Sec. 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.
Let me state upfront that I do not use marijuana, nor have any interest in using it. But I don’t begrudge it to people who do, and I think it should be as legal as alcohol.
Let’s say I own an airplane, so that we don’t have to deal with company policies. If I am reading FAR 91.19 correctly, I would not violate the rule if I carried a small amount of marijuana aboard my airplane because paragraph (b) says the prohibition does not apply because possession is legal under Washington state law.
I doubt it. What they are referring to is drugs allowed as a legal pharmaceutical drug or for legal scientific research–since when the section was written there was no legal marijuana usage.
I certainly would not risk carrying these substances based just on this language–unless there was a clear current statement about non-enforcement.
It’s interesting, though, because the statute is worded (my emphasis), “authorized by or under any Federal or State statute or by any Federal or State agency”. If Congress had wanted to say that it is illegal unless the marijuana is legal under all applicable federal and state statutes and applicable regulatory agencies, then it would have used a conjunction.
It’s probably moot because either:
There’s another statute they could nail you under, so you’re still going to jail anyway, just not under this specific statute.
The court would interpret it less literally, saying that it means that only fully legal drugs may be carried.
As a pilot that flew production people around that worked with performers who were doing tours, who was going to report it?
I had to fly with the little pilot vent window open one time because all the passengers were lighting up. So I had to do that to not get whacky in flight. I did tell the owner that that would not happen again. I would just land at the nearest airport, kick them off the plane & leave them there.
When working with road shows, best to not look in the back of the bus/aircraft if you were offended by this stuff & wanted to keep your job.
I’d suggest you’re on safe-but-still-pretty-soft legal ground if you remain 100% within Washington state airspace. And you’re in clear violation if you enter, say, Idaho airspace.
I always thought of that FAR as giving the FAA an easy-to-use tool to pull the license of convicted drug runners. So in your hypothetical while you *could *be subject to FAA sanction, it’d take some FAA dude with an axe to grind before the issue’d get raised.
Someone will get to be the lucky first test case. I’d rather it not be anyone here.
In my (layman’s) opinion this wording is ambiguous.
In one reading, the word “authorized” refers to the carriage of drugs. By this reading, the drug itself could be entirely legal but the prohibition on carriage would still remain unless the carriage itself has been authorized by a statute or agency.
I think this is the intended reading.
In the second reading, the word “authorized” refers to one of the drugs themselves. If the drug (e.g. marihuana (sic)) is authorized by a statute or agency, its carriage is no longer prohibited.
The reason I suspect this is not the intended reading is that I’m not sure it’s meaningful to say a drug has been authorized. Normally we only speak of an action as being authorized, rather than a thing or substance.
I am therefore inclined to conclude that the prohibition on carriage of drugs remains in force even within the state of Washington, unless a state agency specifically authorizes you to carry some.
I don’t think this is right. Let’s say that a passenger had back surgery and has a prescription for a narcotic pain killer and the pill bottle in his pocket. He is authorized to possess the medication under the law, but has no special “carriage” license or permission. Under your interpretation, the pilot could be in trouble if a passenger had legal prescription medication.
I think the wording is simply a mess. The literal language would allow marijuana in states where it is legal, but that certainly isn’t what was meant.
