What's the deal with past pot usage?

EdFred

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
30,651
Location
Michigan
Display Name
Display name:
White Chocolate
I have a friend that wants to start flight training. As I've never done any recreational narcotics, I answer no and move on. I know that he's smoked pot in the past - and am unsure of his last date of usage. No treatments, convictions, or arrests involving the use of it that I am aware of. But if he wants to give the training a go, what's the stipulations with saying yes to "have you ever..." ?
 
I don't recall the actual text of the question. All I recall is something about arrests or infractions. I don't recall being asked if I'd imbibed a controlled substance. I'm not certain the FAA can ask such a thing, since they are part of the Federal government, which has to obey the Constitution vis a vis the fifth amendment.
 
Question 18:
It does say ANY usage within the past two years in addition to the any convictions (ever) regarding usage.
 
@EdFred - 18N is a little more detailed:

Applicant History - Item 18. Medical History
n. Substance dependence; or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years.

Don’t forget 18V, too which covers administrative actions...the driver’s license suspension without a conviction, or attend treatment in lieu of, etc.

If there’s a failed drug test or use w/two years, the. I would guess the medical decision would be IAW the guide:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...m/ame/guide/media/DrugUseDispositionTable.pdf

Doc Bruce or Dr Fowler would be best to answer, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the FAS position is that any use of marijuana ever (not just in the past 2 yrs) is considered abuse.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Question 18:
It does say ANY usage within the past two years in addition to the any convictions (ever) regarding usage.
Click to expand...
If they tried to hang you on it you could take them to court and win. They may be a branch of the Executive, but they still have to follow the Constitution.
 
steingar said:
If they tried to hang you on it you could take them to court and win. They may be a branch of the Executive, but they still have to follow the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Hang you for admitting it or for denying it?
 
Ed Fred, I cannot counsel omission. However, I would simply quote an American president, "I never inhaled". And "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".....

The problem is that Pot is still a schedule 4 substance. So knowing that, and using is really, abuse. "And that's the way it is".
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
If they tried to hang you on it you could take them to court and win. They may be a branch of the Executive, but they still have to follow the Constitution.
Click to expand...
If your argument were valid then it could be applied to question 18 in its entirety.
 
EdFred said:
I have a friend that wants to start flight training. As I've never done any recreational narcotics, I answer no and move on. I know that he's smoked pot in the past - and am unsure of his last date of usage. No treatments, convictions, or arrests involving the use of it that I am aware of. But if he wants to give the training a go, what's the stipulations with saying yes to "have you ever..." ?
Click to expand...
If the ref didn't see it then it didn't happen!





jk.. no idea
 
They say that chocolate cause similar brain endorphins as pot. I have eaten chocolate in the past, but I never swallowed.
 
Salty said:
If your argument were valid then it could be applied to question 18 in its entirety.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. You aren't incriminating yourself if you report a prior court action. You of course are incriminating yourself if you report an infraction of the law, and the Constitution says the government can't make you do that. The FAA is part of the government and has to abide by its rules. The only reason the question stands in this form is no one has challenged it. I think the law is quite clear in this regard.
 
The question on the form is pretty straight forward. Have you in the last two years... He either has or he hasn't. If he has, his choices are to lie or to wait. Seems pretty simple.
 
steingar said:
If they tried to hang you on it you could take them to court and win. They may be a branch of the Executive, but they still have to follow the Constitution.
Click to expand...
You could buy a Pilatus for what it would cost you in fees.
 
Half Fast said:
Hmm. 8 hours from bottle to throttle. How many hours from joint to throttle?
Click to expand...

I could ask the Docs at work how long it’s all detectable if you want a science-y answer. That’s what they do all day long.

One of the multiple businesses I handle IT for is a call center that handles calls from those who failed employer drug testing, and they legally get to chat with a Doc... well a call center rep working for the Docs... to tell someone privately that they have a prescription for X... and if they have a prescription for X... that becomes private medial info and the employer gets back a “they passed!” report.

Not allowed to tell the employer what they’re on, most of the time. And if that doesn’t scare you...

The Docs get involved in the more complex cases. Everything from “shy bladder” to “You’re on how many prescription drugs?” And the court cases, of course.

You don’t want to know what the “customers” names are, if I could even say.

But let’s just say that I’m amazed there aren’t many many more accidents on the roads and very large machines breaking because they were assembled wrong.

And that doesn’t even include the non-dangerous jobs.

Take the biggest company names you know doing the most dangerous stuff, and a significant number of their staff is high all the time legally on prescriptions.

That’s what I’ve learned doing IT for this place. Ha.

(Me included nowadays, I suppose. Sigh.)

At least we report positives out on the really scary ones. My “favorite” story on that one was hearing a Doc say, “Sorry honey, from the looks of these numbers you took a significant amount of cocaine in the parking lot of the testing facility. I don’t think you’re going to get the job.” The customer was reportedly crying non-stop. Doc said she hates those calls.

The number of truck drivers on uppers probably wouldn’t surprise anyone. But the number in government desk jobs would. Or maybe not, now that I think about it. LOL.
 
Nate, you do understand that there is a difference between "is being treated with X for a medical condition, under a doctor's care" and "is high on X", don't you? They are not exactly equivalent statements.
 
denverpilot said:
One of the multiple businesses I handle IT for is a call center that handles calls from those who failed employer drug testing, and they legally get to chat with a Doc... well a call center rep working for the Docs... to tell someone privately that they have a prescription for X... and if they have a prescription for X... that becomes private medial info and the employer gets back a “they passed!” report.
Click to expand...
Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that a CDL driver could get sent for a drug test, fail that test and then call a company and tell them they have a pot prescription, and the test will then come back to their employer as negative and their employer won't have any indication their driver tested positive?
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that a CDL driver could get sent for a drug test, fail that test and then call a company and tell them they have a pot prescription, and the test will then come back to their employer as negative and their employer won't have any indication their driver tested positive?
Click to expand...

With a CDL, pot is probably a positive in their rules since they’re national. I’d have to check.

But the same driver could have enough Ritalin on board to stay awake six days if they abused it, and nobody at their company would know the wiser. Probably quite a list of pain killers too. Sleep drugs. You name it.

I suppose it’s a possibility that prescriptions for pot could end up the same. You and your Doc might be the only ones who know. Medical privacy and all that.

If I get time I’ll ask one of our Docs. I’m kinda curious too. They’re insanely busy but I’ll ask the next time one of their PCs breaks. They literally do a couple hundred reviews of difficult stuff per day, and the call center does tens of thousands. Huge rulesets, which is what our software takes care of. Whatever applies to the particular testee is shown to the call center person and if they can fill in the checkboxes the system sends a positive or a negative based on an insane number of laws and rules.

I’m sure if an employer has a contract that says no this or that, we probably provide back a report that says it’s present in someone’s system, but they have a prescription, and let the company’s lawyers figure it out.

But most pharmaceuticals aren’t reported back if they’re legally obtained to a LOT of companies. They want nothing to do with getting between a Doc and their patient.
 
steingar said:
I don't think so. You aren't incriminating yourself if you report a prior court action. You of course are incriminating yourself if you report an infraction of the law, and the Constitution says the government can't make you do that. The FAA is part of the government and has to abide by its rules. The only reason the question stands in this form is no one has challenged it. I think the law is quite clear in this regard.
Click to expand...
Administrative law... the end run around all things constitutional
 
EdFred said:
I have a friend that wants to start flight training. As I've never done any recreational narcotics, I answer no and move on. I know that he's smoked pot in the past - and am unsure of his last date of usage. No treatments, convictions, or arrests involving the use of it that I am aware of. But if he wants to give the training a go, what's the stipulations with saying yes to "have you ever..." ?
Click to expand...

I used to know that. But I forgot
 
denverpilot said:
With a CDL, pot is probably a positive in their rules since they’re national. I’d have to check.

But the same driver could have enough Ritalin on board to stay awake six days if they abused it, and nobody at their company would know the wiser. Probably quite a list of pain killers too. Sleep drugs. You name it.

I suppose it’s a possibility that prescriptions for pot could end up the same. You and your Doc might be the only ones who know. Medical privacy and all that.

If I get time I’ll ask one of our Docs. I’m kinda curious too. They’re insanely busy but I’ll ask the next time one of their PCs breaks. They literally do a couple hundred reviews of difficult stuff per day, and the call center does tens of thousands. Huge rulesets, which is what our software takes care of. Whatever applies to the particular testee is shown to the call center person and if they can fill in the checkboxes the system sends a positive or a negative based on an insane number of laws and rules.

I’m sure if an employer has a contract that says no this or that, we probably provide back a report that says it’s present in someone’s system, but they have a prescription, and let the company’s lawyers figure it out.

But most pharmaceuticals aren’t reported back if they’re legally obtained to a LOT of companies. They want nothing to do with getting between a Doc and their patient.
Click to expand...


DOT therefore ur correct.

Get high.....on life!!!!!!
 
bbchien said:
Ed Fred, I cannot counsel omission. However, I would simply quote an American president, "I never inhaled". And "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".....

The problem is that Pot is still a schedule 4 substance. So knowing that, and using is really, abuse. "And that's the way it is".
Click to expand...


So something like this as an excuse?


:D
:D
 
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