clear as would issuing an official letter of interpretation on the subject. But until either of those things happen, we're left to assume their feeling on it IMO.
Click to expand...
Actually, the FAA is restricted to considering only federal law, at least according to one long-time FAA employee.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Actually, the FAA is restricted to considering only federal law, at least according to one long-time FAA employee.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt. But the fact remains, the text of the medical form is fuzzy on the topic. Which makes sense because until recently there was no need for them to be more specific. We all know they have no problem being very specific with their wording when required. Times have changed so its probably time for them to get more specific with their wording on this topic than they've had to be in the past.
 
I would agree with that statement.
 
ejensen said:
And 10 other states with many more pending. It isn't going away. Folks will have to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Yes they will. America is being dragged into the 21st century whether it wants to or not and change is hard. 40 years from now people will look back and scratch their heads and chuckle about our ridiculous attitude towards marijuana.
 
SkyHog said:
That’s great. But the FAA needs to specify the jurisdiction when asking someone to self-incriminate. Because in Colorado, while federal law may still consider marijuana illegal, an airman can buy it and consume it just like any other consumer product. And if someone asks them if it’s illegal they’re not going to think about federal law when giving the answer.
Click to expand...
Dude. It's the FEDERAL Aviation Administration. You're really going to persist with this? What part of "federal law supersedes local law" was unclear? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
 
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