# Drug Testing For TF 1-07



## Lager and Ale (24 Oct 2006)

This is not good for the task force!
From the Fredricton Daily Gleaner, 24 Oct. 06:

Soldiers nabbed in drug tests

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military officials are saying little about reports that some soldiers from Canadian Forces Base Gagetown training for deployment next year to Afghanistan have failed mandatory drug tests. 

Sources have told The Daily Gleaner that between 16 and 18 per cent of soldiers preparing for February's mission flunked. 

Substances such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin and speed are said to have been discovered, the newspaper has been told. 

Maj. Jay Janzen, public affairs officer for Land Force Atlantic Area, confirmed Monday that soldiers from Gagetown are being tested. But he said that process was ongoing and nothing was final. 

Janzen would not confirm if any of the tests had come back positive for illegal substances. 

"I would definitely not put faith in those figures," Janzen said in a telephone interview from Halifax. 

"I think those are rumours. We want to wait until we have all the results. Everyone in Gagetown has not been tested." 

Janzen said the decision to subject soldiers heading to "safety-sensitive" locations to drug tests was announced by the Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier last November. 

"This rotation is the first one going to Afghanistan that's been tested at large this way," he said. 

Janzen said the military wants soldiers heading into volatile environments such as Kandahar to act accordingly when faced with a dangerous situation. 

If a soldier is given the task of watching the back of another, that person needs to be at the top of his or her game, the major said. 

Lieut. (Navy) Brian Owens, public affairs officer at CFB Gagetown, said samples are being collected from everyone involved in the mission, from top officers to privates. 

The urine samples, which are gathered with a witness, are then sent off for analysis at an independent testing firm. 

Owens said that while positive drug tests are looked at with zero tolerance, it does not mean an offender is automatically dismissed from the Forces. 

He or she is given an opportunity to correct the problem through counselling and training. 

"With the first strike you are pretty much at the door," Owens said. "You are given a chance to salvage your career." 

Approximately 700 soldiers from CFB Gagetown, including about 450 from The Second Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment (2RCR) at Gagetown, along with a number of reservists, are scheduled to make the journey to Afghanistan. 

Soldiers from 2RCR left the base Monday to fly to Wainwright, Alta., where they will receive the final phase of their training at the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre.


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2006)

I will wait for official results rather than pay any heed to rumour mongering from the Press...


----------



## 211RadOp (24 Oct 2006)

IBID

Having known people over the years from that Bn, I will wait.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I will wait for official results rather than pay any heed to rumour mongering from the Press...


Agreed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

AND JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR

THIS IS A HOT TOPIC FOR THE PRESS, THINK BEFORE YOU POST.
YOU POST RUMOUR AND/OR CONFIDENTAIL MATERIAL YOU WILL BE GONE.


----------



## PoPo (24 Oct 2006)

Hmmm - I seem to remember the same sort of Headlines in the Ottawa Citizen and Sun back in 2003 about Petawawa Troops prior to our deployment on Roto Zero.

Funny how that happens 
PoPo


----------



## Armymedic (24 Oct 2006)

PoPo said:
			
		

> Hmmm - I seem to remember the same sort of Headlines in the Ottawa Citizen and Sun back in 2003 about Petawawa Troops prior to our deployment on Roto Zero.
> 
> Funny how that happens
> PoPo



Similar but different. A group of soldiers who were getting ready for concurrent deployments to Bosnia and Afghanistan from a certain unit were all caught by drug testing after one of their number was busted for trafficking. It had nothing to do with predeployment drug screening.

That would have been in May-June 2003


----------



## Lager and Ale (24 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> YOU POST RUMOUR AND/OR CONFIDENTAIL MATERIAL YOU WILL BE GONE.



And just so I'm clear,mate, this is front page news in Fredericton.  The author, Mike Staples, has been around the military a great many years!  He is not prone to rumour!  This has also been backed up by ATV news tonite.


----------



## armyvern (24 Oct 2006)

Lager and Ale said:
			
		

> And just so I'm clear,mate, this is front page news in Fredericton.  The author, Mike Staples, has been around the military a great many years!  He is not prone to rumour!  This has also been backed up by ATV news tonite.


And just to be clear, the testing is not yet completed (as noted in the article); therefore everything is pure speculation at this point in time. As it will be until the official results are released by the CF Chain of Command and I think that is the point of Mr. Monkhouse's warning.

Pretty hard to release overall percentages and results before everyone is tested is it not?


----------



## PhilB (24 Oct 2006)

RUMINT aside I think this a good thing. Although 100% negative results would be ideal should any positive tests be found at least it is in Canada and not overseas where lives are at risk. IMHO anyone caught should be tubed off the TF obvioulsy and then I would think some sort of follow up would be needed, any further positive tests should result in discharge. Just my 2 cents


----------



## armdsgt (25 Oct 2006)

I concur, lets not start rumors :warstory:, leave that to the press, how about we wait for the results.


"lead me, follow me, or get out of my way"


----------



## niner domestic (26 Oct 2006)

Sadly, The CTV has decided not to wait for an official release of the information and are quoting their "sources" for the numbers at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061025/afghanistan_drug_test_061025?s_name=&no_ads=


----------



## armyvern (26 Oct 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Sadly, The CTV has decided not to wait for an official release of the information and are quoting their "sources" for the numbers at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061025/afghanistan_drug_test_061025?s_name=&no_ads=



Obviously not very well checked-out. Considering that the WO pictured and quoted in the article is *Warrant Officer Mike Aube*....not as they've named him "Mike Beaubet." When they can't get something that simple right, it only casts doubt upon the validity of their whole article.

I did watch the news clip of him speaking on the news. They've zoomed right in on his face throughout the whole clip, just as the picture is zoomed in on him in the article. I busted a gut laughing because a with a single ounce of observation on their part they would have notice the big "Aube" nametag on his jacket.

Ah yes, and I am travelling home this weekend to visit with the husband and children, must make attempt to pop by Mike's to rib him about his new identity.


----------



## niner domestic (26 Oct 2006)

Travel safe Librarian, have a great weekend.


----------



## armyvern (26 Oct 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Travel safe Librarian, have a great weekend.



Well thank you, I shall.


----------



## Lager and Ale (26 Oct 2006)

I just took a look...they must have noticed the mistake...it's saying Mike Aube now.


----------



## armyvern (26 Oct 2006)

Lager and Ale said:
			
		

> I just took a look...they must have noticed the mistake...it's saying Mike Aube now.



Certainly they should have...I think there was 14 "Guests" viewing the thread when I posted it!


----------



## GUNS (29 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I will wait for official results rather than pay any heed to rumour mongering from the Press...



You don't have to wait anymore, have heard that they are returning members that tested positive to their home units. They are removed from TF-107.


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2006)

Details will come out soon enough.............
as the old SSM would say: "Wait for it"


----------



## Lager and Ale (29 Oct 2006)

See???? I wasn't wrong!  We just get the news faster in the East than the rest of you ;D


----------



## GUNS (30 Oct 2006)

I feel so sorry for those remaining members of TF 107 who may have a vital member of their group sent back to their unit for testing positive for a banned substance.

These people have trained hard to the extent that they know their fellow soldiers strengths and weakness. They know that they can rely on them during a situation. I hope this unfortunate incident will not compromise their cohesion as a fighting unit.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2006)

There was no "unfortunate incident".  If the rumours pan out (and yes, they are still rumours), than ANYONE caught using banned substances are the ones to blame, not the system.  If person x were caught using drug y, and if drug y is banned for recreational use by the CF, then person x has undermined any cohesion, not the system.  Person x then has been exposed as not being reliable during a situation, in spite of any casual observations to that point.  In other words, person x deceived others to his/her use of y.


----------



## GUNS (30 Oct 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> There was no "unfortunate incident".  If the rumours pan out (and yes, they are still rumours), than ANYONE caught using banned substances are the ones to blame, not the system.  If person x were caught using drug y, and if drug y is banned for recreational use by the CF, then person x has undermined any cohesion, not the system.  Person x then has been exposed as not being reliable during a situation, in spite of any casual observations to that point.  In other words, person x deceived others to his/her use of y.



They are not rumours, people are being returned to their home units as I type this. How many? I am not sure. Its a done deal.


----------



## geo (30 Oct 2006)

Better to find out now than to find out about this when your life is on the line in a firefight.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> They are not rumours, people are being returned to their home units as I type this. How many? I am not sure. Its a done deal.


What I mean is this: unless it's in the MSM (which it may very well be), it's best to leave it be until detail is released in the open source media.


----------



## armyvern (30 Oct 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> They are not rumours, people are being returned to their home units as I type this. How many? I am not sure. Its a done deal.



The fact that they are being returned to their Home Units is not an unfortunate incident. They knew the rules, and the career implications, and they still broke them. Too bad.


----------



## GUNS (30 Oct 2006)

The " unfortunate incident" is directed towards the remaining members of the TF. They have lost people who they have trained with and come to rely on. Now they have to find people to replace those that left  I know way approve drug use within the military, I feel for those that remain, who are true to their convictions. Drug users deserve what DND has planned for them and I hope they learn from this.


----------



## geo (30 Oct 2006)

Guns,
1.  The troops who remain are better off without those who do not know how to control themselves.
2.  If a Coy lost the equivalent of a section or a platoon, then they will look at the personnel that they have in reserve (rear guard).  If they won't do the trick, then the CF will see about obtaining trained replacements from the even numbered TFs not scheduled for deployment but having trained just as long as the Odd numbered one.


----------



## GUNS (31 Oct 2006)

geo,

Totally agree, they knew what they signed up for and should have acted accordingly.

I was speaking as if I was in the situation where my training partner after all these months left, for whatever reason.

You know from experience that " bonds" form when you are in close proximity to the same person/person's for an extended period of time.

The "bond" is not the same with a replacement.


----------



## 043 (31 Oct 2006)

You know, the warnings from some of the mods irritate me..........why not publish the names of the guilty?? Someone gets a DUI, it is in the news, someone gets charged for AWOL, it is in routine orders. It isn't Johnny Public's fault so and so smoked a doobie or other things. Post them, humiliate the, shame them.


----------



## armyvern (31 Oct 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> You know, the warnings from some of the mods irritate me..........why not publish the names of the guilty?? Someone gets a DUI, it is in the news, someone gets charged for AWOL, it is in routine orders. It isn't Johnny Public's fault so and so smoked a doobie or other things. Post them, humiliate the, shame them.


And if anyone gets charged in relation to drug use...it'll be published in Routine Orders too. Or better yet, you may find them on the JAG web-site:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/military_justice/cmartials_and_appeals/default_e.asp

If it becomes official, then it may be worth posting in this forum, until then it's still nothing but idle speculation and unconfirmed gossip.


----------



## 043 (31 Oct 2006)

Yeah, but you don't really get court martialled for failing a piss test. There needs to be a bigger crime committed such as trafficking, etc. I agree, rumours aren't required, facts are. But once they are facts.......................let er rip!!!!!!!!! :skull:


----------



## armyvern (31 Oct 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but you don't really get court martialled for failing a piss test. There needs to be a bigger crime committed such as trafficking, etc. I agree, rumours aren't required, facts are. But once they are facts.......................let er rip!!!!!!!!! :skull:



No they don't go the CM route normally, but they are published in ROs.


----------



## paracowboy (31 Oct 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Post them, humiliate the, shame them.


get Mike sued  :

Gooood plan. It makes open source, it's news and public domain. Until then, everyone keeps their yaps shut on speculation.


----------



## paracowboy (31 Oct 2006)

Attention members of the Media:

some of you, and you know damn well who you are, have been attempting to circumvent the Military iin gathering info on this particular subject, by soliciting via pm.

It stops. Now. 

I get one more complaint, and you are banned, and will be reported to your employer, and the PAFF O.

Show some integrity. Look the word up, if you have to.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Oct 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but you don't really get court martialled for failing a piss test. There needs to be a bigger crime committed such as trafficking, etc. I agree, rumours aren't required, facts are. But once they are facts.......................let er rip!!!!!!!!! :skull:



Well!  Everyone I have heard of has faced Disciplinary Action.  I am sure that had they elected a Courts Martial, they would have got one.  As is, most got time in Edmonton.  If you in your Regiment do not do the same, it is not our fault but your own.  In your capacity and rank you ought to know.  As for you ending comments, that is what we hope to do on this site to prevent any legal problems for the site owner.  If it has been passed through the official channels and becomes 'open source', then all is fair game.


----------



## GUNS (31 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Attention members of the Media:
> 
> some of you, and you know damn well who you are, have been attempting to circumvent the Military iin gathering info on this particular subject, by soliciting via pm.
> 
> ...




Just sent a " Sorry" to a reporter from Halifax, who is looking for info about TF 107


----------



## Boxkicker (31 Oct 2006)

How about we all just wait for the charge reports, before we get into any sort of speculation.


----------



## 043 (31 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well!  Everyone I have heard of has faced Disciplinary Action.  I am sure that had they elected a Courts Martial, they would have got one.  As is, most got time in Edmonton.  If you in your Regiment do not do the same, it is not our fault but your own.  In your capacity and rank you ought to know.  As for you ending comments, that is what we hope to do on this site to prevent any legal problems for the site owner.  If it has been passed through the official channels and becomes 'open source', then all is fair game.



All Knowing George,

If you test in this circumstance there can be no disciplinary action taken against you. Adminstrative action is the only "punishment". In some cases, this type of action is worse.


----------



## Lager and Ale (31 Oct 2006)

you know...I just don't get it!  It just don't make sense!  
I had Intel about something that was well published in the Fredericton area, a week before the rest of Canada, both in the  local media, and yeah, sure scuttle-butt, and for the most part I'm getting slammed????... You don't got to be a bloody rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together!  I got eyes, ears, I read the newpapers...I figured this military community mayyyyy just want to know, in way of a head's up.  
I'm F****ING sorry!  I was obviously wrong!

J  :rage:


----------



## armyvern (31 Oct 2006)

Lager and Ale said:
			
		

> you know...I just don't get it!  It just don't make sense!
> I had Intel about something that was well published in the Fredericton area, a week before the rest of Canada, both in the  local media, and yeah, sure scuttle-butt, and for the most part I'm getting slammed????... You don't got to be a bloody rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together!  I got eyes, ears, I read the newpapers...I figured this military community mayyyyy just want to know, in way of a head's up.
> I'm F****ING sorry!  I was obviously wrong!
> 
> J  :rage:



Get over yourself. The actual results have yet to be made available to the public by the CoC. They will be released when they see fit, this is not the place for the "actual" goods to be released. Get it yet? And gee...those Fredericton publications that I get....seem to not be giving any results either...other than those they hear as gossip and speculation. 

You don't have any intel (most of all any "intel" from the Gleaner et al) that serving members haven't heard already.


----------



## orange.paint (31 Oct 2006)

Most likely a army wife from a unit not involved overheard someone who isn't in the army talking about something and reported to the Fredericton news.I have started rumors around work just to see how far they would go (telling my buddies of course).We would tell a tpr "jimmy" and he would spread that stuff like wildfire.Something like "hey jimmy we got next Friday off" would turn into "we got a 4 day long weekend because the CO See's how hard were working".

I'll wait till I hear numbers/types of drugs found before I lose my mind on the topic.

Until then its rumint.


----------



## GUNS (3 Nov 2006)

As there is no official response from DND about this, one would assume that they are weighing all the information and taking into consideration the character of those who have made the biggist mistake of their military lives.

I seriously doubt that this to be true for a vast majority but lets assume these soldiers have been doing drugs since the beginning of training. Would not the use of drugs be evident in the performance? If their performation was not below TF standards why would DND assume that it would be now?

I am sure it was a one time experience for some of these soldiers but the timing of this first time use of drugs could not have been worst.

Don't get me wrong, I do take issue with soldiers using drugs. DND has to find a balance between maintaining the integrity of the TF and showing an effort to retain those soldiers within the military family that deserve a second chance. Personally, it would be DND's loss if that effort is not made.

Those soldiers that are serious about their chosen career most likely have been beating themselves up inside over this. It will haunt them for the rest of their lives. What will really tear them up inside is not having the opportunity to prove that they are better soldiers then 4oz. of piss.


----------



## paracowboy (3 Nov 2006)

1st time or 1,000th time, it's all the same. Anyone busted for dope KNEW, well before they dropped that 'E', injected that 'roid, or toked that fatty, that it was ILLEGAL. They chose to ignore CF regulations, and Canadian Law. No mercy, no excuses, no exceptions, no tour.


----------



## GUNS (3 Nov 2006)

Life is so simple when you look at things as only being black or white.


----------



## 043 (3 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> 1st time or 1,000th time, it's all the same. Anyone busted for dope KNEW, well before they dropped that 'E', injected that 'roid, or toked that fatty, that it was ILLEGAL. They chose to ignore CF regulations, and Canadian Law. No mercy, no excuses, no exceptions, no tour.



+1


----------



## KevinB (3 Nov 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Life is so simple when you look at things as only being black or white.



 :

Life is so simple when you only pick and chose what to look at.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Nov 2006)

+2

They can smoke all the dope they want flipping burgers at Mickey D's...  Not in my vehicle, not in my trench, not on my staff.


----------



## Lager and Ale (3 Nov 2006)

It really isn't any huge suprise that this has happened.  The CF has been preaching its drug policy for a looooong time (to limited avail.  Hell, I remember Lahr, it being an almost monthly occurrence)...But zero tolerance has to be maintained!!!  Even the fact that DND is considering rehab for these "individuals" bugs me! 
In to-days society of transparency, I can't help but think  that the 'old days' of handling it 'out behind the shed' or "handling it internally" just won't wash!  If the guys are caught, then they have to pay!!! Its as simple as that, IMHO


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Nov 2006)

> Attention members of the Media:
> 
> some of you, and you know damn well who you are, have been attempting to circumvent the Military iin gathering info on this particular subject, by soliciting via pm.
> 
> ...



I've been PMed in the past by reporters snooping for info, it's garbage. Personally I'd rather army.ca not turn into a resource for the media, too bad we don't have a zero tollerence rule about that here.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Nov 2006)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I'be been PMed in the past by reporters snooping for info, it's garbage. Personally I'd rather army.ca not turn into a resource for the media, too bad we don't have a zero tollerence rule about that here.


report 'em to us. Dirty tricks like that are against the rules, and these slimy sonsabitches know that. They don't go to troops directly, they have to go through the PAFF O office. When they do, they get all the cooperation the PAFF O can supply. Same here. When they contact Staff or the Owner, we'll hook 'em up with all info we can, as long as it doesn't violate OPSEC or Regs.

They try end-runs around the rules, they get punted, reported to the PAFF O nearest their hometown, and their editor gets a complaint. 

That goes for everyone. When approached by the media via pm, let us know. They're breaking the rules, and they know it. Carrion-feeding, sensationalistic scum-bags will not be tolerated on this site.

They show integrity, cowboy up, and play it straight, they get respect and assistance. I think we've had exactly 2. Shows you the kind of personality that goes into that profession, I guess. Since they're liars and sneaks, they assume that everyone they deal with is dishonourable, just like them.


----------



## GUNS (4 Nov 2006)

Was contacted by " topher" who says he is a reporter. He was looking for info on TF 107.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Nov 2006)

thanks GUNS, was it recently? 'Cause he should be banned, unless I screwed up somehow. (Which is entirely likely. As we all know.  :-[ : )


----------



## APOLLOVet (4 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> +2
> 
> They can smoke all the dope they want flipping burgers at Mickey D's...  Not in my vehicle, not in my trench, not on my staff.



Totally agree with Teddy Ruxpin and Paracowboy.

I think that TF 1-07 is far better off knowing now who they obviously cannot trust. There will be other incidents (not necessarily drug-related) once they are in theater that will cause problems for the TF, and may require admin or disciplinary repatriation. It is better to get rid of drug users BEFORE you go over, not once you are there. The availability of marijuana and hashish is staggering, and is a huge temptation for some people.

Yes, people make mistakes. Yes, there could be first time users caught up in the testing who will never use again. That's fine, follow the admin and disciplinary procedures and retain them (or not) in Canada to give them another chance. If they "straighten up and fly right", proving themselves trustworthy  they can be considered for another tour in the future.  But I will tell you right now that if it was me in charge, there is no way on God's green Earth I would take a proven drug user into theater. The very idea that you cannot trust the men to your right and left is abhorrent to me. 

Can you imagine someone toked up, thinking that they were not going to be needed for ops and then being put on QRF and rolled out for an emergency? Do you really want a stoner protecting your back?

It might seem harsh to immediately boot people off tour, but previous posters are right: Deployed operations are not the place for second chances for drug users.

My 2 cents


----------



## GUNS (4 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> thanks GUNS, was it recently? 'Cause he should be banned, unless I screwed up somehow. (Which is entirely likely. As we all know.  :-[ : )



He contacted me on 31 Oct. 
Did a 411 on the number - info was not available.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Nov 2006)

thanks, GUNS. He should be gone, now.

For future reference, this guy is persona non grata with mil pers in LFWAA. He's got a rep for sliminess.


----------



## GUNS (4 Nov 2006)

I agree 100% with peoples feelings towards soldiers and drug use.

 My point is Canadian Law/Military Law is harsh on soft drugs(pot) and easy on alcohol. If you are going to test for drugs, you should also test for alcohol.

 Who would you be more comfortable with, a person who smoked pot once in their life and got caught or someone getting over the DT's. Its a no win situation. 

Alcohol is part of military life not as much now as years ago but still a part. There are more alcohol related deaths in Canada than drug related deaths. If you want to control drug use in the military then control the alcohol. 

If you use TF 107 as a barometer for the rest of the CF than 5500 to 6500 soldiers could possibility test positive. 

All this sucks for the military, this drug crap is not needed for the CF right now. I am totally disgusted over the whole affair.

 I do think that in hindsight, DND should forego these mass drug tests and resort to individual random testing on a daily routine. It is easier to deal with one person than hundreds.

I have donned my flak vest for this one.


----------



## Bartok5 (4 Nov 2006)

APOLLOVet,

You are the rare individual who writes exactly as he speaks.  Notwithstanding the fact that I happen to completely agree with you on the subject of those who do not take their oath of service seriously, I find it personally hilarious that as I read your words a mental image invariably forms which looks exactly like you.  

To write as you actually speak is a talent that I have yet to master.  I'm not yet sure if you are an orator of uncanny skill, or a writer with outstanding oral skills.  Mayhaps one and the same.

Sorry to get off-topic.  At the end of the day, the mental image of you that I draw from your writings is horrific.  Accurate, but horrific nonetheless.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Nov 2006)

Mark C said:
			
		

> Sorry to get off-topic.  At the end of the day, the mental image of you that I draw from your writings is horrific.  Accurate, but horrific nonetheless.


+1.

Althuogh it isn't EXACTLY as he speaks. He didn't cuss once in any post yet!


----------



## APOLLOVet (4 Nov 2006)

Thanks gentlemen,

I am trying that whole "kinder and gentler" thing. Not liking it so much yet.

In truth, the reason that I don't curse in the posts is that if I actually wrote in the same manner that I spoke, I would be dismissed as a raving lunatic. This way, at least, when I get dismissed as a raving lunatic on the forums it is because of my views, not the manner in which I express them.


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2006)

Guns....
WRT the alcohol thing.... the CF has come down hard on people with alcohol related problems... Disciplinary & admin measures are in place to curb.  Also, limitation on number of beers allowed has been in place since our deployments in FRY. It isn't perfect but, our controls are better than what other countries in theatre apply.


----------



## GUNS (5 Nov 2006)

Geo,

I know the policy when soldiers are deployed, its the off hours when at home base, when all this drug and alcohol is proned to happen.
I know DND has no control of what happens off base. My point is alcohol may factor in a person decision to try drugs. They seem to go hand in hand. I would not be far off the mark if the soldiers that were caught were asked if they were drinking at the time, 99% would say yes. I am not making excuses for these people, there is no excuse that will justify their actions.  

As I stated before, I find this all disgustion. CF policy on Drug Use spells out exactly what will happen to the individual who tests positive for drugs and the punishment that goes with it. 100% agreement. All soldiers are made aware of this policy and anyone caught deserve the punishment. I find it very difficult to comprehend the numbers that are floating around. I first thought that the test lab screwed up but it was not the case.

Its obvious to all I have a thing about alcohol, I work with people who have been injured from the use of alcohol or with people who were injured by people who were under the influence. Some of these people are younger than my kids. I have yet to have a client that was there for drug use.

However DND handles this mess I only hope all those caught are punished equally, Regular soldiers and Reserve soldiers alike. I know everyones feeling on this and I respect that. I am of the feeling that you don't cut off your arm if you prick your finger, you put a bandaid on it and put the arm back to work.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2006)

Guns

Reading your post, you show that you have been out of the military environment for too long and do not have a true picture of what it is like over there today.

On another point, both the Drug Addict and the Alcholic will take care of their addiction where ever they may be, on the Line or in the Rear.  It doesn't matter to them.  Your arguements are weak.

You conception of the DND policy is also faulty and has swung to the extreme.  You inturn do as much harm.  In the past, I have found that if you want to be a "Reformed Alcoholic" in your attitudes and restrict alcohol because you have a problem, in turn treating Soldiers like children, then they will behave like children when they get the chance to have a few drinks.  If you treat them as "responsible adults" then they tend to behave like adults.


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Geo,
> I know the policy when soldiers are deployed, its the off hours when at home base, when all this drug and alcohol is proned to happen.
> I know DND has no control of what happens off base. My point is alcohol may factor in a person decision to try drugs. They seem to go hand in hand. I would not be far off the mark if the soldiers that were caught were asked if they were drinking at the time, 99% would say yes. I am not making excuses for these people, there is no excuse that will justify their actions.



Guns,
within LFQA, I get to find out every morning, what happened in the last 24 hrs in our area.  SQ & police forces talk to the MPs, the units are notified and the units are required to act on things that happen off base... even off hours.

If the constabulary figures out you're military, the MPs are told as a matter of course.

If our troops have a problem, we have a problem... so let's get it fixed.


----------



## GUNS (5 Nov 2006)

My comments about alcohol has nothing to do with the amount of alcohol one consumes, its about the results of drinking. On a weekly bases I deal with clients who are referred to the O/P T(Occupational/Physical Therapy) Department for treatment for injuries they received as the result of alcohol related accidents. I find it difficult to understand why people in their late teens and early 20's end up in this situation. 

My time out of uniform does not mean I have loss touch with how the military is operating today. I have several family and friends still in the Forces. It is not my intent to do harm to the CF, as anyone who knows me would tell you, I speak highly of the CF and encourage those who listen to join. The situation with the TF is very unfortunate for the military. I am sure DND never expected in their wildest dreams that they would have such high numbers. I mentioned that it may have been wiser to carry out the testing with more manageable numbers over a longer duration. With such high numbers DND has to find out why. I am just offering a possible link to the drug use.

I am aware of the Drug Addiction and Alcohol Treatment program. This program works for those soldiers that show evidence of a problem or was tested. Unless a person admits to having a problem or is caught, they will never avail themselves of the program. 

The soldiers that screwed up have been training together for six months with no evidence in their performance that there was drug use. If they were able to maintain TF standards during training why would one think they would not maintain the same standard now. Each soldier should be evaluated based on performance and PDR's from those in position to write them. If the soldier has shown quality performance and has good PDR's than delay the C&P until their return. I believe they have learned a life's lesson and will not repeat their mistake.

I will repeat what I said before, they know they dishonored the uniform they wear, they know they disappointed their fellow soldiers of the TF and they know they deserve punishment. I do not believe removing them from the TF( I know I am alone on this) is necessary.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Nov 2006)

okay. Both sides are firmly entrenched. Both sides are lobbing arty. Nobody has, or will convince the other to capitulate.

I think everyone's thoughts are pretty clear. Further "debate" now will simply be "Is not," "Is so." What say we just shut this down until final results are in?


----------



## armyvern (5 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I think everyone's thoughts are pretty clear. Further "debate" now will simply be "Is not," "Is so." What say we just shut this down until final results are in?


+1 Paracowboy

And that is exactly it, the final results are still not in.


----------



## GUNS (6 Nov 2006)

First off, I would like to thank a member of this forum for the PM that explained the situation with the TF. It filled in many of the blanks and cleared up information that was passed on to me. 

This maybe a situation where the person who passed on the information to me was not provided with *all * the pertinent details of what actually happened. I wish I could explain in more detail but I will say this subject is placed on the back burner for now.


----------



## orange.paint (6 Nov 2006)

They ordered second test earlier last month.How long does these things usually take?
It appears the first one took around two weeks,from what I've been reading on here.
Does anyone know when the results will be in?


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> They ordered second test earlier last month.How long does these things usually take?
> It appears the first one took around two weeks,from what I've been reading on here.
> Does anyone know when the results will be in?



No, but I'm sure that once the final testing results are in, sorted out, and finalized, we will have an official announcement made by the CoC. Until then, all is speculation.


----------



## orange.paint (6 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Until then, all is speculation.



+1
shouldnt they lock this until someone has actual written info?


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2006)

099
mod can always flush the cr@p out


----------



## 043 (6 Nov 2006)

All this talk about locking the thread, not saying nothing, etc........bull puckey I say. If not for the liability clause, I think (IMHO) that this info should be open source. Obvioulsy the big warning they recieved when they joined didn't work, maybe having the names posted would work. 

Guns, you are not alone...........I concur with alot of what you are saying. I'll pm ya with my thoughts sometime. There is a time and place for disciplinary or administrative measures as you know.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2006)

Mods:  Tried searching, but  couldn't find the original thread on this, so feel free to plunk elsewhere as appropriate - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Screening of soldiers uncovers illegal use of drugs*
Gloria Galloway, Globe & Mail, 24 Nov 06
Article - Permalink

OTTAWA -- Canadian troops being sent to Afghanistan in February are being tested for illegal drug use -- and about 5 per cent are failing.

The 2,300 Canadian Forces personnel, most of them from CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick, are the first group to be checked for illicit drugs since the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, announced last November that the inspections would take place.

Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium and the military does not want to send people who already have problems into that environment. More than that, it needs troops who are in full control of their faculties.

But it took some time to get the testing program up and running and two deployments have left for the war zone without being checked for drug use since Gen. Hillier's Safety Sensitive Drug Testing Directive was issued.

*Commander Denise LaViolette, a military spokesman, said yesterday that the testing of the next group to be sent to Afghanistan began in September and, as of mid-November, 1,396 people -- both reservists and regular troops -- had gone through the program. The rest will get their tests in the coming weeks.

Of the tests completed so far, 95 per cent were negative, Cdr. LaViolette said.*

"Sixty-seven samples were positive for illicit drugs. In addition to those 67, there were a number of samples that were diluted. In the case of the diluted ones, we did retesting," she said.

The infractions have involved several different types of drug use but the military won't reveal the types of chemicals being found.

The troops discovered with diluted samples, which can indicate attempts to hide the evidence by drinking large amounts of water, were sent for retesting. 

But prior to their second test, five people admitted to their commanders that they have been involved in illicit drug use, Cdr. LaViolette said.

"So, in total, 72 individuals or approximately 5 per cent either tested positive for illicit drugs or admitted to their use," she said. And another three who had diluted first samples tested positive on their second round.

While any drug use within the military is a concern, the levels of confirmed drug use are significantly lower than sources had previously alleged in interviews with other news media. 

One newspaper reported in October that between 16 and 18 per cent of soldiers were testing positive for substances that included marijuana, speed, cocaine and even heroin.

Those who do test positive will not be subjected to a court-martial or any other type of police proceeding, Cdr. LaViolette said. The military cannot use that type of disciplinary action against people who have been forced to submit to drug tests.

Instead, they will undergo what is called an administrative review.

"The two actions that can result from an administrative review are counselling and probation or release from the Canadian Forces," Cdr. LaViolette said.

"We want to make sure that everybody is treated the same, that there are opportunities along the process for an individual to come forth with what they might feel is new information, and we want to make sure internally that people who are observing the process are also comfortable that this process is fair and equitable."

The military will consider a person's career, recommendations from his or her unit, previous behaviour and the type of drug used before determining whether the person will be released from the military.

But "all of these people have been removed from the rotation pending the results of the administrative review," Cdr. LaViolette said. And because the process will take some time, she said, none of those testing positive will be sent to Afghanistan in February.



1)  Well, compared to the most comprehensive stats I could find here, between 20% and 47% of Canadians aged 18 to 34 (in 2004) reported having used cannabis  products within the last year, so 5% is pretty damned good compared to the nat'l average.  Can we do better?  Yes.  How is this compared to the population we draw from?  Not bad, I think.  We can always do better, but funny how this sort of stat isn't included for context - in fact, the only comparative figure listed is the previous HIGHER guesstimates.  If it bleeds, it leads...

2)  I wonder what the rate of positives would be in a given group of people engaged in another job where there's a lot of stress, pressure and a high level of responsibility - say, journalists?  Could a group of them stay within the national average?  

3)  Uh, that's it for now....


----------



## geo (24 Nov 2006)

Am still convinced that there are a number of false readings in that group of 67 troops.  
There is also the issue of Ephidrine.  Some individuals working on body building use the stuff.  While still a controlled substance, it does not rate bieng grouped with Grass, Hash, coke & heroin IMHO.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2006)

geo, or anyone who can:  Enlighten me - are troops tested for ILLEGAL substances, CONTROLLED substances, or what?  Is it criminal code stuff they're looking for, performance enhancers?  My civvy understanding is that testing is being conducted for "dope", not necessarily steroids or such (but I stand to be corrected, hence the question).  In the case of ephidrine, as you mention, can't you get a positive from using certain antihistamines or decongestants?


----------



## geo (24 Nov 2006)

Ayup,
Lots of drugs that are either prescription or over the counter can provide false readings so it is essential that the drug test administrators act in an informed and should I say "intelligent" manner?

Problem with steroids & epehdrin is that it does result in some behavioral side effects that are undesirable in a section / troop / squadron.

As was pointed out in your article, the official response to the drug tests will be administrative and not disciplinary so Illegal & controlled substance distinction is a moot point.


----------



## cplcaldwell (24 Nov 2006)

Wading into this with little else but my somewhat limited wits.

QR&O 20.07 says that no member of the CF shall use drugs. _Use_ is defined in the preamble. _Drugs_ is defined as those in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (RSC).

Ephedrine is listed in Schedule VI, Chapter 19 of the CDSA as a Class A Precursor. The act states that no one can import or export this substance unless exempted.

Re:CF I can't find anything that prohibits ephedrine, but CFMS has a pile of stuff warning on its abuse, and counselling against excessive or even prolonged use.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2006)

geo, cplc - thx for enlightening me a bit on this one.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2006)

On the other hand, here's another story - we'll see which version wire services are more likely to pick up  

Shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Gagetown drug use ‘a lot less’ than first reported*
Kristen Liscombe, Halifax Chronicle Herald, 24 Nov 06
Article Link

One out of 20 military personnel at CFB Gagetown have either tested positive for illegal drugs or admitted to using them, Defence Department data released Thursday shows.

Cmdr. Denise Laviolette, department spokeswoman, said that’s "a lot less" than reported last month by Maritime media outlets. 

In fact, Fredericton’s Daily Gleaner ran a story stating between 16 and 18 per cent of soldiers tested at the base were caught with drugs ranging from marijuana to heroin in their system. Some reports were as high as 25 per cent, she said.

"There were numerous articles that indicated very high numbers (and) that there was a problem," she said Thursday from Ottawa. "At the time, we couldn’t provide specific information because we still had to await some of the testing."

But results released Thursday show that "95 per cent tested negative," Cmdr. Laviolette said, adding testing is still ongoing so totals have yet to be tallied.

So far, testing has turned up more than 70 soldiers with illicit drugs in their system, or five per cent out of almost 1,400 personnel tested between September and mid-November.

"Everybody that’s going to Afghanistan is undergoing what we call safety-sensitive drug testing," Cmdr. Laviolette said. About 2,200 soldiers were scheduled to head overseas in February.

However, Cmdr. Laviolette said 75 military personnel won’t be making the journey to Afghanistan because they will be undergoing an administrative review. In total, 72 Canadian Forces members are being reviewed for drug use and three others are being reviewed for breach of regulations, she said. 

"The members who tested positive have all been removed from the rotation pending the results of the administrative review," Cmdr. Laviolette said. Disciplinary action could range from counselling and probation to release from the Canadian Forces, she said.The only exception that would allow a soldier back into the rotation heading to Afghanistan is if he or she has a valid medical reason for testing positive or turning over a diluted sample.

*"If you happen to have a legitimate prescription for, let’s say, Tylenol with codeine, you would test positive," she explained. "In those circumstances, obviously you’ve done nothing wrong and there wouldn’t be a reason to continue with the administrative review."*

Dan Middlemiss, director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said many people in the military were skeptical of the high percentage of drug use initially reported in the New Brunswick media.

"It was based on an unattributed rumour," he said. "It just shows you why the good media are cautious in reporting these things as only rumours and not fact."

Cmdr. Laviolette said drug use in the Canadian military appears to be either lower or equal to the general public across the country.

*"We are a reflection of society." * 

( klipscombe@herald.ca)


----------



## GUNS (24 Nov 2006)

According to the previous post, one out of 20 tested positive. If this information is correct then.

75 were determined to have a banned substance which would make the number tested,( 75 tested positive )X (1 of of 20) = 1500

So 75 out of 1500 would be 5%.

Interesting when compared with the Summery Trail stats. for 2004/2005 which states that 1.95% of  Summery Trials were for Article 129(Drug/Alcohol) and 2005/2006 stats. show that 2.17% were for Article 129.

One side note to this is that for the same 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 periods, Article 97 Summery Trials were 7.8% and 6.51%, respectively.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2006)

Article 129 is not Drugs/alcohol.


----------



## armyvern (24 Nov 2006)

As George said, 129 = Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.


----------



## GUNS (24 Nov 2006)

You are correct about 129,  Summery Trial Stats. list Drug/Alcohol under 129 along with other offences. If I come across the correct Article I will correct the post.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> You are correct about 129,  Summery Trial Stats. list Drug/Alcohol under 129 along with other offences. If I come across the correct Article I will correct the post.


 :

129 is the "Catch All".  It was once upon a time 119, but that is a thread hijack.  So, of course, it would also include drug or alcohol related offences prejudice to good order and discipline.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Nov 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> According to the previous post, one out of 20 tested positive. If this information is correct then.
> 
> 75 were determined to have a banned substance which would make the number tested,( 75 tested positive )X (1 of of 20) = 1500
> 
> ...



Am I missing something?  What is the point of that comparison?


----------



## GO!!! (25 Nov 2006)

Two things;

First, where did the press get the 16-18-25% number from? What a scoop!  : 

Second, I'd be interested to see a breakdown of those numbers by unit/rank/moc etc., just to see who we are working with.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Nov 2006)

Lager and Ale said:
			
		

> This is not good for the task force!
> From the Fredricton Daily Gleaner, 24 Oct. 06:
> 
> Soldiers nabbed in drug tests
> ...






			
				Lager and Ale said:
			
		

> And just so I'm clear,mate, this is front page news in Fredericton.  The author, Mike Staples, has been around the military a great many years!  He is not prone to rumour!  This has also been backed up by ATV news tonite.




Boy, I'm glad he's not prone to rumour. Who knows how big the percentage would've been in the story then............................


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2006)

Lager and Ale said:
			
		

> And just so I'm clear,mate, this is front page news in Fredericton.  The author, Mike Staples, has been around the military a great many years!  He is not prone to rumour!  This has also been backed up by ATV news tonite.



When I was a reporter, it was not uncommon for broadcast outlets to pick up stories they'd found in newspapers.  Ideally, you would use the paper as an idea generator, talk to people and produce your own story.  Sometimes (too often), though, stories are just re-written from the paper - the journalism term for this rewriting someone else's story without doing your own research (often without attributing the source, either) is "scabbing".  Even wire services are known to take stories from member papers, and redistribute them with the original mistakes all over their respective networks across Canada.  So it's not impossible that once the "scoop" was out, and there were no other sources for the information, ATV just used what they knew, maybe even without saying, "the Gleaner reports....." to show they didn't do the digging.  

Just to show that hearing it on more than one outlet doesn't guarantee each outlet did their own independent research....


----------



## Lager and Ale (25 Nov 2006)

OK...colour me confused...after all of the news...you still don't believe it??? ???


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Nov 2006)

I just would like an explanation of his "sources" for the 16 to 18 %..........methinks his *cough* "source" is nothing but his need for a story.


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

I'm curious to know how much advance notice was given that the testing would be performed.  Depending on the answer to that question, one could speculate that 5% of the personnel tested were stupid enough to use drugs within the detection window, if they knew the testing was coming - which varies from 1 to 30 days, depending on the substance.  One could also surmise that the actual number of drug users is higher, but that some hadn't used recently enough to be snared by the testing.

That's still no excuse for publishing a wild figure of 16-18% unless the testing supported that figure.


----------



## Lager and Ale (25 Nov 2006)

Although BM will probably have issues with this responce...a fly on the wall indicatates less than 30 hrs and more than 12.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Nov 2006)

Why do you assume I would have issues?  Big difference between you saying "a fly on the wall" and a reporter writing for a large newspaper using the term "sources".


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

Lager and Ale said:
			
		

> Although BM will probably have issues with this responce...a fly on the wall indicatates less than 30 hrs and more than 12.



Did they have a heads up that testing would be performed sometime in advance of the deployment, or was it a complete surprise?  If it was a complete surprise, the results are probably pretty accurate.  If there was some advance warning, however vague, then at least some people would be "playing it cool" and not abusing.


----------



## GUNS (25 Nov 2006)

Everyone who puts on the uniform is aware that there is a possibility of being tested for drugs. That being the case everyone had been warned. In this case with the TF there was no warning, they got together for a BG picture and then were told that they would be tested.
For those who tested positive, there is no excuse.







			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Did they have a heads up that testing would be performed sometime in advance of the deployment, or was it a complete surprise?  If it was a complete surprise, the results are probably pretty accurate.  If there was some advance warning, however vague, then at least some people would be "playing it cool" and not abusing.


----------



## Lager and Ale (25 Nov 2006)

I heard it was a kit check in the drill hall....but what ever....I agree, you put on the uniform, you were warned.


----------



## GO!!! (25 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Did they have a heads up that testing would be performed sometime in advance of the deployment, or was it a complete surprise?  If it was a complete surprise, the results are probably pretty accurate.  If there was some advance warning, however vague, then at least some people would be "playing it cool" and not abusing.



Why so cynical? 

Could it be that only 5% of the forces is that dumb? Or do you enjoy keeping these reporters lurking with more grist for the mill?


----------



## geo (26 Nov 2006)

Still believe that within that 5% there are individuals who were using Ephedrine & other substances which were restricted without being prohibited.


----------



## Lager and Ale (26 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Still believe that within that 5% there are individuals who were using Ephedrine & other substances which were restricted without being prohibited.


But that's the point GEO, its still non prescribed drugs and it is against the law.  I know that when I was in...I didn't' want a substance abuser in the same trench as me!  Its a mater of trust.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Why so cynical?



Experience.



> Could it be that only 5% of the forces is that dumb? Or do you enjoy keeping these reporters lurking with more grist for the mill?



On the contrary, the question I asked is important if you want to put things in perspective.  If there was absolutely no warning (other than the standard "you might be tested because you're in the CF"), then I'd have to venture that the 5% is an accurate figure.  If they knew it was coming in the next month, the figure is probably artificially low.  I'm sure a reporter could probably figure that out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2006)

Lager and Ale said:
			
		

> But that's the point GEO, its still non prescribed drugs and it is against the law.



Wrong, what is your problem anyway??   You have done nothing but try to make some kind of judgement against the soldiers of today with your insinuations and its getting old really fast.  

"Non prescriped drugs"......pretty much takes 90% of pain reliever's, hemmoroid creams, etc. and most foods off the list of things a soldier can have.
Maybe you should check out the legal definition of 'drug'.


----------



## geo (26 Nov 2006)

FWIW, even Ephedrine is not particularly "taboo" while used in Canada.

If you try to bring your own personal "stash" to Kabul/KAF, then you are in trouble.....


----------



## Lager and Ale (27 Nov 2006)

My apologize BM, I suppose I should have said, non perscribed controlled substances.  Oops.  My Goof.
As far as the other...NO WAY! ...if anything I admire the boys and girls in uniform...hell, I wish I was still in!  
It just burns me to the quick that a few members who think that they are the exceptions to the rule... and use these substances, without fear of retribution (I would think).  I'm not sure who said it before me...but it's still a trust issue.  Trust within the Forces and trust of the public toward the Forces.  
And Yes, I agree, that a majority of the support for the Troops is still high, but IMHO, I would think there would be a few points taken off because of this.  
It just sounds like the military is trying to hide this or make it irrelevant by not publishing the findings quickly.

The soap box is free...I stand down.


----------



## GUNS (27 Nov 2006)

Lager, I seriously doubt the military was trying to hide anything.Most likely, they were confronted with a situation they were not expecting.

The initial high figures were drastically reduced when the soldiers tested provided the necessary information to clear them ie: Dr's note, had been to Dentist.

I agree with Geo's post, if the military would make the extra effort and re-test the 5%, they may well be able to lower that number .


----------



## GO!!! (27 Nov 2006)

284_226

The only reason oral ephedrine is a controlled substance is that it is an ingredient in the manufacture of crystal meth (along with 5-10 other chemicals)

It is the active ingredient in such *legal* and *safe* supplements as hydroxycut, Zantrac, Thermaburn etc.

It's a performance enhancer, increasing metabolic rate, LOC, and heart rate for a short period of time, *much like caffeine*. Considering that it keeps you awake and alert - I would have no objections to the guy next to me in a trench taking it in moderation, provided he was drinking sufficient water to avoid the dehydration it can cause.

Should you doubt me, all of the above are sold at Canex, right next to the creatine and protein powders.


----------



## geo (27 Nov 2006)

Unfortunately, when you take a lot of the Ephedrine, you can suffer some behavioral problems, increased aggressiveness - taking risks that should not be taken,... and that's not a good thing.


----------



## APOLLOVet (28 Nov 2006)

I think that we might be getting a little away from the point by getting into the weeds with conjectures about ephedrine and other substances sold at CANEX.

Remember, one of the standard lines in every joining instruction that I have seen, and every deployment order is that troops will not self-medicate. Period. This includes aspirin, hemmorhoid cream, ephedrine, sudafed, etc. There are two reasons for this. One, if soldiers are not allowed to self-medicate, even with over-the-counter (OTC) medications we can lessen the risk of accidental overdose, as they will be getting dosage instructions from the MO/pharmacist. Also, this means that we know that they are not mixing potentially harmful substances when taken in combination (ask a nurse about the combination of Tylenol and alcohol. While it will not get you immediately, it is murder on your liver, and can become extremely serious).
Second, and far more importantly, by forbidding self-medication, we ensure that soldiers get professional attention for their injuries. How many times have you heard stories about people who thought that they just had sore muscles, and later find out that they had serious tendon or ligament injuries. Self-medication will mask the symptoms, and allow aggravation of the injury.

Finally, and most importantly, I will come back to my (far) earlier post about trust. I give orders every day at work. I do this both in garrison, and on operations. I trust that my orders will be carried out, just as my superiors trust that I will carry out their orders. My subordinates trust that I will consider their welfare properly in the execution of any orders that I receive, and that I will consider their welfare properly in any plans that I might come up with. We all trust that the person on our flank is properly trained to do his job, and is physically, mentally, and emotionally fit to carry out his duties. I trust that they will save my life if necessary, and they trust that I will do the same for them.

I do NOT trust anyone who disregards the simplest of orders with respect to drugs, whether OTC or controlled. If you are in the CF, you are not allowed to partake. Period. It is black and white. If you do, and even if I am unsuccessful in trying to make you answer for your actions to the fullest extent possible IAW CF policy, QR&O, and the Criminal Code, I no longer trust you and will not have anything to do with you if at all possible (Obviously I am using the genric "you", and not anyone specific).

Again, I don't want to get into a debate about what should and should not be allowed, nor do I wish to get into debates about what is an acceptable number of users for the CF. I agree that alcohol is just as much of a problem for the CF as are controlled substances, with the sole exception that alcohol is legal. I have seen marked changes in the acceptance of alcohol over the past twenty years, and we may eventually place it in the same boat as drugs in the CF, buit for the present time it is still legal. 

The key issue is trust. We all agreed to be drug-free; these individuals decided not to be, and will face the consequences of their decisions.


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2006)

Well,

I just got my OTC card (Over the Counter Medication Card) so that I can walk into the drug store to get Aspiran, cold medicine, sudafed, never needed hemmorhoid cream, etc etc. It was issued to me. I don't pay, I just go in and get what I need and the billing goes through the card.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2006)

Apollovet,
Please tell me that you meant that WHEN the troops are deployed........not back in garrison doing a workup.

Please tell me that you TRUST your men/women enough to take aspirin, apply cream etc., otherwise,....wow...


----------



## APOLLOVet (28 Nov 2006)

I see your point (to a certain extent). However, I still stand by my point of the fact that we are not allowed to self-medicate. I imagine that you had to go to the MIR to get the card, and I also imagine that you are not allowed to load up a barrack box with whatever you wish to take with you on tour? 

I also still stand by my earlier point about trust, whether with respect to OTC medications or controlled substances. Once you are ordered not to do something, it is not optional as to whether you follow that order or not. If you (and again, I am using a generic "you", not anyone specific) feel that an order is ridiculous, there are ways to challenge that order.

I remember a time where an individual was ordered to man a defensive position (on deployed operations), and he decided that he didn't want to do that. So, he just got up and walked away, leaving that part of the line open. If that isn't a breach of trust based on disobeying an order (which is what I understand the point of this thread to be), I don't know what is. I feel that someone using prohibited substances after they have been ordered not to to be in the same classification.


----------



## APOLLOVet (28 Nov 2006)

Mr Monkhouse,

From my earlier post:


Remember, one of the standard lines in every joining instruction that I have seen, and every deployment order is that troops will not self-medicate.


I am not referring to everyday life in garrison WRT standard OTC medications. I do trust soldiers to look after themselves properly. What I am trying to say (poorly, apparently) is that the central fact of the drug testing for TFs is a trust issue. It is not even primarily a trust issue for the chain of command in my opinion; I think that the soldiers of the TF feel better after the tests knowing that those who are using controlled substances have been removed from the tour.

My apologies if I have expressed myself unclearly


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2006)

Thanks for clearing that up.........turns out we totally agree.

[I have always had a rather large "sore spot" for grown adults not being treated that way at times, and for that I too apoligize]


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2006)

APOLLOVet said:
			
		

> I see your point (to a certain extent). However, I still stand by my point of the fact that we are not allowed to self-medicate. I imagine that you had to go to the MIR to get the card, and I also imagine that you are not allowed to load up a barrack box with whatever you wish to take with you on tour?


Nope I didn't go to the MIR. I filled in the paperwork and sent it in. There is no MIR here. I've taken asprin and other OTC stuff on tour with me before (and my kits been searched - and it was not seized - nor did I hear any flack about it). It is legal and it is over-the-counter after all.


----------



## Big Red (28 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, when you take a lot of the Ephedrine, you can suffer some behavioral problems, increased aggressiveness - taking risks that should not be taken,... and that's not a good thing.



I've never heard of this or seen it and I've worked with many people using Hydroxycut.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2006)

Hydroxycut hasn't used ephidrene for about 2 years now........which is why it doesn't work as well [if at all] as it used too. 

...and take it from someone who used the 'stack' on and off for a few years. The shakes and aggressiveness are side effects.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2006)

..and for the record, no, I would severally frown on any ephedrine use under the circumstances that you face over there.


----------



## paracowboy (28 Nov 2006)

Big Red said:
			
		

> I've never heard of this or seen it and I've worked with many people using Hydroxycut.


depends on the individual and the dosage, but yeah, it happens. BTDT


----------



## medicineman (28 Nov 2006)

There is an issue of taking some OTC's and even some "herbal/natural health" remedies while in theatre.  ASA (aspirin) for certain and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents to varying degrees can impair the abillity of your blood to clot.  ASA inhibits platellet agglutination (sticking together to form a plug) for 7 days post discontinuation, hence the reason we give it to people before, after and while they're having a heart attack - to prevent a clot from getting worse.  Other agents, garlic oil for one, have a similar effect.  In fact, one of the things taught in TCCC is not to use anti-inflammatory agents in theatre for that reason.  So, as you might well imagine, we'd get a little edgy about people taking stuff without our knowledge or blessing in theatre.  I'm not even going to go into some of the other things that people take.

MM


----------

