Marijuana Poll

[mbav8r]

602.03 No person shall act as a crew member of an aircraft
1.within eight hours after consuming an alcoholic beverage;


2.while under the influence of alcohol; or

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

We often refer to this as the "8 hours from bottle to throttle" rule, but if we look at it closely, we see that it is a three-part regulation. What some may be overlooking is the second part that states, "No person shall act as a crew member of an aircraft (b) while under the influence of alcohol." Transport Canada has no tolerance on this rule if you are found with any trace of alcohol in your system. The regulation can actually be misleading; one rule states that you are allowed to drink eight hours before a flight, while the other says you better not get caught with any trace of alcohol in your system even if it has been eight hours since your last drink.
Using the BAC calculator, http://www.impaired-driving-defence.com/, a male wieghing 180lbs has 12 rum and cokes over 3 and 1/2 hours then 8 hrs from the last drink is just under the legal driving limit at 76 mgs per 100ml blood but well over the o mgs, just an FYI lousyfisherman. As for 24 hrs from toke to yoke, do you have a scientific data to support there would be no impairment after 24 hours.

[Sun85]

I really don't think that scenario would happen. If heroine were free, would you try it? It's readily available right now, why aren't you on it? Anybody can get any drug they want right now.

Look at it this way - if speeding laws were eliminated, and anyone could drive at any speed absolutely legally, would people speed more or less? Everyone knows that the faster you go, the longer it takes to stop. Everyone has seen corpses of people killed in car crashes, and THAT may stop SOME people from driving 150 KM/H in residental zones, but the majority...nah.

What's stopping me from getting heroine now? First of all, thank God I do not have any issues in my life that need to be "addressed" by using drugs, and have a pretty good idea of what drugs can do to a person. Second, I do not want to get busted by cops with all the resultant problems. Third, I do not know any drug dealers, have a general feeling of major disrespect towards the kind, and certainly do not feel like poking around in the seedy part of the town looking to find someone selling narcotics.

See, some people would try to get drugs no matter what, and some would not do the drugs even if they were paid to take them. And yet, quite a few people do not do drugs because 1) they do not want to have problems with the law, and 2) do not want to deal with criminals to obtain drugs. Thus, it would logically follow, that if drugs were to become freely available to Canadians, the number of drug addicts would skyrocket, as 1) and 2) would no longer be an issue.

[Shiny Side Up]

one rule states that you are allowed to drink eight hours before a flight,

Actually no, the rule states that you are forbidden to fly within an 8 hour period after drinking, it says nothing about you being allowed to fly after that period. Important distiction.

[xsbank]

I'd like to direct you to Portugal, which legalized all drugs 10 years ago - read the literature, the predictions were dire but it has been a huge success. From nearly the highest to the lowest rates of use in Europe, a precipitous drop in HIV infection and to pull out one statistic, 1/4 of the marijuana usage of the US. School use in all ages has dropped significantly. Your fear of dire consequences is not borne out by experience.

[Sun85]

I'd like to direct you to Portugal, which legalized all drugs 10 years ago - read the literature, the predictions were dire but it has been a huge success. From nearly the highest to the lowest rates of use in Europe, a precipitous drop in HIV infection and to pull out one statistic, 1/4 of the marijuana usage of the US. School use in all ages has dropped significantly. Your fear of dire consequences is not borne out by experience.

Thank you for directing me to Portugal and proving my point:

Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[14] It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[15] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [15][16] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Seriously, man, it's common sense. Do you think if we just burn the Criminal Code, we'd see the crime rates drop dramatically throughout Canada?

[dashx]

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation'

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/p ... ation.html

Smoke as much as you want in the privacy of your home!!!!!!!

http://drlwilson.com/Articles/hemp.htm

And why is marijuana so bad for you?

Because BIG BUSINESS (religion) said it was............

[trampbike]

Seriously, man, it's common sense. Do you think if we just burn the Criminal Code, we'd see the crime rates drop dramatically throughout Canada?

Serioulsy man, do you know what were the effects of alcool prohibition in the US on crime rates and alcool consumption?
Also, don't you think you might be mixing correlation and causation when infering hypothesis about the stats in Portugal?

Most pot smokers don't do it occasionally to unwind, they do it every chance they get.

Reference for this statement please...

My eyes... I said "most" not "all".

Doesn't matter you said "most" and not "all". If you base your judgement on "your eyes" for such kind of things, you are very prone to making huge mistakes. Personnal experience can be a very relevant source of information in many cases, but for something like this (pretty much every time statistics or probabilities are involved), personnal experience isn't worth anything. For example, in MY personnal experience, most pot smokers do it only occasionnaly to unwind... So who is right, you or me? Only stats could say...

[xsbank]

OK, let's agree to disagree with decriminalising for now, as it really has no bearing on this thread. I stand by my statistics and when I get an Internet connection, I will post my stats and the changes in the criminality in Portugal. Lets keep it prohibited, particularly and especially keep it criminal for pilots

[shimmydampner]

The fact of the matter is that pot is ILLEGAL at the present time. Like it, don't like it, it does not matter one red cent, RIGHT NOW it is ILLEGAL!

That's all well and good but despite the fact that it may offend your sensibilities, pilots don't have any ethical obligations to their passengers to be law-abiding citizens outside of the confines of their job-related duties. The legality or illegality of what a pilot does outside of the confines of their responsibilities as a pilot is irrelevant. The only obligation they have as it relates to the job, is to show up 100% ready to go and follow the letter of the law when on duty.

[Sun85]

Seriously, man, it's common sense. Do you think if we just burn the Criminal Code, we'd see the crime rates drop dramatically throughout Canada?

Serioulsy man, do you know what were the effects of alcool prohibition in the US on crime rates and alcool consumption?
Also, don't you think you might be mixing correlation and causation when infering hypothesis about the stats in Portugal?

This has got to be the most easily defeated argument made by the anti-prohibition advocates: "Legalize the drugs! Put the criminals out of business!" To which I always reply: do you really think a criminal growing and selling pot would switch to growing cucumbers once the government gets into the drug dealing business? Drug growing and selling criminals are 1) greedy; 2) immoral and 3) lazy. They want LOTS of money, FAST, and as EASY as possible. They would simply start selling pot cheaper than the government, making it more affordable and to a greater number of people. Or, which is even worse, they would switch to selling harder, still illegal drugs, addicting more people to the really nasty stuff.

And as for Portugal, I am not mixing anything, man Why is it so hard to understand that once the barriers of 1) being hassled by the cops with all the corresponding legal problems, and 2) needing to find a criminal to buy drugs from are removed, more people would start using drugs? Just like my example with speeding - do you not think that more people would start driving at insane speeds if all the speeding laws were eliminated?

[DonutHole]

This has got to be the most easily defeated argument made by the anti-prohibition advocates: "Legalize the drugs! Put the criminals out of business!" To which I always reply: do you really think a criminal growing and selling pot would switch to growing cucumbers once the government gets into the drug dealing business? Drug growing and selling criminals are 1) greedy; 2) immoral and 3) lazy. They want LOTS of money, FAST, and as EASY as possible. They would simply start selling pot cheaper than the government, making it more affordable and to a greater number of people. Or, which is even worse, they would switch to selling harder, still illegal drugs, addicting more people to the really nasty stuff.

This argument isn't well thought out either.

1. How many people grow their own tobacco
2. How many people distil their own alcohol

answer, some but not many.

With the tax revenue from the legitimate suppliers the gov can afford to spend more on resources to stamp out the illegal suppliers.

It is pretty easy to prove than when a substance is legalized that illegal production goes down.

You don't have to think that illegal production of alcohol wend DOWN after prohibition ended... because it DID.
Conversely, you don't have to think that they went from distilling corn to selling widgets, because they DIDN'T... they stopped when they couldn't compete with the legitimate suppliers.

Supply and demand economics will wither away the profit margin of the illigitimate suppliers of the drugs, and with increased resources dedicated to the erradication of the illegal suppliers they really stand no chance.

[Sun85]

With the tax revenue from the legitimate suppliers the gov can afford to spend more on resources to stamp out the illegal suppliers.

Nah, that extra tax revenue would be needed to face the consequences of having more drug addicts. Lost productivity and more pressure on health care would be the outcome.

It is pretty easy to prove than when a substance is legalized that illegal production goes down.

I am sure the illegal production would go down, as some small-scale illegal drug producers would not like the new risk-benefit ratio after the government would become their major competitor. But would the total production go down, with the government getting into the drug dealing business? Besides, do you really envision Hell's Angels or Independent Soldiers becoming organic food growers or automotive parts salesmen? And, of course, the real measurement of whether a drug policy makes sense is the level of drug use in the country. What good would it make if the crime rate would down but the entire Canada would be stoned? What kind of a society do we want? A bunch of stoners staring at each other with stupid smiles on their faces? The level of addiction is VERY high as is, simple because many people are addicted to over-the-counter drugs. And now to add illegal drugs as an option at your local pharmacy....ouch!

"Available evidence suggests that Canadians are among the heaviest consumers of psychotropic medication in the world.10 However, there are few Canadian statistics on the number of people who use prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes. Indeed, there is minimal research information available regarding the extent of prescription drug diversion and abuse in Canada. As a result, indirect inferences about the extent of prescription drug abuse in Canada are usually limited to examining distribution and sales statistics, and year-to-year trends in prescribing practices for specific classes of drugs. For instance, in 2002, Canada reported the fourth highest per-capita use of prescription narcotics in the world and the second highest use of sedative-hypnotics (including benzodiazepines).11 During that year, Canada was also among the top 15 countries in the use of prescription amphetamines. Available evidence suggests that Canadians are among the heaviest consumers of psychotropic medication in the world.10 However, there are few Canadian statistics on the number of people who use prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes. Indeed, there is minimal research information available regarding the extent of prescription drug diversion and abuse in Canada. As a result, indirect inferences about the extent of prescription drug abuse in Canada are usually limited to examining distribution and sales statistics, and year-to-year trends in prescribing practices for specific classes of drugs. For instance, in 2002, Canada reported the fourth highest per-capita use of prescription narcotics in the world and the second highest use of sedative-hypnotics (including benzodiazepines).11 During that year, Canada was also among the top 15 countries in the use of prescription amphetamines."

"Looking south of the border, some U.S. surveys have directly examined the extent of prescription drug abuse. Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicated that lifetime non-medical use of prescription pain relievers among young adults (aged 18–25) surveyed was 22.1 % in 2002, and increased to 23.7 % and 24.3% in 2003 and 2004, respectively.16"

http://www.ccsa.ca/2007%20CCSA%20Docume ... 9-2007.pdf

[trampbike]

Nah, that extra tax revenue would be needed to face the consequences of having more drug addicts. Lost productivity and more pressure on health care would be the outcome.

Again, that statement is purely your ill-informed opinion.
1. Pot doesn't cause physiological addiction, and is also way less harmful to one's physical and mental health than many totally legal drugs.
2. The fact that it would be state-controlled instead of illegal doesn't mean people would become junkies. In fact, it can be argued that the drug dealers, who try to sell also harder drugs to their clients, are the ones to blame for many drug addictions.

Anyway, this is off-topic and I doubt anyone holding a position like yours is even close to opening his mind about this subject, so I'm out of here!

Olivier, who doesn't smoke pot, cigarettes, doesn't drink coffee and never buys over the counter medication...

[DonutHole]

Nah, that extra tax revenue would be needed to face the consequences of having more drug addicts. Lost productivity and more pressure on health care would be the outcome.

Marijuana, which is what we are talking about here, is not physiologically addictive.

I am sure the illegal production would go down, as some small-scale illegal drug producers would not like the new risk-benefit ratio after the government would become their major competitor. But would the total production go down, with the government getting into the drug dealing business? Besides, do you really envision Hell's Angels or Independent Soldiers becoming organic food growers or automotive parts salesmen? And, of course, the real measurement of whether a drug policy makes sense is the level of drug use in the country. What good would it make if the crime rate would down but the entire Canada would be stoned? What kind of a society do we want? A bunch of stoners staring at each other with stupid smiles on their faces? The level of addiction is VERY high as is, simple because many people are addicted to over-the-counter drugs. And now to add illegal drugs as an option at your local pharmacy....ouch!

Entire canada would be stoned? Even if it increases as much as portugal we are still nowhere near 'entire canada' Your hyperbolous argument is great as a knee jerk but as a contrary position it is untenable.

Your analogy comparing marijuana to over the counter addictive medication is fallacious... and a logical fallacy.

As far as the hells angels, anything we can do to chip away at their organization is a positive in my books. Will organzied crime go away with legalization, no, but that is a poor argument to counter legalization which would impact their bottom line.

If marijuana was legalized and it was available over the counter then your final sentence has no logical foundation.

"Available evidence suggests that Canadians are among the heaviest consumers of psychotropic medication in the world.10 However, there are few Canadian statistics on the number of people who use prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes.

This is a perversion of a statistic. Is this per-capita or is this overall? You are making a leap to a conclusion which cannot be made. As it appears, you are comparing Canada to many other countries which may not even subscribe to a prescription model. In Mexico, you can buy percocet and oxycontin over the counter with no prescription at all, so how could you accuratey derive a statistic like this without many other statistics to compare it to. You can't.

Available evidence suggests that Canadians are among the heaviest consumers of psychotropic medication in the world

Followed by

10 However, there are few Canadian statistics on the number of people who use prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes. Indeed, there is minimal research information available regarding the extent of prescription drug diversion and abuse in Canada. As a result, indirect inferences about the extent of prescription drug abuse in Canada are usually limited to examining distribution and sales statistics, and year-to-year trends in prescribing practices for specific classes of drugs. For instance, in 2002, Canada reported the fourth highest per-capita use of prescription narcotics in the world and the second highest use of sedative-hypnotics (including benzodiazepines).11 During that year, Canada was also among the top 15 countries in the use of prescription amphetamines."

Your own quote pretty much states that there is not enough complete evidence to draw any concrete conclusions, on that there is a suggested correlation. This doesn't prove anything, only that those who have studied the matter are still not actually prepared to make a clear conclusion on their own data... but you of course can feel free to draw whichever conclusion you wish as a layperson.

"Looking south of the border, some U.S. surveys have directly examined the extent of prescription drug abuse. Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicated that lifetime non-medical use of prescription pain relievers among young adults (aged 18–25) surveyed was 22.1 % in 2002, and increased to 23.7 % and 24.3% in 2003 and 2004, respectively.

Again, on it's own this statistic is incomplete as there is no way to prove whether or not the claims are bogus. 55% of Canadians can say the saw a unicorn humping an elephant, but that doesn't mean that it is true.

[Moose47]

"After PM Harper leaves in 2015, marijuana will be legal within 2 years of him leaving office. Its looking more and more like young Trudeau will be our next PM and if you recall before another Liberal PM left office, he almost pushed the legislation through the house for decriminalization of marijuana. A young Trudeau as PM will finish what Chretien started and marijuana will be a legal substance before too long."

Flyinthebug, were you stoned when you wrote this? LOL (-:

Cheers...Chris

[Sun85]

Marijuana, which is what we are talking about here, is not physiologically addictive.

Marijuana Fact: Among youth receiving substance abuse treatment, marijuana accounts for the largest percentage of admissions: 61 percent of those under 15, and 56 percent of those 15-19.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/m ... -marijuana

Entire canada would be stoned? Even if it increases as much as portugal we are still nowhere near 'entire canada' Your hyperbolous argument is great as a knee jerk but as a contrary position it is untenable.

Of course it's great, got your attention, didn't it? I just don't want to live among potheads, please!!!!!

"Looking south of the border, some U.S. surveys have directly examined the extent of prescription drug abuse. Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicated that lifetime non-medical use of prescription pain relievers among young adults (aged 18–25) surveyed was 22.1 % in 2002, and increased to 23.7 % and 24.3% in 2003 and 2004, respectively.

Again, on it's own this statistic is incomplete as there is no way to prove whether or not the claims are bogus. 55% of Canadians can say the saw a unicorn humping an elephant, but that doesn't mean that it is true.

Man, this way just about anything could be rejected as unverifiable. A quarter of young adults addicted to drugs!

[DonutHole]

Marijuana Fact: Among youth receiving substance abuse treatment, marijuana accounts for the largest percentage of admissions: 61 percent of those under 15, and 56 percent of those 15-19.

Hmm, I'm looking for the word addicted in here... just not finding it.

Of course it's great, got your attention, didn't it? I just don't want to live among potheads, please!!!!!

Yeah, it got my attention, as extremely ill conceived arguments often do.

I personally always opt for the option that increases freedom. Unfortunately for you, Avcanada represents a minority when it comes to the social acceptance of marijuana. It is becoming more accepted as a part of society every day, and soon you will be unable to manipulate facts and figures as more of the younger generation, who grew up with marijuana as a socially accepted subtance become a larger demographic in the voter base.

Man, this way just about anything could be rejected as unverifiable. A quarter of young adults addicted to drugs!

Poorly deduced statistics can always be rejected as unverifiable. There is a right way and a wrong way to derive and present statistics... unfortunately for your argument you have been deriving and presenting statistics the wrong way.

It is obvious you have a personal bias against 'potheads' but your argument against legalization is based on nothing but your bias, some hyperbole and some ill thought logic.

every argument you have made has been dismissed time and time again when it comes to marijuana and its affects.

[dashx]

http://millenniumcouncil.webs.com/

So is it safe to assume all the Rastafari pilots smoke the sacred "herb"? On their time off?

Why not bring religion into the mix...........

[HHI]

I'm surprised it hasn't come up here, but there was a much publicized case in the 80's of a CP copilot that the police came upon sitting on the grass in his car there outside the fence at the button of 26 in YVR. Saw him in full uniform twisting a joint with a bag of pot beside him. He was getting ready to act as copilot on a 747 on the Tokyo flight that was to depart shortly. Claimed he was afraid of flying and that getting high was the only way he could do the job. He was put into rehab by CP, not fired, and resumed his flying duties.
.

Can't let this inaccurate post from the second page stand as is.

It was a CP DC10 first officer. He had pulled over into the median between the freeway lanes many miles prior to getting to the airport. He was rolling one to take with him for use during the layover. The freeway police stopped to check if he was OK because of where he had stopped.

He had smoked pot long enough in his time off that it began to seem normal and he didn't think to hide his pot.

There was a small amount of pot in the trunk of his car but enough to result in a charge higher than mere possession.

He went straight to his boss and confessed.

His boss had no choice but to fire him.

He did NOT ever get that job back.

Had he gone to his association first we likely had a good chance of having the case treated like any other addiction issue. The same as someone with an addiction to alcohol. In both cases complete abstinence (on and off duty) is required to keep the license and to prevent the addiction from taking over again.

He did go through a rehab program (successfully) and did get a flying job much much later. But nothing on a comparable level to the one he forfeited.

He certainly appreciates what he lost.

There was empathy from some of his colleagues but also a lot of anger from some who felt he had tarnished all of us by his actions.

Perhaps the only good to come out of this is that Brian did not end up in prison in China in the '80's and that he did not die in a car crash or airplane accident.

Henry

[North Shore]

And with that story, boys and girls, the thread ends. The (ahem) score: Squares, 1; Stoners, 0.
Debating prohibition policy has SFA to do with aviation, and I don't think that anyone's mind is going to be changed here...