Cabin Crew Banned From Day Off Doping

[pelmet]

Looks like the union(you know, those people that claim safety, safety, safety in negotiations) was fighting to allow their members to dope as much as they want on days off. Now(no surprise), they are asking for more money because they are not allowed to endanger our lives.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/genera ... r-AA23IKWu

[Inverted2]

Airlines would cease to operate if they dope tested everyone and fired those who tested positive.

[ArcticAviation12]

Honestly, surprised the FA union was actually fighting for this... ridiculous.

[bobcaygeon]

Is it really that outrageous? The RCMP, most city police departments, fight fighters, paramedics, nurses, and doctors to name a few have as little as 12 hrs between toking and working, just like the CARS for alcohol. Not supporting either way but I know of operations where dispatchers, crew schedulers, planners, etc are designated as safety sensitive positions, some of which is a stretch especially of they are on a rotational schedule.

[DanWEC]

It's completely outrageous! Didn't you all watch reefer madness?
That stuff will kill you!
My brother is CBSA, has a gun, and their policy isn't even a hard time limit- it's just "don't be under the influence".
But given how dangerous pot is, they must be outliers.... along with every other industry outside of aviation.

Let's say we have sleep issues. It's much better to be prescribed, by a doctor, any number of hypnotics or tranquilizers synthetically produced by pharmaceuticals. These of course, carry very real warnings of addiction, dependance, abuse, organ damage, and of course, leave you groggy, foggy, and even mildly amnesiac the next day.

Guess it's asking too much to find something that is much more effective, AND has absolutely none of these negative side effects....

Wouldn't it be weird if it does exist, is everywhere, but is restricted and controlled as somehow being worse, completely arbitrarily? Now THAT would be bizarre.

[digits_]

Kudos to the union for fighting for their members though.

[LineUpAndWait]

Is it really that outrageous? The RCMP, most city police departments, fight fighters, paramedics, nurses, and doctors to name a few have as little as 12 hrs between toking and working, just like the CARS for alcohol. Not supporting either way but I know of operations where dispatchers, crew schedulers, planners, etc are designated as safety sensitive positions, some of which is a stretch especially of they are on a rotational schedule.

The reason why it has to be so restrictive is because it would be impossible to rule out cannabis as a factor in case of a flight safety occurrence. Something that is unique to aviation.

[digits_]

Is it really that outrageous? The RCMP, most city police departments, fight fighters, paramedics, nurses, and doctors to name a few have as little as 12 hrs between toking and working, just like the CARS for alcohol. Not supporting either way but I know of operations where dispatchers, crew schedulers, planners, etc are designated as safety sensitive positions, some of which is a stretch especially of they are on a rotational schedule.

The reason why it has to be so restrictive is because it would be impossible to rule out cannabis as a factor in case of a flight safety occurrence. Something that is unique to aviation.

It's not really unique. It would be nice to know if cannabis use is a factor in car accidents, medical errors or construction mishaps as well.

I don't think I would ever be satisfied with an aviation safety report that lists cannabis use as a main factor. Seems like a cheap easy excuse.

Flight crew impairment, sure, but minor influences due to cannabis use 21 days earlier? If that leads to a crash a plethora of other things must have gone wrong.

[LineUpAndWait]

It's not really unique. It would be nice to know if cannabis use is a factor in car accidents, medical errors or construction mishaps as well.

I don't think I would ever be satisfied with an aviation safety report that lists cannabis use as a main factor. Seems like a cheap easy excuse.

Flight crew impairment, sure, but minor influences due to cannabis use 21 days earlier? If that leads to a crash a plethora of other things must have gone wrong.

I was being lazy with my wording. Meant to imply that aviation accidents are unique in how much global interest and resources can go into an investigation.

Was told by a flight surgeon a couple of years ago that, in case of a crash, they may not be able to reliable tell when a person last consumed cannabis (depending on what samples are available). It would be quite problematic if an investigation couldn't rule out recent cannabis use, which is why the powers that be decided that it was best to severely restrict its use.

[digits_]

It would be quite problematic if an investigation couldn't rule out recent cannabis use,

I'm still not sure why aviation should be treated different than the transportation or construction sector or medical sector for example. Not aimed directly at you, but more towards the regulators. Cannabis use in itself should not bring down an airliner. It can serve as a tool to make the crew the scapegoat, but will rarely be the cause of a crash.

which is why the powers that be decided that it was best to severely restrict its use.

You're probably right, but again, why?

If society decides cannabis is legal, then it stands to reason you should be able to take part in societies basic functions without severe restrictions (eg driving, working, ...).

[Bede]

Let's say we have sleep issues. It's much better to be prescribed, by a doctor, any number of hypnotics or tranquilizers synthetically produced by pharmaceuticals. These of course, carry very real warnings of addiction, dependance, abuse, organ damage, and of course, leave you groggy, foggy, and even mildly amnesiac the next day.

They have warnings because they're subject to strict regulatory requirements, not because they're unsafe.

The general rule for any safety sensitive position that specifies certain medical requirements is that you need to wait 5 half-lives before operating. For example, Zopiclone, a common hypnotic prescribed for insomnia, has a half life of 5-6 hours. Cannabis has a half life measured in days. Cannabis has the same rules as any other drug- you must wait 5 half lives. Just because cannabis is popular with the Justin Trudeau crowd doesn't make it exempt from the rules of pharmacology. The fact that it's "natural" and not "synthetically produced by pharmaceuticals" is a red herring.

Guess it's asking too much to find something that is much more effective, AND has absolutely none of these negative side effects....

That is incorrect. Cannabis has many side potential effects including exacerbation of psychosis in predisposed individuals, cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, bronchitis, to name a few.

[altiplano]

Can't wait to see all the drug tests Canadian crews are subjected to in overseas jurisdictions when Canada allows it for crews. Remember that it's illegal everywhere else in the world.

What a hassle that's going to be - more random tests on arrival and departure, then the cancelled flights and Canadians in jail with ruined careers for operating under the influence because Johnny and Suzy couldn't help themselves when the gummies and pre-rolls came out on the weekend. That stuff stays in your system for weeks.

Dope's for dopes. You want to partake and work in this business? Go drive the Honeywagon.

[khedrei]

If society decides cannabis is legal, then it stands to reason you should be able to take part in societies basic functions without severe restrictions (eg driving, working, ...).

Huh? Alcohol is legal and we severely restrict its use. You cant drive and work under the influence. Cigarettes cant be smoked everywhere. Hell, hardly anywhere now. Prescription meds. Guns. There are all kinds of things that are legal that are severely restricted. What a wierd thing for you to say....

Personally, I dont think its that bad of a drug as a whole. Less dangerous and destructive than alcohol. But I think it was the dumbest thing in the world to legalize it the way they did. Im with antipalo. Dope is for dopes.

[digits_]

If society decides cannabis is legal, then it stands to reason you should be able to take part in societies basic functions without severe restrictions (eg driving, working, ...).

Huh? Alcohol is legal and we severely restrict its use. You cant drive and work under the influence. Cigarettes cant be smoked everywhere. Hell, hardly anywhere now. Prescription meds. Guns. There are all kinds of things that are legal that are severely restricted. What a wierd thing for you to say....

Personally, I dont think its that bad of a drug as a whole. Less dangerous and destructive than alcohol. But I think it was the dumbest thing in the world to legalize it the way they did. Im with antipalo. Dope is for dopes.

Some restrictions are fair. But there's a significant difference between everything you've listed before, which has restrictions for less than 24 hours, and then the cannabis restriction which basically means you'd lose your job if you use it. A 28 day restriction is quite severe.

I remember some discussions about this when it first got into effect. I think the reason given for the 28 day restriction was that you couldn't accurately test for it. Which I find an even worse argument for such a severe restriction.

[khedrei]

If society decides cannabis is legal, then it stands to reason you should be able to take part in societies basic functions without severe restrictions (eg driving, working, ...).

Huh? Alcohol is legal and we severely restrict its use. You cant drive and work under the influence. Cigarettes cant be smoked everywhere. Hell, hardly anywhere now. Prescription meds. Guns. There are all kinds of things that are legal that are severely restricted. What a wierd thing for you to say....

Personally, I dont think its that bad of a drug as a whole. Less dangerous and destructive than alcohol. But I think it was the dumbest thing in the world to legalize it the way they did. Im with antipalo. Dope is for dopes.

Some restrictions are fair. But there's a significant difference between everything you've listed before, which has restrictions for less than 24 hours, and then the cannabis restriction which basically means you'd lose your job if you use it. A 28 day restriction is quite severe.

I remember some discussions about this when it first got into effect. I think the reason given for the 28 day restriction was that you couldn't accurately test for it. Which I find an even worse argument for such a severe restriction.

I do agree that people shouldnt be losing their job for smoking 28 days ago. I dont know all of the methods used to test for impairment or how accurate they are but there are definitely blood tests that can tell concentration at the time. But come on man! Be honest with yourself. People aren't losing their job for smoking 28 days ago. Or even 7 days ago. No one does that. People that use, use daily. There's a damn store on every major block. I have talked to people who think it doesnt impair their driving and are happy to smoke then drive. Or hell, smoke while driving. The whole thing is a disaster. I dont want dope smokers in the centre, the cockpit, or working ground crew. Too many people have come to rely on this as a normal part of their lives. Its sick. Good luck putting this toothpaste back in the tube.

[Bede]

Some restrictions are fair. But there's a significant difference between everything you've listed before, which has restrictions for less than 24 hours, and then the cannabis restriction which basically means you'd lose your job if you use it. A 28 day restriction is quite severe.

No. It's because you have to wait 5 half lives for most drugs to clear from your system. Many drugs have half lives in measured in hours. Cannabis, being lipid soluble has half lives measured in days. Cannabis is treated no different than any other non-approved drug.

[digits_]

Some restrictions are fair. But there's a significant difference between everything you've listed before, which has restrictions for less than 24 hours, and then the cannabis restriction which basically means you'd lose your job if you use it. A 28 day restriction is quite severe.

No. It's because you have to wait 5 half lives for most drugs to clear from your system. Many drugs have half lives in measured in hours. Cannabis, being lipid soluble has half lives measured in days. Cannabis is treated no different than any other non-approved drug.

Thank you for that background information. It's interesting to know how they came up with that number.

The end result is still the same though: society decides you can use cannabis, but then lose your job if you do. It's hard to combine those 2 government policies.

[altiplano]

Huh? Alcohol is legal and we severely restrict its use. You cant drive and work under the influence. Cigarettes cant be smoked everywhere. Hell, hardly anywhere now. Prescription meds. Guns. There are all kinds of things that are legal that are severely restricted. What a wierd thing for you to say....

Personally, I dont think its that bad of a drug as a whole. Less dangerous and destructive than alcohol. But I think it was the dumbest thing in the world to legalize it the way they did. Im with antipalo. Dope is for dopes.

Some restrictions are fair. But there's a significant difference between everything you've listed before, which has restrictions for less than 24 hours, and then the cannabis restriction which basically means you'd lose your job if you use it. A 28 day restriction is quite severe.

I remember some discussions about this when it first got into effect. I think the reason given for the 28 day restriction was that you couldn't accurately test for it. Which I find an even worse argument for such a severe restriction.

I do agree that people shouldnt be losing their job for smoking 28 days ago. I dont know all of the methods used to test for impairment or how accurate they are but there are definitely blood tests that can tell concentration at the time. But come on man! Be honest with yourself. People aren't losing their job for smoking 28 days ago. Or even 7 days ago. No one does that. People that use, use daily. There's a damn store on every major block. I have talked to people who think it doesnt impair their driving and are happy to smoke then drive. Or hell, smoke while driving. The whole thing is a disaster. I dont want dope smokers in the centre, the cockpit, or working ground crew. Too many people have come to rely on this as a normal part of their lives. Its sick. Good luck putting this toothpaste back in the tube.

I was in the government liquor store one afternoon last summer and the guy ahead of me reeked and was barely holding his eyes open, I was surprised they served him as he was clearly intoxicated. When I came out of the store I saw him driving away.

Another time I was parked waiting and I watched a guy come out of the pot store up the way, sit in his car, smoke marijuana for the next 10 minutes or so, and drive off.

Then of course it's in every park, on every beach, on every street you walk down...

The way it's being enabled and allowed without any enforcement in this country is a failure of policy.

It's illegal everywhere else in the world. People living in the Canadian dope bubble are kidding themselves by thinking that their behaviour and usage levels are normal.

[careerpilot?]

As an avid motorcycle rider, it’s terrifying how often you smell it coming from cars on the roads. Riding behind them on the highway or in stop and go traffic, I smell it with terrifying regularity.

I’m not against restricting it. It’s not unlike 12hrs bottle to throttle. It isn’t to control the 1 beer crowd, but rather the heavier / more habitual users who would push the boundaries if clear lines were not drawn.

[digits_]

It's illegal everywhere else in the world.

Not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis

[DanWEC]

The general rule for any safety sensitive position that specifies certain medical requirements is that you need to wait 5 half-lives before operating. For example, Zopiclone, a common hypnotic prescribed for insomnia, has a half life of 5-6 hours. Cannabis has a half life measured in days. Cannabis has the same rules as any other drug- you must wait 5 half lives. Just because cannabis is popular with the Justin Trudeau crowd doesn't make it exempt from the rules of pharmacology. The fact that it's "natural" and not "synthetically produced by pharmaceuticals" is a red herring.

It sounds like this makes sense at face value, but it actually doesn't, and many people don't understand why, but I'll explain. (I have a Bio degree and related background, before aviation.)

There a fundamental failure and disconnect here in the administration of the current regulations. The issue is that what you are stating as the half-life of cannabis, is in reality the half life of a completely non-psychotic metabolite of THC, called THC-COOH.

THC-COOH is the target marker for conventional testing. It's an indicator that the subject likely consumed THC/CBD in the past and that's all. It's presence has absolutely no effect on cognitive ability or anything otherwise. It's also fat-soluble, so it can gradually presents itself in the bloodstream and tissues for an extended period of time. CBD products that have the THC filtered or titrated away still have trace THC, so they aren't immune to the testing procedure either.

So, what we have here is not even an roughly appropriate analog for impairment, such as BAC use for gauging alcohol impairment, but rather nothing more than a passive indicator that someone has used it in the past. See the problem here?

This next, equally illogical part comes directly from a conversation with good pilot buddy in the Canadian Space Agency, who also worked within NASA. TC's current direction on cannabis comes from the FAA, which in turn comes from NASA's research. So this is about as close as you can get from the horses mouth without being grass. (Talking over bottles of delicious, legal alcohol, no less.)

THC-COOH can be stored in fat, and in an aviation incident/accident your adrenalin will spike, driving an elevated metabolism, and more of that THC-COOH will be released. This can cause a positive testing result where there would be none before. This is where the 28 day limit comes from- it's insurance that there is zero THC-COOH in your system. BUT- and here's the logic disconnect- they also know full well that the amount registered from say, use 3 days prior, and the fact that it's a metabolite, could never remotely be considered an actual factor in an accident, but they're just going with it anyways. Most of the regulation is purely to accommodate a testing shortcoming, and it's fully accepted.

So, to sum up, we not only have a test that doesn't gauge impairment, we actually have specific conditions predicated on said testing. Wild.

The fact is that since it's legality is such a new element, there simply hasn't been time to develop a progressive, effective framework around detecting actual cannabis impairment, testing and use, and apparently, mostly because of past stigma, there isn't much of a motivation to create any, so this is what we're currently labouring under.

I could write a few more pages on this with full citing, but I'm just tapping away on my phone here... one more thing I want to mention since Bede mentioned the natural thing... I am extremely confident that if THC/CBD was initially developed by a major pharmaceutical company to treat nausea, insomnia, anxiety, neuropathy, glaucoma, you name it, we would not have any of this ambiguity and strange "impairment adjacent" framework that we have now. The money and time would have been spent.

Personally, I have no vested interest here, never been much of a pot guy myself, I just don't like things that are nonsensical, especially when they infringe on people's ability to govern their own lives.

[altiplano]

It's illegal everywhere else in the world.

Not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

Try bringing your weed in the plane with you to California or New York and tell me how that goes. Same with Mexico. Same with Netherlands.

Regional decriminalization does not equate to full legalization.

Canada and Uruguay. That's it.