Most pilots consume alcohol to some extent. A few to excess.

You're saying you hold all of us in less regard? Even those of us who don't let it interfere with our professional lives?

Do you need an O2 mask when you're up there riding on your high horse?

You didn't destroy his statement. All you did was proclaim your right to be a judgemental dbag.. Which by all means you have the right to do.

Dude,

I'm about as relaxed as they come and about as liberal as they come. My choice to abstain doesn't bias my tolerance for others, let's not make this a morality or tolerance issue, OK? My disagreement is with the failed logic of "aligning" two very dissimilar substances.

Let's try this exercise:

• Alcohol, Pot, Heroin, Hallucinogenics, Meth
  
• Gay Marriage, Beastialty, Incest
  
• Murder, Assisted Suicide, Death Panels

Would you agree that each of those items have something in common, but are different? Wanna take a crack at "aligning" them in terms of science or social norms?

Going back to my earlier point, despite social acceptance and in the context of flying jets, how do you "align" two substances that affect the body in dramatically different ways?

Ok.. This is easy. If you don't report for duty impaired as a result of indulging in a legal substance, than it shouldn't matter if you enjoyed 3 IPAs the evening prior or smoked a joint.

Just like if I were to shoot heroin or have a martini, as long as I don't show up impaired, right?

The only flaw in our logic is that one of the substances from each our lists isn't legal. Again, despite social norms or just wanting it to be that way, how do you responsibly keyhole two different substances into an existing rule?

I thought we were discussing legal recreational substances. Alcohol is legal everywhere (other than certain counties in Utah and Arkansas). Cannabis is now legal for recreational use in Washington State and Colorado (hopefully more states in the near future) as people are realizing that it is equally if not less harmful to the general population than alcohol. Recreational opiate use is not part of this discussion.

Totally get that, but, Cannabis is illegal at the federal level, where pilot certificates live. Recreational use of an illegal substance is exactly what this thread is about, as you know, I'm against that idea for airline pilots. So be it heroin, crank, or pot - today it's all illegal for pilots, right?

Going back to the logic exercise, if you were lead council before a congressional panel, or DOT working group. How would you make the argument for recreational use of pot by pilots, with the traveling public's safety as a backdrop? Would you support the use of heroin, cocaine, meth, or acid (used responsibly of course)? Why or why not?

First off, this entire discussion is based upon the theoretical situation of cannabis being legalized nationwide at some point. If and when that happens, the argument for pilots to use cannabis recreationally is extremely straight forward once a test is developed to determine whether or not somebody is currently under the influence of cannabis. The current test for THC goes back 30 days, whereas the the breathalyzer test for alcohol only shows if the individual is currently under the influence. The test for THC should be the same. Your argument earlier was that pilots should never be allowed to use recreational cannabis. If a reliable test can be developed for cannabis and it is tested in the same way that alcohol is currently tested, why should pilots be prohibited from using a legal substance during their time off?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up opiates and meth. Comparing cannabis to opiates and meth is like comparing alcohol to opiates and meth. It's ridiculous.. Opiates and meth have no place in this discussion as they are not currently being seriously considered for legalization.

Not to sidetrack the thread topic, but the airlines really do need to crack down on those websites peddling "service animal" cards/letters. It has gotten to a ridiculous level in the hub airports, and I've talked to plenty of friends/family who will straight up tell you they're only doing it to save money on airline fees for checked pets.

I imagine many of those "emotional support" card-sellers are in flagrant violation of state medical licensing regulations, and any actually-licensed medical professional involved that racket should be subject to review by their professional certification board.

It really ****es me off that so many people these days are claiming disability/medical reasons to get out of airline fees/get preferred parking/etc.--it seems like it'd be morally offensive to people with actual disabilities or who legitimately need service pets.

What if you toke up whilst having a beer?

Yak is probably a mormon, but we should talk about that in the "religion" thread!