Here is part of one companies add in the employment forum.
As this is a Safety Sensitive Position, selected candidate(s) must test negative for controlled substances and alcohol prior to employment.
annonyous123 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:51 am
Both alcohol and Marijuana can be detected in your system for up to 3 weeks.
Heliian wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:04 pm
I heard the other day that pot use had dropped but the use of other drugs that metabolize faster has increased.
So the rules of the game are: Massively drunk 2 to 5 days ago = Alcohol Positive = You're 'clear' and eligible VS Marijuana in some form 3 weeks ago = THC Positive = Your career is over.
Isn't the fairness of the test what we're debating? No pilot should abuse any substances, that's obvious.
What are they going to do when more frequent tests in search of thc starts revealing broad ethanol use and abuse + other drugs among pilots? Maybe the old fashion scotch and beer drinker will end up suportting the younger pro cannabis cause' they're both on the same boat of not getting busted!?
Meatservo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:46 pm
I predict zero change.
I respectfully disagree.
As someone who has followed (and heavily invested in) the emerging cannabis industry for the better part of three years, I'm quite confident we are about to witness a significant societal change.
Cannabis as you or I know it (bong rips and fat blunts) will only make up a marginal rate of consumption in what is expected to be a $20 Billion industry. Well over half of cannabis sales will be in the form of pills, edibles, beverages, oils and creams. The cannabis beverage market in particular stands to severely disrupt the entire alcohol market as people will gravitate towards uplifting drinks minus the calories, bad hangovers, and negative long term health effects. The potency will vary as wide as the product offering, from barely perceptible to full on couch lock. These numerous products and potencies offered by legalisation will attract a large segment of the population who were not previously inclined to "smoke a doobie" or otherwise partake in the current stigma.
Over the next 5-10 years cannabis will permeate our social fabric to such a degree that it's consumption will be considered normal and celebrated (much like alcohol currently). In this new environment of acceptance, it will be increasingly difficult for pilots (or other safety related personnel) to rationalise their continued abstinence.
Transport Canada's default "zero tolerance" policy is an easy, if not predictable, position for an agency struggling to maintain relevance in the face of relentless budgetary cuts. Unfortunately their position does not recognise the current reality or that of the future. We have roughly 13,000 ATPL's in this country. A good number of them already consume cannabis and I'd argue a good deal more will as cannabis becomes increasingly normalised. In the perfect world Transport Canada would take the initiative to determine what is impairment, and apply guidelines for appropriate use. Unfortunately I think a number of pilots will lose their licence and/or their jobs before we see significant regulatory progress.
While I support cannabis legalisation it is undoubtedly exposing our profession to a large regulatory risk. I would caution all pilots to refrain from cannabis use until firm guidelines are in place on an international level. With legalisation and in the absence of random testing one could arguably be tempted to partake. However I would remind you that it is still federally illegal in the US and any random checks conducted on their soil would currently bar you from entering for life. And what good is an airline pilot if they cannot travel to the US?
Tanker299 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:38 am
anyone who's a non smoker tried a we lil dip or a puff. Head rush and impaired for bit.
I can honestly say I know more people that did NOT try weed or cigarettes, than people who DID try it. Some posts make it sound like whole Canada is secretly smoking and drinking in their basements. I'd be surprised...
We have lived quite a different life. I don’t think I know anyone who hasn’t tried one or both
Tanker299 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:38 am
anyone who's a non smoker tried a we lil dip or a puff. Head rush and impaired for bit.
Nope. Never tried it, don't have the urge.
And that's one of the problems: weed, alcohol, tobacco are way too often viewed through rose colored "i am cool" glasses, often by people who can't resist the urge. If you can't resist the urge, but you try to succesfully portray the image that "everyone at least tried it once", it makes you look less weak and feel less guilty. It is also very easy to find likeminded people to reinforce the believe that everyone tried it.
I can honestly say I know more people that did NOT try weed or cigarettes, than people who DID try it. Some posts make it sound like whole Canada is secretly smoking and drinking in their basements. I'd be surprised...
Wow, I can tell you out of my circle of friends, whom are Dr.'s, Lawyers, Firemen, ATC all are dabbing into something or another, ........there is a whole lot worse going on then consuming some Marijuana. You would be very surprised what people are into, I'd guess they are keeping it from you based on your attitude towards it.
I just wish that there was more knowledge on the subject of what constitutes "impairment". Maybe one of the good things to come from legalization will be more legitimate research on the subject. The reasons I abstain from consuming cannabis, are threefold: One: I do not like smoking. It doesn't matter what plant you're burning, smoking will give you lung disease. Two: I have to admit, it's the stigma currently surrounding cannabis. I live in a small community, and I don't want to be known as "the dope smoking pilot". Three, from observing friends who smoke cannabis, I am not sure what it actually does to your brain. All I have is anecdotal evidence, as well as my own observations. There are many people who don't smoke very often and you would never know. But everybody knows a few people who smoke a lot, and to me they kind of act "high" even when I'm pretty sure they're not... you know, the half-lidded eyes, the slow, relaxed way they talk, they don't seem to be able to remember to close their mouths when they aren't talking. What is that? Is that brain damage? Is it simply an artifact of "Cannabis culture", as in, it's just part of their persona? Is it just that their habit actually DOES make them really relaxed?
I'm not trying to discriminate against anyone, but I just can't get satisfactory data about what will happen to my brain if I decide that I really like one of the new, legal, cannabis drinks, for instance. It sure sounds nice, a drink that makes me laugh and have fun and doesn't give me a hangover.
It's not that alcohol abuse doesn't do something to your brain: of course it does. It's just that the amount you need to drink in order to inflict permanent damage is pretty extreme. People who stay below that threshold can continue to function indefinitely, and we have centuries of evidence to prove this. I suspect (and this is just a theory) that there must be a similar threshold with cannabis: I know lots of people from all walks of life who will have a puff every now and then, or at the week-end, or who smoke the low-grade stems-and-seeds their friends grow in a pot on the back porch... and they seem totally unimpaired. How much of this stuff do you need to smoke, over what period of time, before you start to display that stereotypical slack-jawed slow-talking thing even when you're not actually high? And again, is that a real thing, or just an unkind stereotype? I know a couple of pilots who look and talk like that, and there is also no doubt in my mind that they are cannabis-smokers: I've seen them. They also are just fine at their jobs. What is the threshold here, between bouncing back to normal after a sporadic recreational use, and beginning to show the stereotypical "dopey"characteristics? I don't want to wind up like that. And I'm not totally convinced it isn't a real phenomenon.
I think I'll watch, and wait, for a while longer before deciding to join "Cannabis Culture". I'm still down for some free concert tickets though, thanks, Aurora!
---------- ADS -----------
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
Meatservo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:52 am
I just wish that there was more knowledge on the subject of what constitutes "impairment". Maybe one of the good things to come from legalization will be more legitimate research on the subject. The reasons I abstain from consuming cannabis, are threefold: One: I do not like smoking. It doesn't matter what plant you're burning, smoking will give you lung disease. Two: I have to admit, it's the stigma currently surrounding cannabis. I live in a small community, and I don't want to be known as "the dope smoking pilot". Three, from observing friends who smoke cannabis, I am not sure what it actually does to your brain. All I have is anecdotal evidence, as well as my own observations. There are many people who don't smoke very often and you would never know. But everybody knows a few people who smoke a lot, and to me they kind of act "high" even when I'm pretty sure they're not... you know, the half-lidded eyes, the slow, relaxed way they talk, they don't seem to be able to remember to close their mouths when they aren't talking. What is that? Is that brain damage? Is it simply an artifact of "Cannabis culture", as in, it's just part of their persona? Is it just that their habit actually DOES make them really relaxed?
I'm not trying to discriminate against anyone, but I just can't get satisfactory data about what will happen to my brain if I decide that I really like one of the new, legal, cannabis drinks, for instance. It sure sounds nice, a drink that makes me laugh and have fun and doesn't give me a hangover.
It's not that alcohol abuse doesn't do something to your brain: of course it does. It's just that the amount you need to drink in order to inflict permanent damage is pretty extreme. People who stay below that threshold can continue to function indefinitely, and we have centuries of evidence to prove this. I suspect (and this is just a theory) that there must be a similar threshold with cannabis: I know lots of people from all walks of life who will have a puff every now and then, or at the week-end, or who smoke the low-grade stems-and-seeds their friends grow in a pot on the back porch... and they seem totally unimpaired. How much of this stuff do you need to smoke, over what period of time, before you start to display that stereotypical slack-jawed slow-talking thing even when you're not actually high? And again, is that a real thing, or just an unkind stereotype? I know a couple of pilots who look and talk like that, and there is also no doubt in my mind that they are cannabis-smokers: I've seen them. They also are just fine at their jobs. What is the threshold here, between bouncing back to normal after a sporadic recreational use, and beginning to show the stereotypical "dopey"characteristics? I don't want to wind up like that. And I'm not totally convinced it isn't a real phenomenon.
I think I'll watch, and wait, for a while longer before deciding to join "Cannabis Culture". I'm still down for some free concert tickets though, thanks, Aurora!
That's a hell of a post.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Meatservo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:52 am
Three, from observing friends who smoke cannabis, I am not sure what it actually does to your brain. All I have is anecdotal evidence, as well as my own observations.
Agreed. They say a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument. People say a lot of things about how good pot is, and I won't argue against what it can do for PTSD and health problems, but I've never had the desire to touch it after what I've seen it do to the minds of people I know who smoke it regularly. It's excruciatingly hard to carry on a conversation with them. I watched pot turn two of my closes friends into total sh*theads in high school.
I also have a couple of close relatives who were like missionaries spreading the gospel of the wonders of smoking pot and as time passed they became zombies who couldn't remember to tie their shoes.
Therefore I believe it can be a very dangerous substance to use.
The same of course holds true for excessive use of alcohol.
Meatservo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:52 amI just wish that there was more knowledge on the subject of what constitutes "impairment". Maybe one of the good things to come from legalization will be more legitimate research on the subject.
To be fair, there's been decades of research on cannabis usage, across all walks of life. If you want more reading, here's one place to start some research (and yes, I know norml is a pro-cannabis site, but you can evaluate the research on the merits of the institutions that conducted it, not the pro-weed messenger showing it to you): http://norml.org/library
What is the threshold here, between bouncing back to normal after a sporadic recreational use, and beginning to show the stereotypical "dopey"characteristics? I don't want to wind up like that. And I'm not totally convinced it isn't a real phenomenon.
That's a good question. Also consider that correlation does not guarantee causation... I know some "dopey" people who I am 99.999% sure have never touched a leaf of weed in their entire life. That's just who they are naturally.
youhavecontrol wrote:They say a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument.
Sadly, a person with a placebo-induced experience can be equally convinced that their experience is real. They're at the mercy of no one, but they can still be wrong.
I'm not a user, but I am following the change in legislation from the sidelines with curiosity (about the effects of the legislation, not about how quickly I can start a regimen of THC).
Tanker299 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:38 am
I know we want to think we are the smartest people in the world but if your cool with the cops, who make split second stressed decisions that have life and death consequences doing it?
Several police agencies are currently writing policy that will ban marijuana usage for officers (even medical) at any level of usage. While usage may become legal within the limits of the criminal code it will be illegal by way of the Police Act that officers also must adhere to by going against policies written by the agencies.
Don't know for sure what medical weed would be viewed by TC, but pretty sure it would be a dis qualifier right now. TC is a reactive, and sadly, arcane system. Give it a decade and maybe things will change.
It is quite educational to view the changing attitudes to these sort of things. I got addicted to cigarettes in an era where smoking was nowhere near a capital offense, hell, people offered the stuff out of friendship. But now I can't shake it even after all of that nicotine gum and patches and inhalers and similar snake oil schemes. The only good thing to say about it is that it does not cognitively screw you up, but it sure does screw up your lungs.
So I do know something about addiction.
Marijuana is a different story as far as I can tell. Like alcohol, it just may be an addictive substance that may have not so great repercussions.
So, you have alcohol drinkers, no big deal. BUT, you also have ALCOHOL drinkers. A whole different type of scenario. As in addiction.
Same goes for weed I think. Some may use it here and there and not get hooked, but some may be using it a little too much and run the risk of getting hooked. That would sadly be another form of an alcohol addicted person.
As long as it does not affect your abilities, who cares. Go a little too far though, might run into problems.
From a tobacco addict
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.
I was also very addicted to tobacco, my wife had a breathing problem and tobacco smoke was really hard on her so I told her I would quit.
It was way, way harder to quit smoking than it was to quit drinking but eventually I found a quit smoking program that worked and after about two years I finally got to the point that tobacco smoke was offensive and I no longer had the urge to use it.
C.W.E. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:28 pm
How many people here would hire a pilot knowing they use cannabis for recreation?
Far more than you think, ..
I would also say that much like drinking, recreational use shouldn't matter (don't smoke, tried once and literally can't get high. Friend told me I was just wasting it )
I also know the research says that physically you cannot get addicted to weed. It's technically not an addictive substance. That being said, I know anecdotally several people who are absolutely addicted to it. It's purely psychological. They like how it feels so they want to keep that feeling. As stated before, some intensive research into longterm effects, and what impaired constitutes is called for.
C-GGGQ wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:17 pmI also know the research says that physically you cannot get addicted to weed. It's technically not an addictive substance.
Actually that's not quite correct. I had the same misconception until someone pointed me to the research showing that the body does form a mild chemical dependency, that will manifest withdrawal symptoms when the user stops smoking. Apparently only tested in heavy smokers though, and I don't recall what it said about the severity of symptoms. I recall it suggested that casual users either do not form the chemical dependency, or it's so mild that you wouldn't know it's there.
That being said, I know anecdotally several people who are absolutely addicted to it. It's purely psychological. They like how it feels so they want to keep that feeling.
Keep in mind that these two terms are mutually exclusive... Addiction implies a chemical dependency that you're driven to support, not just a belief that you like getting high so you keep doing it.
C-GGGQ wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:17 pmI also know the research says that physically you cannot get addicted to weed. It's technically not an addictive substance.
Actually that's not quite correct. I had the same misconception until someone pointed me to the research showing that the body does form a mild chemical dependency, that will manifest withdrawal symptoms when the user stops smoking. Apparently only tested in heavy smokers though, and I don't recall what it said about the severity of symptoms. I recall it suggested that casual users either do not form the chemical dependency, or it's so mild that you wouldn't know it's there.
That being said, I know anecdotally several people who are absolutely addicted to it. It's purely psychological. They like how it feels so they want to keep that feeling.
Keep in mind that these two terms are mutually exclusive... Addiction implies a chemical dependency that you're driven to support, not just a belief that you like getting high so you keep doing it.
I do realize that addiction is a chemical dependancy, however, your mind is more than strong enough to convince you of a "need" for something which is what I meant versus say meth where your body absolutely needs it or withdrawl sets in.