Lindberg
Final Approach
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.
Stewartb
Final Approach
He wouldn’t have asked.
Mongoose Aviator
Line Up and Wait
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?
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,839
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
I don't think you're mean, I think you're smart!I've always been this mean. I'm just surprised it took you until now to notice!
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.
Vance Breese
Cleared for Takeoff
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.
Lindberg
Final Approach
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.
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?
Lindberg
Final Approach
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.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,436
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
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.
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.
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,531
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
Well, I better sling while the slingin's good.
DRUGS ARE BAD! BAD OP!! BAD!! DON'T DO DRUGS!
P.S. I much preferred the old spoiler tags where they... y'know... HID THE THINGS INSIDE. Instead of blurring them.
texasclouds
En-Route
A better thread title would be “cannabis induced decisions”
I might feel bad if I thought it was real.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
But not delusions, so the OP wouldn’t qualify for BasicMed regardless of a previous Class III.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,994
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Without proper medical standards we would end up with pilots that might taxi and depart without clearance from the tower while a Cirrus is on short final.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I said "less harmful" not "harmless". You do get the difference, right?
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.”
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.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
“As safe as alcohol” is setting the bar pretty low.
SkyChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2020
- Messages
- 2,286
- Display Name
Display name:
SkyChaser
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.
Also, IBTL.
Mongoose Aviator
Line Up and Wait
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.
Baked Potato
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2022
- Messages
- 1,087
- Display Name
Display name:
Baked Potato
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.
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.
Please clarify who those people are.
SkyChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2020
- Messages
- 2,286
- Display Name
Display name:
SkyChaser
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.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
With that load of weed there are data to suggest that passage of a neurocognitive eval is unlikely….
You tell me! I quoted the part I asked you to clarify.
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.
SkyChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2020
- Messages
- 2,286
- Display Name
Display name:
SkyChaser
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.