# Legal Cannabis Use in the CAF



## Stoker (14 Apr 2017)

This is the closest thread I could find to CF recreational Cannabis use in the forces. So with the new proposed regulations just being announced the min age to get high will be set by the province, hopefully not less than 19.I wonder how this will affect us in the CF? I wager this is being looked at. I suspect it will continue to be status quo, zero use, random testing.


----------



## blacktriangle (14 Apr 2017)

We should go to zero use for anything, including caffeine and alcohol.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Apr 2017)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> We should go to zero use for anything, including caffeine and alcohol.



On what grounds?


----------



## blacktriangle (14 Apr 2017)

Well if we are going to demonize the smoking of a joint during off-duty hours, should we not also objectively look at the intake of other substances?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Apr 2017)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Well if we are going to demonize the smoking of a joint during off-duty hours, should we not also objectively look at the intake of other substances?



Ah - sarcasm.

If pot is as legal as alcohol, then have at 'er is my view - normal caveats apply.


----------



## blacktriangle (14 Apr 2017)

Couldn't agree more. Cheers.


----------



## here4questions (26 Apr 2017)

Hello,

I am curious on how the new marijuana legislation will effect the military. As it will not be an illicit drug will this mean military members will be permitted to smoke on their free time?


----------



## Stoker (26 Apr 2017)

here4questions said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I am curious on how the new marijuana legislation will effect the military. As it will not be an illicit drug will this mean military members will be permitted to smoke on their free time?



Hard to say, it very well may allow usage off duty. I would imagine JAG is looking at that right now. On the other hand it very well also may mean that while employed by the military no use is allowed. Being a person who doesn't agree with it except for medical use I would prefer it being kept completely away from the workplace.


----------



## McG (26 Apr 2017)

here4questions said:
			
		

> I am curious on how the new marijuana legislation will effect the military. As it will not be an illicit drug will this mean military members will be permitted to smoke on their free time?


The best answer you will get at this time is speculation.  I would recommend wait and eventually the military will publish direction.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Apr 2017)

here4questions said:
			
		

> what is this delias tess :-\



Dileas is Gaelic for Faithful.  My regimental motto ($8th Highlander) is Dileas Gu Brath or Faithful forever.

I copied the concept from an old and respected member of the site, who was also member and legend in our regiment.  He passed away many year ago.

dileas

tess


----------



## Stoker (26 Apr 2017)

So anyways there should be a DOAD or something like that coming out at some point addressing use by CF members.


----------



## here4questions (26 Apr 2017)

Sorry I dont know the language. What is a DOAD?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Apr 2017)

here4questions said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I am curious on how the new marijuana legislation will effect the military.  . . .



I am curious as to the reason for your curiosity.  This will undoubtedly be a contentious issue for the military and (judging by posts in other threads that touch on the subject) will probably elicit some comments that could be taken and used out of context.  There are some on these means (myself included) who are naturally suspicious of individuals who sign on here and, in their first post, pose a question that could (at least to those with the aforementioned suspicious minds) have the ulterior motive of eliciting those comments.  I don't think that I would be far of the mark if I say that most of the more senior members of this forum would be more comfortable discussing the subject if they knew a bit more about where you're coming from.

And, just because I'm pedantic and never really stopped using the red pencil even though I'm no longer an adjutant, those with significant military service are often more likely to have a discussion with those who pay attention to proper grammar and spelling.

"How will knew new marijuana laws effect affect the military"

Of course, if you typed that after using a bit of the bud, it's understandable; so, no problem.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Apr 2017)

here4questions said:
			
		

> Sorry I dont know the language. What is a DOAD?




Defence Administrative Orders and Directives


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2017)

here4questions 

I see Blackadder1916 beat me to it.  I, too, am curious as to why you have entered the site posting this as your first question, even though we already had a discussion going on such legalities.  If you don't understand the language that the military use, referencing DAOD's, then I suspect that you are not in the military, and perhaps not even in the Recruiting Process.  This raises serious questions among many here who are or were involved with security matters and concerns as part of their occupation.

If you read more on this site, you will find that this is a very touchy and controversial subject.


----------



## here4questions (26 Apr 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I am curious as to the reason for your curiosity.  This will undoubtedly be a contentious issue for the military and (judging by posts in other threads that touch on the subject) will probably elicit some comments that could be taken and used out of context.  There are some on these means (myself included) who are naturally suspicious of individuals who sign on here and, in their first post, pose a question that could (at least to those with the aforementioned suspicious minds) have the ulterior motive of eliciting those comments.  I don't think that I would be far of the mark if I say that most of the more senior members of this forum would be more comfortable discussing the subject if they knew a bit more about where you're coming from.
> 
> And, just because I'm pedantic and never really stopped using the red pencil even though I'm no longer an adjutant, those with significant military service are often more likely to have a discussion with those who pay attention to proper grammar and spelling.
> 
> ...



I am a recreational smoker who wants to start a career with the Canadian Navy however i don't want to quit marijuana. I wouldn't mind stopping marijuana for several months while working on ship however when i return home I would like to enjoy a joint. I would quit right now to prepare for basic training but i don't want to quit entirely.

I have been through the recruiting process twice and was turned away because of the marijauna. (I didnt lie on my questionaire) I am by no means trying to stir up any trouble.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Apr 2017)

here4questions said:
			
		

> I am a recreational smoker who wants to start a career with the Canadian Navy however i don't want to quit marijuana. I wouldn't mind stopping marijuana for several months while working on ship however when i return home I would like to enjoy a joint. I would quit right now to prepare for basic training but i don't want to quit entirely.
> 
> I have been through the recruiting process twice and was turned away because of the marijauna. (I didnt lie on my questionaire) I am by no means trying to stir up any trouble.



Thank you for your honesty.  As to your original question, no one on this forum knows what the effects will be.  And if perchance someone on these means was involved in any of the very, very, very early planning of how the CF would have to accommodate this proposed legislative change, they would not tell you .  Remember, this is still only "proposed" legislation - it has only had first reading in the House.  It will mostly likely be passed in the time frame given by the government, but, until then, cannabis is still illegal for recreational use.

The only comments you will likely receive concerning your personal situation would be speculation, and probably not even informed speculation.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Apr 2017)

What will DND's policy be regarding the possibility to harvest four small plants at home (PMQ's) when the legislation is passed? Or in community garden plots if any?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Apr 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What will DND's policy be regarding the possibility to harvest four small plants at home (PMQ's) when the legislation is passed? Or in community garden plots if any?



Probably should be the same policy as we have for PMQ residents that brew their own beer......

None of our business.


----------



## GAP (27 Apr 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Probably should be the same policy as we have for PMQ residents that brew their own beer......
> 
> None of our business.



Just don't come to work stoned....


----------



## Lumber (27 Apr 2017)

I'm surprised that this isn't a more active threat...

The issue with even recreational use in the CAF, IMO, is this:

Alcohol and Cannabis have a peculiar inverse correlation with respect to dosage and lethality, and dosage and inebriation.

A large amount of alcohol will kill you, even in one sitting; a large amount of cannabis, even in one sitting, will not.

However:

A small amount of alcohol (i.e. a beer) will have zero (or very little) noticeable psychological affect on those consuming it (obviously, that's not always the case, some people do get inebriated after one drink); a small amount of cannabis, on the other hand, will have an immediate inebriating affect. Sure, this might not be true of someone who has developed a tolerance, but we're talking about CAF members here. I'd hope that even if it was made permissible recreationally, that they wouldn't all start lighting up on a daily basis.

So, I can have one beer and go back to work and feel fine, but I imagine that if _I_ smoked a joint at lunch I think that I'd be noticeably inebriated for the rest of the afternoon.

If we allow occasional (i.e. outside of work) recreational use of cannabis in the FORCES, I think you're going to see a measurable increase in unauthorized use of cannabis both before or during work (i.e. lunch). Since even a small amount can have a significant inebriating affect, I think this is dangerous.

Once cannabis becomes legal at large, I think you will be hard pressed to *successfully convict *members of the CAF for using it recreationally on weekends/after hours (just my opinion, I have no legal trg to confirm this).  So, my recommendation would be to leave it as is; illegal in the CAF. Once legal in Canada, use will go up, charges and convictions in the military will go down, but we'll still have the tools we need to deal with those who abuse. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Remius (27 Apr 2017)

I honestly think that it will take time for the CAF to catch up to whatever legislation is put in place.  So while it might be legalised in Canada, it might still be a service offence.  Now whether it gets enforced is another matter.


----------



## RocketRichard (27 Apr 2017)

It makes sense that if you're impaired you can not be on duty. Hence, smoking  marijuana at lunch and/or before duty would most likely make you unfit for duty. Ingesting marijuana on the weekend should be good to go as members can also become very impaired using and abusing alcohol. We serve the nation and marihuana is to be legalized. Could be problematic for the CAF to state members can not use marijuana in their off time. It will be very interesting going forward to see how the military, Emergency Services, civil servants handle this for employees. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Apr 2017)

You be able to smoke it outside of the barracks in Shilo, in -30, that should encourage use  [

Seriously though I would not want to smell it if living in the barracks, let them eat it inside or smoke it outside.


Keep in mind also for future users that insurance agencies will consider you a "smoker" if you use pot and will adjust your premiums accordingly. Not telling them you smoke could invalidate your future claims.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> A large amount of alcohol will kill you, even in one sitting; a large amount of cannabis, even in one sitting, will not.



A large amount of anything could be fatal.  I know of a case from my youth, of two young guys sitting on a step of their residence drinking large quantities of water becoming 'intoxicated', and one of them having a fatal overdose.  (Not being a medical expert, I can not remember the name of this condition on the body's blood. -- It was discussed in another thread.)  



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> A small amount of alcohol (i.e. a beer) will have zero (or very little) noticeable psychological affect on those consuming it (obviously, that's not always the case, some people do get inebriated after one drink); a small amount of cannabis, on the other hand, will have an immediate inebriating affect. Sure, this might not be true of someone who has developed a tolerance, but we're talking about CAF members here. I'd hope that even if it was made permissible recreationally, that they wouldn't all start lighting up on a daily basis.



Then we apply similar rules as already exist in reference to alcohol and "no consumption X hours prior to driving a military vehicle".


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Keep in mind also for future users that insurance agencies will consider you a "smoker" if you use pot and will adjust your premiums accordingly. Not telling them you smoke could invalidate your future claims.



Now there is an new twist.  Insurance companies and their policies.  Their fine print and changing criteria could have serious ramifications on Insurance Claims.  They are not very good at "grandfathering" things.  (I remember them changing the requirements for wood stoves and changes to the Building Codes with a threat to void my Policy unless I made changes to my home to make my wood stove meet NEW Building Code regulations.)   Nothing like paying mega bucks for insurance, only to find that they will not cover you due to you invalidating one of the articles in your Policy's fine print.


----------



## Stoker (27 Apr 2017)

Interestingly enough at work my PA says that what he is hearing out of health services that it will remain illegal for forces members to while employed by DND. I can imagine the problems we will run into when you are tested, test positive and blame it on off duty use. I can see the CF trying to avoid all of that by having it remain illegal.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Apr 2017)

> .....quickly drinking large quantities of water becoming 'intoxicated', and one of them having a fatal overdose.




WATER INTOXICATION (HYPONATREMIA)

CAUSE:  DRINKING TOO MUCH WATER TOO QUICKLY - DILUTION OF THE SODIUM IN THE BLOOD. 

SYMPTOMS
1.	Symptoms can resemble those of heat stroke or heat exhaustion except body temperature does not rise.
2.	Associated with water intake of 10-20 L over a period of a few hours.


FIRST AID
1.	When water intoxication is suspected, diagnosis must be made at a medical facility.


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2017)

It's amusing that people think this will change how people approach weed use in the forces.

I know of many people who barely hide the fact they use it off duty, I doubt that's going to change once it's legalized.


----------



## JesseWZ (27 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's amusing that people think this will change how people approach weed use in the forces.
> 
> I know of many people who barely hide the fact they use it off duty, I doubt that's going to change once it's legalized.



And you don't report these (still) illegal actions to your chain of command or the Military Police as you are obligated and ordered to do so?


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Apr 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Keep in mind also for future users that insurance agencies will consider you a "smoker" if you use pot and will adjust your premiums accordingly. Not telling them you smoke could invalidate your future claims.



Never heard of this happening yet, not towards me or other Legal Cannabis users.  Further, there are other methods of injestion other than smoking.

dileas

tess


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2017)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> And you don't report these (still) illegal actions to your chain of command or the Military Police as you are obligated and ordered to do so?


 :sorry:

Not touching that can of worms.

Besides, with the blind pee tests I'm sure the forces know how many soldiers are using what.


----------



## larry Strong (27 Apr 2017)

If your smoking a joint for the first time at lunch I would think you would maybe be a little impaired  

If you are a reqular user I would wager a guess you would be in no worse shape than Bloggins who had a barley sanggie for lunch. 

Cheers
Larry


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's amusing that people think this will change how people approach weed use in the forces.
> 
> I know of many people who barely hide the fact they use it off duty, I doubt that's going to change once it's legalized.



If its legal for the general public, I don't see why we should care in the CAF. Should be treated like alcohol, with an appropriate "toke to work" ratio similar to the 8 hour "bottle to throttle" that's used now. Same system for impaired driving or abuse, it should lead to remedial measures or release much the same as alcohol does.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Apr 2017)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> And you don't report these (still) illegal actions to your chain of command or the Military Police as you are obligated and ordered to do so?



What would happen if I went to an MP detachment and  told them that I know Cpl Smith  was smoking pot off duty?


----------



## JesseWZ (28 Apr 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What would happen if I went to an MP detachment and  told them that I know Cpl Smith  was smoking pot off duty?



I'd like to start by pointing out that "off duty" has very little meaning to it when we are talking about (still) illegal drugs (even marijuana). On a visit to Victoria, the PM stated very clearly that possession of MJ was still illegal. (caveats abound here). 

The MP detachment would start an investigation. They may hand it off to the National Drug Enforcement Team of the CFNIS if it were serious enough. 

They may use the information for intelligence gathering purposes (i.e. where is Cpl Smith getting the drugs? Are others getting them too? Is he selling them? Does he sell other drugs?) or they may attempt to gather evidence of use and then swear what is known as a "Test for Cause" which compels the member to provide a sample. Members may also be investigated for possession, production or trafficking as the situation warrants.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> :sorry:
> 
> Not touching that can of worms.
> 
> Besides, with the blind pee tests I'm sure the forces know how many soldiers are using what.



Was there a point here?  Whatever point you are trying to make seems to be lost in translation. 

You said "Not touching that can of worms." , then you  proceeded to do just that.


----------



## Stoker (28 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If its legal for the general public, I don't see why we should care in the CAF. Should be treated like alcohol, with an appropriate "toke to work" ratio similar to the 8 hour "bottle to throttle" that's used now. Same system for impaired driving or abuse, it should lead to remedial measures or release much the same as alcohol does.



I guess the fact we're not just the public and really at the end of the day they can ban what they want. The drug has been stigmatized for so many years in Canada that I can see Health Services pushing for a general ban just because like smoking can cause harm and the perception to the public of a member off duty. Alcohol is already out there and accepted but not so much of Cannabis yet. As well when we get into the testing aspect to determine on duty and off duty use which will be a large can of worms and I can see a general ban to avoid that as the CF is risk averse.  The cost of the extra testing that will no doubt come is very expensive which police services across Canada are finding out about and are concerned about who will pay. Also remember a sizable amount of the general population do not agree with legalization and I expect the same in the CF, including the decision makers.  I think its a given that the drug won't be allowed on DND property and I can very well see it remain as a service offence. Down the road with more acceptance who knows.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Apr 2017)

I wonder if the RCN will govern MJ usage like it does booze.  None at sea, 2 joints ashore unless otherwise authorized.


----------



## medicineman (28 Apr 2017)

The big issue is going to be in terms of "bottle to throttle" times (I didn't think "Toke to stoke" would work)...an issue with THC is that is a fat soluble drug, which is why it likes your brain so much.  However, because of that, it also is less predictable metabolically as far as degradation, unlike alcohol, which I can pretty much time with a stop watch.  As an extreme, I had a rather obese patient of mine that was a very regular weed smoker that had a safety sensitive job that required regular testing - they were still pissing positive for well over 6 months after they quit, because the stuff was stored in their fat cells...and they were actively losing weight to boot, so it was coming out in droves.  So, we have to either say no use is good use, OR that you'll have to maintain a certain body fat percentage if you want to use.  The other issue of course is abuse - just like alcohol, if you let them have a little, they sometimes take a lot, and continue to.  The standards for misuse/abuse will have to be maintained/adjusted - if you show up stoned, tough tiddly winks just as if you're drunk.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Lumber (28 Apr 2017)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I'd like to start by pointing out that "off duty" has very little meaning to it when we are talking about (still) illegal drugs (even marijuana). On a visit to Victoria, the PM stated very clearly that possession of MJ was still illegal. (caveats abound here).
> 
> The MP detachment would start an investigation. They may hand it off to the National Drug Enforcement Team of the CFNIS if it were serious enough.
> 
> They may use the information for intelligence gathering purposes (i.e. where is Cpl Smith getting the drugs? Are others getting them too? Is he selling them? Does he sell other drugs?) or they may attempt to gather evidence of use and then swear what is known as a "Test for Cause" which compels the member to provide a sample. Members may also be investigated for possession, production or trafficking as the situation warrants.



Are there statistics that are available on "number of tips/complaints/reports", and "number of actual investigations opened as a result"? 

Do the MPs ever get a call about suspected cannabis use and just say "Ok, thanks" and do nothing further? I ask because, I have a lot of civilian police friends, and given the casual attitude toward cannabis in "civilian" Canada, they often just don't care about cannabis use. They will walk right by people smoking a joint on the street because they simply to not have the time or resources to bother intervening with something that most of Canada feels is relatively harmless. Does this also happen with the MPs?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (28 Apr 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Are there statistics that are available on "number of tips/complaints/reports", and "number of actual investigations opened as a result"?
> 
> Do the MPs ever get a call about suspected cannabis use and just say "Ok, thanks" and do nothing further? I ask because, I have a lot of civilian police friends, and given the casual attitude toward cannabis in "civilian" Canada, they often just don't care about cannabis use. They will walk right by people smoking a joint on the street because they simply to not have the time or resources to bother intervening with something that most of Canada feels is relatively harmless. Does this also happen with the MPs?



Considering the nature of our job, and that not just users but suppliers with links to organized crime potentially on our bases, it's definitely taken a lot more seriously.


----------



## Lumber (28 Apr 2017)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Considering the nature of our job, and that not just users but suppliers with links to organized crime potentially on our bases, it's definitely taken a lot more seriously.



Oh I imagine it does get taken more seriously, and I'm glad that it does. I guess I'm just curious _how_ much more serious? Is it _zero tolerance_, or do the MPs turned a blind eye to some reports if it's just for "casual" use as I've seen from civi police? (well, not actually "seen" but heard stories first hand form civi cops).


----------



## Altair (28 Apr 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Was there a point here?  Whatever point you are trying to make seems to be lost in translation.
> 
> You said "Not touching that can of worms." , then you  proceeded to do just that.


The point was I'm not going to be the guy who starts telling the CoC every little thing other soldiers are doing on their free time.

Completely not worth being the most hated untrusted soldier in a section just to let the CoC know that someone is smoking weed on the weekend.

That's the can of worms I'm refusing to touch.


----------



## JesseWZ (28 Apr 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Are there statistics that are available on "number of tips/complaints/reports", and "number of actual investigations opened as a result"?
> 
> Do the MPs ever get a call about suspected cannabis use and just say "Ok, thanks" and do nothing further? I ask because, I have a lot of civilian police friends, and given the casual attitude toward cannabis in "civilian" Canada, they often just don't care about cannabis use. They will walk right by people smoking a joint on the street because they simply to not have the time or resources to bother intervening with something that most of Canada feels is relatively harmless. Does this also happen with the MPs?



While I can't speak for the entire MP Branch, tips, calls, etc, do should be looked at. Sometimes they are just used to build an intelligence narrative, or to justify expanding a current investigation to include new suspects, and sometimes they just sit as information that is good to know. 

I don't currently work in the drug unit, however in my experience (a few years on the road, 1 in the General Investigation Section/Court Liaison Position, and 1 in the CFNIS), all drug tips are at the very least recorded and followed up on. Often it depends on the quality/quantity of information received. If its a one line anonymous tip on the tips line with no verifiable information, it has to be taken for what it's worth.

Cheers


----------



## JesseWZ (28 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> The point was I'm not going to be the guy who starts telling the CoC every little thing other soldiers are doing on their free time.
> 
> Completely not worth being the most hated untrusted soldier in a section just to let the CoC know that someone is smoking weed on the weekend.
> 
> That's the can of worms I'm refusing to touch.



I don't understand you. You posted in a thread about _Legal_ Cannabis use, alluding to knowledge of _illegal_ cannabis use. That wasn't the discussion. Then, when you are called on your knowledge of illegal cannabis use, you hide behind some kind of excuse involving your interpersonal relationships with your section justifying a blatant disregard for specific orders and directions on *your* duty to report. 

_In my *opinion*, you lack moral courage and could use some remedial training on ethics._ If only the CF had some kind of yearly ethics presentation everyone is required to review and understand... :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2017)

medicineman said:
			
		

> The big issue is going to be in terms of "bottle to throttle" times (I didn't think "Toke to stoke" would work)...an issue with THC is that is a fat soluble drug, which is why it likes your brain so much.  However, because of that, it also is less predictable metabolically as far as degradation, unlike alcohol, which I can pretty much time with a stop watch.  As an extreme, I had a rather obese patient of mine that was a very regular weed smoker that had a safety sensitive job that required regular testing - they were still pissing positive for well over 6 months after they quit, because the stuff was stored in their fat cells...and they were actively losing weight to boot, so it was coming out in droves.  So, we have to either say no use is good use, OR that you'll have to maintain a certain body fat percentage if you want to use.  The other issue of course is abuse - just like alcohol, if you let them have a little, they sometimes take a lot, and continue to.  The standards for misuse/abuse will have to be maintained/adjusted - if you show up stoned, tough tiddly winks just as if you're drunk.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> MM



Any thoughts on how they'll view this for things like Aircrew, divers, submariners?  The medical standards and factors seem to be more stringent there.  Trying to picture Cheech and Chong in the cockpit of a CAF aircraft etc.


----------



## Altair (28 Apr 2017)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I don't understand you. You posted in a thread about _Legal_ Cannabis use, alluding to knowledge of _illegal_ cannabis use. That wasn't the discussion. Then, when you are called on your knowledge of illegal cannabis use, you hide behind some kind of excuse involving your interpersonal relationships with your section justifying a blatant disregard for specific orders and directions on *your* duty to report.
> 
> _In my *opinion*, you lack moral courage and could use some remedial training on ethics._ If only the CF had some kind of yearly ethics presentation everyone is required to review and understand... :


Ah yes, me and every other person who is privy to this information in my section could definitely use a ethics brief.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Ah yes, me and every other person who is privy to this information in my section could definitely use a ethics brief.



Everyone knows Bloggins is jokin and tokin and no one, not even the NCOs or WOs, care?  Civilian Canadian Society can judge weed use to be OK! and the laws can change accordingly.  In the military, we play by our own rules that don't necessarily run the same track.  AFAIK, prohibited drug use in the CAF is an offence.  I guess you guys think its ok with Smithers leaves the mess hammered up and drives home too?

* I am assuming you were being sarcastic.   :nod:

For consideration....

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-3.page

3.1 The CAF is committed to a drug-free workforce by providing the appropriate tools and information to reduce or eliminate the drug-risk behaviours of CAF members.

General

5.1 The chain of command and *individual CAF members are responsible for the deterrence and detection of prohibited drug use and other involvement with drugs by CAF members*.

Other Involvement with Drugs

5.2 The following table amplifies "other involvement with drugs" by a CAF member:

*Examples of drug-related conduct that does not constitute other involvement with drugs for the purposes of this DAOD include, but are not limited to …•failing to report prohibited drug use or other involvement with drugs by another CAF member;
*

Not clear enough?  How about this then...

QR&Os: Volume I - Chapter 5 Duties and Responsibilities of Non-Commissioned Members

5.01- GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

A non-commissioned member *shall*:

a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act, (5 June 2008)
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;

b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;

c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all who are subordinate to the member;

d.ensure the proper care and maintenance and prevent the waste of all public and non-public property within the member's control; and

e.*report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline*.

*Unless it changed very recently, the CAF still prohibits drug use.  The laws of Canada...still no change.  
*


----------



## Altair (28 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Everyone knows Bloggins is jokin and tokin and no one, not even the NCOs or WOs, care?  Civilian Canadian Society can judge weed use to be OK! and the laws can change accordingly.  In the military, we play by our own rules that don't necessarily run the same track.  AFAIK, prohibited drug use in the CAF is an offence.  I guess you guys think its ok with Smithers leaves the mess hammered up and drives home too?


Without getting into the specifics, I know for a fact that most of the junior guys know, we were all shooting the shit and that came out. A few others said they partake on occasion as well. That was over a year ago. He does it on weekends in the comfort of his own home, nobody cares, the guy hasn't been called out on it, nor anyone else who said they use it.

The guy is a keener, works hard, will probably be a RSM one day, CoC loves him, never complains, and is overall a great soldier. If you want to relate that to being a danger to others by driving under the influence, be my guest, but I don't think that's the case and I wont be the guy blading someone when nobody I know has a problem with what he said. He's not a danger to himself or others, so I'll mind my own business.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Without getting into the specifics, I know for a fact that most of the junior guys know, we were all shooting the shit and that came out. A few others said they partake on occasion as well. That was over a year ago. He does it on weekends in the comfort of his own home, nobody cares, the guy hasn't been called out on it, nor anyone else who said they use it.
> 
> The guy is a keener, works hard, will probably be a RSM one day, CoC loves him, never complains, and is overall a great soldier. If you want to relate that to being a danger to others by driving under the influence, be my guest, but I don't think that's the case and I wont be the guy blading someone when nobody I know has a problem with what he said. He's not a danger to himself or others, so I'll mind my own business.



Try having a read of the stuff I posted above.  If you know about it, and you don't do something about, YOU are part of the problem.  The laws haven't changed yet, or your duty as a CAF member.  Keener, hard worker, whatever.  He/she is breaking stride with CAF regulations.  Great soldiers are disciplined ones too.  Disciplined people do the right thing, the right way, at the right time, when no one is watching.

His/her CoC wouldn't love him/her if they knew he was using prohibited drugs.  I'd bet a years spec pay on that one.

Personally, I don't know enough about pot use to know how harmful it is, isn't compared to booze etc etc etc.  There are some real valid medical uses for it, sure.  Some vets are benefitting from it and that's good.  Other medical patients, good as well.  If Canada as a society goes legal, great I hope the tax revenue helps Canada.  I don't support it being authorized for use by serving members, I doubt I am alone in that BUT that will be up to the senior Commanders and their expert advisors;  Legal, Medical, etc.  I am not one of them.  I am, as per the DAOD, QR & Os, etc above, as a Snr NCO and NCM, expected to do my job which is enforce whatever regulations are out there.  If I knew someone on my crew was smokin' it up, I'd give them a choice - report to the Flight Surgeon or answer to the CO.


----------



## Altair (28 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Try having a read of the stuff I posted above.  If you know about it, and you don't do something about, YOU are part of the problem.  The laws haven't changed yet, or your duty as a CAF member.  Keener, hard worker, whatever.  He/she is breaking stride with CAF regulations.  Great soldiers are disciplined ones too.  Disciplined people do the right thing, the right way, at the right time, when no one is watching.
> 
> His/her CoC wouldn't love him/her if they knew he was using prohibited drugs.  I'd bet a years spec pay on that one.


You would win that bet I'm sure 99 time out of a 100, I'm positive of that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> You would win that bet I'm sure 99 time out of a 100, I'm positive of that.



Yup.  Because it's against the regs and no CO would turn a blind eye to it or they wouldn't be doing THEIR duty.  I know, no one wants to be a blade.  I hope you never have to go to work to find out your co-worker ran some kid over driving while he / she was on the buzz.

Having said that, I've made my view known, I don't want to get a  :Jedi: going.  

Cheers!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Apr 2017)

The reality in any type of society, there are offenses and then there are offense. You can't stop everyone and charge them and literally everyone breaks some law, bylaw, regulation or guideline everyday. Most police officers quickly learn how to prioritize their time. A person being charged with a minor offense may have created a situation where that charge is followed through on. Just by being polite to a police officers likely saves many Canadians from various tickets every day. Likely smoking pot is the largest civil disobedience in Canada, with unregistered long guns having been 2nd.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2017)

While I agree with all WRT Canadian society at large, I don't agree for within the CAF.  Unless the rules are changed.   8)


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Cannabis comes in a variety of strains, with varying levels Cannabinoids.  Just like alcohol, some can be high in the psychoactive, and others safer on impairment than taking an aspirin.  Maybe a little self research would change the minds of a few, and not refer to people using it as "Cheech and Chong".  The stigma is more harmful than the plant itself.  We have many educational threads on this site.

I am all for Cannabis use, when legalized, by ALL Canadians.  The CDS himself was asked that question a little over a year ago, at a town hall here in Toronto. His response?  IF my boss tells me it is legal for the troops, I follow orders like a good soldier.

He placed no bias, or opinion. Just stated fact.  We have many other intoxicants that we tolerate, that arelegal, whether recreational or Medicinal, yet I have never seen any discussion.  Talk about the Devil's Salad, and all hell breaks loose.

It's safe people, and we are already trained to deal with our soldiers performance, concentrate on that, not what can cause the performance to "Possibly" deteriorate.


dileas

tess


----------



## mariomike (28 Apr 2017)

For more on "Legal Cannabis Use in the CAF"

Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged) 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/16153.650
27 pages.

Marijuana and the military.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/110660.0/nowap.html

Liberal party, legalization marijuana & the CF  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/116407.0

Pilot and Marijuana  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/107285.0
2 pages.

Merged drugs thread (previous use, testing, etc.)  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/12779.1100
48 pages.

etc...


----------



## Loachman (28 Apr 2017)

Keeping in mind that reduced oxygen, reduced air pressure, three-dimensional motion, visual illusions, stress, fatigue, and other factors can all influence the effects that even low levels of these things have, and not for the better, do you really want the guy in the front seat of your helicopter or aeroplane, or the guy about to do the live CAS or CCA run close to your position, even the _slightest_ bit affected by _any_ chemical?

Anybody who answers "yes" is a fool.

I would not, _ever_, willingly and knowingly, have compromised my ability to perform adequately and safely, as that guy in the front seat.

I never knew of anybody else, in my time, who did, either.

Had I, I would not have let it go unreported.

There is a lengthy history of deaths and aircraft losses due to problem people being left to continue foolish (not necessarily drug- or alcohol-related) ways with no correction.

Proper correction, early enough, can save a person when the problem is small and easily handled and before the result is catastrophic to their career or to people's lives.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Keeping in mind that reduced oxygen, reduced air pressure, three-dimensional motion, visual illusions, stress, fatigue, and other factors can all influence the effects that even low levels of these things have, and not for the better, do you really want the guy in the front seat of your helicopter or aeroplane, or the guy about to do the live CAS or CCA run close to your position, even the _slightest_ bit affected by _any_ chemical?
> 
> Anybody who answers "yes" is a fool.
> 
> ...



Very well said.

That is why the onus is on the individual, not the system, to actually controll that.  

If you had a mission in the morning, to fly, I surely hope the night/Morning before the pilots have not been dong shots of tequila, chased with large shots of Prairie fires.  Totally irresponsible of the individual.

I would expect the same from Cannabis, or any other intoxicant, whether it is used medicinally or recreationally.  Period, Full Stop.

dileas

tess


----------



## Stoker (28 Apr 2017)

Honestly the trouble we currently have and had in the forces with alcohol and drugs including Cannabis and we end up legalizing it in the forces is something we don't need.  Like was mentioned before with all the variables including strain, affecting everyone differently is not like having a beer at all. That being said once you are out have at er.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Cannabis comes in a variety of strains, with varying levels Cannabinoids.  Just like alcohol, some can be high in the psychoactive, and others safer on impairment than taking an aspirin.  Maybe a little self research would change the minds of a few, and not refer to people using it as "Cheech and Chong".  The stigma is more harmful than the plant itself.  We have many educational threads on this site.
> 
> I am all for Cannabis use, when legalized, by ALL Canadians.  The CDS himself was asked that question a little over a year ago, at a town hall here in Toronto. His response?  IF my boss tells me it is legal for the troops, I follow orders like a good soldier.
> 
> ...



As MedicineMan mentioned in his post, you can use a clock for alcohol, but THC works differently.  We have an 8 hours before DUTY, 12 hours before FLYING rule we follow.  Rigidly.  I can't see a CAF where SAR Techs, Clearance Divers, pilots and such are authorized to use this drug.

Canadian society at large...hey, do whatever is legal.  Same as the CAF, but as we see in the thread we have people doing it, people who know and are turning a blind eye.  Our rules are still rules.

I'll leave it in the hands of the CofC and their Legal and Medical advisors, and enforce whatever rules they come out with.  If its proven to be medically fit for flyers, I guess I'll have to decide it I want to keep on logging hours.  

My main concern, at this point, is the concept that people are turning the blind eye.  We have rules, we operate on discipline or the wheels start to come off.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Honestly the trouble we currently have and had in the forces with alcohol and drugs including Cannabis and we end up legalizing it in the forces is something we don't need.  Like was mentioned before with all the variables including strain, affecting everyone differently is not like having a beer at all. That being said once you are out have at er.



So by your reasoning, we should prohibit Alcohol as well.  Including off duty use. 

We have implemented that assinine concept overseas, why not bring Here?

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> As MM mentioned in his post, you can use a clock for alcohol, but THC works differently.  We have an 8 hours before DUTY, 12 hours before FLYING rule we follow.  Rigidly.  I can't see a CAF where SAR Techs, Clearance Divers, pilots and such are authorized to use this drug.
> 
> Canadian society at large...hey, do whatever is legal.  Same as the CAF, but as we see in the thread we have people doing it, people who know and are turning a blind eye.  Our rules are still rules.
> 
> ...



I appreciate your quoting a Medic SME on this, but please provide tome a resource that indicates Cannabis use has increased any form of danger.

Pundits like to use the "Lack of research" excuse, however many countries have legalized it, so I am sure you can provide evidence that supports your post.  You are now delving into medical, so I am fair for asking you to provide back up to your statement. Maybe MM can help you.

dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman (28 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That is why the onus is on the individual, not the system, to actually controll that.



Agreed, in the case of Aircrew and probably some other groups, but what of the average young Soldier?

For any significant flying incident or accident, blood and urine samples are taken. I and my crew did that three days/nights in a row in KAF, once for the loss of each Sperwer UAV (yup, three in a row - BAM-BAM-BAM; I was quite jittery for the next launch), even though the initial indications were mechanical failure (and backed up by the full investigations). I am quite sure that such testing is always in the back of each Aircrewman's mind, which is a good additional incentive to anybody who needs one.

As marijuana can show up in the blood for long periods after use, though, and the allowable blood levels proposed are apparently not good indications of impairment according to the interesting studies that you published in the other thread, how does one prove impairment? It's easy to determine alcoholic impairment, and it leaves the blood relatively quickly.

What about other drugs? Those that are non-addictive, reasonably safe (using alcohol as a benchmark, perhaps), and also leave the blood relatively quickly, may be acceptable some day.

For certain groups, until reliable means of assessing even minor impairment exist, no-tolerance measures - ie no presence in the blood whatsoever - are the most sensible.


----------



## Stoker (28 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So by your reasoning, we should prohibit Alcohol as well.  Including off duty use.
> 
> We have implemented that assinine concept overseas, why not bring Here?
> 
> ...



I thought we agreed not to comment on each others posts to keep the peace?


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Agreed, in the case of Aircrew and probably some other groups, but what of the average young Soldier?
> 
> For any significant flying incident or accident, blood and urine samples are taken. I and my crew did that three days/nights in a row in KAF, once for the loss of each Sperwer UAV (yup, three in a row - BAM-BAM-BAM; I was quite jittery for the next launch), even though the initial indications were mechanical failure (and backed up by the full investigations). I am quite sure that such testing is always in the back of each Aircrewman's mind, which is a good additional incentive to anybody who needs one.
> 
> ...



Very good point,

But the concept of zero content in blood, if we were to really abide by that, and use proper testing methods I can guess that 80% of the military would be dinged for self medication.  

What about the supplements that people use.  Over the counter medication.  Hell, some people are allergic to certain foods, which can cause impairment.  Do we now search for that in our Military Members?

I mean, the zero tolerance argument is cute, however is not really acceptable.  Traces of Cannabinoids in the system, does not always equal impairment.  Take CBD as an example.  Non Psychoactive.  However with your argument, it would be banned.  Redbull causes more to impair, in fact your normal coffee does.

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode about Poppy Seed Bagels....

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I thought we agreed not to comment on each others posts to keep the peace?



I thought we agreed not to make it personal.  

I didn not give you a carte blanche to post assinine theories, and not be challenged.  Sorry for hurting your raw feelings.  That was not my intent.

Either way, I disagreed with you, and kept it civil.  What are you going to do now?  Rally troops to attack my milpoints like in the past??  Put me on warning so I can't post??

dileas

tess


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I appreciate your quoting a Medic SME on this, but please provide tome a resource that indicates Cannabis use has increased any form of danger.
> 
> Pundits like to use the "Lack of research" excuse, however many countries have legalized it, so I am sure you can provide evidence that supports your post.  You are now delving into medical, so I am fair for asking you to provide back up to your statement. Maybe MM can help you.
> 
> ...



I am not a Medical person, however I am somewhat aware of that any substance can affect a person differently at altitude, or in a pressure environment (divers) differently.  Things people can take without seeing a MO, I have to see a Flt Surgeon for, because despite being pressurized, my aircraft doesn't operate at a cabin altitude of *surface* when I am transitting at FLO 260, as an example.  I know this because of my AMT (Aeromedical Training) course and briefings from flight surgeons.  I can't take any OTC medication / self medicate for a cold if I am flying, as an example, because the product I get at Lawtons might not work out so well at altitude;  or with something else I might be taking (I take Aerius and Flonaise regularly, prescribed by a Flt Srgn).  I rely on medical professionals to determine what I can or can't take and fly now, so I'll do the same with this and then enforce whatever the rules might be in the future.  Same as I would now for the 12 hours bottle to throttle for booze.

MM already gave a basic overview of the difference between alcohol and THC, and the difference in how the body handles them.  I'll leave it to the medical people to go further into detail, they are the SMEs and I rely on them to tell me what I can and can't do or take, so that I am not a thud in the air who endangers lives and airframes.

The issue, as I said, is the whole "turn a blind eye" aspect.  We have rules, and they are supposed to be followed.  Full stop.  What is my reference about prohibited drug use being bad for CAF members?  I already posted it, and its the only one that really counts for CAF members.  Everything else..opinion.  This is policy.  Until weed is deemed legal, its still prohibited for use by CAF members (without medical prescription which will likely result in significant MELs) and THAT is what counts more than my, or your, opinion.  If its determined safe and legal, then it is and it then is a non-issue.  Right now, to my knowledge, that isn't the case.  So it is not ok to use and lace the boots up...at this time.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-3.page

prohibited drug use

any use of drugs contrary to QR&O article 20.04, Prohibition.

20.04 - PROHIBITION

No officer or non-commissioned member shall use any drug unless:
a.the member is authorized to use the drug by a qualified medical or dental practitioner for the purposes of medical treatment or dental care;
b.the drug is contained in a non-prescription medication used by the member in accordance with the instructions accompanying the medication; or
c.the member is required to use the drug in the course of military duties. 

(G)

NOTES

(A) Possession, possession for purpose of trafficking, trafficking, importing, exporting, manufacturing and cultivating certain drugs constitute offences contrary to federal legislation such as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These activities are included in the phrase "other involvement with drugs" which appears in articles 20.05 (Education) and 20.19 (Treatment and Rehabilitation). (1 September 1999)

(B) This regulation does not authorize a military authority to order or permit the use of a drug by a member when that use, or possession of the drug, is prohibited by another law.

(C) (1 September 1999)

 


I am more concerned with the issue of (1) the rules DO prohibit it now and (2) people are turning a blind eye to the rules.   Whether I agree with those rules, or not, as a Snr NCO, isn't relevant.  I get paid to enforce the ones that exist.  Of all the ones I concern myself with now, the 12 hours bottle to throttle would be one of the top ones when flying is involved.

Great topic and discussion so far, hope this one doesn't swirl to a lock.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am not a Medical person, however I am somewhat aware of that any substance can affect a person differently at altitude, or in a pressure environment (divers) differently.  Things people can take without seeing a MO, I have to see a Flt Surgeon for, because despite being pressurized, my aircraft doesn't operate at a cabin altitude of *surface* when I am transitting at FLO 260, as an example.  I know this because of my AMT (Aeromedical Training) course and briefings from flight surgeons.  I can't take any OTC medication / self medicate for a cold if I am flying, as an example, because the product I get at Lawtons might not work out so well at altitude;  or with something else I might be taking (I take Aerius and Flonaise regularly, prescribed by a Flt Srgn).
> 
> MM already gave a basic overview of the difference between alcohol and THC, and the difference in how the body handles them.  I'll leave it to the medical people to go further into detail, they are the SMEs and I rely on them to tell me what I can and can't do or take, so that I am not a thud in the air who endangers lives and airframes.
> 
> ...



Can you direct me to one investigation of an accident within CAF, that was attributed to an intoxicant being in the system of any of the victims.

We have had many, which have caused death and injuires.

dileas

tess


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2017)

Relevance?  Rules and regulations are supposed to be followed.  A disciplined force, etc.  It is the military still, right?

I think we are focusing on different issues about legalized pot use in the CAF...yours being it is fine and could be permitted, mine being *I agree, it could be and might be*m but that isn't the case now and we need to operate of the "now" rules.


----------



## Stoker (28 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I thought we agreed not to make it personal.
> 
> I didn not give you a carte blanche to post assinine theories, and not be challenged.  Sorry for hurting your raw feelings.  That was not my intent.
> 
> ...



Quote from: Chief Stoker on April 26, 2017, 17:41:32

Its obvious we'll never agree in regards to cannabis use. How about to keep the peace I won't comment on your posts and you don't comment on mine. Will that be ok?


I am happy with that.  No need for us to constantly bicker.

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Quote from: Chief Stoker on April 26, 2017, 17:41:32
> 
> Its obvious we'll never agree in regards to cannabis use. How about to keep the peace I won't comment on your posts and you don't comment on mine. Will that be ok?
> 
> ...



Seen,

No more interaction then.  Remember, this is forever.

This includes your dirty Milpoint deduction tricks, capisce?


dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Relevance?  Rules and regulations are supposed to be followed.  A disciplined force, etc.  It is the military still, right?
> 
> I think we are focusing on different issues about legalized pot use in the CAF...yours being it is fine and could be permitted, mine being *I agree, it could be and might be*m but that isn't the case now and we need to operate of the "now" rules.



Ok, 

I am not trying to attack you, but that post was the most convusing of all. This thread is about legalizing Cannabis Recreationally, and whther it is ok for CAF members to use it.  We are not talking about now, although it did bleed through with Altair's post.

Let's keep on topic, as I feel you are the one straying, not me.

dileas

tess


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2017)

Unless I missed something, the thread topic is Legal Cannabis use in the CAF.  I'd say we're both on topic.  

 8)


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Unless I missed something, the thread topic is Legal Cannabis use in the CAF.  I'd say we're both on topic.
> 
> 8)



Yes....We....Are.....  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Did that just happen, or did I miss something?

dileas

tess


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 Apr 2017)

My opinion is that legalization of Marijuana won't have any effect on the CAF because so many people consume it already and we have no negative effects from that (or at least obvious effects).

I would place money on if we did a CAF wide drug test that at least 10% would turn up positive for something in their system, and if we did it tomorrow (i.e. Saturday) quite a few would turn up with Cocaine in their system as they consume it on Friday, and by Monday they are clean.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Apr 2017)

From what I hear that at "clean camps", workers use harder drugs that don't leave a trace when they are getting close to go back into the camps.


----------



## Loachman (29 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Seen,
> 
> No more interaction then.  Remember, this is forever.
> 
> ...



Please - BOTH OF YOU - play nicely and be very careful what you say to each other. I am not taking sides, but I am appreciative of the sensitivities and strong opinions involved here. None of us want to see any more flare-ups. This thread has been pleasantly civilized and informative, so far, and I'd rather see that continue.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Please - BOTH OF YOU - play nicely and be very careful what you say to each other. I am not taking sides, but I am appreciative of the sensitivities and strong opinions involved here. None of us want to see any more flare-ups. This thread has been pleasantly civilized and informative, so far, and I'd rather see that continue.



Very good point.  A matter that could have been managed via PMs.

dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman (29 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> But the concept of zero content in blood, if we were to really abide by that, and use proper testing methods I can guess that 80% of the military would be dinged for self medication.



Nobody's likely to get dinged for taking aspirin etcetera, except Aircrew, unless approved by a Flight Surgeon (as EITS said), and certain others. And there's common sense applied there as well - somebody waking up sick in the morning could reasonably take some legal product for a bit of relief and then go in to see a Flight Surgeon. He's likely to be grounded by the condition, anyway. Flying after taking a non-Flight Surgeon-approved but legal medication is not, however, acceptable.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What about the supplements that people use.  Over the counter medication.  Hell, some people are allergic to certain foods, which can cause impairment.  Do we now search for that in our Military Members?



What supplements? Protein powders? Legal. Steroids? Not legal, as far as I know, and foolish. Everybody that I know who has food allergies avoids those foods very carefully, and would most likely seek medical attention should the effects be serious. They'd certainly not be eating those foods for recreational purposes and then try and conceal the effects.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I mean, the zero tolerance argument is cute, however is not really acceptable.



It is the _only_ acceptable policy for CF members in certain groups. For others, possibly not so much, if at all.

Lines still have to be drawn somewhere, even though some people on either side of those lines will not be happy.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Traces of Cannabinoids in the system, does not always equal impairment.  Take CBD as an example.  Non Psychoactive.  However with your argument, it would be banned.



I know, and that is what causes a good part of the problem. Were a strain to be developed (probably not possible) whose active elements could be completely metabolized in a few hours, like alcohol, that problem would disappear. I've heard of CF members (but not in any unit of which I have been a member) using cocaine as Eaglelord17 described. Personally, while I think that that is foolish, as long as they are not posing a threat then I am not particularly fussed. I also agree with his comment that legalization would not likely change usage patterns for CF members, or, as I have stated elsewhere, in the overall Canadian population. Them's what's going to use it are going to use it regardless. Many are willing to accept the low risk of getting caught for the pleasure that they get. Many others have no interest, and may or may not care about what others use. I tend not to care what people take for their pleasure, as long as they do not place others at risk.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Redbull causes more to impair, in fact your normal coffee does.



Both, however, are legal. And no Flight Surgeon has ever told me that I cannot drink tea (my preference) or coffee prior to flying.


----------



## Loachman (29 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Very good point.  A matter that could have been managed via PMs.



Thanks, Tess

I appreciate that.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I know, and that is what causes a good part of the problem. Were a strain to be developed (probably not possible) whose active elements could be completely metabolized in a few hours, like alcohol, that problem would disappear. I've heard of CF members (but not in any unit of which I have been a member) using cocaine as Eaglelord17 described. Personally, while I think that that is foolish, as long as they are not posing a threat then I am not particularly fussed. I also agree with his comment that legalization would not likely change usage patterns for CF members, or, as I have stated elsewhere, in the overall Canadian population. Them's what's going to use it are going to use it regardless. Many are willing to accept the low risk of getting caught for the pleasure that they get. Many others have no interest, and may or may not care about what others use. I tend not to care what people take for their pleasure, as long as they do not place others at risk.



Instead o worrying how quick it exits the system, why not worry about the good it does.  IT is being used medicinally in Canada for Veterans, paid by the Government, via VAC.  You serve the Government, are they wrong?  You keep focusing on the Psychoactives, trust me they do not present themselves days later.  



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Both, however, are legal. And no Flight Surgeon has ever told me that I cannot drink tea (my preference) or coffee prior to flying.



Oh sweet Loachman, bwahhahhahahahahaha, sweet sweet Loachman.  Do you read what you type before you hit the Post button?  If MaryJane was legalized, based on that statement, then that can't be questioned either by a Flight Surgeon.

Stop trying to find holes in my posts, and review yours before posting.

dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman (29 Apr 2017)

Another thought, Tess, as you mentioned other legal products that affect performance - standard tobacco.

Smoking reduces oxygen levels in the blood so, effectively, increases the altitude at which one is flying. Supplemental oxygen is required above 10000 feet. Aircrew who smoke can easily simulate being well above that altitude while actually being below it. Tobacco smoking also affects night vision, and not positively. Aircrew are regularly reminded of these effects, but the product is still legal, and Aviators (the ones who actually aviate, not the rank) have used it since the dawn of aviation.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Another thought, Tess, as you mentioned other legal products that affect performance - standard tobacco.
> 
> Smoking reduces oxygen levels in the blood so, effectively, increases the altitude at which one is flying. Supplemental oxygen is required above 10000 feet. Aircrew who smoke can easily simulate being well above that altitude while actually being below it. Tobacco smoking also affects night vision, and not positively. Aircrew are regularly reminded of these effects, but the product is still legal, and Aviators (the ones who actually aviate, not the rank) have used it since the dawn of aviation.



Brother, I am libertarian in my beliefs.

You and others have been conditioned to believe in idea of your jobs, excludes you from injesting what your Government.  Our Government deems legal.  This is just an empire within a nation.

Going down your root, has caused our Military to adopt an Americana concept of temperance, and Alcohol has been banned.  Because of that, most people now look at Cannabis as the evil Communist weed ready to destroy the beloved Canadian Military.

Please.

As of the Caffeine argument, careful for what you wish for, you will even be told where you are to live after retirement.....

dileas

tess


----------



## Altair (29 Apr 2017)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> My opinion is that legalization of Marijuana won't have any effect on the CAF because so many people consume it already and we have no negative effects from that (or at least obvious effects).
> 
> I would place money on if we did a CAF wide drug test that at least 10% would turn up positive for something in their system, and if we did it tomorrow (i.e. Saturday) quite a few would turn up with Cocaine in their system as they consume it on Friday, and by Monday they are clean.


I agree.

For those worried about the performance of the troops if weed is legalized in the future, they should be just as worried right now because soldiers today are using it.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (29 Apr 2017)

The way I understand our services offences, once cannabis is removed from the schedule II drug list and is legalized it would immediately be legal for military members. As the current charge for marijuana use/possession falls under:

QR & O Vol II 103.61 - OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER CANADIAN LAW

Which would currently be validated by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
Offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Section 4(1) CDSA (Possession of Substance)

4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.

Sample Charge: AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 130 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT, THAT IS TO SAY, POSSESSION OF A SUBSTANCE CONTRARY TO SECTION 4(1) OF THE CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT.

Once removed from the CDSA, it would no longer be a service offence. Someone may be charged under 129 or 103.16 Disobeying a Lawful Command, but I doubt neither would hold up to the AJAG litmus test.

So wether or not we (or the brain trust in Ottawa) like it, it seems like it is on it's way and has an arrival date. Hopefully there is a solid plan to be put in place to manage it come 1st July 2018. I suppose we'll see a 29 Jun 18 FLASH CANFORGEN detailing our do's and don't's.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2017)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> The way I understand our services offences, once cannabis is removed from the schedule II drug list and is legalized it would immediately be legal for military members. As the current charge for marijuana use/possession falls under:
> 
> QR & O Vol II 103.61 - OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER CANADIAN LAW
> 
> ...




Medical Cannabis is legal, and approved by Health Canada and VAC.  However, serving members of CAF can not be prescribed Medical Cannabis.

Therefore, your post is incorrect, and a SME will show up shortly witht he proper links, I am sure.

dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman (29 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Instead o worrying how quick it exits the system, why not worry about the good it does.  IT is being used medicinally in Canada for Veterans, paid by the Government, via VAC.  You serve the Government, are they wrong?  You keep focusing on the Psychoactives, trust me they do not present themselves days later.



The issue that I have with use of marijuana by active Aircrew is that, during any post-incident testing (and blood and urine samples are tested for things other than drug use as well, such as blood sugar levels and other toxins that could affect performance), it will show up regardless of any actual impairment or absence of same. That injects doubt, and doubt is not acceptable in the Aircrew environment. If a reliable measurement for impairment can be developed, and, again, based upon what I read in an article and studies that you posted in the other thread, so far one has not, then I'd likely not worry about detectable traces in somebody's blood stream one whit. My desire is that impairment can be either proven or discounted.

The intent of post-incident testing is done purely to determine cause factors, ie contaminants in an oxygen system, medicinal use legal or otherwise, etcetera but the results of that test cannot be used in a police investigation. They have to get their own samples for that purpose.

I disagree with random drug testing, but have no problem with testing for cause, and especially not for Flight Safety investigations.

I am not interested in the medical aspects, for veterans or others, in this case. I fully support that, but we are discussing serving members in this thread, and I am focussing on active Aircrew.

I do not serve the Government. I serve Her Majesty. The two are not the same.

It is precisely the psycho-actives that concern me in the case of active Aircrew, especially as there is yet no way to assess their presence or absence.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Oh sweet Loachman, bwahhahhahahahahaha, sweet sweet Loachman.  Do you read what you type before you hit the Post button?  If MaryJane was legalized, based on that statement, then that can't be questioned either by a Flight Surgeon.



Yes, Much-Beloved Tess, I do read what I write.

Even legal for the general public, and perhaps even legal for most CF members, it is highly unlikely to be approved for Aircrew use. Both EITS and I have stated that other legal medications are not allowed unless approved by a Flight Surgeon. Most common medications will result in grounding, if the Aircrew member is not grounded for the underlying condition anyway, and recreational use of something likely to cause impairment in our specific and somewhat unique case, even if not for others, is not likely to be approved by either a Flight Surgeon or anybody in the chain-of-command all of the way up to the CDS.

Alcohol is legal, but, if somebody bends a machine and even a slight trace of alcohol shows up in a Flight Safety blood or urine sample, something is going to be done, and a CO is going to give the nearest MPs a non-social phone call and begin a collateral board of inquiry.

And I am happy with that.

Should the rest of the CF be so restricted if marijuana is legalized? Maybe not, as long as a reliable impairment detection/measurement means can be established. I'd still tend to err on the side of caution, but with an ever-open mind.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Stop trying to find holes in my posts, and review yours before posting.



Right back at you, respectfully and lovingly...

As you described yourself in the post that you made as I was typing (and carefully re-reading) this, I, too, am quite libertarian. I have already said that I am not much worried about what people use as long as they harm nobody else.

I disagree with the American-style alcohol restrictions as well. I believe that people should be trusted, but whacked if they break that trust. Yes, we sometimes got hammered while in the field in The Good Old Days, but never let that jeopardize Flight Safety and our ability to function properly.

As has been pointed out twice now, even common legal medications can impair one's ability to perform adequately and safely while flying. There are enough hazards beyond one's control already. Wilfully adding more, and risking lives and expensive equipment, is not acceptable.

There is a balance to be had in all things. On the Aircrew side, that balance _has_ to occur much closer to the cautious side. For others, not so much.

I am not against medical marijuana use at all, and have no real objection to recreational use, and don't believe that a change in legal status will have any real effect on reality. I do, however, want to see a means of accurately measuring impairment levels, as we have one for alcohol.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The issue that I have with use of marijuana by active Aircrew is that, during any post-incident testing (and blood and urine samples are tested for things other than drug use as well, such as blood sugar levels and other toxins that could affect performance), it will show up regardless of any actual impairment or absence of same. That injects doubt, and doubt is not acceptable in the Aircrew environment. If a reliable measurement for impairment can be developed, and, again, based upon what I read in an article and studies that you posted in the other thread, so far one has not, then I'd likely not worry about detectable traces in somebody's blood stream one whit. My desire is that impairment can be either proven or discounted.
> 
> The intent of post-incident testing is done purely to determine cause factors, ie contaminants in an oxygen system, medicinal use legal or otherwise, etcetera but the results of that test cannot be used in a police investigation. They have to get their own samples for that purpose.
> 
> ...




I am no trying to be facetious, as I post this.

That was a Phenomenal post, and I thank you bro.

You are convincing me, believe me, that there are specialised duties that need to have zero tolerance.  I mistook You wanting that for everyone.

Thank you LM.

dileas

tess


----------



## Ostrozac (29 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Medical Cannabis is legal, and approved by Health Canada and VAC.  However, serving members of CAF can not be prescribed Medical Cannabis.



This isn't completely correct. While the CF medical system doesn't provide medical marijuana, there have been isolated cases where serving members have been referred to civilian specialists, who then write prescriptions for medical marijuana. I know a member personally who was prescribed medical marijuana while posted to a JPSU.

Plus there's our reserve force, who primarily get their health care from their provincial plans, which could provide medical marijuana to serving reservists.


----------



## Loachman (29 Apr 2017)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> The way I understand our services offences, once cannabis is removed from the schedule II drug list and is legalized it would immediately be legal for military members.



Don't count on that.

The death penalty continued to exist in the CF for certain offences many, many years after it vanished from the Criminal Code.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> This isn't completely correct. While the CF medical system doesn't provide medical marijuana, there have been isolated cases where serving members have been referred to civilian specialists, who then write prescriptions for medical marijuana. I know a member personally who was prescribed medical marijuana while posted to a JPSU.



Yes, trust me, I know about these.  But they are not the norm.  Don't confuse extreme cases with status quo.



			
				Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Plus there's our reserve force, who primarily get their health care from their provincial plans, which could provide medical marijuana to serving reservists.



WRONG

Obviously you know zero about the rules and regulations, I am not being harsh to demean you, but to impart that you are posting wrong information that can be detrimental to people's careers.  I would advise you stand down, please

dileas

tess


----------



## Ostrozac (29 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Obviously you know zero about the rules and regulations, I am not being harsh to demean you, but to impart that you are posting wrong information that can be detrimental to people's careers.  I would advise you stand down, please



Acknowledged. It seems I have a knowledge gap, then. What is the current state of medical marijuana in the reserve force?


----------



## TwoTonShackle (29 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Medical Cannabis is legal, and approved by Health Canada and VAC.  However, serving members of CAF can not be prescribed Medical Cannabis.
> 
> Therefore, your post is incorrect, and a SME will show up shortly witht he proper links, I am sure.
> 
> ...



Yes, currently (issued May 13, reviewed Feb 15 - I'm unaware of anything more current) D Med Pol 4200-10 states: 
"CAF uniformed physicians, public service physicians, third party contract physicians and any other health care provider delivering care to CAF members in a CF H Svcs facility *shall not* provide medical documents to allow CAF members to access marijuana." It does state the should a CAF member be given access to medical marijuana they would then have to be placed on MEL's that completely limit their duties and activities.

Interestingly though its main justification is: "Ref A is Health Canada’s information for health care professionals with respect to cannabis and cannabinoids.  Health Canada is very clear in that cannabis (marijuana, marihuana) is not an approved therapeutic substance in Canada:  “Dried marijuana is not an approved drug or medicine in Canada. The Government of Canada does not endorse the use of marijuana, but the courts have required reasonable access to a legal source of marijuana when authorized by a physician”." This is based on Health Canada 2013 stance on medical marijuana.

Health Canada has since changed its stance: "On August 11, 2016, Health Canada announced the new Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR).
The ACMPR came into force on August 24, 2016. These regulations replace the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) as of August 24, 2016, and are being implemented as a result of the Federal Court ruling in the case of Allard v. Canada. The ACMPR allow for reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes for Canadians who have been authorized to use cannabis for medical purposes by their health care practitioner."
I would interested to know if the new stance had been or is currently being discussed at D Med Pol, or if everyone is walking around like the three wise monkeys.

My point was the current act of recreational cannabis use would be punished under 103.61 which derives its legal power from NDA 130 via the CDSA. Medicinal marijuana is omitted from the CDSA under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations. Once cannabis is removed from the CDSA all the dominoes fall and there would no longer be legal standing for it to be punishable under that particular service offence.

If I am wrong I can fully accept it and would readily read the references.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Acknowledged. It seems I have a knowledge gap, then. What is the current state of medical marijuana in the reserve force?



Same as regs.

Zilch.

dileas

tess


----------



## TwoTonShackle (29 Apr 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Don't count on that.
> 
> The death penalty continued to exist in the CF for certain offences many, many years after it vanished from the Criminal Code.



Yes it did, however don't mix up service offences with service punishments. To receive the death penalty you still had to commit the offence. By removing the legal validity of the offence no punishment can be applied.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2017)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> Yes, currently (issued May 13, reviewed Feb 15 - I'm unaware of anything more current) D Med Pol 4200-10 states:
> "CAF uniformed physicians, public service physicians, third party contract physicians and any other health care provider delivering care to CAF members in a CF H Svcs facility *shall not* provide medical documents to allow CAF members to access marijuana." It does state the should a CAF member be given access to medical marijuana they would then have to be placed on MEL's that completely limit their duties and activities.
> 
> Interestingly though its main justification is: "Ref A is Health Canada’s information for health care professionals with respect to cannabis and cannabinoids.  Health Canada is very clear in that cannabis (marijuana, marihuana) is not an approved therapeutic substance in Canada:  “Dried marijuana is not an approved drug or medicine in Canada. The Government of Canada does not endorse the use of marijuana, but the courts have required reasonable access to a legal source of marijuana when authorized by a physician”." This is based on Health Canada 2013 stance on medical marijuana.
> ...



I don't mean to shut down your beautiful diatribe, however, I need to guide you a bit.

This thread is about

*Legal* Cannabis Use in the CAF

I hopes that helps you with future posts.  Attention to detail, is highly recommended in the CAF too.

dileas

tess


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Apr 2017)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> Yes it did, however don't mix up service offences with service punishments. To receive the death penalty you still had to commit the offence. By removing the legal validity of the offence no punishment can be applied.



Not to sidetrack the discussion off the demon weed, but am I correctly understanding your comment to read that the death penalty under the National Defence Act was only abolished because the offences to which it applied were removed as offences?  If so, you are wrong.  All the NDA offences that could result in the death penalty following the de jure abolition in 1976 of the death penalty for Criminal Code offences (i.e. murder) continued to be offences under the NDA both before and after the amendment in 1998 that removed the death penalty from the NDA.  Those offences were:

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=C25&Parl=36&Ses=1#1)   Abolition of the Death Penalty-text


> Clause 36 would make a number of changes to the sentencing rules of the Code of Service Discipline. The general thrust of the changes is to add more flexibility and to eliminate some punishments that are seen as excessively harsh.
> 
> 1)   Abolition of the Death Penalty
> 
> ...




Please return to the regular programming now in progress.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (29 Apr 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Not to sidetrack the discussion off the demon weed, but am I correctly understanding your comment to read that the death penalty under the National Defence Act was only abolished because the offences to which it applied were removed as offences?



That was not my intention. My comment was to separate punishments from offences.


----------



## Loachman (29 Apr 2017)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> To receive the death penalty you still had to commit the offence. By removing the legal validity of the offence no punishment can be applied.



Don't count on a new "legal validity" not being created. Somebody's most likely going back into work on Monday morning to continue with such a project in anticipation of the Liberals' proposal eventually becoming law. If there is an intent to prevent recreational marijuana or other drug use by CF members, enough support for some form of legal or regulatory restriction or prohibition will be found.


----------



## Loachman (29 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I am no trying to be facetious, as I post this.



Even without that caveat, I'd not have taken your post that way.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That was a Phenomenal post, and I thank you bro.



Thank-you, and you are most welcome.

I, too, have learned much from you. I know nobody, beyond you and recceguy, who is using medical marijuana. Previously, I'd only read a few newspaper articles that lacked, of course, any real and valuable information, but felt, nonetheless, that it was a good thing if people benefitted from it as they seemed to do. I now know much more about the benefits and processes involved.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> You are convincing me, believe me, that there are specialised duties that need to have zero tolerance.  I mistook You wanting that for everyone.



A mistake that would be trivial in most circumstances can often be deadly in an aircraft. I have lost good friends and colleagues to several such trivial mistakes, both their own and other people's. One such case involved the Spragg clutch in the freewheeling unit on CH136258, which was found, during the investigation into the deaths of Bob Connell and Henry Andersen one night in June 1985, to be three ten-thousandths of an inch out-of-round due to a manufacturing error. The allowable tolerance was two ten-thousandths of an inch. One ten-thousandth of an inch killed them. Had they known what was happening - and this failure had never happened before and happened in a most misleading manner - and not been at five hundred feet above hills, trees, and a lake in absolute darkness and bad weather (ie, about as much going against them as one could imagine) they might, barely, have survived, but even under ideal circumstances they had perhaps five, maybe ten, seconds to correctly diagnose a failure that took the investigators months to determine, and react perfectly.

Another Pilot and I were the last ones to fly that machine and live. The failure occurred about one half-hour of flying time after I shut down at the end of my flight.

The possibility of something similar happening is ever-constant, and one must give oneself every possible edge. Being medically fit to fly and fully alert is one such edge, and even just a slight edge can make the difference between a few extra rapid heartbeats, a wide-eyed silent "holy fuck", and a comforting beer a few hours after giving one's blood and urine samples and being the guest of honour at a funeral. I've been lucky on several occasions. 

I've learned a lot of lessons from my mistakes, and shared those lessons widely as they may keep others alive, and also learned a lot from other people's tales. Some of those stories (the happier ones) were told directly, and some, the unhappy ones like Bob and Henry's, were briefed by the investigating team or read about in the investigative reports. A very, very observant Flight Engineer saved his crew, passengers, and machine a week or so ago from tragedy. I can too easily, and too vividly, picture what might have happened had he not noticed what was subtly occurring on the opposite side of his machine with seconds to spare, unbeknownst by the drivers. Life or death can be determined by less than the thickness of a human hair, a few seconds or less, glancing in just the right place or not, or Spidey-sense tingling.

There is, thus, _no_ room available for even a _hint_ of impairment in aviation. That has been proven to me many, many times, so it is one of the few things on which I shall never compromise.

There are always more than enough things waiting to jump out and kill one. There is no need to add to the pile.


----------



## medicineman (29 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Any thoughts on how they'll view this for things like Aircrew, divers, submariners?  The medical standards and factors seem to be more stringent there.  Trying to picture Cheech and Chong in the cockpit of a CAF aircraft etc.



Holy crap I'm playing catch-up this morning...I would put things this way - if it's a self medication thing, divers/aircrew are not allowed to self medicate, FULL STOP.  If divers needed something for an oweee, we needed to know it - could be masking a minor DCS as a for instance.  Anything that can alter your ability to concentrate under normal atmospheric conditions is definitely a no no when under abnormal ones.  Things than make you feel funny or giddy - again same thing, as you need to know if you're feeling that way because of the substances you're taking in or because of an equipment malfunction, you're narced out/hypoxic, or whatever.  The other issue that comes with self medication - its not always what you're using, but why you're using it - for example, mood issues are important to know about because they already alter levels of concentration, putting not only you but others at risk.  

I think before this all comes on line in the CAF, especially for people in particularly hazardous jobs, a lot of good randomized control trials will have to be done dealing with average clearance times for average people...and their effects under dysbaric conditions.

As much as it pains me to say, Tess, since you seem to be the Cohunna regarding this, have you considered going to DRDC Toronto with a research proposal regarding cannabinoid trials not only for general use, but also for safety sensitive use?  The reason I say DRDC (T), is they do all the environmental research there, I know you're in the area, and hey, I'd say there is a handy amount of money to be had for something like that and I can't think of a better person to tackle the job.

Long story short, I don't see CAF Environmental Medical regulations regarding medications and flying/diving to change with this new law coming into play anytime soon...IM(NSH)O.

MM


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Apr 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is, thus, _no_ room available for even a _hint_ of impairment in aviation. That has been proven to me many, many times, so it is one of the few things on which I shall never compromise.



Good post.  Came across this while searching for some background about on-going proposals/research in how the legalization of pot will affect the regulatory aspects of workplace safety.  And that is what we are talking about re this subject and the CF - workplace safety.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11w0151/a11w0151.asp


> . . .
> Summary
> 
> The Air Tindi Ltd. Cessna 208B Caravan (registration C-GATV, serial number 208B0308) departed Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, at 1103 Mountain Daylight Time under visual flight rules as regularly scheduled flight Air Tindi 200 (AT200) to Lutsel K'e, Northwest Territories. When the aircraft did not arrive at its scheduled time, a search was initiated, and the aircraft was found 26 nautical miles west of Lutsel K'e, near the crest of Pehtei Peninsula. The pilot and one passenger were fatally injured, and two passengers were seriously injured. There was no post-impact fire, and no emergency locator transmitter signal was received by the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre or search aircraft.
> ...


----------



## Stoker (29 Apr 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Good post.  Came across this while searching for some background about on-going proposals/research in how the legalization of pot will affect the regulatory aspects of workplace safety.  And that is what we are talking about re this subject and the CF - workplace safety.
> 
> http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11w0151/a11w0151.asp



That is very interesting after a single dose impairment could last up to 6 hours or even 24 hours for some activities such as flying. Given that some overindulge and not just smoke one joint given the comparison to alcohol how long will be the impairment then? I can see why the oil patch drug test their workers'.  It also says the drug can remain in the body for up to 30 days. So given that if someone in the CF is tested how can they even prove that they did it on their off time or is there tests to determine when they did it and are these test accurate? Given that many jobs are safety sensitive in the CAF it may be difficult to have a policy for recreational use.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Good post.  Came across this while searching for some background about on-going proposals/research in how the legalization of pot will affect the regulatory aspects of workplace safety.  And that is what we are talking about re this subject and the CF - workplace safety.
> 
> Summary
> 
> ...



I'm not a pilot, but I think there were other things involved also. Crazy weather and low clouds. The decision to fly VFR as opposed to IFR. The pilots previous navigation problems. The cannabis. They indicate that THC and cannabinoids could have been the cause and well it could have been, but the results were inconclusive. They could not rule out faulty results because they lacked the material to retest and prove.

I'm not arguing whether it was responsible or not. Since 1991, the TSB has documented 4 occurrences in air, marine and rail modes where those involved in the operation of vehicles have either tested positive for cannabinoids, or were known to have used the substance while in a position of responsibility for those vehicles.

I've not read the other four reports, but on the face of it, there are many factors that could have been responsible for the crash, not just cannabis use. Even the footnotes show the disparity in thinking amongst the 'experts' about cannabis. Cannabis, in this case, appears to of had an effect on events, but it can't be proven as the cause.

The trick is in not just reading an excerpt from the investigation that fits your vision, but reading the whole thing to get all sides of the story. Including the footnotes.


----------



## Stoker (29 Apr 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Do they do random testing on their workers? Has a final decision been made?
> 
> Suncor Energy Inc., Oil Sands’ attempt to implement random alcohol and drug testing of safety-sensitive employees at Suncor oil sands operations was recently rejected by the Alberta Arbitration Board after hearing a grievance filed by Unifor, Local 707A, representing Suncor employees at its Fort McMurray operations. The Board found Suncor’s Policy to be an unreasonable exercise of management rights.
> http://cenera.ca/a-landmark-ruling-on-random-drug-and-alcohol-testing-in-alberta-is-the-door-completely-closed-blog/
> ...



Some info fairly  recently on the legalization and oil company concerns.

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/news/energy/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/news/energy/there-is-already-madness-brewing-in-the-oilpatch-over-ottawas-reefer-legalization&pubdate=2016-09-02


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> That is very interesting after a single dose impairment could last up to 6 hours or even 24 hours for some activities such as flying. Given that some overindulge and not just smoke one joint given the comparison to alcohol how long will be the impairment then? I can see why the oil patch drug test their workers'.  It also says the drug can remain in the body for up to 30 days. So given that if someone in the CF is tested how can they even prove that they did it on their off time or is there tests to determine when they did it and are these test accurate? Given that many jobs are safety sensitive in the CAF it may be difficult to have a policy for recreational use.



I wonder what a single dose is?

I wonder if the cannabis used was a THC-A joint of specific size, using the same strain as found in the system of the corpse?

I wonder if they used edibles, oils, tinctures, salves, capsules as opposed to smoking it?

I wonder what they used as a test bed to determine dose and length of after effects?

I wonder if they have made any distinctions about whether the actual effects wear off even with the presence of THC in the fat cells. Just because it's there, doesn't mean it's active or causing impairment.

I wonder if we can discuss cannabis use, without relating it to alcohol use? Some may drink 5 beers before passing out, some 25. You are not going to chain smoke 5 or 25 joints before you are totally couch locked. Binge drinking and misuse of alcohol are separate problems and drugs with no relation to cannabis.

Safety sensitive jobs have always been regulated as how and when social drugs are consumed. If you want to be aircrew, you don't do it. If you want to work on a rig, don't do it.

These are choices for people to make. Not laws and decrees for blanket restrictions. The company say aircrew won't indulge, that's a term of employment, like hard hats and safety boots, not a Charter infringement. Nobody is forcing you into that career and if you really want it, you'll do what's needed to keep it.


----------



## Stoker (29 Apr 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Thanks, Chief.
> 
> It sounds like random drug testing in the oil patch is in limbo?
> 
> ...



Seeing that we are in the military and not unionized then safety sensitive drug testing could be implemented along the lines of what the oil patch wants to do. Perhaps that would be a way for people in those sensitive positions to be checked?


----------



## Stoker (29 Apr 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wonder what a single dose is?
> 
> I wonder if the cannabis used was a THC-A joint of specific size, using the same strain as found in the system of the corpse?
> 
> ...



I guess the problem is that there are too many variables and I can see the CF who is risk averse to begin with not allowing it for the members it before the science is avaiable. Probably by health Canada. As some with a better medical background has stated alcohol is very predictable on its effects much more than cannabis.


----------



## mariomike (29 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Seeing that we are in the military and not unionized then safety sensitive drug testing could be implemented along the lines of what the oil patch wants to do. Perhaps that would be a way for people in those sensitive positions to be checked?



I replied to your oil patch posts in Radio Chatter.

Random Drug testing
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/125666/post-1486608.html#msg1486608


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 May 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> A small amount of alcohol (i.e. a beer) will have zero (or very little) noticeable psychological affect on those consuming it (obviously, that's not always the case, some people do get inebriated after one drink); a small amount of cannabis, on the other hand, will have an immediate inebriating affect. Sure, this might not be true of someone who has developed a tolerance, but we're talking about CAF members here. I'd hope that even if it was made permissible recreationally, that they wouldn't all start lighting up on a daily basis.
> 
> So, I can have one beer and go back to work and feel fine, but I imagine that if _I_ smoked a joint at lunch I think that I'd be noticeably inebriated for the rest of the afternoon.
> 
> Thoughts?



My thoughts?

Pure conjecture/ misinformation.

Again, how big is a joint? What is the genus and strain? Is it majority THC or CBD? How do you know how long it will affect you? What are you taking it for? These variables are important to know. Otherwise, people get the wrong ideas. As you, yourself, have.


----------



## Stoker (4 May 2017)

I wondered what the CF actually thought of Cannabis usage and I found this. Some good facts and how the CF sees Cannabis. I know people will think this a attempt by the CF to scare people off from usage and its a bit cheesy however some of the facts are based on health Canada. More importantly if this is the way the CF sees Cannabis it is very possible that it won't be legalized while employed by the military to use. Are these facts actually facts or BS?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-health-services-wellness-addiction/other-drug-use.page


Cannabis, The most widely used illegal drug

Get the facts!
•Cannabis is classified under two drug categories: Depressants and Hallucinogens. 
•Cannabis is used in three forms. It is used as marijuana (the dried leaf of the plant), hashish and hash oil (both from the plant resin). 
•Marijuana and hashish are usually smoked, while hash oil is usually added to marijuana or tobacco cigarettes. 
•The chemical ingredient in cannabis that produces the high is called THC (delta-9-tetrahydro-cannabinol). New growing methods have been developed in recent years and the percentage of THC found in cannabis has increased making it even stronger. 

Short terms effects:
•Feeling relaxed and free. People sometimes experience a heightened sense of smell and vision. Normally these effects last two to four hours. 
•Cannabis makes users clumsier and significantly slows their reaction times therefore adversely affecting operational readiness and safety. Driving and operating machinery while stoned is not safe, especially if cannabis is combined with other drugs, including alcohol. 
•When cannabis enters the brain the short-term effects include memory problems, distorted perception, difficulty thinking, impaired concentration, loss of coordination and interference with normal muscle functioning. 
•While high on cannabis, many people will lose some of their ability to learn and will forget things and have trouble concentrating. 
•Some users feel severe anxiety and high doses can cause panic attacks, fearful, suspicious feelings (paranoia) and temporary psychosis. 
•These effects can persist long after the initial high has worn off. In fact, they may last 24 hours or more. 

Long-term effects:
•Cannabis smoke contains cancer-producing chemicals that damage the lungs and can lead to chronic coughing, lung infections and cancer of the lungs, neck and head. 
•Regular/heavy use of cannabis is associated with decreased manual dexterity and a decreased ability to incorporate feedback to correct incorrect responses. For example, when playing a game, cannabis users will have greater difficulty changing their strategy based on what their opponents are doing.
•Many long-term cannabis users develop problems with short-term memory, concentration.

Cannabis Use in the military

The Canadian Armed Forces has a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding the use of cannabis and other illegal drugs.

For more information on this and other topics, contact your local Health Promotion Office.


Marijuana - More Harmful Than You Think!

Marijuana is the most commonly-used illicit drug in Canada, both in civilian and military populations. However, many people feel that this is a relatively harmless drug, and so getting high every now and again is not a big deal. But is this true? Is marijuana use as harmless as it seems? The truth is that marijuana has many short-and long-term effects that many people aren't aware of, and these effects can lead to very dangerous situations, especially in the military, where we use firearms and heavy machinery on a daily basis. For example:
•Studies have shown that smoking marijuana decreases a pilot's performance on tasks requiring them to maintain flying patterns (e.g., altitude, heading, etc.), increases the number of major errors they make (errors that could have lethal consequences, such as forgetting to put landing gear down), and decreases their ability to land an aircraft (pilots often missed the centre of the runway by 30-70 feet - very dangerous when landing large aircraft on smaller, remote airfields). 
•Because it is a depressant, marijuana increases sleepiness, which is problem if you're on guard duty! 
•Marijuana can cause dry mouth and throat. In a hot, dry area like Afghanistan, this can make a bad situation (i.e., you're already thirsty and dehydrated) worse and lead to decreased ability to focus on your task and your surroundings. 
•The hallucinogenic effects of marijuana can lead to paranoia, hallucinations, intense anxiety and panic attacks. This makes the user dangerous to other members as well, especially in tense situations such as would be encountered in war. It may also interfere with the user's ability to tell friend from foe. 
•The general depressant effects of marijuana result in slowed reaction time, loss of motor coordination, decreased problem solving ability, and impaired memory and judgment. All of these are potentially fatal impairments in combat situations. 

The above are short-term effects that can last up to 24 hours after using marijuana or other cannabis products (e.g., hashish, hashish oil). But there are serious long-term effects, too. Marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, contains many carcinogens (cancer-producing chemicals) that with repeated use can result in cancers of the lung, head, and neck. Regular/long-term use of marijuana is also associated with decreased manual dexterity and decreased ability to incorporate feedback into actions. This is a potentially deadly deficiency in combat situations or when other complex tasks are required.

Finally, aside from the effects that marijuana has on the user, the marijuana cigarette itself is a danger to members' safety: As with tobacco cigarettes, the joint leaves a heat signature, a light signature, and a presence signature (the butt of the cigarette as litter indicates your presence or recent presence) - all of which endanger not only the user, but all those around him/her.So if you find yourself thinking about 'smoking up,' ponder the resultant dangers to yourself and your comrades… Or think about how you'd feel if you knew that one of your comrades was using marijuana and putting you in danger. Always keep in mind, WHO'S GOT YOUR BACK?

For more information on this and other topics, contact your local Health Promotion Office


----------



## Lumber (4 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> My thoughts?
> 
> Pure conjecture/ misinformation.
> 
> Again, how big is a joint? What is the genus and strain? Is it majority THC or CBD? How do you know how long it will affect you? What are you taking it for? These variables are important to know. Otherwise, people get the wrong ideas. As you, yourself, have.



This may be conjecture, but it is not in any way misinformation.

I'm talking about the recreational use of marijuana by our sailors, soldiers, and aviators, which means strains high in THC, not those with low THC and high CBD. The effects of which include:



> Short terms effects:
> •Feeling relaxed and free. People sometimes experience a heightened sense of smell and vision. Normally these effects last two to four hours.
> •Cannabis makes users clumsier and significantly slows their reaction times therefore adversely affecting operational readiness and safety. Driving and operating machinery while stoned is not safe, especially if cannabis is combined with other drugs, including alcohol.
> •When cannabis enters the brain the short-term effects include memory problems, distorted perception, difficulty thinking, impaired concentration, loss of coordination and interference with normal muscle functioning.
> ...




If you are a regular user, then you would need a higher dose (a bigger joint, as you allude to) in order to achieve these affects. But, as I conjectured (is that a word?), our sailors, soldiers, and aviators would not be _regular_ users, but occasional, recreational user. Ergo, a small amount, even a single drag from a joint, would be enough to elicit these symptoms. Conversely, the same person might be able to drink a beer at lunch (or before work, I suppose) and experience next to zero alcohol-related side effects.

Again, I acknowledge, everyone is different. I know sailors who _would_ demonstrate significant inebriation after only 1 beer; but, my position remains the same, and I do not consider it misinformation. I believe that recreational use of cannabis during or before work hours would have a more significant and noticeable impairment effect on our sailors, soldiers, and aviators, than would alcohol.


----------



## BinRat55 (4 May 2017)

I know we are now almost 6 pages into this topic, and I have attempted to read MOST of it, however I just want to add a few more things - again, my apologies if this was already brought up...

Marijuana is not just the substance that gets you high anymore. When people take "impairment" into consideration, you have to take everything into consideration. For instance - I can go to lunch and drink 6 beers, smoke a joint and go back to work. How? I thought you would never ask!

I drank 6 "near-beers" with a 0.05% alcohol content. I smoked a strain of marijuana called CBD-A Sativa (no THC, about 3% CBD) which produced no head high whatsoever.

MMJ (and I am still learning more and more every day) has many many properties that affect "studies" and there is no clear-cut answer unless they actually do the right studies. THC indica affects one person differently than another. Add the different strain properties - THC sativa dominant, CBD-A indica dominant... and so on.

And one more thing while I'm on the topic - those people who say "10 grams a day? Not possible!!" - this is exactly why. We don't sit down and puff away a third of an ounce of weed a day. Each strain has different healing properties. Most strains can be turned into an oil, milled product for capsules, etc etc... we need to have prescriptions covering what we use and how we use - for example, in order for me to continue to use my CBD oil, I need to carry a prescription of at least 3gr a day. Once the product is reduced to something OTHER than flower / bud it becomes a greater quantity. So that's just CBD. I also need a THC indica for nighttime use. You can see how it goes up...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I know we are now almost 6 pages into this topic, and I have attempted to read MOST of it, however I just want to add a few more things - again, my apologies if this was already brought up...
> 
> Marijuana is not just the substance that gets you high anymore. When people take "impairment" into consideration, you have to take everything into consideration. For instance - I can go to lunch and drink 6 beers, smoke a joint and go back to work. How? I thought you would never ask!
> 
> ...


 :goodpost:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I wondered what the CF actually thought of Cannabis usage and I found this. Some good facts and how the CF sees Cannabis. I know people will think this a attempt by the CF to scare people off from usage and its a bit cheesy however some of the facts are based on health Canada. More importantly if this is the way the CF sees Cannabis it is very possible that it won't be legalized while employed by the military to use. Are these facts actually facts or BS?
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-health-services-wellness-addiction/other-drug-use.page
> 
> ...



I won't deny there is real info there, BUT:

I see no date. Much of that info is not current;
Extremely biased. I don't worry about that, it human nature;
Health Canada, while our national medical corporation is supposed to look out for us and only provide accurate info, we all know different. They are government and follow the government agenda (lariam anyone?);
Lots of hyperbole with no ties to medical or scientific studies;and
No positive effects noted.

While some info is there and not disputed, there is a ton of outdated and wrong info there also. Perhaps someone serving can contact them and get it updated. It reads like it's straight out of the '50's. The only thing missing is the unfounded link that one only need look towards the "negros and their jazz music and dancing to see the evil effects of the devil's weed." 8)

Health Canada has a ton of new info on medical cannabis, perhaps DND can get them to share? And have it written by someone other than a bitter old dinosaur of an RSM that just completed another 12 step program. ;D


----------



## BinRat55 (4 May 2017)

Thanks Recce... I am almost as passionate about medical marijuana as I am about supply! I was THAT guy 3 or 4 years ago - the major sceptic. I had run the gambit of meds, and I truly thought I was a lost cause. I was completely sure that I would die alone and friendless. I said "What the hell? What do I have to loose?" So I went there. It saved my life and more importantly relieved much of my loved ones' pain - the pain I was causing not knowing - or even caring. I still have a lot to learn about MMJ, PTSD and how it all fits together - we all do. But for right now I want to shout from all the rooftops - it works. It works.


----------



## Scott (4 May 2017)

Friendly neighborhood mod dropping by to ask that all discussion be kept on point and civil. Not seeing issues, just asking that we prevent them.

Scott
Staff


----------



## BinRat55 (4 May 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Friendly neighborhood mod dropping by to ask that all discussion be kept on point and civil. Not seeing issues, just asking that we prevent them.
> 
> Scott
> Staff



Here's a friendly neighbourhood question mark ...     ??


----------



## Stoker (4 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I won't deny there is real info there, BUT:
> 
> I see no date. Much of that info is not current;
> Extremely biased. I don't worry about that, it human nature;
> ...


 
Its on a CAF web page and what the CAF policy is regarding the drug. It also been updated as of Mar. Some of it may be outdated but not all I would imagine. My point is that this is what the CF currently thinks about Cannabis and its health risks. BTW this thread is about legal Cannabis use in the CAF, we already have a thread about medical MJ. I can dig more info off the DIN if you want and I bet it would say the same thing or are they following the government agenda as you have stated?


----------



## Scott (4 May 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Here's a friendly neighbourhood question mark ...     ??



If you can still find enough of the MC threads to read them, you'll understand rather quickly.

It was not a comment directed at you, or anyone in particular. But one that recent history says needed to be made.

Feel free to PM me if you need further info, we can keep the thread free of it  

Cheers

Scott
Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Thanks Recce... I am almost as passionate about medical marijuana as I am about supply! I was THAT guy 3 or 4 years ago - the major sceptic. I had run the gambit of meds, and I truly thought I was a lost cause. I was completely sure that I would die alone and friendless. I said "What the hell? What do I have to loose?" So I went there. It saved my life and more importantly relieved much of my loved ones' pain - the pain I was causing not knowing - or even caring. I still have a lot to learn about MMJ, PTSD and how it all fits together - we all do. But for right now I want to shout from all the rooftops - it works. It works.



I echo that Brother. 37+ years, retired MWO (TQ), never touched an illegal drug the whole time. Tranquilizers and sleeping pills, mixed with copious amounts of alcohol. Always in a bad mood and yelling at everyone.

I was convinced to give it a try after a friend gave me some, after I retired, and I haven't looked back. No more overeating, went from near a case of beer a day to less than that over a three week period. My physical pain has been almost completely diminished to where it is hardly noticeable. My wife, of 43 years, is very happy with my transformation. The last few years are some of the best we've had.

I've watched too many friends die by their own hand and seen enough saved by medical cannabis that I'm a total convert. So much so, that my doctor has now decided to start researching it and is referring patients to a local doctor that does prescriptions for particular strains and oils, including dosing. It's taking hold and even professional practitioners are getting on board. My doctor is an ex pharmacist who now prefers to give her patients access to cannabis rather than prescribe pharmaceuticals. 

I know it's not everyone's cup of tea and some will never change their minds. However, for those of us that it works for, it's been a godsend. I'm on record as saying certain trades, jobs, positions, etc, require certain considerations. Much the same as the CAF has made for other drugs.

I think the key might be to treating it the same as alcohol or other prescription drugs. If you are not allowed alcohol or other drug, then no cannabis for you.


----------



## blacktriangle (4 May 2017)

recceguy/BinRat55, 

Thank you for your posts - they've been very informative to an observer with no stake in the game (yet) 

I will say that I think back to the bad days I've had in my career where I looked to alcohol to escape. Some great times, but some pretty awful times too. Curious how things could have been different if some of us could have had a joint after a rough week, a crap exercise, or a stressful tour. 

Maybe one day I will get to (legally) test my theory. 

Until then, I'm glad this is helping you guys.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2017)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> recceguy/BinRat55,
> 
> Thank you for your posts - they've been very informative to an observer with no stake in the game (yet)
> 
> ...



Cheers Spectrum, it's appreciated. I'm only interested in passing on what I know and dispelling rumours. If it helps someone make a decision, either way, I'll be satisfied with that.


----------



## BinRat55 (5 May 2017)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> recceguy/BinRat55,
> 
> Thank you for your posts - they've been very informative to an observer with no stake in the game (yet)
> 
> ...



Thanks Spectrum for sharing and your sentiment. Just like Recce I too am only interested in helping people understand and hopefully remove some stigma attached to this course of treatment. I always say - my results are mine and mine alone, but how can 10 billion molecules be wrong! 

I am always ready to share my experiences and how I cope.


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 May 2017)

One interesting development I read about was one of the companies working on a patch for a time release.  I think the major benefit of the number of states where it is now legal is the investments where they can finally do the research required to figure out what effects are of the various compounds found in the different strain and what can benefit who.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (5 May 2017)

I have dealt with more motor vehicle collisions causing injury where a person admitted to or was found to have used marijuana within a hour prior to the collision than I have cellphones or alcohol.

Washington​ State is also having the same problem. For them, it's well exceeded their rate of collisions causing injury over drunk driving.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 May 2017)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I have dealt with more motor vehicle collisions causing injury where a person admitted to or was found to have used marijuana within a hour prior to the collision than I have cellphones or alcohol.
> 
> Washington​ State is also having the same problem. For them, it's well exceeded their rate of collisions causing injury over drunk driving.



Genuinely surprised by that. I've read elsewhere that places that legalized pot saw an increase in traffic accidents but difficult to believe it's a bigger ratio than alcohol or especially cell phones. I wonder if being legalized in the CAF will likewise lead to more accidents (despite the bottle to throttle rule).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2017)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I have dealt with more motor vehicle collisions causing injury where a person admitted to or was found to have used marijuana within a hour prior to the collision than I have cellphones or alcohol.
> 
> Washington​ State is also having the same problem. For them, it's well exceeded their rate of collisions causing injury over drunk driving.



Not discounting your personal experience, but I'd like to see some certified statistics on that before making any further discussion about impairment, method of ingestion, type of cannabis and active ingredients. Your statement is just too general and personal to really have a point. 

I am not advocating driving, impaired by anything, just that if we're going to discuss it properly we need more than personal anecdotes. They're welcome, they just don't make a good start point  Cheers.


----------



## McG (6 May 2017)

The statistics from Washington state are discussed here: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/marijuana-related-fatal-car-accidents-surge-washin/



> Roughly 10 percent of Washington state drivers involved in fatal car crashes between 2010 and 2014 tested positive for recent marijuana use, with the percentage of drivers who had used pot within hours of a crash doubling between 2013 and 2014, according to a new study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (6 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not discounting your personal experience, but I'd like to see some certified statistics on that before making any further discussion about impairment, method of ingestion, type of cannabis and active ingredients. Your statement is just too general and personal to really have a point.
> 
> I am not advocating driving, impaired by anything, just that if we're going to discuss it properly we need more than personal anecdotes. They're welcome, they just don't make a good start point  Cheers.



Here's scholarly article about it

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01100.x/full

https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/34/1/65/494023/Marijuana-Use-and-Motor-Vehicle-Crashes

About roadside testing
http://globalnews.ca/news/3308435/simple-tests-can-identify-pot-impaired-drivers/

Fatalities double after legalization (Washington State)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160510103131.htm

Fatalities increase after legalization (Colorado)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/us-states-with-legal-pot-sales-see-rise-in-fatal-accidents-by-high-drivers/article26947558/


----------



## Stoker (6 May 2017)

So we are finally getting some research for veterans with PTSD. We already know there is benefits but this is hard data to back up what vets already know.


Military, Veterans Affairs to test effects of medical marijuana on PTSD in clinical trial
Clinical trial will look at 'efficacy and safety' of marijuana in treating PTSD


http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/military-veterans-affairs-marijuana-clinical-trial-1.4101355


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2017)

Tanks! for the links everyone. I don't have time at the moment , but I'll get to them soon.

Cheers.


----------



## BinRat55 (7 May 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So we are finally getting some research for veterans with PTSD. We already know there is benefits but this is hard data to back up what vets already know.
> 
> 
> Military, Veterans Affairs to test effects of medical marijuana on PTSD in clinical trial
> ...



I wouldn't say "finally getting"... there's this:


----------



## BinRat55 (7 May 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say "finally getting"... there's this:



Seem's like a valid study to me...


----------



## Stoker (7 May 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say "finally getting"... there's this:



I'm sure there's other studies out there as well, this one is by the government. Perhaps the government didn't like the validly of the medileafs study? I thought veterans would like the fact that the government is looking into this closer, perhaps it might lead to more access and a higher limit?


----------



## BinRat55 (7 May 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I'm sure there's other studies out there as well, this one is by the government. Perhaps the government didn't like the validly of the medileafs study? I thought veterans would like the fact that the government is looking into this closer, perhaps it might lead to more access and a higher limit?



I'm all for studies, research and the like. But if you're going to do a study, do it right. Determine the correct variables, establish the correct baseline and impartiality must be present. Most of us just want the opportunity to prove once and for all that we are not "pot heads" and "dealers" and "scammers looking for free dope". It's sad, really, when you have a group of people who are truly suffering and they are made fun of, called liars and shunned. All because of a stigma. Sorry... off topic.

Yea, so I'm all for these studies if they are done right but I think what people are afraid of is that the government (more closer, VAC) will cease coverage or suspend it while certain "studies" are going on.

And you say "Perhaps the government didn't like the validly of the medileafs study?" ... so there's another point. Who's study is acceptable and who determines that? I don't think veterans want more coverage or less coverage - we just want what we need whether it's 2 g a day or 13 g a day. We are all different.


----------



## Stoker (7 May 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I'm all for studies, research and the like. But if you're going to do a study, do it right. Determine the correct variables, establish the correct baseline and impartiality must be present. Most of us just want the opportunity to prove once and for all that we are not "pot heads" and "dealers" and "scammers looking for free dope". It's sad, really, when you have a group of people who are truly suffering and they are made fun of, called liars and shunned. All because of a stigma. Sorry... off topic.
> 
> Yea, so I'm all for these studies if they are done right but I think what people are afraid of is that the government (more closer, VAC) will cease coverage or suspend it while certain "studies" are going on.
> 
> And you say "Perhaps the government didn't like the validly of the medileafs study?" ... so there's another point. Who's study is acceptable and who determines that? I don't think veterans want more coverage or less coverage - we just want what we need whether it's 2 g a day or 13 g a day. We are all different.



I guess the obvious is that medileaf has a vested interest in MM, i'm not saying that's the reason but it may be part of it. I would like to think the government will be impartial in any research it commissions. I have a question for you do you think the access or amount of MM will change when it becomes legal and becomes as regulated as alcohol?


----------



## Lumber (7 May 2017)

Tonight on Movie Classic Sundays, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers MMJ Discussion!"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I guess the obvious is that medileaf has a vested interest in MM, i'm not saying that's the reason but it may be part of it. I would like to think the government will be impartial in any research it commissions. I have a question for you do you think the access or amount of MM will change when it becomes legal and becomes as regulated as alcohol?



We'll have to wait and see what the individual Provinces enact first. Wynne wanted to see it in the LCBO. The Feds legislation says it CAN"T be sold where alcohol is.

There's too much flux right now to even determine how much recreational bud you can buy. Access and amount will be determined later. Then we can have that discussion, unless I missed your question.


----------



## BinRat55 (7 May 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I guess the obvious is that medileaf has a vested interest in MM, i'm not saying that's the reason but it may be part of it. I would like to think the government will be impartial in any research it commissions. I have a question for you do you think the access or amount of MM will change when it becomes legal and becomes as regulated as alcohol?



I totally agree with you on the MedReleaf study - while I feel it's a good representation, it's transparency is limited only to MedReleaf's data. It obviously doesn't show impartiality... they fill my prescriptions! Yes, comparison studies by VAC, Health Canada and any other invested party. Freedom of choice, right?

As far as changes are concerned with the legalization of recreational marijuana and it's effect on us? I agree with Reece mostly, but I think you'll see more insurance carriers add MMJ to their coverage. You'll probably see dispensaries pop up everywhere like McDonalds too. I would like to think that "limits" will be done away with and each prescription, wether it be for viagra, MMJ or aspirin are treated by VAC case by case.


----------



## BinRat55 (7 May 2017)

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...


----------



## Stoker (7 May 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I totally agree with you on the MedReleaf study - while I feel it's a good representation, it's transparency is limited only to MedReleaf's data. It obviously doesn't show impartiality... they fill my prescriptions! Yes, comparison studies by VAC, Health Canada and any other invested party. Freedom of choice, right?
> 
> As far as changes are concerned with the legalization of recreational marijuana and it's effect on us? I agree with Reece mostly, but I think you'll see more insurance carriers add MMJ to their coverage. You'll probably see dispensaries pop up everywhere like McDonalds too. I would like to think that "limits" will be done away with and each prescription, wether it be for viagra, MMJ or aspirin are treated by VAC case by case.



As long as it gets the medicine to those who need it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Feds legislation says it CAN"T be sold where alcohol is.



How stupid is that?


----------



## PuckChaser (7 May 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> How stupid is that?



When laws are made to pander to votes or lobby groups, they are usually made devoid of any rational thought or reasoning. Look at our gun laws.


----------



## BinRat55 (8 May 2017)

So, just a thought about the pending legalization of recreational use marijuana... if Health Canada will eventually assign it a DIN, can it (should it) still be used recreationally? Is there such a thing as recreational codeine or morphine use? Recreational Cialis??


----------



## sarahsmom (8 May 2017)

I think there are many people who use Cialis or Viagra recreationally, like on vacation and such.
Not saying it's right, but it happens.


----------



## Occam (8 May 2017)

As opposed to using Cialis or Viagra professionally?   ;D


----------



## cmdj1982 (23 Nov 2017)

With the government moving towards legalization of recreational weed this upcoming summer, will this affect how the CAF views recreational weed? Will it be treated the same way as alcohol currently is (basically don't show up to work intoxicated)(don't make an ass of yourself at the mess)? Or do you think it will continue to remain a banned substance for CAF members?


----------



## McG (23 Nov 2017)

There are no clairvoyants here, so your question is only asking for speculation.  Best to wait and see what new DAOD gets published.  Somebody is surely working on it.


----------



## Lumber (23 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> There are no clairvoyants here, so your question is only asking for speculation.  Best to wait and see what new DAOD gets published.  Somebody is surely working on it.



And, if you want the non-clairvoyant answers and all the speculations, read the last 5 pages.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Nov 2017)

cmdj1982 said:
			
		

> With the government moving towards legalization of recreational weed this upcoming summer, will this affect how the CAF views recreational weed? Will it be treated the same way as alcohol currently is (basically don't show up to work intoxicated)(don't make an *** of yourself at the mess)? Or do you think it will continue to remain a banned substance for CAF members?



I'm not sure you fully appreciate the CF's approach to alcohol. In addition to the colloquial "eight hours bottle to throttle", you can also be charged with drunkenness if you're too hung over to do your job. I would suggest the same perspective would remain for MJ.

Moving on. Ethanol has a known elimination curve of 5mmol per hour average, so eight hours would have you start at 40mmol; or about twice the legal limit (0.08mg/ml = 17.4mmol). The reality of course is that many folks don't actually stop drinking eight hours before needing to work, so it's easy to still be drunk in the morning, but somewhat functional. 

We don't have the same fidelity of data for marijuana. We don't know what concentration of blood THC is required to induce impairment, although 50ng is being discussed as that threshold, but the dose to consumption ratio is hard to define. Some papers give an elimination half life for THC at 50 hours, some as much as seven days. In addition, it has been found that in the US 55% of marijuana impaired drivers also had elevated blood alcohol levels.  Both chemicals have CNS depressant effects which would likely manifest in a synergistic fashion. You can see where this combination would likely increase the time that a person remained intoxicated. I would predict that for CF members, where alcohol is a common thing, co-ingestion would also be common, and not likely an either-or situation. In addition, there are long term, irreversible neurocognitive effects (memory, attention, learning, language, perception, and social cognition) from moderate to heavy marijuana use.

The challenge is that on one hand you have the MJ lobby and on the other the prohibition folks; both of whom are firm in their positions. In the middle you have the science, which neither side seems willing to embrace, but which on the whole seems to indicate that MJ is not the benign, all healing, wonder drug its proponents make it out to be, and that it may in fact be quite the opposite. There is still much work to be done, as access to good quality clinical samples has always been an issue. Perhaps new data will emerge from those jurisdictions where access to MJ will not be a nearly insurmountable hurdle for researchers.

So, at the risk of guessing... which I am, I would predict that MJ will continue to be verboten for military folks, the legal status of the drug notwithstanding.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2017)

_12 hours bottle to throttle _ for some of us.  8 hours before duty (non-flying).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Nov 2017)

The CAF dilemma is one they will have to struggle with. Whatever their plan, outside of treating it like alcohol, is whether their DAOD can survive a Charter challenge.


----------



## Harris (29 Nov 2017)

The CAF is not seeking an exemption.  So they will have to accept usage and come up with rules and regulations just as for booze.


----------



## RocketRichard (30 Nov 2017)

Harris said:
			
		

> The CAF is not seeking an exemption.  So they will have to accept usage and come up with rules and regulations just as for booze.


Agreed. Don’t show up for duty impaired. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Nov 2017)

I came across this article about the Police in Honolulu ordering firearm owners who were prescribed MMJ to turn in their firearms.

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-police-tell-hawaiian-medical-marijuana-patients


> The Honolulu Police Department has sent letters to local medical marijuana patients ordering them to “voluntarily surrender” their firearms because of their MMJ status.



["voluntarily" as in our Op Honour survey was volunteer I guess].

It made wonder what the US Military position is on MMJ. I couldn't find too much about it but they seem 100% against it as far as I can tell up to and including stating that when it comes to MMJ use there is no "off time" for service members. It seems like the CAF is more open minded to MMJ at least.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I came across this article about the Police in Honolulu ordering firearm owners who were prescribed MMJ to turn in their firearms.
> 
> https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-police-tell-hawaiian-medical-marijuana-patients
> ["voluntarily" as in our Op Honour survey was volunteer I guess].
> ...



I asked a senior member of the Royal Netherland Air Force recently what their marijuana policy is (pot is legal for consumption in the Netherlands).

Even though legal, consumption of pot is grounds for immediate release from the RNLAF. They consider it incompatible with military aviation.

Take that any way you want....


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Nov 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I asked a senior member of the Royal Netherland Air Force recently what their marijuana policy is (pot is legal for consumption in the Netherlands).
> 
> Even though legal, consumption of pot is grounds for immediate release from the RNLAF. They consider it incompatible with military aviation.
> 
> Take that any way you want....



I suppose it's down to semantics.  Pot is still "illegal" in the Netherlands, however consumption is "tolerated".

https://www.government.nl/topics/drugs/toleration-policy-regarding-soft-drugs-and-coffee-shops


> Toleration policy regarding soft drugs
> 
> The Netherlands has a policy of toleration regarding soft drugs. This means that the sale of soft drugs in coffee shops is a criminal offence but the Public Prosecution Service does not prosecute coffee shops for this offence.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Nov 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I suppose it's down to semantics.  Pot is still "illegal" in the Netherlands, however consumption is "tolerated".
> 
> https://www.government.nl/topics/drugs/toleration-policy-regarding-soft-drugs-and-coffee-shops



Fair enough. 

The RNLAF still it views marijuana as incompatible with military aviation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Nov 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I asked a senior member of the Royal Netherland Air Force recently what their marijuana policy is (pot is legal for consumption in the Netherlands).
> 
> Even though legal, consumption of pot is grounds for immediate release from the RNLAF. They consider it incompatible with military aviation.
> 
> Take that any way you want....



I am hopeful the RCAF considers it to be the same, honestly.


----------



## Stoker (5 Jan 2018)

[size=24pt][size=14pt]Canadian military researching how to prevent soldiers from being stoned on the job once pot is legal
Senior commander is prepared to recommend 'control measures' for legalized marijuana[/size][/size]


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stoned-soldiers-military-legalized-marijuana-1.4473638

Ensuring its soldiers, sailors and aircrew are not the slightest bit stoned as they go out the door to war or other hazards is the subject of intense study and debate as the Canadian military looks ahead to this year's expected legalization of marijuana.
The army, navy, air force and special forces are not your average workplaces, and the senior commander in charge of military personnel says he won't hesitate to recommend restrictions and screening should the need arise.
"We're concerned about how folks will be able to do their job," Lt.-Gen. Chuck Lamarre told CBC News.
"And we are concerned about folks who have the challenges of operating heavy equipment, weaponry, who are on call on a regular basis to go and do things, like our [search and rescue] technicians."

 Consider workplace safety, business groups say

The Liberal government's legislation to legalize and regulate recreational use of marijuana is before the Senate. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in an interview before Christmas, said it would be "next summer" before it becomes law.
Workplace safety has figured in some aspects of the pot debate, but Lamarre said the potential for increased use and acceptance among the general population brings with it pressing national security concerns.

Dangerous environments

"We have to be able to protect the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to be able to send men and and women — at a moment's notice — to operate in some very, very dangerous and demanding environments," he said.
Since last spring, a team of military policy experts, including medical, legal and officers on operational duty, has been examining the implications of the legislation and what policies might have to change.
Chuck Lamarre
Lamarre, who oversaw Joint Task Force Afghanistan in 2011, is the Canadian Armed Forces chief of military personnel. He says he is prepared to 'recommend or propose control measures' for marijuana that are based on scientific research. (Murray Brewster/CBC)
Lamarre said it's too soon to know if there will be limits on marijuana use, but he is prepared to "recommend or propose control measures" as long as there's scientific research to back them up.
Employers in the civilian world can prohibit drug and alcohol use in the workplace, with some exceptions for medical marijuana patients.
The military has limited and even banned the consumption of alcohol in specific circumstances, notably in Afghanistan.

'Safety-sensitive' positions


There is a long-established drug testing policy for "safety-sensitive" positions and — as recently has five years ago — National Defence faced an intense internal lobbying campaign from senior commanders who wanted to see the list of jobs subject to screening drastically expanded.
That push failed, and Lamarre noted that, from the point of view of legal rights, the military has to be "very careful how we apply" randomized testing.

    'Do you want some bozo driving a tank to be strung out? No.'
    — Stuart Hendin, lawyer and military  instructor

However, an expert in military and constitutional law said defence officials should not be timid in controlling marijuana use.
Not only would the law be on the side of restrictions and precautions, but so would the public.
"Do you want some bozo driving a tank to be strung out? No," said Stuart Hendin, a lawyer and instructor at the Royal Military College and Canadian Forces College.
"I think the public expects the military, like the police, will be held to a higher standard." The concept that they lead a different life should be drilled into the expectations of those serving, as should the idea of marijuana restrictions and random drug tests.
"The military's function is the management of extreme violence. If you bear that in mind, then the increased restrictions should not be offensive to the community at large," said Hendin.
Lamarre, however, said the military will have to rely on more than just a moral argument.

Defining impairment

He has ordered up a trove of health research, specifically on "what the impact of marijuana can be on the developing brain," said Lamarre.
"We hire the 18-to-25 age group. We want to be aware of what the impact might be on the well-being of those folks who might be consuming this product."
On the legal side, they are looking at what constitutes impairment.
There is no government-approved technology to conduct roadside tests for marijuana impairment, and experts argue urine and blood tests are not useful because regular cannabis users can test positive days —  even weeks —  after the last use.
"How do you deal with that?" Lamarre asks. "Is there a testing technology that is coming around the corner?"
And then there is the question of how military messes, or dining halls, treat marijuana. Alcohol is sold there under licensed conditions.
Lamarre said whether marijuana would be available under similar circumstances is something they haven't even considered.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Jan 2018)

Back in my competitive hockey days I played hockey with a guy who would smoke a joint out behind the arena before every game.  I swear, when this guy was stoned, he had the best stickhandling I've ever seen.  

I'm interested in Marijuana becoming legal solely for the reason that it will now be able to be studied in an academic/clinical setting to see long term cost-benefits of usage.


----------



## angus555 (6 Jan 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Defining impairment
> 
> He has ordered up a trove of health research, specifically on "what the impact of marijuana can be on the developing brain," said Lamarre.
> "We hire the 18-to-25 age group. We want to be aware of what the impact might be on the well-being of those folks who might be consuming this product."
> ...



Why wouldn't a THC saliva test be sufficient? It doesn't prove or suggest a certain level of impairment the same way BAC does for alcohol, but since many workplaces have a zero tolerance policy for alcohol (BAC above zero), couldn't the same zero tolerance rule be applied to THC via saliva test? 

The THC saliva test has a detection window lasting between 4-6 hours, which covers the impairment period. Seems fair to me.

There is more difficulty for the police who have to prove impairment rather than just recent use.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/gazette/finding-a-roadside-drug-test


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jan 2018)

The problem is defining impairment and how long you're effected by the drug. Alcohol has plenty of research to back up the 8/12 hour consumption rules, but there's not enough on pot. Another can of worms opened by rushing legislation through to buy votes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2018)

Aircrew have a "12 hour bottle to throttle" rule;  a saliva test detection window of 4-6 hours is insufficient in that instance, IMO.

Another fuck up of this government that the military is going to have to suffer thru, this whole legal pot crap.  Another example of standards going, or possible going, to shit in the CAF and Canada.


----------



## angus555 (6 Jan 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Aircrew have a "12 hour bottle to throttle" rule;  a saliva test detection window of 4-6 hours is insufficient in that instance, IMO.



A BAC test for alcohol can be insufficient after 4-6 hours too. 

If somebody has BAC of 0.05 g/dL (say 3-4 drinks over an hour), which is enough to suspend their license in most places if caught driving, it would only take the average person (180lbs) about 5 hours to metabolize that alcohol to zero. 

But in that case they could still be in violation of bottle to the throttle. Even the civilian 8 hour rule. 

I think that if it's legal then it's fair to consume on time off. As long as it doesn't violate these kinds of rules. 

But I've never heard anybody complaining about a "weed hangover" with a splitting headache the next day, even though it's possible, it's probably from gorging on junk food.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jan 2018)

But it's not just the acute phase we should be worried about. Cannabis has been shown to cause permanent neurocognitive changes in the brain. The outcome being that people make bad decisions, and they don't care that they've made them. Not exactly what we want in folks who's primary role is the controlled application of violence.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Jan 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> But it's not just the acute phase we should be worried about. Cannabis has been shown to cause permanent neurocognitive changes in the brain. The outcome being that people make bad decisions, and they don't care that they've made them. Not exactly what we want in folks who's primary role is the controlled application of violence.



Posts like this provide me fresh insights into BC politics, at all levels...


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Jan 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> But it's not just the acute phase we should be worried about. Cannabis has been shown to cause permanent neurocognitive changes in the brain. The outcome being that people make bad decisions, and they don't care that they've made them. Not exactly what we want in folks who's primary role is the controlled application of violence.



So does alcohol.   

I have never used illegal drugs and making pot legal won't make me start comsuming it but, while the initial answer may be to disallow it eventually, as we understand more the acute effects of the drug on the human body, the correct course of action will be to draft policies and orders allowing its consumption while providing guidelines on its consumption versus duty, akin to what we have for alcohol.  Like it or not, the Government decided it was okay to consume it.  It'd be hard to disallow it in the CAF when we allow alcohol without being faced with Charter violations...


----------



## angus555 (6 Jan 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> But it's not just the acute phase we should be worried about. Cannabis has been shown to cause permanent neurocognitive changes in the brain. The outcome being that people make bad decisions, and they don't care that they've made them. Not exactly what we want in folks who's primary role is the controlled application of violence.



Sure, let's hope cannabis gets the research it deserves now that its prohibition will end in this country.

If chronic cannabis use results in dangerous neurocognitive changes, then it should be put in the same category as alcohol and many prescription drugs that are currently in use that are well known to cause permanent damage. 

So far given the current research, the long term negative effects of cannabis barely hold a candle to the long term damage that alcohol or many prescription drugs can cause.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2018)

Coming to a Canex near you.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Jan 2018)

Cannabis is being legalized in Canada for the same reasons Prohibition of alcohol in the USA in the 1920's was repealed.
Do the members of our military reflect the same  percentage of illegal cannabis usage as the Canadian population?
Are those members already using it in a manner that doesn't affect them on the job.
Being retired military I am out of date on the answers to these questions. But in the civilian world usage is going the same route as USA probation. Police in the GTA haven't got the resources to arrest and prosecute users.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> A BAC test for alcohol can be insufficient after 4-6 hours too.
> 
> If somebody has BAC of 0.05 g/dL (say 3-4 drinks over an hour), which is enough to suspend their license in most places if caught driving, it would only take the average person (180lbs) about 5 hours to metabolize that alcohol to zero.
> 
> ...



My concern, and I am a complete amateur when it comes to the medical side, is the basic understanding (which I've never seen anything to dispute) is how the active ingredients are stored and released over time.  I can't comment on the credibility of this website, but this shows the difference in how the body uses/stores/eliminates THC over how it does alcohol.  If I drink alcohol, there is a basic *1 hour per 1 standard drink* formula for impairment/elimination of effect on the body/brain.

https://www.sensibleseeds.com/blog/how-long-does-marijuana-stay-in-the-body/

Ref the "the government says its ok" comments, are people suggesting that alone makes this the smart and/or right thing to do?  Or is this a way to tap into additional revenues, or some other motive other than "hey its ok!".

I think this is the wrong move for Canada, as a whole, not just the CAF.     Professionally, I can't imagine aircrew being allowed to smoke up 'because the Liberal government said it was ok';  I trust their judgement based on their track record the past 2 years and there is much to be desired on the judgement skills for folks like me.  Flying the way we do is dangerous enough, I don't like the idea of going up with half-baked folks.  It is like any other drug; there are valid medical uses for it and I've no issue with that.  I do have issue with it being legalized across the board and letting people who do dangerous work like we do 'do it on non duty time'.

My decision, if it is allowed for aircrew, will have to be if I will or will not continue a flying career in the RCAF when the dust settles.  Might be time to do something else if that becomes the case.


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2018)

I don't understand why people are acting like soldiers aren't smoking up right now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't understand why people are acting like soldiers aren't smoking up right now.



Are you?


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Are you?


No. Never much liked the stuff.

Do i know soldiers who openly talk about doing it? Hmmmm...


----------



## Franko (6 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't understand why people are acting like soldiers aren't smoking up right now.



Because it's illegal right now and if found using you'll be put on administrative measures or, in the case of a second test being positive, be dismissed.

Maybe that's why.


----------



## angus555 (6 Jan 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> My concern, and I am a complete amateur when it comes to the medical side, is the basic understanding (which I've never seen anything to dispute) is how the active ingredients are stored and released over time.  I can't comment on the credibility of this website, but this shows the difference in how the body uses/stores/eliminates THC over how it does alcohol.  If I drink alcohol, there is a basic *1 hour per 1 standard drink* formula for impairment/elimination of effect on the body/brain.
> 
> https://www.sensibleseeds.com/blog/how-long-does-marijuana-stay-in-the-body/
> 
> ...



From my experience with both alcohol and cannabis, I'd rather my pilot have smoked a joint yesterday instead of going on a drunken binge, while still meeting the 12 hour requirement. Professionally I'd rather them not do either.

Although I'm not aware of a study that quantifies the acute cognitive impairment over the course of hours since consumption, I don't think it would last much longer than alcohol in the amounts that most people would normally consume. The fact that THC takes a long time to excrete is because it's not water soluble. It could be weeks before it's completely eliminated, but that doesn't mean it's still having an effect. More studies are needed.

EDIT 
http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3037578/

There is definitely potential for residual effects, but it's for heavy chronic users of cannabis. I'd say the same thing goes for alcohol, though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> No. Never much liked the stuff.
> 
> Do i know soldiers who openly talk about doing it? Hmmmm...



And when you heard them openly talking about using it illegally you just ignored it, right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't understand why people are acting like soldiers aren't smoking up right now.



I am not.  I know some do, as some also break the regs on family violence, drunk driving, and various other laws of varying degrees of severity.  

Service members breaking rules and regulations and laws is now an argument to just doing away with those rules, regulations and laws ???

Let's not fuck around then, let's remove murder from the laws as well.  People are committing murder in Canada after all...why are we pretending they're not?


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2018)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Because it's illegal right now and if found using you'll be put on administrative measures or, in the case of a second test being positive, be dismissed.
> 
> Maybe that's why.


Ya, sure.

From a administrative standpoint there is a difference. From a practical one, there isn't. There are soldiers using cannabis on their free time now and to date, I havent seen them forced to pee in a cup outside of the blind tests the CF does on occasion. 

But as far as I know, the CF hasn't fallen apart, these soldiers do their jobs (some are even the golden boys) and all of doom and gloom people are currently talking about hasn't come to pass.

I, personally, don't think things would change that much once its legal.


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> And when you heard them openly talking about using it illegally you just ignored it, right?


Not all Sigs are blades.

Seriously though, the CF does blind drug testing, they know what percentage of soldiers are doing drugs, they don't need me to single them out.


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am not.  I know some do, as some also break the regs on family violence, drunk driving, and various other laws of varying degrees of severity.
> 
> Service members breaking rules and regulations and laws is now an argument to just doing away with those rules, regulations and laws ???
> 
> Let's not frig around then, let's remove murder from the laws as well.  People are committing murder in Canada after all...why are we pretending they're not?


Not the point I was trying to make.

The point I was trying to make was people talking about the horrible things that would result from soldiers being allowed to legally light up, while somehow ignoring that these things aren't happening now while soldiers are illegally lighting up.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> From my experience with both alcohol and cannabis, I'd rather my pilot have smoked a joint yesterday instead of going on a drunken binge, while still meeting the 12 hour requirement. Professionally I'd rather them not do either.



I can spot someone who is still under the effects, even minor, of alcohol though.  I can smell it on their breath, even after the 12 hour deal.  Pot?  That is to be determined.



> Although I'm not aware of a study that quantifies the acute cognitive impairment over the course of hours since consumption, I don't think it would last much longer than alcohol in the amounts that most people would normally consume. The fact that THC takes a long time to excrete is because it's not water soluble. It could be weeks before it's completely eliminated, but that doesn't mean it's still having an effect. More studies are needed.



If the studies show that THC is stored in fat (I accept that as reasonable fact from my amateur research skills) and that things like exercise can lead to 'more being released into the bloodstream' days or weeks down the road, wouldn't that make it possible that an infanteer involved in a TIC and humping shit around could experience the effects of the drug in the bloodstream during the period of 'exercise'?

One example of a reasonable concern.  I am hopeful the CAF SMEs (medical, legal, operational, etc) are giving this a good long, hard look.  Personally, I've seen pot be the picture perfect gateway drug and know more than one person in my life who started there and fell down the slippery slope...admittedly, I've also known people who got into significant trouble with alcohol as well, but my concern here is with the way the body stores/process/eliminates THC compared to alcohol.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Ya, sure.
> 
> From a administrative standpoint there is a difference. From a practical one, there isn't. There are soldiers using cannabis on their free time now and to date, I havent seen them forced to pee in a cup outside of the blind tests the CF does on occasion.
> 
> ...



I am more concerned with the generation, maybe your generation, of service members who seem to think that rules, regs and policy only count if they get caught.  And that they seemingly can decide on their own which ones they do and don't follow.  And that, as you admit yourself, you and others know of people buzzing up illegally and don't have the balls or discipline to do anything about it because, as I mentioned, you feel entitled or whatever to decide which rules are, and aren't, followed.

Hopefully you, and others, get sorted out before you also make those types of decisions about extremely important things, like which aspects of an ROE you follow and which ones are...meh.  no biggy.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Not all Sigs are blades.



Is there a list of what illegal activity sigs do and don't report?  Would you report them for openly talking about doing mushrooms?



> Seriously though, the CF does blind drug testing, they know what percentage of soldiers are doing drugs, they don't need me to single them out.


Lifes easy when it's always someone else's problem.


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am more concerned with the generation, maybe your generation, of service members who seem to think that rules, regs and policy only count if they get caught.  And that they seemingly can decide on their own which ones they do and don't follow.  And that, as you admit yourself, you and others know of people buzzing up illegally and don't have the balls or discipline to do anything about it because, as I mentioned, you feel entitled or whatever to decide which rules are, and aren't, followed.
> 
> Hopefully you, and others, get sorted out before you also make those types of decisions about extremely important things, like which aspects of an ROE you follow and which ones are...meh.  no biggy.


You would be very disappointed if you knew how many soldiers ignore that rule, of that I am sure. 

Like...my entire unit.


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is there a list of what illegal activity sigs do and don't report?  Would you report them for openly talking about doing mushrooms?
> Lifes easy when it's always someone else's problem.


You have never met a soldier who broke a rule?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Not the point I was trying to make.
> 
> The point I was trying to make was people talking about the horrible things that would result from soldiers being allowed to legally light up, while somehow ignoring that these things aren't happening now while soldiers are illegally lighting up.



How do you know things are happening now with those illegally lighting up?  I can guarantee one thing that is happening...they are going against their commitment to Canada, Canadians and all serving members.  I find that somewhat significant, if others do not.  My job is laid out fairly simple for me, really, as is yours as a NCM.  What is your excuse for failing to perform your duties IAW the NDA?  Are you disloyal, or lazy, or just part of the "I can decide what rules apply to me" crowd?   

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/toc-05.page

5.01- GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

A non-commissioned member *shall*:

a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce
i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act, (5 June 2008)
iii.QR&O, and
iv.*all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties*;

(See articles 1.22 – Accessibility of Regulations, Orders and Instructions and 4.26 – Publicity of Regulations, Orders, Instructions, Correspondence and Publications.)

b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all who are subordinate to the member;
d.ensure the proper care and maintenance and prevent the waste of all public and non-public property within the member's control; and
e.*report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline*.

I've happened across people who were slightly over the 12 hour rule (innocently, in fact) BUT as a person holding a Lead appointment signed by my CO as well as knowing the above duties expected of me, I didn't turn a blind eye and say "meh".  I reminded the individual, both superior and subordinate in rank in several different situations, that they were into the 12 hour window.  As a Snr NCO, and a crew Lead, and whatever else I may be in my current position, I don't have to authority to disregard my duties.  In fact, I get paid by government and taxpayers of Canada to perform my duties as expected...which is laid out above in the QR & O.

People like you, who turn a blind eye and let shit continue to go sideways wearing a uniform and progressing higher in rank worry me as much as all CAF members being allowed to get stoned on the weekends, to be honest.  

Not meant to be harsh or a personal attack, I don't know you personally.  You do present yourself as someone who is turning a blind eye knowing people are breaking some serious CAF regulations, and that is what my post was meant to address;  the danger this mentality presents to a military force.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> You would be very disappointed if you knew how many soldiers ignore that rule, of that I am sure.
> 
> Like...my entire unit.



Your entire unit is ignoring which rule?  Smoking up?

Do you include your CO, CWO...all the Officers, Warrant Officers and Snr NCOs??


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Your entire unit is ignoring which rule?  Smoking up?
> 
> Do you include your CO, CWO...all the Officers, Warrant Officers and Snr NCOs??


I have no first hand knowledge of who knows what, what I do know is that those who have been doing it, have been relatively open about it with their peers have suffered no negative consequences or individual drug testing.

Take from that what you will. 

Still, completely besides the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> You have never met a soldier who broke a rule?


Not filling out a multi-user sheet is breaking a rule. Openly talking (bragging?) about doing illegal drugs is something else. As is ignoring it IMVO.

Sorry man but your unit sounds like shit.


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not filling out a multi-user sheet is breaking a rule. Openly talking (bragging?) about doing illegal drugs is something else. As is ignoring it IMVO.
> 
> Sorry man but your unit sounds like crap.


I can't argue that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I have no first hand knowledge of who knows what, what I do know is that those who have been doing it, have been relatively open about it with their peers have suffered no negative consequences or individual drug testing.
> 
> Take from that what you will.



What I take from that is a group of CAF members who aren't doing their sworn duty on many levels and, as you present it, a pathetic CofC that should be investigated and replaced.

 :2c:


----------



## Scott (7 Jan 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can spot someone who is still under the effects, even minor, of alcohol though.  I can smell it on their breath, even after the 12 hour deal.  Pot?  That is to be determined.



With your time in and varied locations, it's not to be determined: I'd be willing to wager a large part of my pay that you've already worked with someone who was hitting the old electric lettuce and you didn't have a sweet clue. That's not finger pointing or anything, just a simple statement.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jan 2018)

They would have to be more circumspect than l was as a young guy.  It was obvious when l'd had some lettuce.  But, you're right, Scott.  I had a friend tell me when he was leaving the CF that he had been using for the past year for pain management. Never noticed any change in his demeanor.


----------



## Scott (7 Jan 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They would have to be more circumspect than l was as a young guy.  It was obvious when l'd had some lettuce.  But, you're right, Scott.  I had a friend tell me when he was leaving the CF that he had been using for the past year for pain management. Never noticed any change in his demeanor.



My brother-in-law partakes. Quite a bit, from what I can see. Easiest way to tell he's been at it just by looking at his shop: he'll be on to the fine detail work, and doing it well. The last time I hung quarter round he recommended I have a hoot just to stay sane ;D 

In all seriousness, I have worked with guys who liked pot and guys who liked booze. Without exception, I would rather the guy who smokes a bit of grass compared to someone who'd been at the bottle the night before - and sometimes 8, or even 12, hours ain't enough.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2018)

Scott said:
			
		

> With your time in and varied locations, it's not to be determined: I'd be willing to wager a large part of my pay that you've already worked with someone who was hitting the old electric lettuce and you didn't have a sweet clue. That's not finger pointing or anything, just a simple statement.



And I agree 100%, which is my point.  If someone is impaired by alcolhol from givin' er the night before, I can, likely, still tell just by talking to them.  Weed?  Not so much, for me at least.

I've no doubt that someone is, and that worries me.  I hope it's the person making the flight feeding and not the Avn Tech fixing the plane I'll be in this week.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Jan 2018)

Scott said:
			
		

> My brother-in-law partakes. Quite a bit, from what I can see. Easiest way to tell he's been at it just by looking at his shop: he'll be on to the fine detail work, and doing it well. The last time I hung quarter round he recommended I have a hoot just to stay sane ;D
> 
> In all seriousness, I have worked with guys who liked pot and guys who liked booze. Without exception, I would rather the guy who smokes a bit of grass compared to someone who'd been at the bottle the night before - and sometimes 8, or even 12, hours ain't enough.



All of these anecdotes are fine, but what I actually want is the scientific/medical evidence on how marijuana users react in a military aviation environment. We have a tonne of research for alcohol usage and our rules do a pretty good job of governing its usage.


----------



## Scott (7 Jan 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> All of these anecdotes are fine, but what I actually want is the scientific/medical evidence on how marijuana users react in a military aviation environment. We have a tonne of research for alcohol usage and our rules do a pretty good job of governing its usage.



Which is why I don't bridge from sawing mitres to driving boats or turning wrenches on choppers.

We do not have much clearly defined as a way ahead in my job, either. Currently we work pretty much the same as you folks re: restrictions on party favors - expect we have no booze at sea. I do not see a change for us. "Safety sensitive" and all.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jan 2018)

> The effects of marijuana on human physical aggression.
> 
> Myerscough, Rodney Taylor, Stuart P.
> Citation
> ...




Mellow troopies?  Is that desirable?


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jan 2018)

Australian Transportation Safety Board 2004



> Cannabis is a commonly used recreational drug, which has widespread effects within the body.
> Smoking is the most common form of administration. The adverse effects of cannabis on
> behaviour, cognitive function and psychomotor performance are dose-dependent and related to
> task difficulty. Complex tasks such as driving or flying are particularly sensitive to the
> ...



https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36696/Cannabis_pilot_performance.pdf


----------



## angus555 (7 Jan 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And I agree 100%, which is my point.  If someone is impaired by alcolhol from givin' er the night before, I can, likely, still tell just by talking to them.  Weed?  Not so much, for me at least.
> 
> I've no doubt that someone is, and that worries me.  I hope it's the person making the flight feeding and not the Avn Tech fixing the plane I'll be in this week.



Within a few hours of either drinking or smoking a joint (in the critical time frame IMO), it's probably easier to tell that someone had smoked a joint. Especially if you get into an enclosed space with them.

It's not easy to hide.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Jan 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> Within a few hours of either drinking or smoking a joint (in the critical time frame IMO), it's probably easier to tell that someone had smoked a joint. Especially if you get into an enclosed space with them.
> 
> It's not easy to hide.



I get that.

What I want to know is, since THC is stored in fat, what happens a few days/weeks/months down the road when a stressful don't occurs (like combat or an aircraft emergency) and that THC laden fat gets released back into the blood stream. What happens? Something? Nothing?

I would also like to know what changes (if any) are happening to brain cognition functions over the long run and what (if any) effects there are in a high altitude (8000 ft cabin pressure, of higher) environment. No effect on blood oxygenation? Some? A lot?


----------



## angus555 (7 Jan 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I get that.
> 
> What I want to know is, since THC is stored in fat, what happens a few days/weeks/months down the road when a stressful don't occurs (like combat or an aircraft emergency) and that THC laden fat gets released back into the blood stream. What happens? Something? Nothing?



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24674455
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24018317

There's conflicting research on whether exercise or fasting can increase blood levels of THC. Even in the case where exercise has been found to temporarily increase THC in blood, it's more relevant for the purpose of drug testing rather than impairment.



> I would also like to know what changes (if any) are happening to brain cognition functions over the long run and what (if any) effects there are in a high altitude (8000 ft cabin pressure, of higher) environment. No effect on blood oxygenation? Some? A lot?



At least for habitually smoking it (or smoking anything really), I wouldn't be surprised if pulmonary function went down the crapper.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2018)

If we treat it like alcohol then I wonder if members will be allowed to have some over lunch? Or at the men's Xmas dinner or after exercise smokers?  Sell it through the wainwright canteen after 6pm?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24674455
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24018317
> 
> There's conflicting research on whether exercise or fasting can increase blood levels of THC. Even in the case where exercise has been found to temporarily increase THC in blood, it's more relevant for the purpose of drug testing rather than impairment.
> ...



Focusing on the military aviation side...I know the allowable limit of alcohol for flying is zero.  None.  As soon as an aircrew member has a sip of alcohol, they are restricted from flying for 12 hours, that's in the orders black and white. 

If exercise temporarily increases THC in the blood...then that's a problem.  Should we risk an airframe and crew (we can fly with 20 people on board, for example)?  What if that plane and crew slam into an urban area with heavy population...see where this can go quickly?  You'd be surprised at home much your heart rate goes up and the body reacts to airborne emergencies or flying over hostile areas.  What happens then...a small amount of THC is released?  Why would that be ok, but not a sip of alcohol?

IAW our flying orders, I am not supposed to self medicate on a weekend with Nyquil for a bad cold and then fly...or any medication with flying not approved by a Flight Surgeon, actually.  The Pharm O couldn't give me Imodium for preventative measures before leaving on a trip recently until the Flt Surgeon signed off on it.  It's taken pretty seriously in the flying community IMO.

For some very good reasons, I am personally hopeful we will maintain our 12 hours bottle to throttle rules and we will not have any 'XX hours toke to yoke' rules to deal with in the future.  If we do...like I said, might be time to find something else to do.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (7 Jan 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Focusing on the military aviation side...
> 
> IAW our flying orders, I am not supposed to self medicate on a weekend with Nyquil for a bad cold and then fly...or any medication with flying not approved by a Flight Surgeon, actually.



Fully aware that Transport Canada rules do not apply to military aviation, but the CF is not the only one who has to apply rules in the operation of flying machines and there is likely some consultation/coordination between the two authorities.  Therefore, what is the TC position.

From an article in November https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Transport-Canada-Reinforces-Pot-Ban-229907-1.html



> Transport Canada is reminding pilots that while the rest of the country may be changing its attitude toward marijuana, it hasn’t relaxed its stance. On July 1, 2018, possession of small amounts of pot and its recreational use will be legal in Canada. Provinces are developing intoxication detection and enforcement standards for drivers caught impaired behind the wheel. TC officials told delegates to the Air Transport Association of Canada meeting last week that any amount of TCH, the psychoactive chemical in cannabis, found in a pilot’s bloodstream will result in immediate suspension of flight privileges and that will last until the TCH is flushed from his or her system. Unlike water-soluble ethanol, TCH attaches to body fat and can persist for varying periods of time at detectable levels after one exposure.  . . .



Of course, the detection of that miniscule residual of pot may be a problem, but are the typical aircrew such dirtbags that the expectation is there will be a widespread violation of flying orders when they include whatever new rules concerning recreational and medicinal cannabis use.  So if the CF adopts a similar position then it becomes a leadership issue (as it should be) and discussion as to number of hours "from toking pot to twirling prop" becomes moot and the problem of being aware which aircrew is using pot is no different than the current situation.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (7 Jan 2018)

I’ve been scanning this thread off and on and I think it’s important to bring forward another facet of the issue that I don’t think has been touched on yet. (If it has, apologies, I missed it.)

There have been significant scientific articles written on the causation between cannabis and psychiatric disorders, mainly bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia. While there’s no diffinitive evidence (yet) that frequent/prolonged usage of the drug concretely causes the  disorders, there IS evidence which supports that when genetic components are present, *some* users are prone to developing those psychiatric disorders and others. (As well, direct correlation has been proven that cannabis usage heavily exacerbates certain mental-health conditions.)

While there are varied environmental and genetic triggers to certain brain-chemical disorders, is it worth risking telling already regular users (some of whom we’ve already ascertained are serving) to have at’er? 

Besides the studies available, I have also witnessed first-hand how marijuana negatively affects some mental-health issues. Is it the same for everyone? Absolutely not. 

I simply think this is a situation which renders far more scrutiny and study before it becomes a free-for-all. Undoubtedly, people raise the argument of mentioning the countries where it’s been legal for many years. That’s all well and good. But some of those same countries also have medical articles available to the general public outlining mental-health issues attributed to incessant usage and will also state that more research is needed into the overall risk.

I’m not anti-pot. It’s personally not my thing—to each their own. But I do believe it’s fair to say that enough evidence hasn’t been gathered to support it being a ‘safe’ substance, or what criteria needs to be applied regarding its use.

A couple of articles ref mental-health & cannabis:

Cannabis and Schizophrenia: Trigger or Treatment?

http://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/schizophrenia-and-psychoses/cannabis-and-schizophrenia-trigger-or-treatment/article/399675/


Cannabis-Induced Bipolar Disorder with Psychotic Features: A case report

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811144/


----------



## angus555 (7 Jan 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Focusing on the military aviation side...I know the allowable limit of alcohol for flying is zero.  None.  As soon as an aircrew member has a sip of alcohol, they are restricted from flying for 12 hours, that's in the orders black and white.
> 
> If exercise temporarily increases THC in the blood...then that's a problem.  Should we risk an airframe and crew (we can fly with 20 people on board, for example)?  What if that plane and crew slam into an urban area with heavy population...see where this can go quickly?  You'd be surprised at home much your heart rate goes up and the body reacts to airborne emergencies or flying over hostile areas.  What happens then...a small amount of THC is released?  Why would that be ok, but not a sip of alcohol?
> 
> ...



I definitely agree with you on the whole 'toke to yoke' can of worms.

The above posted Australian study on stoned simulator pilots was great information.
For a follow up study, I'm sure there's many more stoner/boozer pilots out there that would jump in the sim for a good competition with the Australians.  ;D

Aside from that, talking about small amounts of THC reminded me of our natural endocannabinoid system, which is activated by cannabis use.
Turns out that exercise and stress activate the endocannabinoid system too, which is thought to be responsible for the high that people get from exercise.

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/phys-ed-what-really-causes-runners-high/


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Feb 2018)

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/vance-stoned-soldiers-1.4553011

The latest on electric lettuce and the CAF.


----------



## RocketRichard (26 Feb 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/vance-stoned-soldiers-1.4553011
> 
> The latest on electric lettuce and the CAF.


The ideas being bandied about by the CDS seem reasonable. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Will M (6 Mar 2018)

pilots are not supposed to drink X hours before flying too but they do it.  Controlling the pot issue will be of concern, who wants someone high working with them on heavy equipment, stuff that can injure or kill you if your mind isn't there.
There is no necessity for using pot except for some forms of pain management.  I don't think it's a good idea for the CF to allow its use for their personnel.
Unless you want Trudeau directly controlling the military just imagine what it would look like eh? I would guess a non functioning military.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2018)

Will M said:
			
		

> pilots are not supposed to drink X hours before flying too but they do it.  Controlling the pot issue will be of concern, who wants someone high working with them on heavy equipment, stuff that can injure or kill you if your mind isn't there.
> There is no necessity for using pot except for some forms of pain management.  I don't think it's a good idea for the CF to allow its use for their personnel.
> Unless you want Trudeau directly controlling the military just imagine what it would look like eh? I would guess a non functioning military.



Not looking for a fight, just some clarification.

Are you stating, that you have witnessed CAF pilots flying under the influence?

Could you point me to your peer study review of your research into the medical effects of cannabis? I've seen and heard lots from others. Much conflicting. I'd like to read your professional opinion.

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2018)

Will M said:
			
		

> Unless you want Trudeau directly controlling the military just imagine what it would look like eh? I would guess a non functioning military.



 ;D   Trudeau v 2.0 is following in the footsteps of Trudeau v 1.0.  Off topic, but perhaps you should do some reading on PET and make some comparisons with today's version.  

Now I return you back to Cannabis.


----------



## Strike (6 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not looking for a fight, just some clarification.
> 
> Are you stating, that you have witnessed CAF pilots flying under the influence?
> 
> ...



Yeah, as a former pilot myself, I found that statement pretty insulting.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2018)

C'mon Will, you were here this afternoon, how about our questions? Do we get answers? I'm looking for some weekend reading and your your medical studies would be good reading.

I'm not in anymore, but I worked a flight line for a few years. I never saw a CAF pilot under the influence, that I could tell, and was just wondering where, when and what kind of aircraft you saw being flown by someone under the influence?

I do have things this weekend though, so if I don't get your study or hear from you before then, that's OK.

Cheers.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Mar 2018)

I can see the future of roadside checks by the Military Police in the not too far distant future.

https://youtu.be/2PLC_cBJwk4


----------



## mariomike (9 Apr 2018)

Adding for reference to the discussion.

People smoking marijuana who have bouts of pain and vomiting can cure it ...by not smoking marijuana.

QUOTE

April 5, 2018

The New York Times
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/well/a-perplexing-marijuana-side-effect-relieved-by-hot-showers.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

END QUOTE


----------



## Stoker (9 Apr 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Adding for reference to the discussion.
> 
> People smoking marijuana who have bouts of pain and vomiting can cure it ...by not smoking marijuana.
> 
> ...



Don't you know that's a myth perpetuated by big pharma.


----------



## mariomike (9 Apr 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Don't you know that's a myth perpetuated by big pharma.



I just know what I read in the papers. That's an alibi for my ignorance.


----------



## Stoker (9 Apr 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I just know what I read in the papers. That's an alibi for my ignorance.




Would that be the High Times or the New York Times ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Apr 2018)

Cannabis Hyperemmesis Syndrome has been described in the literature since 1974. This is not a new phenomenon. The new thing is the frequency with which it turns up in the ER.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Apr 2018)

Kids today are allergic to everything. ;D

Given the amount of people that partake and the amount of people that present with symtoms, that is a hugely large gap. All kinds of people have unexpected reactions to all kinds of things. Some people get reactions from food or drink or nature.

Cannabis Hyperemmesis Syndrome is well known in the community. Take a hot shower.


----------



## Stoker (10 Apr 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Kids today are allergic to everything. ;D
> 
> Given the amount of people that partake and the amount of people that present with symtoms, that is a hugely large gap. All kinds of people have unexpected reactions to all kinds of things. Some people get reactions from food or drink or nature.
> 
> Cannabis Hyperemmesis Syndrome is well known in the community. Take a hot shower.



*Pathogenesis*

Various pathogenic mechanistic theories attempting to explain symptoms have been put forward. These theories follow two themes: 1) dose dependent buildup of cannabinoids and related effects of cannabinoid toxicity, and 2) the functionality of cannabinoid receptors in the brain and particularly in the hypothalamus (which regulates body temperature and the digestive system). But the mechanisms by which cannabis causes or controls nausea and the adverse consequences of long-term cannabis toxicity remain unknown and organic disease should not be ruled out as a possible cause.

*Treatment*

Many traditional medications for nausea and vomiting are ineffective. However, treatment with lorazepam or haloperidol has provided relief for some people. Assessing for dehydration due to vomiting and hot showers is important as it can lead to cannabinoid hyperemesis acute renal failure (CHARF), and this is easily treated with IV fluids. Treatment is otherwise supportive and focuses on stopping cannabis use.

*Prognosis*

Acute episodes of cannabinoid hyperemesis typically last for 24–48 hours and the problem often resolves with long term stopping of cannabis use. Improvement can take one to three months to occur.

Relapses are common, and this is thought to be possibly secondary to a lack of education as many people use or increase their use of cannabis due to their symptoms of nausea and vomiting.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> *Pathogenesis*
> 
> Various pathogenic mechanistic theories attempting to explain symptoms have been put forward. These theories follow two themes: 1) dose dependent buildup of cannabinoids and related effects of cannabinoid toxicity, and 2) the functionality of cannabinoid receptors in the brain and particularly in the hypothalamus (which regulates body temperature and the digestive system). But the mechanisms by which cannabis causes or controls nausea and the adverse consequences of long-term cannabis toxicity remain unknown and organic disease should not be ruled out as a possible cause.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the cut and paste. Gives a nice synopsis of the condition.

Was there a point, or just info?


----------



## Stoker (10 Apr 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the cut and paste. Gives a nice synopsis of the condition.
> 
> Was there a point, or just info?



No just to point out what it is as some may not have known.


----------



## TQMS (15 May 2018)

Para 4 cut straight from the Armed Forces Management Board - Record of Discussion. Dated 27 March 2018.


----------



## Shrek1985 (15 May 2018)

Well, given as the Military is so terrified of public opinion, let's all go out and ask randoms what they think of soldiers getting stoned and I think we'll have our answer pretty quick.

Any partial prohibition on cannabis use in the CF will be the most unenforceable order in the past decade.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 May 2018)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Any partial prohibition on cannabis use in the CF will be the most unenforceable order in the past decade.



Curious as to why you think that.  Alcohol is sold in various locations around Canada, and it's use is controlled and/or restricted for military people based on known effects on performance, etc.  We have alcohol misuse corrective measures based on policy such as DAOD 5019-7:

RCAF - 12 hours bottle to throttle rule is always in effect.  Additionally, orders recently came out restricting the use of alcohol to 2 drink per a 12 hour period while on operations (if permitted at all) and now on exercises.  Even if a crew is off the flying schedule for 36 hours - 2 per.  

If the CAF can restrict the use of alcohol, why would it be different for legalized dope?

Of course, we'll have to wait to see what the actual policy is, but at a recent Townhall, it was brought up and while no examples were given, it was suggested that the policy might restrict some trades/classifications more than others (is there a safe level of consumption for a HR Admin compared to a SAR Tech, based on the requirements of their duties) and, like alcohol, during deployments, etc.


----------



## CountDC (17 May 2018)

anyone else find the RCN concern a bit funny.  Seems to me to be simple enough - regulation would be if it is not legal in the country you are visiting then you do not get to do it.  Better yet ban it completely from the ship as an operational safety factor.  Unlike having a drink where you are the only one affected having a puff affects everyone around you that ends up breathing in the fumes.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 May 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> anyone else find the RCN concern a bit funny.  Seems to me to be simple enough - regulation would be if it is not legal in the country you are visiting then you do not get to do it.  Better yet ban it completely from the ship as an operational safety factor.  Unlike having a drink where you are the only one affected having a puff affects everyone around you that ends up breathing in the fumes.



Even if it is banned from operational ships, never underestimate the power of stupid. Mark my words, some dope is going to get thrown in jail in some foreign country because "hey it's legal and you can't tell me what to do".


----------



## CountDC (17 May 2018)

Not in the navy, never. 

That is just exotic cigars wafting from the breezeway.  
 :facepalm:

At least then we can say he was told not to when his family cries that we left him to rot in jail.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 May 2018)

On the plus side, none of that would affect NDHQ.  Which is reasonable, given that heavy marijuana use is legitimate explanation for the decisions made in Ottawa.  ;D


----------



## dogger1936 (17 May 2018)

Dutch soldiers in Bosnia were fined 50 Euro if they were caught red handed smoking cannabis on tour. Came up during conversation many moons ago. I'm sure if the dutch have managed to keep a military going with the introduction of pot, Canada will manage too.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 May 2018)

My understanding, in recently speaking to a Dutch Officer, that cannabis usage is now grounds for release, at least from their Air Force.


----------



## Gunner98 (18 May 2018)

The latest I have heard is that they are considering a 24-hour before duty cap and that some trades will be considered safety sensitive with longer time caps.  If you start your workday at 0700 on Monday morning than your last hit exhale will have to be at 0700 on Sunday.  The challenge is having an effective testing mechanism for impairment on duty sensitive enough to detect that you exhaled at 0705 on Sunday morning.  It is and will remain a risk mitigation issue with poor enforcement procedures.  The current incidence of cocaine and fentanyl use by CAF members pose far greater risks.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 May 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> The latest I have heard is that they are considering a 24-hour before duty cap and that some trades will be considered safety sensitive with longer time caps.  If you start your workday at 0700 on Monday morning than your last hit exhale will have to be at 0700 on Sunday.  The challenge is having an effective testing mechanism for impairment on duty sensitive enough to detect that you exhaled at 0705 on Sunday morning.  It is and will remain a risk mitigation issue with poor enforcement procedures.  The current incidence of cocaine and fentanyl use by CAF members pose far greater risks.



We have no mean now to ensure members did not drink in the 8 hrs before duty or 12 hrs before flying and the world isn't falling.  If you suspect someone is impaired (alcohol or drugs), you should either challenge the individual or bring it up to the attention of the CoC.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 May 2018)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Dutch soldiers in Bosnia were fined 50 Euro if they were caught red handed smoking cannabis on tour. Came up during conversation many moons ago. I'm sure if the dutch have managed to keep a military going with the introduction of pot, Canada will manage too.



Which explains the crime of Srebrenica, right?


----------



## RubberTree (19 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Which explains the crime of Srebrenica, right?



Full disclosure, I had to google Srebrenica to try and understand your post. 
I still don't understand your point though. Are you implying that a genocide occurred in part because of lax marijuana rules on behalf of the Dutch?
Its a serious question.
RT


----------



## dogger1936 (19 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Which explains the crime of Srebrenica, right?



Source?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Which explains the crime of Srebrenica, right?





			
				RubberTree said:
			
		

> Full disclosure, I had to google Srebrenica to try and understand your post.
> I still don't understand your point though. Are you implying that a genocide occurred in part because of lax marijuana rules on behalf of the Dutch?
> Its a serious question.
> RT





			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Source?



Not that I claim to know the thought processes of D&B, but doesn't anyone understand sarcasm (even if the humour isn't patently obvious)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M


----------



## RubberTree (19 May 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Not that I claim to know the thought processes of D&B, but doesn't anyone understand sarcasm (even if the humour isn't patently obvious)?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M



I must have missed the humor...maybe it was buried under 7000 bodies?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 May 2018)

RubberTree said:
			
		

> I must have missed the humor...maybe it was buried under 7000 bodies?



People involved in death trades, medical, law enforcement and military to name a few, deal with things using black humour. If you live it, you understand it. If you don't live it, you likely never will understand it.

We don't need anyone moralizing someone else's coping mechanisms. Especially here. If it offends you, please move on.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 May 2018)

Sure, use that kind of humour amongst peers, in private.  Don't do so on a public forum.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 May 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Sure, use that kind of humour amongst peers, in private.  Don't do so on a public forum.



Maybe it wasn't humour but a hypothesis about what happened. Seems like they had drug and discipline problem. Maybe there is a coralation to their actions leading up to the massicure.


----------



## Lumber (23 May 2018)

"The RCAF is considering a zero-tolerance policy based on the principle that i fights from its Wings."

What does "fighting from it's Wings" mean, and what does that have to do with recreational marijuana use?

Anyways, I don't think such a policy would _fly _with the CDS (see what I did there? ).

In a previous statement by the CDS, he said that the CAF rules regarding recreational marijuana would "make sense" and be well thought out, and I think he even said (or at least alluded to) the idea that an "outright ban" does not make sense. If someone can find the quote; help me out.

So, does an outright ban by the RCAF make sense? I don't see how it does. If the CAF is going to say that "there are some circumstances where it is permissible, and others were it is not", then does it make sense for the RCAF to say that everyone, including the clerks at the school in Cornwall, who won't be flying anytime soon, can't have a puff on a Friday night? It doesn't to me.

That being said, I'm very surprised that they're going to allow recreational put use in the CAF. While I personally think that there are thousands of positions in the CAF where safety wouldn't be jeopardized if the people filling those positions smoked pot on their spare time, I do think that there are positions where absolutely safety would be jeopardized, and I don't think we have the tools, yet, to ensure that those we need to_ not _smoke pot _don't_.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 May 2018)

Where did you see that "RCAF is considering..." part?


----------



## mariomike (23 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Where did you see that "RCAF is considering..." part?



Reply #228


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 May 2018)

tks!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 May 2018)

I suspect the RCAF will not be allowed to restrict it totally, but will be able to restrict it by trade or position, like the RCN is proposing for divers and submariners.  Anyone in a certain trade or trade/position combination will be restricted.  Is it necessary, though, for say a Supply tech working the counter at Wg Clothing to have the same restrictions as aircrew in active flying positions or techs fixing aircraft?  I think it will be aligned more to 'anyone conducting or directly supporting flying operations', which in itself is a fairly wide net on a Wing.  

I've never heard the term 'we fight from our Wings' before.


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Jun 2018)

Senate passes cannabis legalization bill in final vote
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senate-passes-cannabis-legalization-bill-in-final-vote-1.3980234

Still some steps before it's in place, but guess that means the official policy will be out soon?

Curious to see what they do; I can see restricting it, but only for certain positions (same as they do for alcohol).  Would be pretty stupid to blanket restrict it for a trade, as there are a bunch riding desks in HQs that would probably love to be flying/jumping out of airplanes/diving etc.

Would be funny if the implementation coincided with updated dress regs that allowed goatees and man buns though.  Maybe they should try some cannabis to calm their nerves?  ;D


----------



## Ern88 (19 Jun 2018)

On the Navy side.  The scuttlebutt is that if you are posted to a ship.  There will be 0 tolerance on the use of cannabis.  And the only time you would be able to use it if you are posted ashore.  I am sure there will be direction incoming from the CDS in the coming days though.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (19 Jun 2018)

Ern88 said:
			
		

> On the Navy side.  The scuttlebutt is that if you are posted to a ship.  There will be 0 tolerance on the use of cannabis.  And the only time you would be able to use it if you are posted ashore.  I am sure there will be direction incoming from the CDS in the coming days though.



I can't see it being as broad as restricting it to all ship positions. I would guess restricted to ready duty ship personnel, ships under 48 hours (possibly changed to 72 hours) notice, and foreign ports. Although a foreign port news story is one we are destined to see.


----------



## Lumber (20 Jun 2018)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> I can't see it being as broad as restricting it to all ship positions. I would guess restricted to ready duty ship personnel, ships under 48 hours (possibly changed to 72 hours) notice, and foreign ports. Although a foreign port news story is one we are destined to see.



I could see it being banned to all posted to ships. 

I could also see it being delegated to CO's discretion. 

I could also see it being banned for use by all officers. 

I could also see it banned for use by anyone in training.

I could also see it banned for everyone required to handle weapons.

I could see it banned for a motor different reasons; some to me that seem reasonable, and others that I don't. Until we hear more, it's all just conjecture and scuttlebutt.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jun 2018)

I'm already seeing the barrack room lawyers talking about redressing their C&Ps for being caught with marijuana and how happy they are its legal.

We're just finding the balance now between folks who had liquor bottles in their desks at work and prohibition, can't wait until troops starting showing up stoned. :facepalm:


----------



## TQMS (21 Jun 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm already seeing the barrack room lawyers talking about redressing their C&Ps for being caught with marijuana and how happy they are its legal.
> 
> We're just finding the balance now between folks who had liquor bottles in their desks at work and prohibition, can't wait until troops starting showing up stoned. :facepalm:



Some interesting times ahead for the next little bit and I am not looking forward to any of it.


----------



## Lumber (21 Jun 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm already seeing the barrack room lawyers talking about redressing their C&Ps for being caught with marijuana and how happy they are its legal.
> 
> We're just finding the balance now between folks who had liquor bottles in their desks at work and prohibition, can't wait until troops starting showing up stoned. :facepalm:



Or not showing up stoned, but showing up with a pot "hangover" from spending the entire night getting ripped with half the section.

I'm equally interested to see what the actual rules are as I am to hear anecdotes of different chains of command applying the rules differently.

We've discussed on a lot of different threads how different CO's, bases, etc... have local rules that don't necessarily give with national policy (like weekend leave passes, or BORDEN ordering naval personnel not to wear ball-caps). I know lots of senior officers who are extremely anti-drug (and even anti-alcohol), and I'm curious to hear the stories of one unit on one base having a different policy than the CO of another unit on the same base, because I'm sure it will happen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jun 2018)

Now that it is passed and Trudeau says it coming in a few months, why not just wait and see what the CDS puts out. Speculation creates misinformation. I'm sure with the timelines, it won't be long in coming.


----------



## CountDC (22 Jun 2018)

Ern88 said:
			
		

> On the Navy side.  The scuttlebutt is that if you are posted to a ship.  *There will be 0 tolerance on the use of cannabis*.  :rofl: And the only time you would be able to use it if you are posted ashore.  I am sure there will be direction incoming from the CDS in the coming days though.



What's that funny smell from the breezeway.........nothing, nothing at all. Just walk away to the other side.


----------



## Lumber (16 Aug 2018)

There's a "CDS Trip Report" from his visit to Halifax that says:

"During each session, the CDS outline teh new CAF policy on cannabis based on the 8/24/28/0 framework."

Does anyone know what the "8/24/28/0 framework" is and can you elaborate? (I wasn't at any of these sessions)


----------



## Remius (16 Aug 2018)

No clue.  Maybe the hours before you can use the stuff based on what you are doing.  8 hours before regular work. 24 hours before anything dangerous. 28 days before deploying and 0 if deployed or operational or something along those lines. 

As mentioned this is just speculation.

This is the only official info out there.

https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2018/07/16611


----------

