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

"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

"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.

"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.

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