FAAMiss Spelled Words On Web Site!!! marihuana???? What Is That + A Question

[NW_PILOT]

§ 91.19 Carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant
drugs or substances.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft within the United States with knowledge that
narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances
as defined in Federal or State statutes are carried in the aircraft.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to any carriage of narcotic
drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances authorized
by or under any Federal or State statute or by any Federal or State agency.


Now the question for the Experts on Medical Marijuana or Cannabis?

Say if some one has a precription for Cannabis and is allowed to have 1 oz
on them at all times while in public could you fly them some place when they
had their perscription on them? just wondering? if it would be coverd under
part B of 91.19

[Peter Duniho]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> Say if some one has a precription for Cannabis and is allowed to have 1 oz
> on them at all times while in public could you fly them some place when
> they
> had their perscription on them? just wondering? if it would be coverd
> under
> part B of 91.19

At the time that regulation was written, "marihuana" was a common enough
spelling. Even today is it acceptable.

As far as your question goes, assuming the prescription was legal under a
State statute or authorized by a State agency (the federal government still
is prohibiting all use of marijuana as far as I know, even medical use), I
don't see why it wouldn't be allowed under paragraph (b). Is there some
reason you think it wouldn't be that prompted your question?

The thing I find strange about the regulation is that it basically says "you
can't carry anything that you're not allowed to have". I wouldn't be
surprised to find that the regulation was a reaction to increasing drug use
in the US. After all, how hard would it be to write a regulation that
simply says "carriage of any item that the possession of is illegal is
prohibited". Why limit it to drugs at all, if not simply to make some point
of principle?

Pete

[NW_PILOT]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Say if some one has a precription for Cannabis and is allowed to have 1
oz
> > on them at all times while in public could you fly them some place when
> > they
> > had their perscription on them? just wondering? if it would be coverd
> > under
> > part B of 91.19
>
> At the time that regulation was written, "marihuana" was a common enough
> spelling. Even today is it acceptable.
>
> As far as your question goes, assuming the prescription was legal under a
> State statute or authorized by a State agency (the federal government
still
> is prohibiting all use of marijuana as far as I know, even medical use), I
> don't see why it wouldn't be allowed under paragraph (b). Is there some
> reason you think it wouldn't be that prompted your question?
>
> The thing I find strange about the regulation is that it basically says
"you
> can't carry anything that you're not allowed to have". I wouldn't be
> surprised to find that the regulation was a reaction to increasing drug
use
> in the US. After all, how hard would it be to write a regulation that
> simply says "carriage of any item that the possession of is illegal is
> prohibited". Why limit it to drugs at all, if not simply to make some
point
> of principle?
>
> Pete
>
>

Oregon, allows it for medical use. Just wondering what the regs on it was as
I know someone that has a prescription.

[Larry Dighera]

It looks like an anglicization of the Spanish.

However, while we're on the subject of spelling:


From: "NW_PILOT" >
Newsgroups:
rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.avia tion.student
Subject: Annual Report Final. "Long"
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:22:17 -0700
Message-ID: >

[...]
The 2 washers and spring for the plunger shaft no unusual where
is found! Parts Look Good
[...]


Main Entry:1 where
Pronunciation:*hwer, *hwar, *wer, *war, (*)(h)w*r
Function:adverb
Etymology:Middle English, from Old English hwlr; akin to Old High
German hw*r where, Old English hw* who more at WHO
Date:before 12th century

1 a : at, in, or to what place *where is the house* *where are we
going* b : at, in, or to what situation, position, direction,
circumstances, or respect *where does this plan lead* *where am I
wrong*
2 archaic : HERE, THERE *lo, where it comes again Shakespeare*



Main Entry:2 wear
Function:noun
Date:15th century

1 : the act of wearing : the state of being worn : USE *clothes for
everyday wear*
2 a : clothing or an article of clothing usually of a particular kind;
especially : clothing worn for a special occasion or popular during
a specific period b : FASHION, VOGUE
3 : wearing quality : durability under use
4 : the result of wearing or use : diminution or impairment due to use
*wear-resistant surface*


No don't get me wrong. I am the world's poorest speller, so I have a
lot of experience in misspelling. :-)

[C Kingsbury]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > As far as your question goes, assuming the prescription was legal under
a
> > State statute or authorized by a State agency (the federal government
> still
> > is prohibiting all use of marijuana as far as I know, even medical use),
I
> > don't see why it wouldn't be allowed under paragraph (b). Is there some
> > reason you think it wouldn't be that prompted your question?
>
> Oregon, allows it for medical use. Just wondering what the regs on it was
as
> I know someone that has a prescription.
>

Technically I'd be wary of it as there is a supremacy dispute going on here
as to whether the states can allow medical weed when it is federally
prohibited. You may note that the DEA has busted people in Oregon for
growing pot even though they held a license to do so issued by the state. On
one hand the FAR seems pretty liberl ("any state agency") but OTOH I wonder
whether the state law covers "carriage" or just possession. If it's an
important question you'd really have to consult a FAR lawyer.

In the end, it all comes down to the specific situation and the officials
involved.

-cwk.

[Ben Smith]

> At the time that regulation was written, "marihuana" was a common enough
> spelling. Even today is it acceptable.

In State Gov't, I see 'employe' and 'envelop' spelled in that manner often.
I think those are technically the 'former' spellings.

--
Ben
C-172 - N13258 @ 87Y

[NW_PILOT]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> It looks like an anglicization of the Spanish.
>
> However, while we're on the subject of spelling:
>
>
> From: "NW_PILOT" >
> Newsgroups:
> rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.avia tion.student
> Subject: Annual Report Final. "Long"
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:22:17 -0700
> Message-ID: >
>
> [...]
> The 2 washers and spring for the plunger shaft no unusual where
> is found! Parts Look Good
> [...]
>
>
> Main Entry:1 where
> Pronunciation:*hwer, *hwar, *wer, *war, (*)(h)w*r
> Function:adverb
> Etymology:Middle English, from Old English hwlr; akin to Old High
> German hw*r where, Old English hw* who more at WHO
> Date:before 12th century
>
> 1 a : at, in, or to what place *where is the house* *where are we
> going* b : at, in, or to what situation, position, direction,
> circumstances, or respect *where does this plan lead* *where am I
> wrong*
> 2 archaic : HERE, THERE *lo, where it comes again Shakespeare*
>
>
>
> Main Entry:2 wear
> Function:noun
> Date:15th century
>
> 1 : the act of wearing : the state of being worn : USE *clothes for
> everyday wear*
> 2 a : clothing or an article of clothing usually of a particular kind;
> especially : clothing worn for a special occasion or popular during
> a specific period b : FASHION, VOGUE
> 3 : wearing quality : durability under use
> 4 : the result of wearing or use : diminution or impairment due to use
> *wear-resistant surface*
>
>
> No don't get me wrong. I am the world's poorest speller, so I have a
> lot of experience in misspelling. :-)


I am a bad speller also, but the FAA should get it right!

[Gary Drescher]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> I am a bad speller also, but the FAA should get it right!

They did. Look it up in a dictionary.

--Gary

[Chuck]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> § 91.19 Carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or
stimulant
> drugs or substances.
>
> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
> operate a civil aircraft within the United States with knowledge that
> narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances
> as defined in Federal or State statutes are carried in the aircraft.
>
> (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to any carriage of
narcotic
> drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances
authorized
> by or under any Federal or State statute or by any Federal or State
agency.
>
>
> Now the question for the Experts on Medical Marijuana or Cannabis?
>
> Say if some one has a precription for Cannabis and is allowed to have 1 oz
> on them at all times while in public could you fly them some place when
they
> had their perscription on them? just wondering? if it would be coverd
under
> part B of 91.19
>
>


Sounds like a pothead trying to figure out if he will get into trouble if he
gets caught... :)

Call FSDO.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/2004

[Jim Weir]

Under no CIRCUMSTANCES call FSDO with a question like this unless you want your
file in a red jacket.

Jim



"Chuck" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


->
->Sounds like a pothead trying to figure out if he will get into trouble if he
->gets caught... :)
->
->Call FSDO.
->
->
->---
->Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
->Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
->Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/2004
->



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Chuck]

This is where common sense comes to play though... Call from a pay phone, if
they ask you name, tell them you are Larry Dighera!!


"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> Under no CIRCUMSTANCES call FSDO with a question like this unless you want
your
> file in a red jacket.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Chuck" >
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>
> ->
> ->Sounds like a pothead trying to figure out if he will get into trouble
if he
> ->gets caught... :)
> ->
> ->Call FSDO.
> ->
> ->
> ->---
> ->Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> ->Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> ->Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/2004
> ->
>
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/2004