Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie Avalon
It's a pretty interesting thought experiment.
If (and that's a big if) marijuana is completely legalized, for argument's sake, does the FAA or an employer have the right to dictate that a pilot may not, under any circumstance, partake in it's use? Let's say that Wayfarer Airlines instituted a strict 'no alcohol' policy for it's flight crew. No crewmember may, at any time while employed, ingest alcohol. And there are random tests conducted that could detect use as far back as 90 days. Would they have a legal leg to stand on?
Certainly there would be limitations on it's recency of use or the prohibition of actually being impaired while operating just like with alcohol currently. But even with the 8-hour rule, you need some very specific evidence to catch someone on that. Like eyewitnesses or video that proves it was ingested within the window (which I'm sure has happened). More likely, people get caught for actually being impaired and get violated on that. With the detection window for marijuana use so broad, would it be legal to jam someone up for, say, smoking over a vacation period 6 weeks prior?
I think there may be a lot of interesting legal trials if this actually comes to fruition.
Nothing interesting at all. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean you have some inherent right to use it. An employer could certainly ban the use of any substance they wanted, particularly for safety-sensitive employees.
An employer could ban all alcohol use as well, but then they would have trouble finding employees, and the public would think they were over the top. At least one airline bans nicotine use (although it's only enforced at the time of hire).
Actually DOT would maintain the current ban anyway, unless someone came up with a way to measure actual impairment, like a breathalyzer (current tests just show if you've used it in the last month or so).