Cannabis induced delusions

murphey said:
1) Have you had TKR?
2) I really don't care about the FAA recommendations/policies/whatever when I know what my reactions are, I take no chances.
3) I could get into the cherokee but needed a hoist to get out.
Click to expand...
I haven't, that's why I asked if it was issues with the knee. Your post and the context implied that it was because of the three days of meds.
 
Lindberg said:
What if the OP had previously held a valid medical, and his doctor agreed that he wasn't actually psychotic . . . .
Click to expand...
That is not what the OP has said. One potentially could conjure up a million "What Ifs". In this thread, what the OP has said is:

John fairman said:
My doctor says that cannabis induced psychosis is the only type of psychosis that can go away.
Click to expand...
Perhaps parsing words but the words from the OP is all we have. The OP stated what they stated and I do not actually see where the OP has posted that a Doctor has provided a medical statement that the OP has no psychosis.

Potentially one could infer something more but if we start inferring then the train goes off the rails fairly quick which might be what some of the commotion was about halfway through the thread?
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
The OP stated what they stated and I do not actually see where the OP has posted that a Doctor has provided a medical statement that the OP has no psychosis.
Click to expand...


No, the doctor only said that type of psychosis can go away, not that it has. More importantly, AFAIK no one has asked that physician to sign a statement saying he’s not aware of any condition that would interfere with the OP’s ability to fly.

Regarding the Basic Med question,....

First of all, the history of psychosis would, I believe, kick him back for a fresh class 3 SI. But let’s say he pursues Basic Med

If the OP had previously held a valid class 3 and honestly presented his entire history to an MD, I doubt the MD would sign a Basic Med form, at least without some time and some evidence to validate the OP’s mental health. I think most docs would send him back to the FAA for an SI.

BUT, it’s possible that some MD somewhere would approve. Them’s the risks we takes. No method, whether Basic Med or a Class 1, is going to catch every problem, and there will certainly be outliers.
 
John fairman said:
I have a diagnosis of past delusions no auditory or visual problems which my new doctor says was caused by cannabis I was smoking 4.5 grams a day at the time. My doctor says that cannabis induced psychosis is the only type of psychosis that can go away. I have been totally sober for two years and now am almost off meds for it. I have not had any symptoms for five years when I was smoking one gram every two months before total sobriety during which I was medicated. I have never used any substance in a situation where it was physically hazardous. How many years without meds symptom free is needed for a good shot at a special issuance.
Click to expand...
According to MEDCAN: Generally speaking, 30-100 mg of active cannabinoids (THC, CBD, etc) is considered a daily dose by most patients who consume cannabis regularly. However, it will vary per individual and the health condition you are looking to treat (8). It is not recommended that patients exceed 45 mg per day. Studies have found that doses greater than 54 mg increased signs and symptoms of acute intoxication and overdose/poisoning. Acute intoxication produces cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) agonism-type reactions, which can include dizziness, hallucinations, delusions, euphoria, paranoia, tachycardia or bradycardia with hypotension, dry mouth, and/or nausea.
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
That is not what the OP has said. One potentially could conjure up a million "What Ifs". In this thread, what the OP has said is:


Perhaps parsing words but the words from the OP is all we have. The OP stated what they stated and I do not actually see where the OP has posted that a Doctor has provided a medical statement that the OP has no psychosis.

Potentially one could infer something more but if we start inferring then the train goes off the rails fairly quick which might be what some of the commotion was about halfway through the thread?
Click to expand...
You missed my point entirely. A bunch of self-righteous gatekeepers came into this thread to sling arrows at the OP, offering nothing more useful than their judgment on his life choices, some even telling him how happy they are that people like him can't fly.

Many of the same whole-heartedly support Basic Med and even expanding it. But under basic med, a pilot could smoke all the pot, or even shoot up heroin, and legally fly as long as he didn't show dependency within the past two years.
 
Lindberg said:
But under basic med, a pilot could smoke all the pot, or even shoot up heroin, and legally fly as long as he didn't show dependency within the past two years.
Click to expand...


Only if you think his doc would sign off, which seems doubtful if he discloses his use. And if, like the OP, his drug use leads to psychosis, he’ll need an SI 3rd class first.

Of course he can lie on the form, but then he could lie on a 3rd class application, too, couldn’t he?
 
Half Fast said:
Only if you think his doc would sign off, which seems doubtful if he discloses his use. And if, like the OP, his drug use leads to psychosis, he’ll need an SI 3rd class first.

Of course he can lie on the form, but then he could lie on a 3rd class application, too, couldn’t he?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't the hypothetical airman's doctor sign off? The regs say that you can even be a former addict as long as it was two years ago.
 
Tools said:
The “medical application” process is FAR from due process….
Click to expand...
What you want due process to mean and what it actually means are entirely different things.

Having said that, I don’t disagree there is likely a better way, but keep in mind the current process is a direct descendant of a pilot union’s desire for an occupational alcoholism program so some of it’s members could keep their jobs and, by extension, having those members continue paying dues to the union.

If that’s not a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is.
 
Lindberg said:
I haven't, that's why I asked if it was issues with the knee. Your post and the context implied that it was because of the three days of meds.
Click to expand...
The pain meds are to allow you to be in agony while going thru physical therapy on the knee. I went off the meds as soon as I left the hospital, Ben & Jerry's worked just as good for PT.
 
Lindberg said:
A bunch of self-righteous gatekeepers came into this thread to sling arrows at the OP...
Click to expand...

Well, I better sling while the slingin's good.

DRUGS ARE BAD! BAD OP!! BAD!! DON'T DO DRUGS!

:biggrin::deadhorse::biggrin:

P.S. I much preferred the old spoiler tags where they... y'know... HID THE THINGS INSIDE. Instead of blurring them.
 
Lindberg said:
You missed my point entirely. A bunch of self-righteous gatekeepers came into this thread to sling arrows at the OP, offering nothing more useful than their judgment on his life choices, some even telling him how happy they are that people like him can't fly.

Many of the same whole-heartedly support Basic Med and even expanding it. But under basic med, a pilot could smoke all the pot, or even shoot up heroin, and legally fly as long as he didn't show dependency within the past two years.
Click to expand...
I might feel bad if I thought it was real.
 
Lindberg said:
You missed my point entirely. A bunch of self-righteous gatekeepers came into this thread to sling arrows at the OP, offering nothing more useful than their judgment on his life choices, some even telling him how happy they are that people like him can't fly.

Many of the same whole-heartedly support Basic Med and even expanding it. But under basic med, a pilot could smoke all the pot, or even shoot up heroin, and legally fly as long as he didn't show dependency within the past two years.
Click to expand...
But not delusions, so the OP wouldn’t qualify for BasicMed regardless of a previous Class III.
 
172andyou said:
I mean, that's what "de facto" means. "1. existing in fact, although perhaps not intended, legal, or accepted". Which is precisely what's happening at a state level.
Click to expand...

You selectively edited my post and misrepresent what I said.

I said for the interaction with federal law, it is irrelevant whether the drug was legally obtained at the state level. Just because DEA doesn't raid state sanctioned pot producers does NOT indicate that it is de facto legal.



172andyou said:
But you are 100% correct if you meant that the feds are still clutching their pearls and pretending that pot is somehow less moral or more dangerous than booze.
Click to expand...

That's humorous. The OP shared that his regular use of the substance left him with a disabling psychiatric condition and a addiction issue that required specific addiction treatment. And yet you are using this to illustrate that somehow THC is less harmful than alcohol.

The feds are not dealing with this on the basis of a moral or harm argument. They have a law that says it's a schedule I drug and they apply that law and associated regulations. If congress saw it fit to use their lawmaking powers to change the controlled substances act and forced the re-scheduling of THC, the agencies would apply the set of rules created by such a change.
 
As for the amount stated. A joint contains between 0.3 and 0.75gram of cannabis. So depending how 'fat' he rolled them, his 1/4 oz/day pot habit would translate to 6-15 joints a day. That seems a lot, but then, that's what addiction does.
 
weilke said:
Just because DEA doesn't raid state sanctioned pot producers does NOT indicate that it is de facto legal.
Click to expand...
That is *exactly* what de facto means. There are currently 23 states with lucrative pot businesses operating in the open because the de facto law is that the feds aren't raiding them.
 
172andyou said:
That is *exactly* what de facto means. There are currently 23 states with lucrative pot businesses operating in the open because the de facto law is that the feds aren't raiding them.
Click to expand...

Ah, no. In every one of these states, if someone wants to get a coast guard license, fly a plane, operate a nuclear reactor or own a gun, their use of the substance is still illegal and disqualifying.
 
weilke said:
That's humorous. The OP shared that his regular use of the substance left him with a disabling psychiatric condition and a addiction issue that required specific addiction treatment. And yet you are using this to illustrate that somehow THC is less harmful than alcohol.
Click to expand...
I said "less harmful" not "harmless". You do get the difference, right?
weilke said:
The feds are not dealing with this on the basis of a moral or harm argument. They have a law that says it's a schedule I drug and they apply that law and associated regulations.
Click to expand...
It's schedule 1 because of pearl clutching and politics.

Marijuana was placed in Schedule I in 1971 provisionally, until the science could be assessed. But Pres. Richard Nixon saw pot prohibition as a way to destroy the antiwar left, according to clandestine recordings made by Nixon in the White House as well as statements from his staff to the press. Nixon convened The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (what became known as the Shafer Commission) to engineer scientific support for cannabis’s Schedule I placement. “I want a ******n strong statement on marijuana,” Nixon said in tapes from 1971. “Can I get that out of this sonofabitching, uh, domestic council? … I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them.”

The Shafer Commission found in 1972 that cannabis was as safe as alcohol, and recommended ending prohibition in favor of a public health approach. But by then the Federal Bureau of Narcotics had been removed from the Treasury Department and merged into the U.S. Department of Justice—where Nixon’s ally, Attorney General John Mitchell, placed cannabis in Schedule I in 1972; that same year he resigned to head Nixon’s re-election committee. (He later stood trial in 1974 over the Watergate scandal and served 19 months of a prison sentence for conspiracy, perjury and obstruction of justice.] “You want to know what this was really all about?” Nixon aid John Ehrlichman told journalist Dan Baum in 1994, according to an article published in Harper’s Magazine in 2016. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
 
weilke said:
That's humorous. The OP shared that his regular use of the substance left him with a disabling psychiatric condition and a addiction issue that required specific addiction treatment. And yet you are using this to illustrate that somehow THC is less harmful than alcohol.
Click to expand...
Well, objectively... A "standard" dose of THC is 5 milligrams. At a typical 20% THC concentration, the OP's 4.5g/day habit is 900 mg or 180X the standard dosage! If he were consuming 180 beers per day, the only medical condition he would have would be death. That would seem to indicate that alcohol is rather more harmful.
 
The dumbest thing about this whole argument is that it is based on the position that the people who think marijuana is bad think going on wild, alcohol-induced benders is fine. You might consider reading some of the DUI threads if you're under the impression that most people here who condemn pot usage extol the same usage of alcohol.

Also, IBTL.
 
SkyChaser said:
The dumbest thing about this whole argument is that it is based on the position that the people who think marijuana is bad think going on wild, alcohol-induced benders is fine. You might consider reading some of the DUI threads if you're under the impression that most people here who condemn pot usage extol the same usage of alcohol.

Also, IBTL.
Click to expand...
As long as it's apparent that for many of us, consumption of alcohol is not analogous to increased risk of DUI. I enjoy a few drinks during social occasions. It's very possible for that activity to be part of one's life but driving drunk is not. And those social occasions never come to within an entire day or two before flying.
 
Dana said:
Well, objectively... A "standard" dose of THC is 5 milligrams. At a typical 20% THC concentration, the OP's 4.5g/day habit is 900 mg or 180X the standard dosage! If he were consuming 180 beers per day, the only medical condition he would have would be death. That would seem to indicate that alcohol is rather more harmful.
Click to expand...

Where does that 'standard dosage' come from ?

From what I can find, a joint is on average 0.3grams of plant material. That's more like 60mg per serving. Don't know what the bioavailability is in the smoked form.
 
SkyChaser said:
The dumbest thing about this whole argument is that it is based on the position that the people who think marijuana is bad think going on wild, alcohol-induced benders is fine.
Click to expand...

Please clarify who those people are.
 
weilke said:
Please clarify who those people are.
Click to expand...

Which people? The people claiming that anyone who thinks marijuana is bad also thinks drunken benders are fine? Or the people who actually think that? If the former, just read the thread. There's one poster that actually makes that statement, and some others who agree with him. If the latter, good luck finding them. I don't think I've met a single one on here.
 
SkyChaser said:
Which people? The people claiming that anyone who thinks marijuana is bad also thinks drunken benders are fine? Or the people who actually think that?
Click to expand...

You tell me! I quoted the part I asked you to clarify.
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
I thought it was the assumption this was not a blatant troll post? I give to you there might be more than one dumb thing going on in the thread.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting and important discussion. I'm unable to think of any reason why I should care whether it began with a troll post or not.
 
weilke said:
You tell me! I quoted the part I asked you to clarify.
Click to expand...

So, are you asking me to help you find the people that do exist or the people that don't? Here, I color coded my post so you can see where I answered your question in relatively good detail already. The people described in blue exist. Just go back to page one or thereabouts and you will find the post that I practically quoted. The people described in red don't exist, at least not here that I've seen, so I can't help you with where to find them.

SkyChaser said:
Which people? The people claiming that anyone who thinks marijuana is bad also thinks drunken benders are fine? Or the people who actually think that? If the former, just read the thread. There's one poster that actually makes that statement, and some others who agree with him. If the latter, good luck finding them. I don't think I've met a single one on here.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top