New pot legislatiion brings on talk of pilot pee in a cup

[GRK2]

Hmmm, not sure if if I agree with that. A privilege? Probably not. A job? Or a hobby? Yes. A privilege is really a position one has over others because of wealth, or rank. I fly for a living, I have for 40 years, that's not a privilege, it's a career. I do agree with the second half of your statement though. If the public wants to trust me to carry them from A to B without being high on the herb, I don't mind peeing in a cup. Where I work now, (not in Canada) I am subject to random testing at work. It seems to be of little concern to my colleagues as well. It's just part of the terms of employment.

[Rockie]

I think we often forget flying is a privilege. If I have to pee in a cup, then so be it.

So is driving. Would you support random drug testing on the highway?

[upnatem]

I think we often forget flying is a privilege. If I have to pee in a cup, then so be it.

So is driving. Would you support random drug testing on the highway?

They already do it for alcohol and they're working to get a reliable, portable test for pot as we speak.

[GRK2]

I think we often forget flying is a privilege. If I have to pee in a cup, then so be it.

So is driving. Would you support random drug testing on the highway?

Driving, more like a need to do...still not a privilege. Pee in a cup argument not relevant here. Unless you're being paid to carry people.

[Rockie]

I think we often forget flying is a privilege. If I have to pee in a cup, then so be it.

So is driving. Would you support random drug testing on the highway?

Driving, more like a need to do...still not a privilege. Pee in a cup argument not relevant here. Unless you're being paid to carry people.

Recreational drivers operate on the same roads professional drivers do and therefore put paying passengers at risk. I'd argue it is exactly the same. And nobody can operate a plane or a car without a license to do so by the government that can be suspended or revoked for cause. Privilege.

[cncpc]

So is driving. Would you support random drug testing on the highway?

Driving, more like a need to do...still not a privilege. Pee in a cup argument not relevant here. Unless you're being paid to carry people.

Recreational drivers operate on the same roads professional drivers do and therefore put paying passengers at risk. I'd argue it is exactly the same. And nobody can operate a plane or a car without a license to do so by the government that can be suspended or revoked for cause. Privilege.

90% in agreement with you on that bit. It's not quite that simple at law though. I think you've covered that by specifying "...for cause". It is a privilege, but other common law and Charter provisions require that there be objective grounds for granting that privilege (i.e. study, training, and testing). Passing a drug test is not one of them. In theory, everyone has the opportunity to earn the "privilege", some class of pilot license. However, once granted, and especially where the privilege of holding a license is connected to earning income and thus to the section 7 Charter right of security of the person, it cannot be removed except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice.

The government may pass a law which fails the security of the person, or some other, Charter test if it shows that the law is a reasonable exception to the right. Obviously one aspect of that is that the right to life and security of their persons of all those behind the pilots. In the first step of the reasonable analysis, that is a very significant factor arguing for an exception to Charter rights. However, if we are talking about a marijuana pee test and assuming the lack of clarity on when marijuana use took place that is now inherent in those tests, that would likely result in the reasonable test being failed. Certainly removing a license for marijuana use generally would fail the Charter test.

When marijuana is legal, some judges and police will be either recreational or medical consumers. That is not a bad thing for pilots. Because judges will know of marijuana's effects first hand, they will know the effect it has on their judgment, their motor skills, all of that. Judges will know that there is a public imperative to ensure that pilots are clear headed when carrying out any duty related to the operation of an aircraft, beginning the moment duty time starts through to the end of duty time. They will not find that a test which cannot measure impairment and only posits use within the last 30 to 60 days meets the fundamental principles of justice test. To take away a license simply for marijuana use when not flying would violate another reasonableness test in that it impairs the impugned right as little as possible.

There is a hole in the factual basis that should inform policy making on pot. That has to do with a different type of impairment that may be in effect long after the normal periods when marijuana's effects are still present in the person. Or for some time after a person has quit using marijuana. We don't know much about the not high effects of use in heavy users, or perhaps even medium users, that directly relates to operating an aircraft. I am fairly sure that is an important piece of the puzzle that is now missing. When facts are known on this, it may be that heavy use, or even medium use, may be grounds for denying medical certification.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Driving, more like a need to do...still not a privilege. Pee in a cup argument not relevant here. Unless you're being paid to carry people.

Recreational drivers operate on the same roads professional drivers do and therefore put paying passengers at risk. I'd argue it is exactly the same. And nobody can operate a plane or a car without a license to do so by the government that can be suspended or revoked for cause. Privilege.

90% in agreement with you on that bit. It's not quite that simple at law though. I think you've covered that by specifying "...for cause". It is a privilege, but other common law and Charter provisions require that there be objective grounds for granting that privilege (i.e. study, training, and testing). Passing a drug test is not one of them. In theory, everyone has the opportunity to earn the "privilege", some class of pilot license. However, once granted, and especially where the privilege of holding a license is connected to earning income and thus to the section 7 Charter right of security of the person, it cannot be removed except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice.

The government may pass a law which fails the security of the person, or some other, Charter test if it shows that the law is a reasonable exception to the right. Obviously one aspect of that is that the right to life and security of their persons of all those behind the pilots. In the first step of the reasonable analysis, that is a very significant factor arguing for an exception to Charter rights. However, if we are talking about a marijuana pee test and assuming the lack of clarity on when marijuana use took place that is now inherent in those tests, that would likely result in the reasonable test being failed. Certainly removing a license for marijuana use generally would fail the Charter test.

When marijuana is legal, some judges and police will be either recreational or medical consumers. That is not a bad thing for pilots. Because judges will know of marijuana's effects first hand, they will know the effect it has on their judgment, their motor skills, all of that. Judges will know that there is a public imperative to ensure that pilots are clear headed when carrying out any duty related to the operation of an aircraft, beginning the moment duty time starts through to the end of duty time. They will not find that a test which cannot measure impairment and only posits use within the last 30 to 60 days meets the fundamental principles of justice test. To take away a license simply for marijuana use when not flying would violate another reasonableness test in that it impairs the impugned right as little as possible.

There is a hole in the factual basis that should inform policy making on pot. That has to do with a different type of impairment that may be in effect long after the normal periods when marijuana's effects are still present in the person. Or for some time after a person has quit using marijuana. We don't know much about the not high effects of use in heavy users, or perhaps even medium users, that directly relates to operating an aircraft. I am fairly sure that is an important piece of the puzzle that is now missing. When facts are known on this, it may be that heavy use, or even medium use, may be grounds for denying medical certification.

I agree with you on most of that.

However judges are there to apply the law not to write it or base their decisions on personal knowledge in regards to their own impairment experiences.

It is my understanding that unless a pre employment condition stipulates drug screening that it goes against the charter.

At the end of the day, much like alcohol, love and chocolate everything is best in moderation and can become an addiction if too heavily relied upon.

All the best,
TPC

[No Smoke, No Fire]

Let the games begin

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate- ... -1.4713222

[cncpc]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/armed-f ... -1.4698749

[Beefitarian]

I just finished typing a tale about drug testing in another thread.

Cannabis testing is really pathetic. I once got hired at the same time as an apprentice by a company that sent everyone for pre hire drug testing. They made a big fuss about it warning you several times, "We require you get a medical. There's a drug test. Are you sure you can pass." I had never smoked any so I was reasonably sure.

The next week at work, during lunch one day, the apprentice claimed to smoke often and that he had even done so the evening before. Then he explained he bought two liters of orange juice. Drank half the night before, then the other half in the morning before the test.

I'm not suggesting you need to do that, but it supposedly worked. I have worked with lots of other users that also passed some form of test.

I have heard marijuana usually metabolizes in less than a week, whether you drink orange juice or not.

So I suppose if they test often some guys will be found to have used it. The next problem being they can't tell if you are high or smoked it a few days ago.

So if you like the weed I guess you could Lawyer up.

[Victory]

I can't help but feel jealous. All of Canada will be smoking and having a good time while we have to abstain because most of us fly to countries where it's still illegal and can be tested for it.