THC positive from ER visit but never smoked.

Lindberg said:
How do we police no drinking and flying?
Click to expand...

In the air transport environment, by crew observation: smell, physical appearance, and behavior; then by breath and blood test.

Therein lies the problem with THC. None of those methods are useful, except the blood test, which cannot differentiate between methods of consumption or degree of impairment.

In the absence of ability to detect risky behavior later in the process, the FAA has no choice but to identify it earlier, during the medical screening.
 
Last edited:
So… I don’t know of any 121 that allows for blood. So urine only.

They only test AFTER the flight. Even breathalyzer… unbelievably.

Fact is, they don’t care. Statistically it’s just not a problem. One major airline was using their hims participant’s urine drug screens to lower the number of 49cfr40 tests they had to perform. Illegal since hims screens don’t meet DOT standards. They don’t like it, they don’t want it, they just don’t care. It’s just another reg they live with because they have to.

It’s funny, the public is scared to death of a drunk pilot (who’s never hurt anyone), and pining like mad to help suicidal pilots get back to the cockpit despite that group having killed many hundreds if not thousands.

All this mess is for optics.
 
murphey said:
So, did you self-medicate or were the

So, did you self-medicate or was the oil prescribed by a state-licensed MD not in the employ of the business that sold you the oil?

Giving you a warning right now....you won't find many sympathizers to your plight on this board.
Click to expand...
He has at least one... While I don't use, I fail to see the distinction between THC and alcohol, despite one being socially acceptable (to the point where a prolific hero of aviation was still praised after her DUI).

This is another place where FAA medical should back off. Don't be high when you fly should be the extent of it.
 
SkyHog said:
He has at least one... While I don't use, I fail to see the distinction between THC and alcohol, despite one being socially acceptable (to the point where a prolific hero of aviation was still praised after her DUI).

This is another place where FAA medical should back off. Don't be high when you fly should be the extent of it.
Click to expand...
The distinctions are legality, the time of impairment, and the lack of reliable screening methods.
 
mryan75 said:
There’s no test for THC from smoking vs THC from whatever else. So what are they supposed to do? “No really, I swear” isn’t a reasonable alternative.
Click to expand...
A typical urinalysis distinguishes between the different types of THC. In my line of work, there MAY be a defense for one type in which one was using a product without full knowledge. The other requires one to light up and there is no defense to that.


Jyyoo32 said:
...they drug tested me and it came back positive for THC. I was surprised because I don't smoke and never have but months later realized it could've been the Full Spectrum CBD oil I was taking orally for muscle tightness and soreness that contained 0.3% THC.

Will this be a disqualifying factor or a deferral that will require a full psych eval and 12 months of testing? I'd hate to have to go through that process because of CBD. I have never smoked marijuana in my life.
Click to expand...


To the OP: I recently discharged someone from the military for your exact same situation. Unfortunately, THC of any kind is a no-go for these purposes. Full disclosure, I think there needs to be a new look at exactly this but today, it is still prohibited. However, given your particular situation in that the test was obtained in the ER environment and you were surprised at the results, there MAY be a path to asking forgiveness. This requires a senior AME to speak knowledge to experience here.
 
Ed Haywood said:
In the air transport environment, by crew observation: smell, physical appearance, and behavior; then by breath and blood test.
Click to expand...
And what about in Part 91?
Ed Haywood said:
Therein lies the problem with THC. None of those methods are useful, except the blood test, which cannot differentiate between methods of consumption or degree of impairment.
Click to expand...
Why aren't the other methods useful? Is someone impaired by THC not evident by crew observation: smell, physical appearance, and behavior?
 
Lindberg said:
For the eleventeenth time, THC isn't illegal.
Click to expand...
From a CRS paper earlier this year:

Due to marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled
substance, the CSA currently prohibits the manufacture,
distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana
except for use in federal government-approved research
studies. Unauthorized activities may give rise to criminal
penalties and other legal consequences.
 
StraightnLevel said:
From a CRS paper earlier this year:

Due to marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled
substance, the CSA currently prohibits the manufacture,
distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana
except for use in federal government-approved research
studies. Unauthorized activities may give rise to criminal
penalties and other legal consequences.
Click to expand...
That's partly out of date. Medical marijuana has recently been reclassified as Schedule III. Recreational marijuana remains Schedule I. Perhaps that difference is because the THC level in recreational product, particularly in concentrates, can be both exceedingly high, and not accurately disclosed to the user.

I've never been a fan of legalization, but classifying marijuana products in any form as Schedule 1 was always politically-driven nonsense. Schedule III is where they should have been all along.
 
StraightnLevel said:
From a CRS paper earlier this year:

Due to marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled
substance, the CSA currently prohibits the manufacture,
distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana
except for use in federal government-approved research
studies. Unauthorized activities may give rise to criminal
penalties and other legal consequences.
Click to expand...
You're conflating marijuana with THC.
 
Lindberg said:
And what about in Part 91?

Why aren't the other methods useful? Is someone impaired by THC not evident by crew observation: smell, physical appearance, and behavior?
Click to expand...
There would have to be neurocognitive norming from recovered THC dependendent aviatiors to use that tool; who's going to pay for that?
Functional MRI? $15,000 a pop....meaning? ....remember THC is lipid soluble and ends up in the brain and spine which is why it's so hard to measure. THC is fat soluble not water soluble and so partitions into the "fatty" parts of the human.

....or, Are you advocating Brain biopsy and tissue levels?
 
StraightnLevel said:
What's the dosage interval for THC, and what is the timeline for elimination of impairment?
Click to expand...
4-10 hours: https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...is-thc-intoxication-lambert-drug-driving.html

bbchien said:
The Pro THC contingent here conflates legal, with safe.
Click to expand...
And the puritans seemingly conflate occasional use with permanent intoxication.

Both extremes seem kind of nuts to me.

I forgot to quote it, but someone made a claim that we had an objective measure of alcohol impairment. We don't. We have a legal definition of when one is presumed to be impaired. But it's fairly arbitrary at .08 and used to be .10. I'm sure we all know people who shouldn't be driving at .04 and people who are fine at .10. Different people have different innate tolerance due to biology and other factors. Related, Japan has drawn the line at .03. None of these represent objective impairment. It's simply that alcohol is pervasive and the system has had to adapt to that reality.

It's weird to pretend that THC is any different. There are people who are impaired on very low doses and people who aren't impaired until taking much larger ones. There are people who clear it from their system quickly and people who take longer. THC will be federally legal and I don't have much hope (in part because of this message board) that we'll be able to have rational conversations about it even when that happens. Canada says 30 days between usage and piloting a plane. That seems pretty conservative and I've never read a study that might support it, but like .08 at least it's a benchmark that people can measure against even if we know that in real life different people process things differently.
 
bbchien said:
There would have to be neurocognitive norming from recovered THC dependendent aviatiors to use that tool; who's going to pay for that?
Functional MRI? $15,000 a pop....meaning? ....remember THC is lipid soluble and ends up in the brain and spine which is why it's so hard to measure. THC is fat soluble not water soluble and so partitions into the "fatty" parts of the human.

....or, Are you advocating Brain biopsy and tissue levels?
Click to expand...
What tool? Which words in my post are you responding to?
 
OneCharlieTango said:
there's nothing wrong with THC
Click to expand...
That's a negative ghost rider. THC is a psychoactive drug. Without THC nobody would smoke pot. In a safety centered job like aviation its better to have all your brain cells, not less.

Are their many other commonly addictive/abused substances? Sure. Alcohol, pain killers etc. Their use should and is severely restricted/limited if you want a medical for commercial aviation.
 
Lindberg said:
What tool? Which words in my post are you responding to?
Click to expand...
What tool? the Neurocognitive evaluation!
lindberg said:
Why aren't the other methods useful? Is someone impaired by THC not evident by crew observation: smell, physical appearance, and behavior?
Click to expand...
The impairment can be subtle (or obvious). I doubt even a current flight surgeon could reliably rule it out, "on the ramp".
 
Last edited:
pfarber said:
That's a negative ghost rider. THC is a psychoactive drug. Without THC nobody would smoke pot. In a safety centered job like aviation its better to have all your brain cells, not less.
Click to expand...
So is nicotine. Without it, nobody would smoke cigarettes. My airplane is old enough that it has an ashtray.
 
pfarber said:
That's a negative ghost rider. THC is a psychoactive drug. Without THC nobody would smoke pot. In a safety centered job like aviation its better to have all your brain cells, not less.

Are their many other commonly addictive/abused substances? Sure. Alcohol, pain killers etc. Their use should and is severely restricted/limited if you want a medical for commercial aviation.
Click to expand...
TWEEEEET!
Forum foul!
You took a portion of a sentence from my post to make it look like I said something the exact opposite of what I said. Please edit.
 
6:50 pm yesterday posted by lindberg:
lindberg said:
Why aren't the other methods useful? Is someone impaired by THC not evident by crew observation: smell, physical appearance, and behavior
Click to expand...
I was replying to this- the methods all require a measurement tool....

B
 
KE5BM said:
A typical urinalysis distinguishes between the different types of THC. In my line of work, there MAY be a defense for one type in which one was using a product without full knowledge. The other requires one to light up and there is no defense to that.





To the OP: I recently discharged someone from the military for your exact same situation. Unfortunately, THC of any kind is a no-go for these purposes. Full disclosure, I think there needs to be a new look at exactly this but today, it is still prohibited. However, given your particular situation in that the test was obtained in the ER environment and you were surprised at the results, there MAY be a path to asking forgiveness. This requires a senior AME to speak knowledge to experience here.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's crazy but yeah it is what it is today. I would've never touched CBD if I knew I wanted to become a pilot but I can't change the past. I'll definitely have to talk to a Senior AME and weigh my options.

It's just frustrating that there's really no way to prove that it came out positive solely due to CBD and that I'll have to just do as the FAA tells me to show that I'm one of the truth tellers haha.
 
a couple years ago a guy I know drove to Canada to go stay at his cabin for a week that he inherited from his parents that has been in the family for generations only to get turned away at the boarder because he had an owi in 2005. I think that the integration of the multiple different government databases combined with mega data processing capabilities of AI will be bringing some very harsh consequences for long passed transgressions to a lot of unsuspecting people who have “forgotten” “little things” in their past that they have long since moved forward from.
 
Tools said:
What’s your thoughts on conviction IF YOU DIDNT DRINK ANYTHING?

Does it matter then?
Click to expand...

Not unless someone held you down and forcibly rammed the intoxicant down your throat or injected it into your veins. We are each responsible for what we willingly put into our bodies.
 
Back
Top