REMOVED

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...
This is hilarious. The Constitution already says that federal law supersedes state law. The form is a federal form, and the org that cares is a federal agency. Your only argument in favor of ambiguity is your steadfast refusal to understand how the law works.

This is like a sitting in a dark room with no windows and building up a philosophy that any fantasy world you imagine could be beyond the door because there is no evidence to the contrary right in front of you. Then, when someone outside the door starts talking to you and describing what's out there, you persist in believing your philosophy because you refuse to open the door and look for yourself.
 
Jim_R said:
This is hilarious. The Constitution already says that federal law supersedes state law. The form is a federal form, and the org that cares is a federal agency. Your only argument in favor of ambiguity is your steadfast refusal to understand how the law works.

This is like a sitting in a dark room with no windows and building up a philosophy that any fantasy world you imagine could be beyond the door because there is no evidence to the contrary right in front of you. Then, when someone outside the door starts talking to you and describing what's out there, you persist in believing your philosophy because you refuse to open the door and look for yourself.
Click to expand...
Wow, harsh. I believe I stated that I include myself among those who do not for a moment believe the FAA is ok with marijuana use so not sure where the steadfast refusal comment comes from. Apparently I've touched a nerve. Sorry about that. Hope you feel better.
 
Jim_R said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I was a user and lived in Colorado, I'd casually read that question and interpret it as "No, I haven't used illegal drugs." It is a legitimate answer to the question. If the FAA wants to clarify, fine, but until they do...
 
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.
Click to expand...
Of course not, because that list defines "substance" not "illegal substance." This is used in both the clause "abuse of substance" and also (AND HERE'S THE KEY) use of "illegal susbstances." So you have to answer yes to 18n if you ABUSE anything or if you USE something illegal.
 
kyleb said:
If I was a user and lived in Colorado, I'd casually read that question and interpret it as "No, I haven't used illegal drugs." It is a legitimate answer to the question. If the FAA wants to clarify, fine, but until they do...
Click to expand...
It is an outright lie. It is ILLEGAL to use marijuana by federal law no matter what Colorado says.
 
flyingron said:
Of course not, because that list defines "substance" not "illegal substance." This is used in both the clause "abuse of substance" and also (AND HERE'S THE KEY) use of "illegal susbstances." So you have to answer yes to 18n if you ABUSE anything or if you USE something illegal.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but my point being that TCABM, by posting that, asserted that all the substances listed were illegal (taken in context with kyleb's post that he was responding to).

And that is obviously not the case.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Wow, harsh. I believe I stated that I include myself among those who do not for a moment believe the FAA is ok with marijuana use so not sure where the steadfast refusal comment comes from.
Click to expand...
I was replying to your words: "The FAA's stance is not clear." If you understand that federal law supersedes local law, and if you understand that marijuana is an illegal substance per federal law, and if you understand that the FAA is a federal agency, then it is hard for me to understand what is not clear.
 
kyleb said:
If I was a user and lived in Colorado, I'd casually read that question and interpret it as "No, I haven't used illegal drugs." It is a legitimate answer to the question. If the FAA wants to clarify, fine, but until they do...
Click to expand...
I guess I'm surprised that it's not universally common knowledge that marijuana is considered an illegal substance at the federal level, and that its only because the feds are (currently) choosing not to prosecute that states are "getting away with" legalizing it. Do most people really not know that?

If they don't understand that, then what difference will it make specifying "federal" on the form?

If they do understand it, then I don't get why anyone would believe the FAA would give a hoot whether it's "legal" at the local level.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
If I was a user and lived in Colorado, I'd casually read that question and interpret it as "No, I haven't used illegal drugs." It is a legitimate answer to the question. If the FAA wants to clarify, fine, but until they do...
Click to expand...

You may wish to consider the fact that, if I recall correctly, lying on this form is a Federal felony. If the Federal prosecutors have even an arguable probable cause to claim you can be charged with a felony, they can make your life hell as they investigate or indict you, no matter how it eventually might turn out in court. And that court battle would likely cost several hundred thousand dollars and possibly take years. You might spend that time in Federal prison waiting for the case to wind through the courts.

Clearly up to each individual which legal battles they want to fight, but as in the general advice, choose your battles carefully.
 
Last edited:
Jim_R said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry man. But the FEDERAL Aviation Administration is always specific. Moreover, the general consensus is that everything is allowed unless the FAA disallows it.

I believe that the FAA, after having established a clear pattern of specificity, would have added “federal” to the question if they intended to cover drugs found illegal under federal law. Because they have not done so, I interpret this to be an intentional decision to allow the states to control this area of law, the same way the FDA and DEA have done.

You believe otherwise. Only my interpretation is supported by reading the materials the FAA has put out. But you can apply a more strict standard than the FAA intends if you’d like.
 
Jim_R said:
I guess I'm surprised that it's not universally common knowledge that marijuana is considered an illegal substance at the federal level, and that its only because the feds are (currently) choosing not to prosecute that states are "getting away with" legalizing it. Do most people really not know that?

If they don't understand that, then what difference will it make specifying "federal" on the form?

If they do understand it, then I don't get why anyone would believe the FAA would give a hoot whether it's "legal" at the local level.
Click to expand...
I think the reason is because people in states where it is legal fully understand that it is still illegal in any state that hasn’t legalized it (I.e., the default position is that it is illegal, not that it is legal and some states have made it illegal). As a result, anyone with a sense of logic would understand that it is illegal at the federal level.

But we are a nation of states. The federal government may have the authority to enforce laws on its member states, but it cannot require states to enforce its laws on the federal governments behalf. Therefore, by all definitions, unless the government sends agents to the states that have legalized, it is not illegal to consume in these states and therefore anyone in those states can say as much in any form, federal or otherwise, and not be lying.

I don’t use, and I don’t have a medical anyway, but I’m all for sticking it to a federal government when a state gains new rights. As the FAA is incompetent anyway, I don’t believe they suddenly have a ton of intelligence on this topic. I’ll defer to those that are more qualified than the FAA to set policy (IOW, the mentally ill 14 year old with a case of Tourette’s) before I assume limitations that don’t exist expressly.
 
SkyHog said:
I believe that the FAA, after having established a clear pattern of specificity, would have added “federal” to the question if they intended to cover drugs found illegal under federal law. Because they have not done so, I interpret this to be an intentional decision to allow the states to control this area of law, the same way the FDA and DEA have done.

You believe otherwise. Only my interpretation is supported by reading the materials the FAA has put out. But you can apply a more strict standard than the FAA intends if you’d like.
Click to expand...
The form reads as it does because until states started going rogue on the rules re: marijuana, there was no need to be specific. From the FAA's perspective, nothing's changed. Why should they change the form?

If you want to use FAA "patterns" to interpret this situation, how about this: Pilot medical certificates are valid in all 50 states. Why would the FAA want to know about MJ use from an applicant in Texas but not MJ use from an applicant in CO? That doesn't fit the "pattern" of FAA medical practices.
 
SkyHog said:
I think the reason is because people in states where it is legal fully understand that it is still illegal in any state that hasn’t legalized it (I.e., the default position is that it is illegal, not that it is legal and some states have made it illegal). As a result, anyone with a sense of logic would understand that it is illegal at the federal level.

But we are a nation of states. The federal government may have the authority to enforce laws on its member states, but it cannot require states to enforce its laws on the federal governments behalf. Therefore, by all definitions, unless the government sends agents to the states that have legalized, it is not illegal to consume in these states and therefore anyone in those states can say as much in any form, federal or otherwise, and not be lying.
Click to expand...
Lack of enforcement does not equal legal.

You are not asking your state for an airman's medical certificate. You are asking the federal government. The Constitution says that federal laws supersede state laws. The flowdown here is clear.

Any other interpretation is wishful thinking.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
You may wish to consider the fact that, if I recall correctly, lying on this form is a Federal felony. If the Federal prosecutors have even an arguable probable cause to claim you can be charged with a felony, they can make your life hell as they investigate or indict you, no matter how it eventually might turn out in court. And that court battle would likely cost several hundred thousand dollars and possibly take years. You might spend that time in Federal prison waiting for the case to wind through the courts.

Clearly up to each individual which legal battles they want to fight, but as in the general advice, choose your battles carefully.
Click to expand...

Lighten up, Francis. None of this impacts me and my opinion is one of a casual observer.

That said, if the FAA's questions are not specific, whoever is answering has the benefit of answering the question as they read it. The lack of specificity around the word Federal opens a window to interpretation. I'm sure the FAA wouldn't want that window open, but it is up to them to close it, not the person who's responding to the question.
 
kyleb said:
That said, if the FAA's questions are not specific, whoever is answering has the benefit of answering the question as they read it. The lack of specificity around the word Federal opens a window to interpretation. I'm sure the FAA wouldn't want that window open, but it is up to them to close it, not the person who's responding to the question.
Click to expand...

Well I would caution others regarding taking that attitude. In a legal or regulatory case, the ambiguities, of which there are many, agreed, will be a weak defense. And in the meantime you will be out a lot of money and suffering fighting it.

This is of course not really right and is unjust, but it is the way it is.

But heh, if people want to test that I personally think that is a good thing, but it will likely be very costly. I would just know going in the possible cost and consequences.
 
This is Civics 101: People who live in a federal republic, as we do, need to be aware that we are subject to both federal and state law. Either the federal government or your state government can make something illegal for people in your state. The only exception is if the federal government takes an action that specifically nullifies a state prohibition.

The fact that the FAA hasn't made the question specific to federal law implies that they want to know about it if you took a drug that was illegal under ANY law that applied to you at the time, not just federal law.
 
Jim_R said:
This is hilarious. The Constitution already says that federal law supersedes state law..
Click to expand...

The Constitution also says (Amendment 10) that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate what drugs people may use. The individual states have the authority; the federal government does not. Note that it took a Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. Granted that flying under the influence (of any drug, including alcohol) could affect "interstate commerce", which does fall within the fed's proper jurisdiction, but that only applies while flying. The FAA doesn't attempt to control how airmen use alcohol when not flying ("8 hours bottle to throttle") unless other things (like a DUI conviction) show evidence of irresponsible behavior. Treating any other drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, you name it) differently is legally indefensible under the Constitution. Of course the federal government (the FAA is far from the worst offender) does a lot of other things that are legally indefensible under the Constitution.

Is "good moral character" still a requirement for an airman certificate under the FARs?

To a non user with strong libertarian inclinations, watching the whole marijuana legalization thing play out as a states vs. federal government thing is fascinating and entertaining.
 
The interstate commerce clause has been mightily stretched, that's for sure.

Dana said:
Is "good moral character" still a requirement for an airman certificate under the FARs?
Click to expand...

I think that's just for an ATP certificate.
 
Dana said:
The Constitution also says (Amendment 10) that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate what drugs people may use.The individual states have the authority; the federal government does not.
Click to expand...
That might be your opinion, but Congress and the Supreme Court don't share it. Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 based on the authority granted under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court in 2004 (Gonzales vs. Raich) confirmed that Congress' authority was legit, and superseded California's (at that time) laws allowing cultivation of marijuana for medicinal use. You may disagree with that authority, but it's pretty well established.

Note that it took a Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol.
Click to expand...
The path to prohibition was a long and complicated one. The choice to prohibit alcohol via Constitutional amendment was made for many reasons, but "because that was the only way it could be done" isn't exactly one of them. However, understanding of Congress' authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause has evolved over time through Supreme Court decisions, and it wasn't clear back then that Congress had the authority to control alcohol nationwide through legislation. A Constitutional amendment had no such lack of clarity.

Since that time, there have been many Supreme Court cases testing the limits of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. By 1970, the Court's decisions had confirmed that Congress' authority per that Clause is very broad, making an amendment similar to Prohibition unnecessary, and the Controlled Substances Act was passed instead.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
The Constitution also says (Amendment 10) that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate what drugs people may use. The individual states have the authority; the federal government does not. Note that it took a Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. Granted that flying under the influence (of any drug, including alcohol) could affect "interstate commerce", which does fall within the fed's proper jurisdiction, but that only applies while flying. The FAA doesn't attempt to control how airmen use alcohol when not flying ("8 hours bottle to throttle") unless other things (like a DUI conviction) show evidence of irresponsible behavior. Treating any other drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, you name it) differently is legally indefensible under the Constitution. Of course the federal government (the FAA is far from the worst offender) does a lot of other things that are legally indefensible under the Constitution.

Is "good moral character" still a requirement for an airman certificate under the FARs?

To a non user with strong libertarian inclinations, watching the whole marijuana legalization thing play out as a states vs. federal government thing is fascinating and entertaining.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is for losers. Congress does its own thing, as do courts, without regard to ancient documents.
 
This is so very sad. All that state legalization does is prevents the state enforcement apparatus from being deployed. If the feds chose, the marshalls can still enforce federal law.

So all youse who believe differently or just have an axe to grind, grind away.
 
People should realize the difference between what is currently legal, and what they believe SHOULD be legal, or what the news tells them is legal.
 
The main reason cannabis became a schedule 1 drug was racism. Not that it shouldn't be controlled but they can't even do research on medical benefits because it's classed with heroin.
 
ejensen said:
The main reason cannabis became a schedule 1 drug was racism. Not that it shouldn't be controlled but they can't even do research on medical benefits because it's classed with heroin.
Click to expand...
Just a slight modification- the only place that can technically supply product is the University of Mississippi. They've some sort of exemption to grow their own. I've seen their patch- it looks like a prison. I'll probably be down there again this April. There are licences allowing for research to be done by other labs.

Here's some refs from them:
https://pharmacy.olemiss.edu/marijuana/
https://pharmacy.olemiss.edu/marijuana/products/
 
ejensen said:
The main reason cannabis became a schedule 1 drug was racism. Not that it shouldn't be controlled but they can't even do research on medical benefits because it's classed with heroin.
Click to expand...
Yes our stupidity in the past with regards to marijuana has been pretty phenomenal. Sadly, federally we still persist.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Just a slight modification- the only place that can technically supply product is the University of Mississippi. They've some sort of exemption to grow their own. I've seen their patch- it looks like a prison. I'll probably be down there again this April. There are licences allowing for research to be done by other labs.

Here's some refs from them:
https://pharmacy.olemiss.edu/marijuana/
https://pharmacy.olemiss.edu/marijuana/products/
Click to expand...
I believe it's grown for hemp seed production
 
One’s feelings on how things should be should not be allowed to distort their understanding of how things actually are.

A few on here need to learn that.
 
DutchRoller said:
One’s feelings on how things should be should not be allowed to distort their understanding of how things actually are.

A few on here need to learn that.
Click to expand...
Most of mankind needs to learn that intellect trumps emotion.
 
1RTK1 said:
Latest studies show smoking pot at a young age leads to more psychosis vs non pot smokers.
Click to expand...
Which could also show that those who may develop psychosis are more likely to smoke pot at a young age.
 
Only problem with your statement (which might have merit too) is that long term use was shown to change brain chemistry. Wish I could remember which journal I read that in.
 
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