Marijuana Use

S

Scared student

Guest
I am currently a student pilot with a 3rd class medical. More than 2 years before I got my medical I went to the doctor and they found marijuana in my system. Does this count as a positive drug test according the the FAA? I wasn’t there for a drug test nor have I ever failed a preemployment drug test before. I didn’t disclose this on my previous medical exam because I did t even think about it at the time since it had been over 2 years and I hadn’t been smoking since then.
 
Not that it matters, but what doctor were you seeing that conducts random drug tests?
 
Clip4 said:
Not that it matters, but what doctor were you seeing that conducts random drug tests?
Click to expand...
I had disclosed to them that I had smoked that day and also had a blood test run while I was there. It didn’t show up on any tests but is listed on the after visit summary.
 
This is not a “positive” under 49 cfr 40, which is used for certificate action and medical certification.

It is possibly problematic under medical certification. So the question becomes does your AME know, if not should he? Both questions I’m not qualified to answer.
 
Scared student said:
I had disclosed to them that I had smoked that day and also had a blood test run while I was there. It didn’t show up on any tests but is listed on the after visit summary.
Click to expand...

So they didn’t “find” marijuana in your system. They just put it in your record because you blabbed that you smoked it. You have no arrest record? No driving under the influence of any substance? Clip is right, they don’t test for drugs with a standard exam. Whether this is an issue with the FAA I’m not qualified to answer either. You didn’t lie to the FAA I presume if you’ve no arrest record nor history of addiction. I can’t recall if one of the questions is, “Have you ever in your life toked with or without inhaling?”

Presumably the FAA will never know about it unless there’s an incident and they ask to see all your records and doctors’ notes. Like Tools, I am not qualified to say how big a problem this is and what if anything you should do about it.
 
Clip4 said:
They just recorded you were a drug abuser.
Click to expand...

He didn’t mention being hospitalized for weed, I don’t know of many who are for that matter, is it you didn’t read what he wrote, don’t understand the words you’re using, or are deliberately trying to be a poorly read jerk?
 
If the phrase "drug abuse" is present anywhere in the file it goes under 18(o). Just remember the administration has access to all your insurance diagnosis and procedure codes as they haven't been protected since 2010. Even the ER doc does not have access to what the hospital coded (that's a different department). This requires a knowledgable person's fine read of the record , and a consult with an attorney (BOTH!). I would reveiw every line item in the hopital's insurance bill.

Your concern is correct- use of a subastance to medical detriment does fultifill the FAA's definition of abuse. but see the last sentence below for the other concer:

I refer you to https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-01-mn-4143-story.html and https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Four-Pilots-Indicted-On-Charges-Of-Lying-On-13192639.php

Get good advice! ....and stop using weed. The air is incompatable with recreational weed, regular weed, any weed. If you ever intend to fly for revenue, you will be tested. Fail a DOT test and you'll be in HIMS; fail a second and you can't even drive a school bus.

And for the airmen who smoke "occasionally" I have a new concept: DEFEND your negative urine. You may have had a doobie or a brownie two months ago but you might be positive. It's just not worth it. Uncle doesn't care nor should he. Just STOP.
 
Last edited:
BladeSlap said:
He didn’t mention being hospitalized for weed, I don’t know of many who are for that matter, is it you didn’t read what he wrote, don’t understand the words you’re using, or are deliberately trying to be a poorly read jerk?
Click to expand...

He was seeking some type of medical attention and told whoever that he used marijuana. They recorded that fact. I never said he was hospitalized for anything and the drug abuser comment was sarcasm but factual.

You are the person that has the comprehension issue.
 
Scared student said:
Does this count as a positive drug test according the the FAA?
Click to expand...
This isn't complicated:
Did they test your blood or urine for evidence of drug use?
If yes, was the result positive for marijuana?

Only if the answer to both questions is "yes," do you have something to disclose.
 
Principal said:
What's going to happen once marijuana is legalized federally?
Click to expand...

America being what it is, I suspect that's a long way off (for recreational use, anyway). But if/when it ever does happen, they will probably adopt something similar to the Canadian rule: no marijuana within 28 days before flying.
 
Clip4 said:
He was seeking some type of medical attention and told whoever that he used marijuana. They recorded that fact. I never said he was hospitalized for anything and the drug abuser comment was sarcasm but factual.

You are the person that has the comprehension issue.
Click to expand...

Explain how it’s factual
 
BladeSlap said:
Explain how it’s factual
Click to expand...

Simply saying one enjoys doing drugs doesn’t mean it’s not abusive. Just smoking a bowl doesn’t make it chronic abuse. Somewhere else is the FAA’s definition, which is really what matters when it comes to getting a medical certificate or not. You love weed? Smoke up. Don’t get caught. ;)
 
Lachlan said:
Simply saying one enjoys doing drugs doesn’t mean it’s not abusive. Just smoking a bowl doesn’t make it chronic abuse. Somewhere else is the FAA’s definition, which is really what matters when it comes to getting a medical certificate or not. You love weed? Smoke up. Don’t get caught. ;)
Click to expand...

Weed isn’t my thing, but if you look up the science and history on it, it’s a laughable fight to fight against just saying do whatever but don’t be under the influence in the cockpit
 
mcmanigle said:
America being what it is, I suspect that's a long way off (for recreational use, anyway). But if/when it ever does happen, they will probably adopt something similar to the Canadian rule: no marijuana within 28 days before flying.
Click to expand...
Knowing the FAA and the out of touch people who run the medical division, they will probably drag their feet for years even after it is legalized. We saw that here in MA when we legalized it via ballot measure, every small town council filled with Karens and 75 year olds started screaming about the prospect of a legal dispensary being opened within 30 miles of their town (either "protect the children" or "it will attract *cough* undesirables"). Took years from the ballot initiative passing to the first dispensaries being opened, even here in Boston.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
That likely won't happen until there's a quick and easy roadside test for use.
Click to expand...

Arguably, that's why the standard should be "impaired" rather than "detectable".

There are people who are sober who shouldn't be on the road.
There are people with three beers in them that are not impaired.

One of those scenarios is dangerous and legal. The other is not dangerous and can get you put in jail.
 
172andyou said:
Arguably, that's why the standard should be "impaired" rather than "detectable".

There are people who are sober who shouldn't be on the road.
There are people with three beers in them that are not impaired.

One of those scenarios is dangerous and legal. The other is not dangerous and can get you put in jail.
Click to expand...
Define three beers. Is it three 12 ounce cans of 4.2%ABV Coors Light or is it three pints of a 10.5%ABV IPA from the local brew pub? The latter would be a significantly higher amount of alcohol.
 
172andyou said:
Arguably, that's why the standard should be "impaired" rather than "detectable".

There are people who are sober who shouldn't be on the road.
There are people with three beers in them that are not impaired.

One of those scenarios is dangerous and legal. The other is not dangerous and can get you put in jail.
Click to expand...
Every state in the country has two standards. Police can either show actual impairment or they can show that the accused is over the per se intoxication limit. You can argue it all you want, but that's the law.

Even if canabis was to become legal tomorrow, the FAA doesn't need to permit it. They don't permit lots of things that are legal from alcohol to a variety of other drugs.
 
flyingron said:
Every state in the country has two standards. Police can either show actual impairment or they can show that the accused is over the per se intoxication limit. You can argue it all you want, but that's the law.

Even if canabis was to become legal tomorrow, the FAA doesn't need to permit it. They don't permit lots of things that are legal from alcohol to a variety of other drugs.
Click to expand...

Might expect the FAA to follow Canada, which is a 28-day rule. Probably designed to not look totally marijuana intolerant (to feign compliance with public policy permitting usage), but to effectively prohibit pilots from using it by creating such a long waiting period.
 
flyingron said:
Every state in the country has two standards. Police can either show actual impairment or they can show that the accused is over the per se intoxication limit. You can argue it all you want, but that's the law.
Click to expand...

Thanks for permission to argue. :)

Yes, I think it's puritanical and counter productive to public safety to have standards that *presume* someone is unfit to drive if they can pass an actual impairment test while people who are actually impaired (by age, head trauma, lack of sleep, etc, etc, etc) cause accidents. And I think it isn't overstating the case much to claim that this has become weaponized with some municipalities building their budgets on the back of that presumption.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Golf said:
I'm in Leftern MA, and I can confirm that it has attracted vast numbers of people from CT. :incazzato:
:biggrin:
Click to expand...

Enjoy the extra taxes from those undesirables in CT while you can :) . They just passed their own bill last year and those dispensaries will soon be popping up all over Ct starting this spring.
 
172andyou said:
Thanks for permission to argue. :)

Yes, I think it's puritanical and counter productive to public safety to have standards that *presume* someone is unfit to drive if they can pass an actual impairment test while people who are actually impaired (by age, head trauma, lack of sleep, etc, etc, etc) cause accidents. And I think it isn't overstating the case much to claim that this has become weaponized with some municipalities building their budgets on the back of that presumption.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, our road tests to get a license in the states is a joke compared to most western nations. I got my license at 17 in NJ and didn't even leave a parking lot. It was a stop sign, 3 point turn, parallel park and you're good to go for the rest of your life. We should have stricter road tests, as well as re-testing, especially as you get in the 70+ range. My step-grandfather insisted on driving until he died at age 90. He definitely should not have been driving but nothing we could say would stop him.

Driving standards are seemingly so low here because the US is so incredibly car centric in its urban/sub-urban planning. Other nations can afford to have strict standards because they actually have public transit infrastructure that people can use to go about their daily lives. In the US only a few cities have public transit to the level where the majority of its inhabitants can survive with not having a car, and even then it's a joke compared to most of western (and some of eastern) Europe.
 
AKiss20 said:
We should have stricter road tests, as well as re-testing, especially as you get in the 70+ range. My step-grandfather insisted on driving until he died at age 90. He definitely should not have been driving but nothing we could say would stop him.
Click to expand...
My mom’s uncle was like that…somebody reported him for unsafe driving, and it was somehow determined that he should take a driving test to be reevaluated. My mom spent a bunch of time training him prior to the recheck, but he failed the test.

So there is the possibility that it can be addressed.
 
steingar said:
Marijuana will become legal in the US sometime soon, or at least legal in a majority of states. That said, it will never be compatible with aviation, never. @bbchien has the right of it. You can chose marijuana or aviation, but you don't get both, at least not for very long.
Click to expand...

Consider that we now have "smart glide" & "auto land" technology. Where will this technology be in ten years? Get high, go fly, and let the computer get you out of a jam. :D

No ... I'm absolutely not, in anyway, trying to justify the use of mood altering substances while piloting an aircraft just making the point that the world is changing and people are being taught that things that once made sense don't make sense anymore. We are supposed to be "woke" and everyone desires to do that which they themselves deem to be right.
 
Daleandee said:
Consider that we now have "smart glide" & "auto land" technology. Where will this technology be in ten years? Get high, go fly, and let the computer get you out of a jam. :D
Click to expand...

The glass panels and autopilots that have migrated from the experimental world have come slowly and are still stratospherically expensive. I doubt we'll have auto land anytime soon, and even if we do it'll probably break the moment you need it. Recreational drug use will remain an anathema to the FAA for good reason.
 
Daleandee said:
Consider that we now have "smart glide" & "auto land" technology. Where will this technology be in ten years? Get high, go fly, and let the computer get you out of a jam. :D
Click to expand...
Are you going to argue that self-driving cars are going to allow you to be in command of the vehicle drunk?
Isn't happening now. Don't expect it to change. Even drinking in vehicles piloted by others (human taxi/limo drivers, or the Johnny Cab when it gets implemented) is restricted in many places. Hell, even your flight attendant isn't supposed to board or serve you if you're intoxicated.
 
Rushie said:
I can’t recall if one of the questions is, “Have you ever in your life toked with or without inhaling?”
Click to expand...
The relevant question appears to be 18n:

"Substance dependence or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years."
​
We know that federal law makes marijuana use illegal everywhere in the United States regardless of state laws to the contrary, but according to the OP's two posts, there was no marijuana use in the two years before he applied for the medical certificate, and there was no drug test. We don't know whether there was anything that qualifies as dependence under the FAA's definition:

“Substance dependence” is defined by any of the following: increased tolerance; withdrawal
symptoms; impaired control of use; or continued use despite damage to health or impairment
of social, personal, or occupational functioning.​

https://medxpress.faa.gov/medxpress/Content/Docs/MedXPressUsersGuide.pdf
 

Attachments

  • MedXPressUsersGuide August 2020.pdf
    4.7 MB · Views: 189
Legal or not, pot is incompatible with flying. The only high that should go with flying comes from altitude.
 
flyingron said:
Even drinking in vehicles piloted by others (human taxi/limo drivers, or the Johnny Cab when it gets implemented) is restricted in many places. Hell, even your flight attendant isn't supposed to board or serve you if you're intoxicated.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing anything I'm merely pointing out human nature. No, I don't want to see anything like this happen but isn't it true that people in self driving cars are now doing things they shouldn't? Of course they are.

I understand that there are laws against such things but as the country and the world becomes more lawless things may/will change and the laws that now govern such may/will follow. I have no idea of your age but many can tell you that in the last 50 years or so quite a number of things that were once considered verboten and immoral are now common and accepted in society. Whether that's good or bad is not mine to judge.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
The relevant question appears to be 18n:

"Substance dependence or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years."
​
We know that federal law makes marijuana use illegal everywhere in the United States regardless of state laws to the contrary, but according to the OP's two posts, there was no marijuana use in the two years before he applied for the medical certificate, and there was no drug test. We don't know whether there was anything that qualifies as dependence under the FAA's definition:

“Substance dependence” is defined by any of the following: increased tolerance; withdrawal
symptoms; impaired control of use; or continued use despite damage to health or impairment
of social, personal, or occupational functioning.​

https://medxpress.faa.gov/medxpress/Content/Docs/MedXPressUsersGuide.pdf
Click to expand...

O’ Canada, O’ Canada.
 
steingar said:
The glass panels and autopilots that have migrated from the experimental world have come slowly and are still stratospherically expensive. I doubt we'll have auto land anytime soon, and even if we do it'll probably break the moment you need it. Recreational drug use will remain an anathema to the FAA for good reason.
Click to expand...
Several GA planes are available with Garmin's Safe Return, a one-button hands-off landing system, right now.
 
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