Wanna Fly High? Fuggetaboutit!

[DaleB]

Well, short answer, someone who doesn't want to lie on a government form.

Longer answer, I think it's more "perception protection" for the FAA. Some habitual drunk or drug abuser who maybe just hasn't been caught yet gets a pilot's license and proceeds to do something sadly predictable. Press interviews friends and neighbors and finds out he's got a huge problem and everyone knew about it. Would YOU want to answer questions about why you gave him a certificate without even so much as asking the question? I sure wouldn't.

[Floatsflyer]

You say, "perception protection". That's a euphemism for cover your behind. Either way those form questions do nothing to protect the applicant or the public so they should be made irrelevant and therefore deleted.

[DaleB]

You say, "perception protection". That's a euphemism for cover your ass.

You say that as if government agencies ever didn't. I never said asking the question would do any good... just giving you my opinion in response to your question. If you're not satisfied I'll refund every penny you paid for it, less shipping and handling.

[Frank Giger]

I realize it's once again fashionable to smoke dope, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a pretty stupid thing to do - especially for a pilot.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I realize it's once again fashionable to smoke dope, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a pretty stupid thing to do - especially for a pilot.

Is it stupider or less stupid (forgetting the national legal issue) than drinking alcohol, drinking caffeinated drinks, or smoking/chewing/snorting tobacco (all of which are physiologically addictive, while marijuana is not)? And are those things more stupid for pilots than for the population as a whole? Just curious as to why marijuana is singled out here...

If your position is that excessive usage of ALL of those substances are sub-optimal to varying degrees and for various reasons, particularly for pilots within their physiologically active time period, then I agree with you.

[Frank Giger]

Is it stupider or less stupid (forgetting the national legal issue) than drinking alcohol, drinking caffeinated drinks, or smoking/chewing/snorting tobacco (all of which are physiologically addictive, while marijuana is not)? And are those things more stupid for pilots than for the population as a whole? Just curious as to why marijuana is singled out here...

If your position is that excessive usage of ALL of those substances are sub-optimal to varying degrees and for various reasons, particularly for pilots within their physiologically active time period, then I agree with you.

One can't forget the national legal issue. It's at the very heart of the matter.

Get arrested for having a case of whiskey in the very dry County of Dekalb in Alabama and you won't lose your pilot license. Get arrested for possessing a pound of pot and it's a different story. Have much less than that in your aircraft and transport it across state lines. Just one little joint is enough. If you're really, really unlucky and get ramp checked and there is a cop there....

I guess I'm a throwback, but there is absolutely nothing about the stoners I have known that makes me think "hey, they'd be great pilots between bong sessions!"

[Marc Zeitlin]

One can't forget the national legal issue. It's at the very heart of the matter.

Only for pilots. Your statement was that it was a stupid thing to do, with the clause "especially for pilots" at the end. Let's assume that it is stupid for pilots due to the federal legal issue. My question was more for the rest of the statement (although obviously that doesn't have a lot to do with flying, so we can drop the conversation if the mods want).

Get arrested for having a case of whiskey in the very dry County of Dekalb in Alabama and you won't lose your pilot license.

The 2nd/3rd class medical asks whether you've ever been arrested/convicted of an alcohol or drug related driving offense that resulted in revocation of driving privileges. So it might - get a medical refused, and you're not flying.

Get arrested for possessing a pound of pot and it's a different story. Have much less than that in your aircraft and transport it across state lines. Just one little joint is enough. If you're really, really unlucky and get ramp checked and there is a cop there....

Your statement to which I responded was with respect to the usage of the substance, not to it's possession, transport and/or sale.

Let's get back to your statement regarding USING marijuana, and my question regarding USING other legal (under most circumstances) substances, and the relative stupidity of such USAGE.

I guess I'm a throwback, but there is absolutely nothing about the stoners I have known that makes me think "hey, they'd be great pilots between bong sessions!"

How do you feel about the pilots that drink beer and/or hard liquor, or smoke cigarettes, or drink "energy drinks" or copious amounts of coffee?

Personally, I'll take a marijuana user over a drinker any day, but that's just me.

[Bob H]

When I worked in aerospace on both white and black programs, you were immediately fired if you used any drugs, period. HR would quietly screen all potential hires coming in for an interview and if a person
admitted he used pot at any time in his life, the job interview was over before it started. Security kept a very tight survalence on all employees. The higher the clearance, the tighter the security requirements.
Primary reason for the drug control was to keep anyone from security compromise by Soviets or other foreign agencies. And to maintain high integrity of work abilities, i.e., would you want you family flying on a plane
with parts designed or built by a pot head?

[rwanttaja]

...And to maintain high integrity of work abilities, i.e., would you want you family flying on a plane with parts designed or built by a pot head?

I'm kind of a traditionalist; planes should be designed or built by raging alcoholics.

Ron "Three martini lunches weren't just a MBA thing" Wanttaja

[Marc Zeitlin]

Primary reason for the drug control was to keep anyone from security compromise by Soviets or other foreign agencies.

When I got my clearance, they told us that if we told the truth to them, we couldn't be blackmailed and that's what they were worried about. They didn't give a crap if someone had used drugs at some point in a prior life - just that they knew about it.

And to maintain high integrity of work abilities, i.e., would you want you family flying on a plane with parts designed or built by a pot head?

Very close to the worst argument I've ever heard for denying someone a job (or firing them). Do you want your family flying on an aircraft designed by a drunk? How about someone that takes a lot of prescription painkillers? How about someone who is stressed out because of their wife suing for divorce? How about someone who's got insomnia and can't sleep? Or any one of a myriad of other reasons that may affect performance in a job, none of which are tested for?

Sheesh. There are a lot of reasons why someone might be incapable of performing their job, a small subset of which are listed above. If a company wants to have a PERFORMANCE test when everyone walks in the door in the morning to ensure that they're not incapacitated in any way for ANY reason, sign me up (and that's the argument I made to HP when HP started doing drug testing, an act with which I argued vehemently). But arbitrary rules against some particular substances that have nothing to do with performance when used responsibly (just like having a beer or four on Friday evening doesn't make you incapable of designing brackets on Monday) are merely the HR equivalent of TSA checks at airports - CYA moves to make it LOOK like you're doing something, while actually doing nothing useful.

I'll close with a quote from:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...effective.html

" ... That might make sense if testing yielded clear benefits to the companies that deploy it or to society at large. But here’s the most distressing fact about drug testing in the workplace: As was the case 30 years ago, testing has no solid base of evidence, no proof that it succeeds. We don’t know if screening workers for recent drug use makes them more productive, lowers their risk of getting into accidents, or otherwise helps maintain the social order. And what positive effects we do understand—there are indeed a few—seem almost accidental. They may not be worth the time and money and intrusion."

Fire away.