Legal Marijuana

[Heliian]

There are many well-documented medical consequences of marijuana withdrawal.

References please.

Your information is outdated by at least 40 years, you have obviously not done any research of facts and are really just reciting the age old anti-pot christian message.

The evil weed heads are not going to rape your daughter and set fire to the church, get over it.

[170 to xray]

I think some people are confusing TC's stance. It is the SAME as their position on alcohol.

You can not operate under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. Impairment is not the issue, according to the CARs anyways. You can not have alcohol in your system or marijuana, impaired or not.

The discussion is how long is marijuana in your system, not if you are impaired or not.

[Meatservo]

There are many well-documented medical consequences of marijuana withdrawal.

References please.

Your information is outdated by at least 40 years, you have obviously not done any research of facts and are really just reciting the age old anti-pot christian message.

The evil weed heads are not going to rape your daughter and set fire to the church, get over it.

Are you joking? Literally all you have to do is use any search engine and enter the term "cannabis addiction" to find much credible evidence that is as recently published as this year. I have done sufficient impartial reading to convince me that cannabis dependence is a relatively rare (relative to alcohol or nicotine) but genuine phenomenon. I tend to agree with airframe's statement immediately preceding yours about moderate occasional use being relatively harmless. But the pothead statement that "marijuana is non addictive" is actually 40 years out of date, and it's this phenomenon- fake news- that is hurting your pro-drug stance. If you were able to stick to the facts and avoid ridiculous unscientific claims, I think more people would be willing to listen to what you have to sell. I think any sensible person doing any kind of honest research on the subject would come to the same conclusions that I do: that recreational use of cannabis is probably no better or worse than a couple of other th8ngs we already tolerate in our society, like drinking alcohol, but its harmful effects are sparsely documented and ill-defined, and in order for its use to be considered as harmless as occasional moderate drinking for example, its effects need to be quantified and documented, and legislated.

I think this is a reasonable attitude. If you want to smoke dope, fine. If you want to be a pilot, also fine. If you want to be a dope-smoking pilot, then the onus should be upon you to prove to the rest of us that this is as "harmless" as you say it is, not upon society to prove otherwise. If your "research" indicates that marijuana is non-addictive, that's really only as valuable as MY "research", which seems to indicate, so far, that alcohol is ALSO non-habit-forming and perfectly safe, because I've suffered zero accidents and I'm not dependent on it. But using it isn't real research, and neither is listening to your buddies talking about it. That's how much your opinion is worth, so I would like YOU to show ME where it says marijuana is non-addictive. And I won't accept "Supersuckers" lyrics or anything from "hightimes.com".

[pilotidentity]

I would say yes, there is confusion if Transport Canada rules state that no drugs can be in your system when you fly rather than impairment by them. ALCOHOL can be detected in advanced urine samples 80 hours after a drink and in a hair sample after 90 days. There are thousands of flights each day carried out by pilots that have drugs in there system.

[cncpc]

There are many well-documented medical consequences of marijuana withdrawal.

References please.

Your information is outdated by at least 40 years, you have obviously not done any research of facts and are really just reciting the age old anti-pot christian message.

The evil weed heads are not going to rape your daughter and set fire to the church, get over it.

Are you joking? Literally all you have to do is use any search engine and enter the term "cannabis addiction" to find much credible evidence that is as recently published as this year. I have done sufficient impartial reading to convince me that cannabis dependence is a relatively rare (relative to alcohol or nicotine) but genuine phenomenon. I tend to agree with airframe's statement immediately preceding yours about moderate occasional use being relatively harmless. But the pothead statement that "marijuana is non addictive" is actually 40 years out of date, and it's this phenomenon- fake news- that is hurting your pro-drug stance. If you were able to stick to the facts and avoid ridiculous unscientific claims, I think more people would be willing to listen to what you have to sell. I think any sensible person doing any kind of honest research on the subject would come to the same conclusions that I do: that recreational use of cannabis is probably no better or worse than a couple of other th8ngs we already tolerate in our society, like drinking alcohol, but its harmful effects are sparsely documented and ill-defined, and in order for its use to be considered as harmless as occasional moderate drinking for example, its effects need to be quantified and documented, and legislated.

I think this is a reasonable attitude. If you want to smoke dope, fine. If you want to be a pilot, also fine. If you want to be a dope-smoking pilot, then the onus should be upon you to prove to the rest of us that this is as "harmless" as you say it is, not upon society to prove otherwise. If your "research" indicates that marijuana is non-addictive, that's really only as valuable as MY "research", which seems to indicate, so far, that alcohol is ALSO non-habit-forming and perfectly safe, because I've suffered zero accidents and I'm not dependent on it. But using it isn't real research, and neither is listening to your buddies talking about it. That's how much your opinion is worth, so I would like YOU to show ME where it says marijuana is non-addictive. And I won't accept "Supersuckers" lyrics or anything from "hightimes.com".

I think Meat, that you would do well to climb down off the high horse, and be content to say that you have chosen not to smoke marijuana while you are a pilot. Your style of argument and analysis is a little too heavy on labelling others while proclaiming to possess the truth yourself.

Marijuana is not addictive. It has proven to be habit forming in some cases. It's probably harder to stop coffee than pot. Don't claim to have the inside line on what a "sensible person is, because you seem to be saying that it is someone who thinks like you.

The test of marijuana in aviation or any other activity is not that it is harmless, i.e. tasking an advocate to prove a negative. The test is whether its harm is sufficient to raise a reasonable evidence based concern sufficient to deny others employment in certain professions.

[thirdtimecharm]

I think some people are confusing TC's stance. It is the SAME as their position on alcohol.

You can not operate under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. Impairment is not the issue, according to the CARs anyways. You can not have alcohol in your system or marijuana, impaired or not.

The discussion is how long is marijuana in your system, not if you are impaired or not.

I don't think that's quite true. The current CARS says:

Alcohol or Drugs — Crew Members
602.03 No person shall act as a crew member of an aircraft

(a) within eight hours after consuming an alcoholic beverage;

(b) while under the influence of alcohol; or

(c) while using any drug that impairs the person’s faculties to the extent that the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft is endangered in any way.

It references impairment and not presence of a drug. I haven't seen anything from Transport Canada saying that they are updating the CARS based on their marijuana legalization.

For driving, they are proposing increasing the number of Drug Recognition Experts in Canada and measuring THC for impairment:

*2 nanograms (ng) but less than 5 ng of THC: Having at least 2 ng but less than 5 ng of THC per millilitre (ml) of blood within two hours of driving would be a separate summary conviction criminal offence, punishable only by a fine. This lower level offence is a precautionary approach that takes into account the best available scientific evidence related to cannabis. This offence would be punishable by a maximum fine of up to $1,000.

*5 ng or more of THC: Having 5 ng or more of THC per ml of blood within two hours of driving would be a hybrid offence. Hybrid offences are offences that can be prosecuted either by indictment, in more serious cases, or by summary conviction, in less serious cases.

*Combined THC and Alcohol: Having a blood alcohol concentration of 50 milligrams (mg) of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, combined with a THC level greater than 2.5 ng per ml of blood within two hours of driving would also be a hybrid offence.

From what I understand, you can have marijuana showing up in your system for up to a month, but the Federal Government, on other fronts won't consider that the measure of impairment. It will mainly fall on the DRE's to determine impairment with some testing for THC. I understand that THC will only be present for up to 24 hours.

I should say that I don't use marijuana its just something that I'm looking at for work. Its going to get really interesting now that they are looking at procedures for allowing cannabis is edibles and *cosmetics*??

[Meatservo]

Your style of argument and analysis is a little too heavy on labelling others while proclaiming to possess the truth yourself.

Marijuana is not addictive. It has proven to be habit forming in some cases. It's probably harder to stop coffee than pot. Don't claim to have the inside line on what a "sensible person is, because you seem to be saying that it is someone who thinks like you.

The test of marijuana in aviation or any other activity is not that it is harmless, i.e. tasking an advocate to prove a negative. The test is whether its harm is sufficient to raise a reasonable evidence based concern sufficient to deny others employment in certain professions.

My style of argument is to look things up and try to determine if the statement I'm commenting on is true or not. A bunch of people believing what they want to believe is not necessarily the truth. Even if it's almost everyone.You seem to have fallen victim to this yourself. The truth is that a "habit" can be differentiated from a "dependence" by checking out what happens if you stop. By way of an example, I can tell you first-hand that if I give up coffee, I am treated to splitting headaches and irritability. This, medically, means I have formed a dependence. My wife bought decaffeinated beans and the same thing happened, even though I didn't know they were decaffeinated. Therefore, obviously I have formed a dependence rather than just a habit.

Now, according to research, alcohol is like this. While I could personally sit here and say it's not, because I myself can go for indefinite periods without drinking it, there is a body of evidence that suggests it is. There are "withdrawal symptoms" that are unpleasant and impede a person's ability to do without it. The scientific explanation for this, from what I've been able to gather, is that an addictive substance interacts chemically with receptors in our bodies that are meant to interact with the body's own chemicals. Whether or not this "packs a buzz" or not depends on what the receptors were originally for in our body. Opioids for instance, are compatible with the receptors in our brains that are meant to be activated, in a small amount, when our external situation causes the brain to release "reward" chemicals. We have evolved to do behaviours that are consistent with evolutionary "wins", like mating, finding food and winning fights. When artificial opioids get into these recptors, they mimic the pleasure we get from winning. Over time, the brain adapts to this by producing fewer of its own receptor-compatible molecules. When you suddenly pull the plug, it temporarily does not have enough to function properly, and "withdrawal symptoms" are the result.

Alcohol functions a bit differently, by inhibiting the function of neurons, which the brain tries to adapt to in entertaining ways, but the effect is the same, in terms of withdrawal.

Marijuana is the same. You know all about the brain's cannabinoid receptors, and what they do, I'm sure. It meets all the criteria for an addictive substance.

reference: Rotter A, Bayerlein K, Hansbauer M, et al. CB1 and CB2 receptor expression and promoter methylation in patients with cannabis dependence. Eur Addict Res. 2013;19(1):13-20. doi:10.1159/000338642.

Users report irritability, sleep difficulties, physical discomfort, decrease of appetite and restlesness. According to the American National institute on drug abuse, about 30 percent of long-term marijuana users report withdrawal symptoms.

It does seem as though marijuana is on the low side in the list of addictive substances, but that statistic is questionable also considering its use has always been illicit up till this point. The data is hardly reliable.

This doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether it ought to be allowable for pilots to be active marijuana users. What it does have to do with is people in a debate making fake statements based on what they want to believe, and clouding the waters when it comes to deciding what to do about it.

My style of argument is to eliminate bullshit.

I would love to defend my enjoyment of beer by telling you alcohol isn't addictive. After all, I'm not addicted to it. This is exactly the same as your argument for your marijuana. I can't enjoy the same ability to employ bullshit to make my argument as you can, however, because as a legal, practically ubiquitous and exhaustively researched substance, every one of us knows the truth about it.

My opinion is the same as it's always been. It is absolutely imperative, if we all agree that smoking marijuana is something that pilots want to do, that we find out all we can about:

1) How to determine what constitutes "impairment"
2) How to set sensible limits on time between marijuana use and flying in order to prevent impaired flying
3) How to test for impairment in a minimally invasive way
4) How to recognize and treat someone whose habitual use of marijuana is impacting their day-to-day life negatively, (which is the accepted threshold between a physical dependence and an "addiction".

I don't understand why any sensible person would not agree to this, unless they were in such a hurry to smoke some rope that they are willing to ignore the inherent logic.

[Meatservo]

.edit. double post

[Cat Driver]

There is also a difference between different people concerning addiction to alcohol, some people carry an enzyme that makes them more subject to alcohol addiction.

[B208]

There are many well-documented medical consequences of marijuana withdrawal.

References please.

Your information is outdated by at least 40 years, you have obviously not done any research of facts and are really just reciting the age old anti-pot christian message.

The evil weed heads are not going to rape your daughter and set fire to the church, get over it.

Margret F'ing Trudeau. She probably used it while carrying the shiny pony; it would explain a few things.

Also: You don't need t believe in Christ but he will always believe in you.

[shimmydampner]

Does anyone else find the whole argument to be a bit pointless? At the end of the day it comes down to a professional attitude towards personal responsibility. You have a duty to yourself, your passengers, your employer and any dependents that may rely on the living you make, to be honest with yourself and show up fit to fly. The existence of a framework of regulations (or the absence thereof) really has no bearing on this responsibility for those who truly take it seriously, and for those who do not, is unlikely to stop them from trying to skirt the rules as and when it suits them. Take alcohol for instance. There is a well-established framework in place regarding booze that does absolutely nothing to stop semi-regular high profile cases of pilots caught drunk while on duty. How many more relatively less serious cases go unreported or are not caught every year? The existence of a rule or rules does nothing to stop this for those who do not take their responsibility seriously, and those who do, I’m certain, would not change their behaviour in the absence of said rules.
If you feel strongly about the impending marijuana legalization (which, for the record, I think is long overdue) there is no point in arguing about it, unless of course you will be involved in setting the regulations for it. Certainly, like literally everything else, arguing about it on the internet serves no purpose beyond entertainment and killing time. You can only control your own actions, so keep on as you were.

[Jean-Pierre]

Most Canadian airline fly to America so even if they made a policy for pilot to use it here you will be tested and will be in trouble if you fly to America. Other country probably do the same. Same thing happen to Canadian truck driver that drive into USA.

[AirFrame]

The existence of a framework of regulations (or the absence thereof) really has no bearing on this responsibility for those who truly take it seriously, and for those who do not, is unlikely to stop them from trying to skirt the rules as and when it suits them. Take alcohol for instance. There is a well-established framework in place regarding booze that does absolutely nothing to stop semi-regular high profile cases of pilots caught drunk while on duty. How many more relatively less serious cases go unreported or are not caught every year?

The real difference between marijuana and alcohol right now is that there is an established method for testing for the presence of alcohol, that correlates reasonably well with measured impairment of an individual under the influence. There is no equivalent for marijuana, and it is equally desirable for some people as a recreational drug. So until there's an established, recognized, accepted method for testing for marijuana, there's going to be a lot of variation in policies from "we detected some from smoking 30 days ago, you're out" (correlating to the ability to detect up to a month after use) to "no smoking 8 hours before flight" (correlating to the alcohol rules).

I'm not a pot user, but I do have a legal drink on the weekend and come to work unimpaired on Monday. I can understand someone wanting to smoke a legal drug on the weekend too, and come to work unimpaired the next week. The question is, how do they prove they're unimpaired?

Potheads / Alcoholics are always going to be outliers who try to hide their activities and get away with it.

[HiFlyChick]

Oh, boo hoo. God forbid you should have to make a sacrifice for your career...
An analogy that just popped into my head: say I like to hit myself in the head with a ball-peen hammer. I think it feels great. I do it on my time off. I don't do it at work.I insist that it's harmless and I continue, so far, to show up for work and don't appear to be suffering any performance degradation. People start to notice that I never shut my mouth any more, my eyelids are droopy and I say "ummm" and "man" a lot, but hey, I continue to pass the cursory multiple-choice quizzes that pass for "training" these days. I myself insist that I'm fine, and you don't have the right to tell me to cut it out with the hammer. It's not illegal. In fact, you can buy hammers almost anywhere. I'm deeply involved in "the lifestyle" when it comes to hammers. You can't stop me from flying aeroplanes.

You amuse, me, Meatservo....

That being said, and your ridiculous but amusing example aside, you make a very interesting point - when exactly did we decide that it's our right to have everything our little heart desires and all on our own terms? When it comes to public safety, there are sacrifices that will have to be made, and if you don't want to make them, then don't choose that career. I'll probably get flamed for that statement (or more likely for agreeing with Meatservo ) but realistically, that is a fact of life in pretty much everything we do.

Do you like to have total freedom to stay out late every night or take off for the week-end at a moments notice? Then you will have to choose between that and having children.
Do you want the option of sleeping with whomever you wish whenever you wish? Then you will need to choose between that and being married.
Do you want to have a job that is fun, but poor paying? Then you will need to choose between that and driving a Lamborghini.
It's not like we don't make this choice every single day of our lives, both in the large and in the small. I would like to eat everything I want and stay thin, and you just have to look at all of the diet pill and fancy you-only-need-to-exercise-10-minutes-a-day-equipment ads out there to know that there are a bunch of people like me who want to have their cake and eat it too (literally!) Life is full of choices, and it's time that we all realized that "You can't always get what you want..."

[C.W.E.]

When it comes to public safety, there are sacrifices that will have to be made, and if you don't want to make them, then don't choose that career.

And there is the perfect solution to this discussion.

[rookiepilot]

When it comes to public safety, there are sacrifices that will have to be made, and if you don't want to make them, then don't choose that career.

And there is the perfect solution to this discussion.

Exactly. There are a number of careers where choosing them, means "my rights" get dropped from the spoken language. Non negotiable. You want to hold a position of high public trust, your rights are subverted to the requirements of that trust.