United Pilot Cancels Flight to protect his pee

Pilot99B said:
nypost.com

United pilot refuses to fly after passenger smokes pot on plane: ‘Not willing to risk it’

He didn’t want to be flying high.
nypost.com nypost.com


Would a passenger smoking marijuana actually trigger a drug positive screening for the pilot?
Click to expand...
I've been told second hand smoke isn't enough to cause a false positive. I'm on randoms for a HIMS process and I brought up the same thing as I drive behind someone or next to someone at least every other day that is clearly smoking pot while driving. It sucks too when you visit places where it's legal and people are just walking around smoking it...so annoying.

So regardless, I understand the pilot's reluctance given the zero tolerance and overhanded means of meeting their safety mandate.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
It sucks too when you visit places where it's legal and people are just walking around smoking it...so annoying.
Click to expand...
It's legal here, for those a year older than I am. And there have been instances of the unscrupulous mixing legal THC oil into food, sometimes by accident, or lack of awareness. But other times with the intention of getting another who is subject to random drug testing "busted".
 
billsgs126 said:
It's legal here, for those a year older than I am. And there have been instances of the unscrupulous mixing legal THC oil into food, sometimes by accident, or lack of awareness. But other times with the intention of getting another who is subject to random drug testing "busted".
Click to expand...
yes, it certainly makes one paranoid. I can't even use mouthwash, hand sanitizer, aftershave, nyquil or anything like that as it can cause a false positive on my randoms.
 
We had the same question when I worked in a medical lab after college (part of what we did was urine drug screenings). Had 2 pot smokers light up in a VW bug with our test subject. He tested negative after 20 min exposure.
Good times in the name of science.
No way would I risk it.
 
billsgs126 said:
It's legal here, for those a year older than I am. And there have been instances of the unscrupulous mixing legal THC oil into food, sometimes by accident, or lack of awareness. But other times with the intention of getting another who is subject to random drug testing "busted".
Click to expand...
...but get off the ground and that's federal: "Legal shmiegal".
Crew's action will be upheld by Pro Standards.
 
bbchien said:
...but get off the ground and that's federal: "Legal shmiegal".
Crew's action will be upheld by Pro Standards.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know that. It's not legal for anyone with a federal anything, even a whole bunch of state employees. My issue isn't that I want to, or that I want to have a pass, it's that (self-deleted because it would likely be termed political) it leaves "regular people" in limbo.
 
SLB said:
We had the same question when I worked in a medical lab after college (part of what we did was urine drug screenings). Had 2 pot smokers light up in a VW bug with our test subject. He tested negative after 20 min exposure.
Good times in the name of science.
No way would I risk it.
Click to expand...
But what is the sensitivity of a test today compared to back then?
 
It is illegal to smoke in the restroom. Take him off the plane, and arrest him. The plane leaves without him.

If tried and convicted, sentence him to no fly list until he passes the habitual drug screen for the FAA 1st class medical.

Should get him aware of the importance of following the rules.
 
It would not trigger a positive unless you're in such an enclosed space that you're hotboxing.
 
billsgs126 said:
But what is the sensitivity of a test today compared to back then?
Click to expand...
I believe the screening sensitivity is the same, but follow up confirmation tests have been added since my time with much more sensitivity/specificity.
 
SLB said:
I believe the screening sensitivity is the same, but follow up confirmation tests have been added since my time with much more sensitivity/specificity.
Click to expand...
The follow-up tests will detect false positives from the initial test, if the testing authority chooses to use them. It won't help if the material they are testing for was inhaled second-hand.
 
I don't blame the pilots for not wanting to fly that jet till it has been well aired out. Can you imagine if they'd taken the jet up smelling like refer and anything at all had happened?
 
bbchien said:
...but get off the ground and that's federal: "Legal shmiegal".
Crew's action will be upheld by Pro Standards.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's the pilot's call. If they end a flight because they believe it's questionable, fine. It's when pilots start to let questionable flights continue that we need to be worried.

I strongly support medicinal Marijuana because my wife lost part of her leg, and I've seen how it helps her. Medicinal Marijuana is one the best things that has happened to her since 2010, in regards to pain management. I've also seen enough that I know I don't want people high on weed flying passenger jets... ever.
 
Pilot99B said:
Would a passenger smoking marijuana actually trigger a drug positive screening for the pilot?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but, if it did, he'd have little recourse. Lot medical, lost career, and very little in the way of due process for the pilot. Same with poppy seeds in food. Very unlikely to cause a positive but most of us avoid it out of an abundance of caution. Same reason the majority of us will not drive after even a sip of alcohol. It isn't worth it.
 
Larry in TN said:
Probably not, but, if it did, he'd have little recourse. Lot medical, lost career, and very little in the way of due process for the pilot. Same with poppy seeds in food. Very unlikely to cause a positive but most of us avoid it out of an abundance of caution. Same reason the majority of us will not drive after even a sip of alcohol. It isn't worth it.
Click to expand...
That's where I wish the FAA would use a bit more critical thinking, character witnesses, believe the pilot. The whole medical application process is based a lot upon honesty in the first place, so if a pilot has no previous background or personal issues/people substantiating a substance issue, I don't understand the current approach of shoot first ask questions later.
 
billsgs126 said:
It's legal here, for those a year older than I am.
Click to expand...
Uh, no it's not... Unless you've moved from where it says right over there
<----

Of course, you'd think it was, if you get out much...

billsgs126 said:
But what is the sensitivity of a test today compared to back then?
Click to expand...
There are many more options for testing that are much more sensitive, and for much longer. IIRC it used to be even if you smoked it, it was effectively undetectable in 3 days. Now, they can test your hair or other things and get a much longer view.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Uh, no it's not... Unless you've moved from where it says right over there
<----

Of course, you'd think it was, if you get out much...


There are many more options for testing that are much more sensitive, and for much longer. IIRC it used to be even if you smoked it, it was effectively undetectable in 3 days. Now, they can test your hair or other things and get a much longer view.
Click to expand...
I fly back and forth across the lake so "here" is time dependent. To be specific, it's legal in Michigan. It's merely ignored in Wisconsin.
 
billsgs126 said:
To be specific, it's legal in Michigan. It's merely ignored in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

No, it’s not legal in Michigan.

As a pilot, you really should change your perspective. You are beholden to the Federal Aviation Administration, and pot is illegal under FEDERAL law everywhere.
 
Half Fast said:
No, it’s not legal in Michigan.

As a pilot, you really should change your perspective. You are beholden to the Federal Aviation Administration, and pot is illegal under FEDERAL law everywhere.
Click to expand...
Recreational pot sale and use IS legal in Michigan. There's stores all over the place selling it. Being a pilot doesn't make it illegal for use in Michigan for 499 out of every 500 people that live in this state.
 
EdFred said:
Recreational pot sale and use IS legal in Michigan. There's stores all over the place selling it. Being a pilot doesn't make it illegal for use in Michigan for 499 out of every 500 people that live in this state.
Click to expand...

Nope. It’s still a violation of federal law.
 
Half Fast said:
Nope. It’s still a violation of federal law.
Click to expand...
Section 8 of the Constitution says nothing about drug laws.
The 10th amendment in that crusty old document and a 1992 Supreme Court ruling says as long as things not listed in Section 8 stay within state lines, it's hands off.

Now since it's a Federal certificate you are bound by federal limitations. But if you have no federal certificates, and keep your consumption and transportation of pot inside the state lines, the feds have no say.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
Nope. It’s still a violation of federal law.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the handling of this at all. It’s legal under state laws, illegal under federal, we're a so called “nation of laws” yet we pretty much don’t enforce half of them.

Why doesn’t the Fed Gov, as much as I’m not a big gov person, just do like they did with LA when they had an alcohol purchase age limit below 21?
 
EdFred said:
Section 8 of the Constitution says nothing about drug laws.
The 10th amendment in that crusty old document and a 1992 Supreme Court ruling says as long as things not listed in Section 8 stay within state lines, it's hands off.

Now since it's a Federal certificate you are bound by federal limitations. But if you have no federal certificates, and keep your consumption and transportation of pot inside the state lines, the feds have no say.
Click to expand...
Federal agencies use the Interstate Commerce Clause to assert jurisdiction. It was explained as thus by an ATF agent to me on a local case of ours that they took (ex-con gang member with a firearm): The gun was manufactured in New York and possessed in California. The feds located proof of a transaction at some point in the gun’s history where it crossed state lines and money was exchanged. Boom - ICC makes it a federal matter. (By the way, my agency didn’t bring in ATF. The DA’s office did because they were afraid a local judge or jury would derail the case. And then the federal prosecutor - who began his career at our DA’s office - botched the case and the jury acquitted.)

They will do the same with cannabis. If one drop of fertilizer or one nozzle from the irrigation system came from another state and was paid for in some manner, they’ll use the ICC if it suits their desire to prosecute.

The interstate commerce clause is probably the most-abused law in the nation.
 
ateamer said:
Federal agencies use the Interstate Commerce Clause to assert jurisdiction. It was explained as thus by an ATF agent to me on a local case of ours that they took (ex-con gang member with a firearm): The gun was manufactured in New York and possessed in California. The feds located proof of a transaction at some point in the gun’s history where it crossed state lines and money was exchanged. Boom - ICC makes it a federal matter. (By the way, my agency didn’t bring in ATF. The DA’s office did because they were afraid a local judge or jury would derail the case. And then the federal prosecutor - who began his career at our DA’s office - botched the case and the jury acquitted.)

They will do the same with cannabis. If one drop of fertilizer or one nozzle from the irrigation system came from another state and was paid for in some manner, they’ll use the ICC if it suits their desire to prosecute.

The interstate commerce clause is probably the most-abused law in the nation.
Click to expand...
If that were the case they would be raiding left and right for the past 7 years (longer in other states, but they haven't). There's a difference between a gun crossing a state line, and something that's not regulated (your nozzle or fertilizer) crossing state lines. When pot DOES cross state lines they can and do jump in. Have yet to see the DEA go hog wild on the thousands of cannabis shops in the state if it's that easy.
 
EdFred said:
But if you have no federal certificates, and keep your consumption and transportation of pot inside the state lines, the feds have no say.
Click to expand...

Refer to https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12270 .

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has nonetheless reaffirmed that marijuana growth, possession, and trafficking remain crimes under federal law irrespective of states' marijuana laws. Federal law enforcement has generally focused its efforts on criminal networks involved in the illicit marijuana trade.​
 
Half Fast said:
Refer to https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12270 .

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has nonetheless reaffirmed that marijuana growth, possession, and trafficking remain crimes under federal law irrespective of states' marijuana laws. Federal law enforcement has generally focused its efforts on criminal networks involved in the illicit marijuana trade.​
Click to expand...
New York vs United States 1992 505 U.S. 144

Takeaway:
The federal government cannot commandeer a state into enacting a certain law.

If it was SO ILLEGAL, the DEA would have a field day at all the dispensaries and also pile on with Civil Asset Forfeiture, and be bankrolled for eternity. But they don't. Actions vs words.

https://micannatrail.com/map/ Tip off the DEA. Get your cut. Let me know how it goes.
 
EdFred said:
Takeaway: The federal government cannot commandeer a state into enacting a certain law.
Click to expand...
We are supposed to be a federal republic of sovereign states.

Back when the MADD backlash pushed the so-called 21-drinking age, and the USDOT threatened to withhold so-called federal funds to non-compliant states, several including Wisconsin passed laws to make it illegal for persons 18 to 21 to PURCHASE alcoholic beverages (which secured those needed rebates of so-called federal funds). So, to this day as the state courts currently interpret multiple laws, an immediate family member can purchase and lawfully give to an 18 to 21-year-old adult any alcoholic beverage.
 
EdFred said:
Takeaway:
The federal government cannot commandeer a state into enacting a certain law.
Click to expand...

The finding was that the feds couldn't make a state enact a law. This isn't about that. The feds control regulation of drugs, and if they chose to do so they could enforce those laws against pot, all without state involvement. That they choose not to bust individuals for smoking pot does not make it legal.
 
Half Fast said:
That they choose not to bust individuals for smoking pot does not make it legal.
Click to expand...
So far as federal law you are correct. But the State will not get involved because it is not a violation of state law.

I do not know if this is true or not, but I was told that 40-years-ago Holland issued "drug-user" cards to those who applied for them. The holder could do as they pleased but was intelligible for a pilot, seaman, train engineer, heavy equipment, or driver licence. In addition, they would not be given non-emergency treatment for certain drug-related diseases.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
New York vs United States 1992 505 U.S. 144

Takeaway:
The federal government cannot commandeer a state into enacting a certain law.

If it was SO ILLEGAL, the DEA would have a field day at all the dispensaries and also pile on with Civil Asset Forfeiture, and be bankrolled for eternity. But they don't. Actions vs words.

https://micannatrail.com/map/ Tip off the DEA. Get your cut. Let me know how it goes.
Click to expand...
I saw a guy go blasting past a cop the other day going at least 10 miles over the speed limit. Cop didn't turn on his lights or react in any way.

Does that mean speeding is legal now?

Lack of enforcement of a law does not equate to "the law does not exist".
 
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