Pilots allegedly report Ron White for Marijuana possession?

[Fly91]

Hell, I've had a azzhole passenger that my boss told us to fly to St. Thomas, he was an executive of one of his real estate companies. The azzhole brought back 50 cuban cigars hidden in his dirty laundry bag. Luckily that jerk-off got through customs or we might have had a lot to answer to. He told us about them when we got into the car to leave the airport. We didn't know and I'm sure he would have told customs that and signed a statement saying we didn't know. I doubt seriously if any prosecutor would go after us.

 

[Catfsh]

Here we go. Its ALWAYS at the discretion of an arresting officer to do as he pleases. To arrest the crew for what amounted to a single joint of MJ, would make that cop the laughing stock of the department.

Let me further try to educate you on how law enforcment has flexibility built it.
If a Part 91 plane fly's in from Columbia and customs finds a duffle bag full of cocaine, the crew will most definitely be detained and depending on the circumstances could get charged along with the owner of the bag. Part 91 regs (you may want to read them) says crewmembers CAN BE held rersponsible for anything illegal on a plane.

It would be pretty crappy if some rich owner carried a kilo of cocaine in from another country, with his pilots truly not knowing, and those pilots go to prison for 10 years and never fly a plane again when they get out.

LAW EMFORCEMENT HAS THE DISCRETION TO AS THEY PLEASE after they complete an investigation.

Jeez!

I think your making MY point hotrod.

 

[Fly91]

I think your making MY point hotrod.

Just that crews getting arrested and charged even Part 91, probably will be quite hard to pursue and convict.

To your earlier post....thats why they didn't arrest Ron's pilots.

 

[ksu_aviator]

You can play the numbers game all you want and twist the meaning in percentages.

50,000 dead from alcohol

10 dead from MJ

Which line would you want to be standing in?

Well, if you had looked at the links above, you would know that the actually deaths is below 40K and MJ is nearly 5,000. Now, if you take the number of people that use alcohol and divide it by the number of deaths and then do the same for MJ, you will find that you are 250% more likely to die from MJ use than Alcohol use.

 

[Fly91]

Well, if you had looked at the links above, you would know that the actually deaths is below 40K and MJ is nearly 5,000. Now, if you take the number of people that use alcohol and divide it by the number of deaths and then do the same for MJ, you will find that you are 250% more likely to die from MJ use than Alcohol use.

Thats a ridiculous statement. I am never around or associated with MJ losers, therefore my chances of having anything ever happen to me in any way shape or form...from MJ....is zero.

As far as alcohol is concerned, I probably spend $200 a month on cabs when me and my friends go out to drink at bars or clubs, so its also remote that anything will happen from alcohol. But my chances are better from alcohol since I am around it every weekend on some level......so..........

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Wrong again when that second hand smoke makes you bust a piss test and you lose your job and license.

Many a pilot who actually did toke on some MJ and tested positive have *claimed* it was second hand smoke. Research was done and it was determined that it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to detect MJ from only contact highs or second hand smoke.

In order for one to test positive for the metabolics of cannabis, you would have to be closed in for MANY hours in a room FULL of HEAVY second and smoke. The circumstances where second hand smoke actually showed up on an intital screening are so unlikely, that the court would not buy it. You can look all this up.

There was one incident several years ago at CAL where an FO tested positive. He lost his job, etc. But ended up getting it back as he claimed his wife received some brownies which he had some of. Unbeknownst to him :erm: , these were pot brownies.

 

[LJ45]

Part 91 flying is the only Part that holds crews responsible for whats found on a plane that is illegal.

I think you are wrong on this, parts of part 91 apply to 135 operations also, namely when 135 doesn't have guidance on a particular reg. Also, 91.19 states "Knowingly carries" If part 135 doesn't have a reg that supersedes 91.19 , then 91.19 applies to part 135 also.

Anyone?

 

[Fly91]

I think you are wrong on this, parts of part 91 apply to 135 operations also, namely when 135 doesn't have guidance on a particular reg. Also, 91.19 states "Knowingly carries" If part 135 doesn't have a reg that supersedes 91.19 , then 91.19 applies to part 135 also.

Anyone?

It doesn't matter what Part a pilot is operating under, if they KNOWINGLY carry illegal drugs on board, they are going to be arrested and charged.

91.19 simply states that a crew member cannot operate an aircraft if he/she KNOWS there are drugs on board. Period.

What I was saying is that: If a crewmember DOES NOT have any knowledge that drugs are on board, they are NOT held responsible in any way, Part 135.
But Part 91, at the discretion of the arresting law enforcment agency, after they do some investigating, CAN arrest and charge the crew as well. Even if the crew says they had no knowledge.

When one of our Part 135 paying passengers brought $410,000 in cash through US Customs, and he turned out to be a known drug trafficker and was arrested, I learned all about this issue.

 

[Daveman]

Page 20050) Deaths In 1999, DAWN (Drug Abuse Warning Network) data reported by medical examiners show that out of 664 marijuana-related deaths, there were 187 deaths where marijuana was the only drug reported.
HARMS FROM MARIJUANA

(Page 20042) List of Harms
“The mental and behavioral effects of marijuana can vary widely among individuals, but common responses, described by Wills (1998) and others (Adams and Martin 1996; Hollister 1986a, 1988a; Institute of Medicine 1982) are listed below:
(1) Dizziness, nausea, tachycardia, facial flushing, dry mouth and tremor can occur initially
(2) Merriment, happiness and even exhilaration at high doses
(3) Disinhibition, relaxation, increased sociability, and talkativeness
(4) Enhanced sensory perception, giving rise to increased appreciation of music, art and touch
(5) Heightened imagination leading to a subjective sense of increased creativity
(6) Time distortions
(7) Illusions, delusions and hallucinations are rare except at high doses
(8) Impaired judgement, reduced co-ordination and ataxia, which can impede driving ability or lead to an increase in risk-taking behavior
(9) Emotional lability, incongruity of affect, dysphoria, disorganized thinking, inability to converse logically, agitation, paranoia, confusion, restlessness, anxiety, drowsiness and panic attacks may occur, especially in inexperienced users or in those who have taken a large dose
(10) Increased appetite and short-term memory impairment are common”

The older couple down the street appear to have those same symptoms, I'd better notify the authorities!

 

[400A]

The older couple down the street appear to have those same symptoms, I'd better notify the authorities!

[/b]

O.K. That was funny!

 

[Hugh Johnson]

You know what, I am going to make your day. Since you are going to follow me around and make stupid remarks about me on each thread. The discussion was about MJ, I do not know why nor do I care why Amish Abortion Lover changed the word to Hemp.

We get it, you and Amish support recreational drug use. Knock yourself out. MJ is against the law and that is all there is to it. I am sure you are one of those guys who only follow the FARS that you approve of as well.

By the way while you and your buddy are quoting all of your DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE numbers, are you so stupid that you think that is only Alcohol? It includes all substances you morons.

WTF does abortion have to do with this thread dickhead?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3037193

Passive smoke study ^

and

4.10 Passive inhalation

In the United States, urine testing for drug traces and metabolites is increasingly used to identify illicit drug users in the workplace (Hayden, 1991). A technical concern raised by the opponents of this practice has been the possibility of a person having a urine positive for cannabinoids as the result of the passive inhalation of marijuana smoke at a social event immediately prior to the provision of the urine sample. A number of research studies have attempted to determine the relationship between passive inhalation of marijuana smoke and consequent production of urinary cannabinoids (Hayden, 1991).
In one of the first studies on passive inhalation, Perez-Reyes and colleagues (1983) found that non-smokers who had been confined for over an hour in a very small unventilated space containing the smoke of at least eight cannabis cigarettes over three consecutive days had insignificant amounts of urinary cannabinoids. Law and colleagues (1984) and Mule et al (1988) also showed that passive inhalation produced urinary cannabinoid concentrations well below the detection limit of 20ng/ml 9-carboxy-THC used in workplace drug screens.

Morland et al (1985) produced urinary cannabinoid levels above 20ng/ml in non-smokers but the conditions were extreme, namely, confinement in a space the size of a packing box with exposure to the smoke of six cannabis cigarettes. The studies of Cone and colleagues (1986; 1987a, 1987b) confirmed the necessity to apply extreme experimental conditions, which they claimed non-smokers were unlikely to submit themselves to for the long periods of time required to produce urinary metabolites above 20ng/ml. They also showed that non-smokers with significant amounts of cannabinoids in their urine experienced the subjective effects of intoxication.

 

[Daveman]

No, I would not call the police. You don't have to call the police if your passengers drink alcohol. I have, on three occassions, driven my passengers, in their rental car, to the hotel and caught a cab back to the airport. Just because I'm not morrally corrupt doesn't mean I can't be reasonable. MJ, on the other hand, won't fly and won't go unnoticed.

Isn't it sad that so many people look at certain rules with such disdain? Why do you think they outlawed MJ? Just because they don't want you to have fun? Probably the same reason they banned drinking and driving.

No, your just a wet blanket! sorry bubba!

 

[FlyingPieceOfSt]

Many misleading urban legends about cannabis exist. Like LSD rumors, many were spread by anti-drug groups during the 1960s and are believed to continuously circulate today. These widespread legends claim that it is easy to overdose on the smokable variant of cannabis and that it is extremely dangerous and addictive when compared to alcohol and nicotine, when in fact alcohol and nicotine, the drugs that are claimed to be safer, are actually considered as hard drugs and both can be very addictive. Furthermore, scaling up from animal studies, an average human would need to ingest about 1.8kg of cannabis to overdose. Cannabis is not physically addictive, but can be (like all things) psychologically addictive, though this form of addiction tends to occur only after someone has been using the drug habitually[5]. Also, there are studies that show no actual increased risk of cancer from smoking marijuana, even when duration of use is expanded over several years (this could be because THC allows cells to die faster).[6] In fact, some studies indicate THC to have anticancer properties, with studies showing tumor reduction in mice.


wikipedia stuff...

Im not for smoking pot or the foolish use of alcohol, I am just curious why the majority of folks I see smoke the illegal stuff seem to be the Jerry Springer watcher types while the night club scene and bar scenes seem to have average type folks in them.

My .02.

If anyone ever ran or biked near a disc golf course on any given day you might come across the smell of something with a peculiar aroma. Low and behold you come across a bunch of hippie types with frisbees in hand. HHmmmm.

 

[Capt1124]

This is a very deep philosophical discussion but I don't think anybody is going to change their mind and it doesn't have anything to do with our jobs or the situation that occured.

The real issue, and it is serious for for corporate aircraft pilots, is where do you draw the line with passengers. I'll stick my neck out and say on a Part 91 flight, with the owner, if I smelled something funny from the back I would close the door and leave it at that. It's his plane and if he wants to damage the interior with smoke it's his business.

Part 135, it's not their plane and whatever they are smoking they need to put it out.

Coming into the US and people have drugs in the back? That's tough. I won't take that bust for anybody, that's for sure. Pass a note to the customs officer in my passport? I would have to think about it.

If a passenger is out of control and interfering in the cockpit, you have to do something about it. I think I would declare an emergency for an unruly passenger and land. ATC asks if you need LE, say no, we just want him off the plane. Dump him at an FBO and let him cool off. If LE does show up, starts asking questions, and perhaps performs a sobriety test on the guy, well there's nothing you can do about that.

I'm not sure if all you who think marijuana is no big deal have enver know any stoners. Not a good drug, especially on any kind of a regular basis. That said I don't think I or any other corporate pilot could care less what the masters of the universe are doing in the back as long as it isn't a safety issue. Most people who are smart enough to have that much money are smart enough to understand where the line is, but I guess there are exceptions.

There are some violations of the law one is obligated to report, and there are others which are not. Drug use, no, drug smuggling, yes.

I think calling the cops was too much but if the passenger has been really obnoxious, I would feel the same temptation.