# Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)



## Dire

Since Canada is about to vote about the Decrim of Marijuana what do you think the CF stance would be?

It‘s weird, the more people I talk too the more I realize the stance on people from differnt provinces is about weed.

I personally come from BC which alot of Civies smoke Marijuana (I was one of them until I decided to join the CF) Here Marijuana isnt a big thing. You get busted for an eight and the cops just laugh at you and take it away not even fining you. But I hear in other provinces the police have a differnt stance on pot.

People have been educated that Marijuana is so bad that you shouldnt smoke it, but then again Alchohol is 10x worse but it‘s legal and government taxed.

If any anti-marijuana person can tell me 1 time someone has been killed due to marijuana besides the fact that it was a DD who maybe smoked a joint, because there hasnt been one insodent that I can think of.

I personally would like to know the stance of which the CF would take on Marijuana. Obviously smoking while in uniform would be prohibded, but what if you were off duty? 

The big issue would be in random drug tests. Should THC in your blood system get you expelled from the CF? Because I can tell you if you are in a party and Marijuana is being smoked you have a big chance of inhauling the THC which sticks to your fat cells and stays in your system for along time but then again it all depends on how much smoke you inhaule.

This isnt a flame issue, if you are an anti marijuana you have no right to flame unless you can dig up postivie facts that Marujuana is truley bad for you. (and when I say bad, i mean is it worse then drinking alchohol?)


----------



## Grunt_031

From my understanding the goverment is not decrimalizing. It is still will be illegal to possess "the weed" but instead of jail time and criminal record, it will be a fine instead (another cash cow me thinks). I think a lot of people think we are going to do the way of the Danes. As for the Military I doubt they will be any laxing of the regulations, it still will be a controlled substance. Remember that over 15g (personal if your caught) is higher fines and even more jail time than before the regulation.


----------



## Sundborg

I would highly doubt the CF would allow marijuana to be used by its members.  The strict rules on them now can clearly state that the CF will still keep the rules.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Grunt is right, it isn‘t decriminalized at all, it just means you don‘t get jail time for small amounts of possession.  Police officers don‘t have to fill out as much paperwork or haul your ***  in, and perhaps they will even make money on the deal.

It‘s still stupid, and still sends the message that using is "ok" and promotes the idea that individual whims and serving yourself is more important than a strong society.


----------



## McInnes

I actually think taht pot should not be authorised for use in the CF. It still is a drug which lasts in your system. Alcohol is a drug too, except its out of your system by the time you are on duty (well should be anyways). and also, pot does mess up your health. it is the same as smoking tobacco really. The government tells us its worse cuz of filters or whatever, but i think that BS, after all i am born and raised BC. pot is the main reason we‘re not in economic depression really, number 1 cash crop, and overall part of our culture. it is bad for your lungs and what not, if you smoke anything it causes damage to your lungs over periods of time. pot is worse than alcohol if you drink reasonably, if you are always out partyin and getting wasted, than i doubt pot is worse at all.


----------



## Etown

Yes the bill is about decriminalizing possesion of marijuana, but just because something is not a criminal offence doesn‘t mean it is legal. It is not a criminal offence to break the speed limit but it is against the law. The police will no longer be required to arrest people with a couple of joints (this is what is supposed to happen according to the current law), but it will not stop them from taking it away if they catch you with it nor will it prevent them from giving you a ticket.

Most importantly marijuana will still be illegal and any employer can still fire you for using it. The only real benefit is you wont end up with a criminal record for getting caught.


----------



## Bert

The intent of a law, based upon society‘s morals, is to provide an understanding of conduct or responsibility.  Since everything can be considered dangerous, like too much vitamin C is toxic, society or the government (since we gave them the responsibility to make the laws)has to figure out the impact of looser ideals on the use of non-medical marijuana.

I‘m not saying that the use of marijuana is the cause of all problems, but EVERY frequent user of marijuana I know (three of them) have all kinds of problems.  I would say that the use of marijuana exasterbates (sp?) or amplifies their problems to the point they can‘t often deal with them... from money to work relations to relations with their respective girlfriends.  I wonder if decriminalizing the drug would just allow more personal dysfunction to frequent users.

For this, I believe it should stay as a banned substance.


----------



## muskrat89

In my civvie life, amongst other things, I am a Safety Director. I created a "Drug-Free" work place policy, drug testing protocols, etc. - mostly because our Worker‘s Comp Company gives us a discount for having a drug policy, but also because of the CF culture that I lived in, most of my life. Some statistics, from various sources(keeping in mind that they are U.S stats):
Absenteeism - Users 2.5 times more likely to be absent 8+ days/year  2.2 times more likely to request extra time off

Tardiness - 3 times more likely to be late

Safety - 3.6 times more likely to be in a workplace accident

Workers‘ Comp - 5 times more likely to file a claim

Health Insurance - Use 3 times more sick benefits

Company morale - affected by higher theft, selling drugs to co-workers

A survey of drug users seeking help revealed -
75% admitted using on the job
64% admitted drugs hurt their job performance
44% said they sold drugs to other employees
18% said they stole from co-workers to support their habit

Again, don‘t want to dispute the statistics - just want to present a point of view. Another concern is that most pot users, that I have known personally, go on to something bigger and better. Not the type of people I want to be sharing a trench with, frankly.....  call me old fashioned   :warstory:


----------



## Dire

I just wanted to respond to some comments.


The CF has a policy which must be followed (Im not saying otherwise) Itâ€™s there for a reason and they say that your not allowed to smoke Marijuana on or off duty then obviously I wont, but as an retired    Marijuana user I can tell you this from my personal experience.

Infanteer: â€œIt also serves as a gateway drug. I have seen alot of people I know who used to be casual users of marijuana start to shift into cocaine and other drugs.â€

Iâ€™m sorry to say this but that is complete bull****. I have smoked pot for a few years does that make me want t try other drugs? Absolutely not. It isnâ€™t marijuana that makes you switch or try new things itâ€™s the individual who is to weak minded who obviously wanted to try something new or maybe he was per pressured. I myself would never, and I mean never, try a chemical substance nor would I try mushrooms why? Because im not stupid I know those drugs addict and affect you.

You are more likely to try cocaine while drunk then you are stoned. So if you want to say anything is a gateway drug then I would say Alcohol is.  

Infanteer: â€œDon‘t use the "alcohol is worse and is legal" arguement either, because "two wrongs don‘t make a right." Society has enough problems with alcohol abuse, why would we want to compound are problems with another legal, harmful substance. Not the mention that participating in the marijuana game plays you a part in a vile criminal trafficking racket, which means you are putting money into some Hells Angel or Mexican Druglords bank account (making you an accomplice).â€

Yes, Society does have a huge enough problem with Alcohol but do you truly believe that Marijuana makes people do bad things? Because it doesnâ€™t. If you look in the history of substance car accidents or even Marijuana car accidents you will only find that the person who caused the accident had Marijuana in his system but he also had a lot of Alcohol in his system. You wonâ€™t find Marijuana caused accident with THC being the only substance found in the driver. 

I can guarantee you that fights donâ€™t start by someone who just smoked a Joint (that is something from my personal experience but then again everyone is different) Pot Smokers are pretty much all around friendly

But like you said, all this has been debated and debated. The Government made Marijuana illegal because it doesnâ€™t understand it, but look at the progress its making now. The Government is finally realizing that Marijuana might just not be that bad.

I personally never bought of a Mexican drug lord since I would not buy Mexican dirt weed. Iâ€™m from BC and BC â€œpersonalâ€ growers grow the best. So to answer your question again, I donâ€™t buy off HA members either.

muskrat89:

 I do not trust anything that comes from the USA government with the regards to Marijuana. If you want to look for stats turn to your own country man. Canada does way more research with the regards to Marijuana then the states do. 

As a Marijuana user I was never late from work nor did I take sick days off. I did not steal from work nor do I steal. Iâ€™am very safe, I do not cause accidents.  I never and I mean never smoked Marijuana on the job and it never hurt my work performance but then again that servay is about â€œdrugsâ€ and not Marijuana.

But then again it comes down to the individual user. If heâ€™s going to drink, smoke weed, do cocaine every decision he makes comes down to him right?

Lots of different types of people smoke Marijuana from criminals to lawyers to teachers and responsible citizens like myself who never had a criminal record.

I started smoking weed after I tore my ALC in Rugby. My brother is a user and yes, heâ€™s done a few more drugs then just Marijuana but that was because he wanted to try them and realized they were stupid. He told me why he tried them and it was because his friends wanted to do them and wasnâ€™t because he smoked Marijuana

But for myself I took a huge stance on drugs accept for Marijuana since my personal opinion is that Marijuana shouldnâ€™t be classed with the others 

Anyhow as of right now I do not smoke, I took a stance like I did with everything else and that the CF doesnâ€™t allow it so I wont do it.


----------



## Fusaki

Like alot of folks, I‘ve dabbled in the recreational use of pot. I‘ve seen enough potheads and I have enough firsthand experience to know that its NOT something I would want to see in use by members of the CF.

When you smoke up, you‘re not going to get in fights, or rob old ladies, or become a heroin addict. You‘re just going to chill out and not care about anything besides pizza and porno. I‘ve been hanging around this forum for a few months now and I know that the folks who‘ve gone somewhere in this military hate slack-a$$ attitudes with a passion.I‘ve always wanted to serve with a highly motivated team, and I know for a fact that weed kills motivation.

I do, however, believe in decriminalization in the civillian legal system. I like what Bert said:



> The intent of a law, based upon _society‘s morals_, is to provide an understanding of conduct or responsibility.


Society‘s morals change with time, so the law must change as well. Pot is a part of mainstream culture. Its on TV, the Radio, Newspapers, and magazines. You could call it modern culture, or you could call it propaghanda. The end result is the same: society is changing (like it always has) to accept the recreational use of marijuana.


----------



## muskrat89

Dire - spoken like a true pothead. There are lots of statistics, from lots of countries that indicate pot IS a gateway drug. You said only "for the weak-minded" I say if you need to spark up a zeppelin to get through the day, you‘re already weak-minded. My statistics didn‘t come from the US Government, either, Cheech - most of them are from private insurance Companies. Companies scrambling for the almighty dollar, and who would not, I assure you, offer any discounts on premiums, unless they had lots of evidence to say it was going to provide a payback - Economics 101, dude. I also did not say these statistics were a reflection of you personally - they are from various studies undertaken by different insurance companies, etc. Not a Gov‘t plot. Speaking of which, how do you know how much research one govt does, compared to another? Sounds a little like paranoid ramblings, to me...you sound just like any other guy with a "downtrodden cause".. all kinds of rantings on why the establishment is wrong


----------



## Bringer

Simple fact is THC remains in the body for much longer than alcohol. Like pretty much everyone, I know a few potsmokers. The ones who use it infrequently are pretty much normal, but the ones who light up daily are useless ****bags. No motivation at all.



> If you look in the history of substance car accidents or even Marijuana car accidents you will only find that the person who caused the accident had Marijuana in his system but he also had a lot of Alcohol in his system. You wonâ€™t find Marijuana caused accident with THC being the only substance found in the driver.


Did you get this "statistic" from High Times Weekly or something? because it seems incredibly fscked up. Are you trying to say that someone‘s motor skills or judgement are unaffected by marijuana? because that‘s just ridiculous.


----------



## klumanth

i smoke pot every day and i‘m the best soldier ever


----------



## muskrat89

High Times - that‘s funny. Here are some more

From the US Railway Industry - Mid 80s - 50+ train accidents directly attributed to drug use. 37 fatalities, 80 injuries, $34 million in property damage, attributed to drug use

U.S Postal Service - from a 2 year, and a 5 year study - $105 million could have been saved, if drug users testing poitive on pre-employment tests not hired

American Airlines - $19 million loss in one afternoon due to computer error. Computer operator, high on marijuana - crashed the reservation system

Stanford University - pilots in simulators "crashed" immediately after use; "crashed" again, 24 hours later

Anyway, Doobie, I mean Dire      I am sure you will have lots of logical arguments to these statements, too. I‘m gonna go eat some chips


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Dire - your entire rant consisted of "I do" "I want" "I can"

I always thought an Army was a team?  What about what the Army wants or needs?

Infanteer - I have known only one "really successful" recreational drug user.  Wife, family, good job.  He‘s the exception.  I‘ve not socialized with many drug users, and never while they were actually using it.  But I‘ve known and liked some who have, and the ones I liked the most; one woman and one guy in particular - were the least motivated.  Heartbreaking, because they were both highly intelligent, and I am not saying there is a cause and effect at play, but it just seems that the ones most likely to use drugs in the first place, are those with the least motivation or respect for the military.

Certainly the case with the two individuals I just mentioned, both of whom I consider good friends.  But they have no idea of the military ethos, or understanding of why I would subject myself to a lot of abuse and what to them would be torture, even if only for a weekend at a time.

Funny, because one of them was in the military himself (pipe band, got out when forced to remuster to infantry) and his father had been a high ranking officer and lawyer on civvie street.


----------



## Thaedes

Interesting comments thus far, and I believe this to be an important issue to be discussed.  Not because anything will likely change, but it increases awareness and perspectives for people.

Myself, I lived most of my life in Ontario, and the last 4 and a half years in Kingston Ontario (just recently moved out to BC).  Anyways, I had a friend who left basic twice for a repeated shoulder injury, and we used to hang out quite a bit.  Previously I had tried a joint or two, and found they had no noticable effect on me.  (even tried the BC bud, no dif).  I‘m kind of a control freak over my body so I‘m not surprised it really didnt‘ have any noticable effects on me.

I‘ve also tried Speed (a methamphetamine), and can honestly say it had a profound effect.  I fully agree however with our laws on drugs, they shouldn‘t be endorsed, or tolerated.  There are plenty of people who unlike me are more volatile, and more careless, and are willing to abuse these things.  Once was enough for me to see that I don‘t want any part of it, and prefer to be free of any drugs that would alter my neurochemistry and neurophysiology, especially when I join the infantry and my decisions will be life and death ones for me and people around me.

We have enough problems with idiots who aren‘t on drugs, let alone to allow them to abuse drugs even further.  If your a civillian and you want to smoke a joint in your house go for it, it wont hurt anyone.  Keep it private and don‘t abuse it.  Go for it.  But don‘t ask the police or the law to go easy on you if your caught.  you know **** well the consequences of these things.


----------



## Armymedic

For all you in the Army, or who have been in, the basic question regardless of "rights", regardless of law, and any other civilian values, is: Whould you trust a "pothead" with you somewhere where your life is dependant on his response.....

Before you answer, think about the support trades as well...


----------



## Dire

If anyone ever watches Tour of Duty, Zeke Anderson doesnt tolerate potheads lol   


I love that show..


----------



## Fusaki

I‘ve always felt that true freedom is the ability to do as much or as little with your life as you would like. The soldier‘s place to to give up the right to be a slacker, and defend the civillian way of life.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lots of things in the army or that the army does is dangerous. You can argue all day about it, both sides fielding sound arguments. Alcohol hurts you. Second hand smoke hurts you. Continously firing weapons hurts your hearing. All the coffee people drink can‘t be good for your nerves. Messed up inoculations. Always running for PT destroys your knees. The amount of MSG in rations could probably bring the dead back to life.

While im kinda uneducated on the subject, pot does seem to be less harmful then alcohol. I honestly think besides from some ethical arguments the only reason why it is illegal is because the goverment as of yet hasn‘t found a way they can regulate it and make money off it.
Listeing to statistics on how unharmful it is reminds me of my younger brother, whos into lifting weights, go on and on about how steroids aren‘t bad for you and they should be made legal and no one gets hurt from them. 
He‘s  20 and on morphine now because of back arthritis, caused from putting too much strain on his back. He can hardly sit through a movie. Steroids itself didn‘t technically hurt him but by taking them he lifted more then his body could handle and now hes 20 and screwed for life.
A gun doesn‘t kill people, people kill people. Why not make pistols and assault rifles legal for people to buy and if they kill someone then all the blame goes to them. That idea may work in a perfect world but people are often very stupid.
When in bosnia two guys i somewhat new were high on pot and thought it would be funny to walk around on their security patrol of the camp with their rifles "loaded" with sandwhich meat. (Stuffed into the magazine and chamber).
It‘s all harmful in one way or another.
Does it make absolute sence that a seemingly worse type of drug is allowed and almost endorsed in the military while a lesser form of one is illegal. Well maybe not. Lots of stuff doesn‘t make sence in the army. I think time is better spent on sorting out the larger issues thats plaguing the forces.


----------



## Pte Lickers

Wow this is it my first post what a great issue to.  For my whol school year i was in the background unbale to register due to lab cpus but here i am.

Anyways to decriminalize pot would be fine by me as long as it remains controlled and regulated as alcohol and tobacco.  I didnt really read throug h carefully in my eagerness to reply, but in my opnion the resulting and related criminal acts surrounding drug selling would drop considerably.  To start with your average pusher drug dealer could in no way compete with a corporation when selling marijuana to the public he would not have the education or resources to survive a competitive market against a large companies.  People would end up going to an industry to purchase pot since it would higher grade and possibly cheaper.  

However use by the canadian forces is something i havent really thought about.  I would ahve to say no due to its effects which unlike alcohol have more dire effects. 
 You can operate a vehicle when hungover but not when you have the stupids from a massive blunt you smoked last night.

and i cant remember who said it in the post but  you basically stated that the rights of the community suberceed the rights of the individual   wow.......  thats all i have to say about that


----------



## combat_medic

Dire: my father has been a policeman for about 3 decades, and can name you a dozen incidents that he has personally witnessed in which someone died because of pot. 

Also, yes, pot is a gateway drug. People who do coke, speed, acid, heroin or other hard drugs almost ALWAYS started out with pot. Also, the pot smokers usually started out with nicotine.

No, just because you some pot doesn‘t mean you‘ll start shooting heroin, but someone who does pot is over 5 times more likely to do hard drugs than someone who has never smoked up. That‘s a hard fact for you.

Everyone tries to say that pot is a harmless drug. You know, I‘ve seen enough e-tards at raves in Vancouver who say that extasy is harmless too. This is right before they dance themselves off a f%cking building. Pot is as intoxicating as alcohol, is phsychologically addictive (even if it isn‘t chemically addictive), stays in the system much longer, delays motor reaction, dulls the senses, kills brian cells, and can even damage an unborn child if taken during pregnancy.

So, needless to say, the last person I want watching my back is a guy who can‘t "just say no".


----------



## Dire

Combat Medic:

Have you ever smoked pot? More then once? If not, then you cannot say **** about it because frankly you just dont know.

When I was writing my MCSE tests (Microsoft Certified System Engineer tests) I smoked pot during that time sometimes while I studied and I aced each test but 1 (which I still gotta write, but since there 200 bucks a pop I cannot afford it right now) but thats beside the point.

Each Indivdual is differnt. People say POT is a gateway drug because its the lowest drug on the scale. Most people know pot isnt that big of a deal so they try it or do it regularly, and then there are the people who like the better high (or so they say) who then move onto more ‘hardcore‘ drugs it wasnt that pot lead them to do it. It just so happens they feel that pot would be the first drug they try because they know it isnt that bad.

People have brains, some use it, some dont. Myself, like I said in my other reply would never do any other drugs, I don‘t even smoke Cigs except for once in awhile Cuban Cigar.

Combat Medic, I‘d also like to know where you got the fact saying pot is addictive? I quit cold turkey when I made the decision to join the CF and I havent thought about it really ever since besides the political part of it.

It all comes down to if you‘ve smoked it before, because if you have you then have first hand experiance. Not some political fact because frankly their all bullsh!t

over and out..


----------



## combat_medic

I never said that pot is CHEMICALLY addictive, I said it‘s PSYCHOLOGICALLY addictive. Alcohol isn‘t chemically addictive either, but there are a ton of alcoholics out there. People get addicted to the sensations of pot, the high they get from it, the relaxation, the carefree attitude and such that pot can produce.

And to say that no one can understand about pot until they‘ve smoked it is just ignorant. I don‘t need to shoot heroin to know that it‘s bad, nor do I need to smoke a cigarette to know that it‘s unhealthy.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Have you ever smoked pot? More then once? If not, then you cannot say **** about it because frankly you just dont know.


Well i‘ve never shot myself in the head but im pretty sure it‘s a good idea not to after seeing what it does to people who have.



> I aced each test but 1 (which I still gotta write, but since there 200 bucks a pop I cannot afford it right now) but thats beside the point.


Someone might argue that the money you could have saved by not buying pot would have ment you could afford that test right now.
I always say that to my friends who dont have money for rent or food but they find enough money to hit the bars or buy clothes to go out partying.


----------



## rolandstrong

"People have been educated that Marijuana is so bad that you shouldnt smoke it, but then again Alchohol is 10x worse but it‘s legal and government taxed."


Where do you get the information that alcohol is 10x worse that marijuana? I live in one of the dope groing capitals in Canada, and the majority of pot smokers here have a tendancy to take on cigarette smoking aswell, meaning that they are taking on a secondary addictive habit with well known health affects. Personally I don‘t buy the 10x worse claim.


----------



## RuthlessRandy

I believe it was long over due, and it was no surprise to me when it was.     
Canada shows it‘s openess and freedom rights to the world when doing this, and thats a very good thing.     
cheers


----------



## Spr.Earl

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1428822 


Liberals move to fast-track passage of marijuana bill 



OTTAWA (CP) - The Liberal government, brushing aside objections by some of its own backbenchers, is moving to speed up passage of controversial legislation to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana. 
House leader Don Boudria served notice Wednesday that he intends to refer the bill for early committee study, after just three hours of debate in the full Commons. The official referral will come Thursday. It will put the bill in the hands of an all-party special committee that is already on record - in a report delivered last year - as favouring decriminalization in principle. 

"To refer it back to that committee, to me, is just normal," said Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. "Because they have the expertise, they‘re going to be able to deal with it in the fastest way." 

Derek Lee, a Toronto-area MP and key member of the committee, noted it heard extensive evidence last year before bringing in a report that urged the government to eliminate jail time for possession of small amounts of pot. 

Need Tickets to an Event? Try eBay.ca! 



Lee suggested the second round of hearings, on the detailed provisions of the bill, will be short and sweet. 

"We‘d want to hear from law enforcement people, there might be a couple of (other) envelopes where we‘d like to hear something. But generally I think we‘ve heard most of what we want to hear already." 

Fellow Liberal Dan McTeague was outraged, calling the government‘s move to speed up the legislative process "reckless and irresponsible." 

The committee chosen by Cauchon and Boudria is "stacked by the very people who have been advocates for decriminalization for some time," said McTeague. 

"It‘s hardly a committee that‘s going to be objective." 

McTeague, one of the most outspoken opponents of the bill since it was brought in by Cauchon last spring, branded it "ineffective and lousy legislation" that needs extensive revision. 

Boudria, however, suggested it could conceivably be law before the fall session of Parliament is over. 


"There‘s certainly enough time to pass it before Christmas," he said. "But of course that would depend largely on how many witnesses the committee decides to hear and so on." 

Other MPs who spoke privately were skeptical of Boudria‘s claim. One Liberal backbencher said few believe the House will continue to sit after Nov. 15, the date the party will anoint former finance minister Paul Martin as the successor to Prime Minister Jean Chretien. 

Martin has said he favours decriminalization in principle, but some of his backbench supporters believe he may back away from the Cauchon bill as internal dissent grows. 

John McKay, chairman of the Ontario Liberal caucus and a staunch Martin backer, said he hasn‘t personally made up his mind how to vote on the bill. 

"I have some concerns that the marijuana that legislators are talking about has probably been experienced when they were younger," said McKay. "The marijuana that is currently on the streets is significantly more potent." 

He suggested it would be a "pretty optimistic" timetable to get the bill through Parliament by next spring. Martin is expected to call an election around April, cutting off work on any legislation that hasn‘t passed by then. 

The bill sponsored by Cauchon would not strictly legalize pot possession. But it would make possession of up to 15 grams - enough to roll about 15 or 20 joints - a minor offence punishable by a range of fines. 

Offenders would no longer face jail time or be saddled with a criminal record that would follow them through life. 

By contrast, the bill would take a tough line against illicit growers and traffickers, especially those linked to organized crime. 

The maximum penalty for grow operations would be boosted to 14 years from the current seven. The penalty for large-scale trafficking is already life, although 20 years has been the stiffest sentence handed out in recent years. 

The government has also set aside $245 million for enhanced law enforcement efforts, as well as information, research and treatment programs aimed at discouraging drug use, particularly among young people. 


© The Canadian Press, 2003


----------



## Michael Dorosh

So what?

How does this affect the Code of Service Discipline?


----------



## GrahamD

> Derek Lee, a Toronto-area MP and key member of the committee, noted it heard extensive evidence last year before bringing in a report that urged the government to eliminate jail time for possession of small amounts of pot.


When is the last time you heard of anyone actually getting jail time for possession of (small) amounts of marijuana?

It doesn‘t happen anyway, so why should cops have to bother jumping through the hoops of formally charging induviduals with a relatively harmless infraction.  They would be better used to capture and charge drug traffickers.  Do I feel safer when I see some cops nabbing some kids smoking pot in the park? Not really.
  When I see articles in the paper talking about a successful sting operation, where 50+ street dealers are picked up and charged, then I feel like something is getting done.

Possession charges are a waste of everyone time.  The current law which prohibits possession is a joke.  It deters no one from what I can tell, it fills up the courts with junk cases that result in 16, 17, 18 year old kids being saddled with criminal records that represent nothing more than bad luck.
What do I mean by bad luck?

Example:  kid#1 is driving with his buddies, carrying some pot he‘s taking to a party.  Tail light is out and they get pulled over, he looks nervous, cop has probable cause to search him.  He‘s found with a couple of grams, say‘s its all his, because he‘s a stand up guy, a team player, doesn‘t want to see his buddies get burned.
  Few months down the road, he finally sees his day in court, gets 1 year probation.  He‘s like so what? whatever, no big deal, I‘ll just buy my pot from someone at the party next time.  Couple of years later, he quits for good, it was just a youthful phase.  Now he wants to join the military, but they pass him over becasue he has a drug conviction.  Tough luck.

Kid#2 was more street smart, he was in that same car, in fact they bought the marijuana together, only he doesn‘t want to carry it, he‘s shiffty, lets his buddie take the fall alone, because he‘s a coward.  Later on, he‘s a predictably petty and selfish person, but he‘s charismatic, a great liar and manipulator, seemingly honest even while he lies his face off during his military interview, telling the recruiter about how he has never even done drugs before, or even that he used to do them but quit.  The military scoops him up, he‘s clean of any drug offences, so why not give him a chance?

Obviously they can‘t always know when they are being lied to, but the point is that kid#1 should not be saddled with a record that is going to stick with him forever.  Sure he may not ever quit, he may progress to harder drugs or more serious crime later on, but I say, just give kids the benefit of the doubt, catch them later on if that is the road they have chosen for themselves, but we all made some mistakes growing up, we should be understanding of that.


----------



## Jungle

And if being caught with pot is not considered a mistake anymore, what will be ??? I can see it from here:
"The kid was caught with a few grams of cocaine; you know, nothing serious, just a youthful mistake"
As a society, we have to draw the line somewhere. Since we are a tolerant society, we will always allow people to cross the line without much consequences, like we now do with pot. Are we ready to do the same with the next level of drugs ???


----------



## Infanteer

Graham, your arguement based on Army recruiting makes no sense.  Case #1 has a criminal conviction and case #2 is a drug user.  They both should have a few bumps going through recruiting.  Like Jungle said, "we have to draw the line somewhere."

I am not to sure what CFRC‘s policy is on past drug use and past drug conviction, if someone knows, would they point it out.

I personally find these statements by the British Army reasonable, seems fair enough to give military life a chance to sort a guy out.

* I have a number of convictions. Can I join?

You will be required to declare any convictions in accordance with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We only ask that you are open and honest with the recruiting staff in order that they are best able to advise you.
*

and

*I‘ve got a criminal record/outstanding court case - can I join?

It depends. The Army believes in giving young offenders a second chance for certain offences. The important thing is to be honest with the recruiting staff about any unspent convictions or pending court cases during the recruitment process. Then your record will be assessed. You may be told that you must wait for a period before joining, to prove that you will not get into trouble again. All court orders must be completed and all fines paid before you can apply. Then you will have to wait for a period before joining. If you are waiting to go to court, you must tell the recruiting staff. You will probably not be able to apply until your case has been heard, and the outcome known.
* 

and finally


*I have taken illegal substances and I know the Army doesn‘t like drugs. Can I join?

The Armed Forces recognise that drug misuse is increasingly common in civilian life, particularly among the young, and you may have misused drugs yourself in the past. If so, this will not normally prevent your enlistment into the Armed Forces. But once you have joined the Armed Forces, you must not misuse drugs - you are required to stay clear of drugs and to avoid association with drug misuser‘s and suppliers. Moreover, once you have enlisted, you will be liable by law to random compulsory drug testing. If these tests show that you are involved in the misuse of drugs, it is Service policy that, with very few exceptions, you will be discharged.*

What about our policies?


----------



## Garry

I think all drug laws should be repealed. If you want to pollute your body, go ahead: what you do to yourself is really none of my business. (or your‘s, for that matter) 

I sincerely hope the Government taxes the heck out of marijuana sales, and makes at least as much $$ as the drug dealers did...maybe my taxes will go down.

Even if legalised, I don‘t see the Forces allowing marijuana to be used by it‘s members. The biggest reason is that THC is absorbed by the fat cells in the body, and is stored until released: usually by adrenaline. So, when the poop is splattering all over, that joint you had last week may come rushing back, and you‘re impaired. Not good.

Chemical users are just a body slowly rotting, with a mind that‘s near gone...I doubt that they would be tolerated no matter what the laws were.

Chers-Garry


----------



## Infanteer

> I think all drug laws should be repealed. If you want to pollute your body, go ahead: what you do to yourself is really none of my business. (or your‘s, for that matter)


But it is my business when some crack-head and his junkie buddies can‘t get a job due to their addiction (which means I pay his welfare) and hang out in the streets doing drugs (which means I pay for the policing, increased crime, etc).  The illegality of drugs stems not just from medical concerns, but from the societies unwillingness to accept the social cost of condoning drug abusers.


----------



## Jungle

> I think all drug laws should be repealed. If you want to pollute your body, go ahead: what you do to yourself is really none of my business. (or your‘s, for that matter)


It certainly is my business: people who pollute their body usually become very sick at a young age. Then it is OUR tax money going to their emergency needs instead of other care. The "live and let live" thing is costing us a lot of money...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Gary, a drug-rotted body, as you describe, does become "tolerated" - perhaps not by the military, but by the welfare state we have become; we tax addictive substances, then use the tax dollars - and more - to not only pay for their health care, but to starve the Army while doing it.  And it‘s not just the illegal substances either, obviously; take a look at the lung cancer patients at your nearest hospital, or those whose livers have failed, and ask how much we‘re paying to keep these people alive.  I guess I wouldn‘t want it any other way, but I certainly wouldn‘t propose even more laxities when it comes to people abusing their bodies and then having the rest of us pay for their care.


----------



## Garry

Good points all guys, but the point I believe we‘re missing is that if they can rot their brains, they can suffer the consequences.

The free ride has got to stop.

For instance, if a bike rider doesn‘t want to wear a helmet, don‘t. However, that same rider has to realise that when he drops the bike and cracks his head, he‘d better pony up the $$ to the hospital, ‘cause our universal healthcare just slammed the door.

Lets call it "personal responsibility".

Most laws are there for two reasons: People are generally stupid, self, serving, or both.As well, some are just so meddlesome it hurts. Between the dummies and the do-gooders, we have pretty much lost our way. Our social mores (stuff that our Dads taught us, like don‘t hit women, don‘t pee on the stret, etc) are pretty much gone...as is our religious beliefs. Say what you will, but if nothing else all the major religions gave us a good set if rules to live by.

So, Infanter, why should YOU pay for the junklie who can‘t work? I don‘t think you should...let him rot.

Jungle, I don;t think the healthcare system should pay for self inflicted wounds. Does your work place agree? (sory, know the answer to this one   ..)

Michael- agreed...but can you say "personal responsibility"? (try reading Ayn Rand‘s "Atlas shrugged")

I "think" that we all basically are on the same page...maybe I just hope a little more....

PS- nice to disagree so politely...many thanks!

Cheers-Garry


----------



## patrick666

I don‘t think drugs should be tolerated at all in the armed forces. The only enhancement a soldier should need is training.


----------



## Garry

Final thought: I didn‘t address the issue of the crackheads invading your home looking for loot to buy drugs with.

See the South Carolina "Castle law". 

(basically, if a person is shot inside your house, no questions. Period. Joke is to shoot several times so he can‘t crawl out.)

I do NOT advocate violence. I am a true coward, scare easy, and hate confrontation...but there are some things I hate worse than being scared.

I would hope that the concept of personal responsibility would help the Police to defend us...and allow us to help the police when required.

Bet the scary stuff wouldn‘t last long..   

Cheers (again) - Garry


----------



## Infanteer

I still disagree with the concept of drug legalization.  Social costs go far beyond a monetary figure.


----------



## Andyboy

Interesting debate. For more information try this:

 http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/summary-e.htm 

It‘s pretty long but each section has summaries and highlights.


----------



## GrahamD

Since you guys are so far removed from reality on this subject I‘m not going to argue it with you.

If you intend to debate people on the subject, and want to be understood, and not just dismissed as uninformed, here is some simple terminology.

"Junk" = Heroin.  A derivative of opium which is manufactured from poppies. It is extremely addictive.
  Junkie = someone who is addicted to heroin.  If used to describe anything else, junkie is being used incorrectly, or as slang to encompass all drug users (but still incorrect).  To correctly pigeon hole all drug users, you would say "druggie".

"Crack" = a (cooked) form of cocaine, usually of poor quality and in rock form, which is smoked, normally through a glass pipe.  It is extremely addictive.
A "crackhead" is someone who is addicted to using crack.  This is the only relevant use for the term "crackhead".



> (basically, if a person is shot inside your house, no questions. Period. Joke is to shoot several times so he can‘t crawl out.)


This is the statement you would make to the police when they charged you with second degree murder?

Because thats what happens when you shoot someone in Canada.  The laws of Canada still apply in your house.  Even in self defence cases (*self defence means you must be in imminent danger) ((ie a gun at your face, death threats, physical contact of a violent nature))  you still face manslaughter charges.  Don‘t believe me? Look it up.  I had a lengthy talk with an RCMP officer about it one night after someone broke into my house, and we (me and my friends) kept him cornered with a baseball bat until the cops arrived.

Plus its not a joke to shoot somebody, ever.  Maybe you just don‘t have any concept of the gravity and seriousness of such a situation.


----------



## Infanteer

> Plus its not a joke to shoot somebody, ever. Maybe you just don‘t have any concept of the gravity and seriousness of such a situation.


That‘s right Graham, none of us take our job seriously and we all think it is just a fun game of dress-up.




> Since you guys are so far removed from reality on this subject I‘m not going to argue it with you.


So far removed, what the h*ll does that mean?  Please, what makes you an expert?

Go smoke another doobie with your trafficking biker buddies.


----------



## Pte Lickers

Wow nothing like a debate one drugs and natural right of human beings to get people coming out of the wood work.

The standard arguement for the ban of drugs and narcotics is "their bad they harm your body and yadda yadda they cause crime yammer yammer"

Well a couple of interesting reports are this

1) marijuana is not an addictive drug and is less harmful then alcohol and possibly tobacco in many instances.  The legend that an average marijuana joint has more tar then a cigarette is a falsehood.  The truth is that tobacco is an addictive highly harmful drug in its form used now.  Marijuana in its pure and well grown forms is a medical and social stability.  Medically eveyrone should already know the positive sides.
Socially marijuana provides several subcultres with their identity and means of political and religious expression. Now thats some of the good now for the bad.  
Oh yeah and the crime that exists due to drugs exists to an uinregulated and uncontrolled market, if all drugs were regulated there would be  aspike but then a leveling off as small time thugs and brigands get eliminated by large corporations rushing to grab a peice of money.

However none of this utopian literature has anything to do with my opnion or that in the CF.  In short if drugs are illegal in the CF then they should not be used by any of the members regardless if it becomes legal to rail crack of a your girlfriends thigh in a civilain setting.

I eagerlly await your replies, insults, comments and slang terms about my political affiliations and beliefs.


----------



## GrahamD

> That‘s right Graham, none of us take our job seriously and we all think it is just a fun game of dress-up.


That is a direct stab at a comment made in the quote I left from Garry .  It had nothing to do with you.  However, if you think its a joke to shoot somebody multiple times, then I guess maybe the comment was geared at you too, and I wouldn‘t care much what you say because that would make you an idiot.



> So far removed, what the h*ll does that mean? Please, what makes you an expert?
> 
> Go smoke another doobie with your trafficking biker buddies.


It means just what I said.  You have people talking about marijuana "junkies" breaking into your house, costing the tax payers money in health care, People eluding to the fact that if you legalize marijuana, then hard drugs will surely follow.
It doesn‘t reflect valid points on an issue that has already been debated to death, on the political and medical fronts.  It‘s just some rigid opinions, and some minor justifications for holding them.

Go smoke a doobie with my biker buddies?

How about you go pull your head out of your ***  you condescending @sshole.
I don‘t drink, I don‘t do drugs, I don‘t hang out with bikers.  Way to jump to a conclusion though.  I can see you‘re a real cool customer.  You obviously must think things through before you talk or act.  Why would you assume that I do drugs? Or have biker buddies?

Is it because you‘re a redneck prick? because thats the assumption I‘m going to jump to.  You see the difference in the way we operate?  I have evidence that you are just out to make a personal attack on me, with no justification other than the fact that you are a self described "inconsiderate as*hole".
  You on the other hand had to fabricate a scenario that made me out to be a drug using loser with questionable friends.  You can‘t even begin to imagine how far from the mark you landed on that one.

Asking me if I‘m an expert is about the only thing you said that is valid at all, even if a little childish.
Are you an expert?  Are you not allowed to have strong opinions on a matter, if you are not an expert?  Becasue I assure you that no one in this thread is an expert on the subject, yet other people have strong opinions about it.  It seems you only singled me out on the "expert" issue.

Maybe you‘re mad that I voiced my opinion that I was disinterested in arguing an issue because I felt that the opinions given were not realistic portrayals of the legalization of marijuana "against" side.  I stand by it.  To understand why a substance shouldn‘t be used, one needs to uderstand how it is used, what happens when it is used, and the broader ramifications of what could or will happen if the law is passed to allow widespread use.  I‘m educated on the matter, and im objective.  I have no care one way or another, no personal interest.  My opinion is, ban it, that and alcohol and tobacco.  But thats not realistic and I accept that.  But if alcohol and tobacco are legal, then marijuana should be too.  Its far less imparing that drinking, and it cost infinately less money on the health care system than smoking cigarettes does.


----------



## Spr.Earl

Holy Smoke I did not think this would get so heated!

 Michael this may effect our Code of Service Discipline because over the last 10yrs or so Civie Life has invaded the once closed world of the Military and thing‘s that were not allowed in the Military but are in Civie street are now allowed in the Military to day!


----------



## Garry

So much for the "disagree politely"!

Emotions are fine, but are a tool- not sure if this was the correct tool for this job.

Firstoff, the "joke" was in reference to an existing law in South Carolina, not the existing laws in Canada...though I advocate a similiar law.

My fault for trying the humour angle- not everyone shares my sense of humour.

As for an "expert" - well, I have smoked marijuana, sold it, and rode bikes...often in the company of other big tattooed guys. (recruiter- when did you last take drugs? me: what time is it?)

I have matured somewhat. 

What does this tell you? NOTHING, as it‘s not germaine to the point I was trying to make, and that is there is WAY too many people getting too involved with other peoples lives. How dare you tell me what I can and cannot do with my body- it‘s mine!

The Military can, however, choose to not employ me if I do drugs- that premise is already there for any other deblitating actions- be it drinking, medical problems, etc- anything that affects my performance at work should be suspect.

I still live in the forlorn hope that the service is NOT a social experiment, but a means of defending our country...and that we suborn our rights and freedoms to the cause of the greater good....hence no drugs.

Final thought on emotions: those who do carry guns from time to time see and hear things they don‘t like. They learn to keep their emotions in check, and release the rage at an oportune time in support of a goal- but NEVER to make them "feel better". Good thing, too, or we‘d have bodies with holes in them. (kind of a cool segue eh?)...LOL

Enjoy.

Garry


----------



## Infanteer

> How about you go pull your head out of your *** you condescending @sshole.


Hey Graham, read my tag, its  *inconsiderate* as*hole, not condescending as*hole.  But I can change it if it makes you feel better.



> Is it because you‘re a redneck prick? because thats the assumption I‘m going to jump to. You see the difference in the way we operate?


Good assumption, infact I am a redneck prick.  Do I care.  Not really.  Boohoo if you don‘t like it.  I felt compelled to return fire when you basically dismissed (with an air of superiority) a civil debate between Jungle, Garry, and myself as out of touch with reality with no explanation as to why we are clueless.

Notice how I had no reason to attack Garry, despite the fact that his views are more radical than yours.  By coming off as an arrogant priss, you got the redneck prick reply.

I don‘t really care about your personal habits.  The biker remark was a jib on the fact that support of lax drug laws lends tacit support to drug trafficking, of which biker gangs have a heavy hand in.  

So we decriminalize marijuana and give people tickets for dope.  There are still organized crime figures that traffic this sh*t.  So we legalize marijuana, and everyone can enjoy a toke and some free love in the city streets.  Does this get rid of the criminal problem?  By the stance our neighbour to the south takes on drugs, nope.

I don‘t like drugs because it is in the realm of these criminals, no matter what the legislation says.  These are criminals who don‘t hesitate to put a bullet into a cop or blow some kid up with a car bomb.  A lot of my fellow soldiers are involved in justice system, so maybe I‘m biased.

So, whos side are you taking?

I‘d rather keep fighting the battle than just give up and surrender all togeather....


----------



## patrick666

You two are starting to sound like Americans. =P


----------



## nULL

but infanteer, that‘s exactly the point. those who would shoot a cop, or blow up someone with a car bomb are the ones who will now be targeted. instead of hunting down the users, who more often than not are just people out looking for a good time, police resources can be directed towards hunting down the real threat, the traffickers, the dangerous ones. 

instead of letting off the users, they are ticketed. make some money for the queen, perhaps scare the users into flying straight, and have police resources better able to target the real threat. isn‘t that a good idea? one only has to look at how futile the american drug strategy is to realize they are not doing it right.


----------



## Garry

Redneck, inconsiderate, condescending...hmmmm.

Now lets say the Godless Communist Horde had landed in Alaska and was advancing at a high rate of knots south. Who would I send north.

Let me see, I‘ve got those wonderful young men, poets, flower arrangers, and stock traders...totally in touch with their feelings, and quite happy to work extra hours to allow their fellow socialists to choose not to work....

or should I send those redneck *******s with their callused hands, rig pigs, construction workers, people who hunt and fish, men who will do what they have to to feed their family...conservative outlooks, and outlandish beliefs in God and country...

Tough call, eh?

Sorry Bud, but you can keep your socialist fairy‘s and poets and "deep thinker‘s" ... I‘ll take the "redneck *******s" anytime.

I feel a rant coming, so I‘ll end it here.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Infanteer

Null, good point, but I don‘t think I can fully buy that line of thinking.  It sort of frames the very end of the chain, the drug-users, as victims (lets not concentrate on the victim, lets concentrate on the predators).

I fully believe that someone buying a bag of weed off the street is an active participant in organized crime, and I am not willing to overlook them as a key ingrediant in the chain of drugs that extends from producer to abuser.

However, I acknowledge the fact that different "chains" in the link require different strategies of attack.  Maybe we should focus on a different stratagy for combatting drug abuse, but I don‘t believe this half-as*ed decriminalization measure is the proper approach.


----------



## nULL

oh, i agree completely infanteer. the end users are NOT victims. the problem is, they‘re not exactly "dangerous to society" either, and the main job of the police and the court is to PROTECT society. in my way of thinking, the most serious crime that a group of teenagers lighting up in a basement are committing is funneling money to a dealer. that is the precise reason why police resources should go towards finding THEM...few recreational users would risk having REAL action taken towards them by setting up their own lab.

i‘ve smoked marijuana once in my life...2 drags at a party once, over 8 months ago. it wouldn‘t take a criminal conviction (that would REALLY screw up my life), court resources (which cost society MONEY) or jail time to get me to fly straight, nor would that apply to most people. the experience of getting a hefty fine, and the loss of freedoms that would accompany it (i was 17 at the time...god knows my mother would have taken a dish rag and cracked my a$$ were she to have found out) should suffice.

i can see what you are talking about, but let‘s be honest, drugs aren‘t going to go away. could you honestly see the police expending the resources to arrest and process a 17 year old guy who has a joint on him? i doubt it. 

it would however be alot easier, and therefore more likely, that the good constable would ticket the offender.

still, if there were a clear-cut and easy solution, they‘d have found it already.


----------



## Infanteer

> can see what you are talking about, but let‘s be honest, drugs aren‘t going to go away. could you honestly see the police expending the resources to arrest and process a 17 year old guy who has a joint on him? i doubt it


Your right, drugs aren‘t going away, but so what.  No crime will ever go away, but it doesn‘t mean that society should ever lose its vigilance.  This is a tough topic because it is based largly on moral values.  However, unlike other tough topics (like abortion) where the "line-in-the-sand" tends to be skewed across the entire spectrum of society, this one tends to fall into a an arguement of people who use drugs vs. people who don‘t.

I am not so concerned about a 17 year old getting busted with a joint, because under the young offenders act he SHOULD (I am not to sure on the specifics, so I could be off) be handled as what he is, a stupid kid in need of a lesson.  But, a 25 year old caught with drugs is nothing but an idiot with no sense of social responsibility and obviously needs a lesson, and I don‘t think a 100 dollar fine is suitable enough.


----------



## nULL

yeah, but remember the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is pretty small indeed. one is a young offender, the other is not. problem is, there is no way to distinguish between someone experimenting out of stupid curiosity, and a little-use-to-society druggie. given the large number of youth who HAVE experimented with such things, would it really be wise to give them all a criminal record? 

i hope the law does pass. it‘s not like anything will change; people will still experiment with drugs, 25 year old losers will still be losers, and the only difference is that with any luck, supply will decline, which would drive up prices for those who still have money left after they‘ve been ticketed.

still, i‘ve always been an advocate against direct democracy; there are just too many ignorant people in the world for the masses to get involved with politics. how about leaving this to the politicians hmm?


----------



## GrahamD

> Let me see, I‘ve got those wonderful young men, poets, flower arrangers, and stock traders...totally in touch with their feelings, and quite happy to work extra hours to allow their fellow socialists to choose not to work....
> 
> or should I send those redneck *******s with their callused hands, rig pigs, construction workers, people who hunt and fish, men who will do what they have to to feed their family...conservative outlooks, and outlandish beliefs in God and country...
> 
> Tough call, eh?
> 
> Sorry Bud, but you can keep your socialist fairy‘s and poets and "deep thinker‘s" ... I‘ll take the "redneck *******s" anytime.


Explain "fairy‘s" please.  It blows my mind that people (like you) are so insecure that they feel the need to belittle someone else to try and elevate their own status. When someone starts making slurs about other people based on such superficial stuff as, sexual orientation, race, or religion, then its like a huge red flag that says "HEY EVERYONE I‘M AN IDIOT" .  Biggotry stems from lack of understanding, and a certain lack of intelligence.  It‘s insecurities ugly cousin.
  Many people who hate gays for example, have never met anyone who is gay.  How could they possibly hate them?  Well, they bought into propeganda, thats how.  Someone else taught them how to think, and rather than assimilate the information they learned, and combine it with information from other sources, to formulate their own opinion, they just accept it as truth.  How smart is that?  Hey I‘ve got a bridge I‘d like to sell you.....

Anyway, before anyone gets carried away trying to pigeonhole me becasue of my beliefs, know that I‘ve put my time in, in the land of the redneck.  I worked for years setting chokers behind a skidder with some of the roughest, macho rednecks you‘ll ever meet, and in you‘re typical redneck / native racially charged town.  I can hold my own.  Those years I had to fight twice a month at least, not because I was a fairy, but because I dated girls who weren‘t white sometimes (both natives and white guys).  I can sniff a racist a mile away, and I‘ll never let one talk @#$% to me. 
Rednecks are fine, if you are talking about good hearted, hard working, and honest guys.  I‘ve met lots of them.  I‘ve also met lots who beat their wives and kids, are racially and sexually biggoted, are practicing alcoholics, and are mean spirited jerks who try to control people through fear.  When someone throws a stereotype on me from way out in space somewhere, and tries to make me out to be something that I‘m not, then I‘m inclined to belive he falls into the latter category.

 You think socialists are affraid to stand up for what they belive in?  Look around buddy, we live in a socialist country.  The socialists are running things here.  You say you want people who stand up for their country, but it seems you would prefer it to ba a different country first.  One with no "fairys" or "deep thinkers".  I know just the type of place for you, think Waco Texas, ya with you at the helm of your own little compound you could start a whole movement where people just work hard and fight to repell "invading hordes".  No "deep thinking" or stock trading, or anything else that makes a free country great, allowed.

Thats one of the most absurd arguments I‘ve seen yet.  I guess those guys who spent all those years in university to make sure that their familiy is better provided for than someone who chose to be a construction worker, aren‘t willing to do whatever it takes to support their familiy right?
  I had a friend growing up, who wrote poetry all the time, and he had my back for every single fight I ever had that he was witness to, even the ones where I was in the wrong.  But he won‘t stand up and fight for his beliefs if required right?
Go look up some stats and find out who is more involved in crime, particularly drugs and violence, between those who take primary industry jobs,  constuction jobs, or other uneducated macho type jobs, and the stock trader/ flower arranger types.  I‘m not going to bother because the answer is obvious.  If you can‘t hire a drug user in the military, then how are you going to muster up an army of rednecks?

Maybe in your perfect world there would be no socialist values, we could shoot people who become a burden, like old people, handicapped people, people grievously injured on the job.  That way no one would personally offend you by working overtime to support something other than themselves and their family.  Really you would have to shoot them, or else your country would look like India, or Mexico, or hundreds of other countries where there are little or no social programs, and people beg, steal, and kill for survival.


----------



## GrahamD

> This is a tough topic because it is based largly on moral values. However, unlike other tough topics (like abortion) where the "line-in-the-sand" tends to be skewed across the entire spectrum of society, this one tends to fall into a an arguement of people who use drugs vs. people who don‘t.


Wrong.  I know a lot of people who don‘t do drugs who agree with decriminalization.  Plus, I‘ve seen many on T.V. in news stories and so forth.



> I am not so concerned about a 17 year old getting busted with a joint, because under the young offenders act he SHOULD (I am not to sure on the specifics, so I could be off) be handled as what he is, a stupid kid in need of a lesson. But, a 25 year old caught with drugs is nothing but an idiot with no sense of social responsibility and obviously needs a lesson, and I don‘t think a 100 dollar fine is suitable enough.


What about a 25 year old who is caught with alcohol in public?  Or has had enough alcohol to be declared too drunk to drive (more than 1 drink per 1.5 hours) who is walking out of the bar?  Because that is a crime.  It‘s not legal to be intoxicated in public.  So whatever stiff sentence you want to hand out to the guy with a joint, you‘d better be prepared to give to anyone found in public who has consumed more that 2-3 drinks over the entire evening.  It would be nearly everyone who walks out of a bar.  
People don‘t like to look at it that way, but breaking a law is breaking a law.  The laws surrounding alcohol are very strict, yet as a society we aren‘t "vigilent" in enforcing them.  Is it becasue alcohol is safe, and doesnt cause liver and brain damage, and people don‘t get so impared that they make fatal decisions? No, obviously not.
There‘s a lot of reasons why its overlooked, but none of them justify it.

Think about that the next time you go drinking (if you do), that if some fraction of the population had a rigid attitude about drinking and wanted it enforced, you could never again go to Denny‘s at 3:30am with your buddies for breakfast after a night of drinking, because you would be arrested.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

e


----------



## Garry

Graham,

You bit on the word Fairy", and let my "rant coming" send you on one.

Emotions, Bud.

First things first- on the Fairy thing:

I never mentioned homosexuals- (see Webster‘s for the definition of Fairy)- and going back to my original post, you‘ll find that I personally don‘t think it‘s any of my business what someone‘s sexual orientation is... or their lifestyle choices. (ie drug use) Nor is it any of your‘s, to be honest.

We shouldn‘t much care what other people do, unless their "choices" infringe on yours.

On the redneck thing:

I‘ve seen a lot of folk in stressful situations, and in all honesty I was surprised at their reactions. Some of the "tough" guys fell apart when it got scary: whereas some of the weaker guys stepped up to the plate and did fine.

I‘ve also seen a lot of talkers, and generally they have let me down. 

If I have to be in a scary situation (and remember I abhor violence) I‘d much rather have someone who has the moral courage to stand tall, and the physical strength to stand long.

Your call, but I choose those who have worked for a living.

On the Socialist thing:

I have seen my tax dollars wasted for years on people who choose not to work. I believe that we, as a country, have plenty of resources to help the truly needy- but must we support those who cannot find a job they like, or pays them the 35$ an hour they had before...I could go on, but hopefull you get my drift. Too many people choose not to accept the responsibility to care for themselves. If they won‘t, why should I?

Sorry you were exposed to racism- that sucks. That‘s also life- deal with it.

The original topic:

Nothing you‘ve said detracts me from my original idea- and that is that druggies can do what they want, none of my business what you choose to do to yourself.

Bottom Line:

I‘ll raise my kids according to my personal moral beliefs, and you do the same.

I‘ll live my life based on my own moral beliefs, you do the same.

The problem:

We interact socially based on a combination of our moral beliefs and the social mores of our collective ancestors- and that‘s where the problems arise. The social mores that our ancestors bled to establish are changing. Change is good, but the pace of change is staggering- and not understood, nor shared by all... and that is causing social unrest.

Yanking your chain:

Churchill: (quote) "A man who, at age 20, isn‘t a Liberal has no heart. A man who, at age 40, isn‘t a Conservative has no brain". 

Be happy.

Garry


----------



## onecat

"different stratagy for combatting drug abuse, but I don‘t believe this half-as*ed decriminalization measure is the proper approach. "

yeah the war on drugs is work so well!!!  If want a different stratagy lets look at effects, for the amount of danage it does to society; we should really be going after alcohol.  Alcohol has caused more Deaths, more Family Break ups, More Beating.... well the list could go on and on.  On terms of evils to society... alcohol way out ranks pot, is more of a gateway drug than pot.


"But, a 25 year old caught with drugs is nothing but an idiot with no sense of social responsibility and obviously needs a lesson, and I don‘t think a 100 dollar fine is suitable enough."

Social responsibility....  I think if did a study of the reason why people end up on the street, again alcohol use would be farer up the list than pot.

If you really want to save us from the evils of drug use, then save us from alcohol, and tobacco, and yeah caffine too.  But wait most people who are addicted to tobacco think its okay to smoke it in people‘s faces and use it pretty anywhere....  again which is the greater evil. Pot where one person might smoke one joint a day... or tobacco; where the aveage user smokes over a 25 a day... and in some cases never stops smoking them.

If you really cared about making society a better place you would be for all stopping these evils as well.  But Think your more interested in keeping society the way it is.  Which of course is a failed course of action.  At leats with discrimaliastion you turn the drug into a product, to be marketed and sold and like coffee, tobacco, beer, etc and take it out of hands of a biker...


----------



## PTE Gruending

It‘s almost as if alcohol is so woven into our society (and Army culture even more so), that people are blind to its negative effects. Every single week of my life I see it causing bad things to happen: drunk drivers everyday on the news, people drunk at the bars fighting, causing vandalism, go to any convienance store at night and chances are that you will see some intoxicated guys come in and steal or treat the staff like ****. 

What about people getting drunk and making asses of themselves? Girls/guys getting drunk, and taken advantage of? Ive seen people drunk, punching hole after hole in their apartment walls because they thought it was funny. Throwing rocks at cars, and smashing signs with baseball bats.

Alcoholism is a major problem in society today. Look at any case of domestic disturbance, child abuse, etc etc, and its almost assured that alcohol will be involved somewhere.

Should alcohol be illegal? ****  no, I love the stuff, and I believe that in a free society, the honus should be on the individual to make the right decisions and live responsibly. 

What if "big brother" (AKA the governement), came in and said that tobbaco should be banned? Look at the billions of dollars in healthcare that cigarette smoking saps. **** , same for alcohol - insurance, hospital treatment, addiction counselling etc. Why draw the line there? Obese people are also drawing tax dollars? Maybe the government should step in and limit daily calorie intake. 

In a liberal democracy, we should be expected to live as responsible adults. Again, if you can go hard all weekend, partying it up, and still do your job on monday, who the ****  cares what you were doing?

What you have to remember is that we live in a free society, and as soldiers I would expect you to recognize how important that is. Has the blood of your forefathers spilt in the name of liberty and freedom been wasted?


----------



## onecat

"Should alcohol be illegal? **** no, I love the stuff, and I believe that in a free society, the honus should be on the individual to make the right decisions and live responsibly."

That‘s my point about pot.  We live in a free society and should be able to make that choice for ourselves: and not have big brother say it‘s bad for us.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

And we as a society should be able to decide that paying for your pathetic need for artifical stimulus should in no way require us to pay for your health care when the inevitable consequences catch up to you...


----------



## PTE Gruending

Mr. Dorash,
yes you are right, its a "catch 22". Where do you draw the line? The government must be careful as to not undermine the very fundamentals that our society is based upon, ie; freedom. What should be allowed and what shouldnt? Perhaps their should be more responsibility regarding healthcare, dare I say "privatized". Should junkies that overdosed on something like heroin be accountable for full bills incurred during treatment? Should they be denied admittance to hospitals at all?

It is a difficult situation, how about the same rules applied to people suffering from alcohol poisoning where they might need their stomach pumped. Or extreme sports junkies who injur themselves bungie-jumping, motorcycling, or even playing hockey.

I guess what I am saying is that much of the problems associated with personal responsibility would be weeded out if we were more accountable. This should elimate concerns with alcohol vs marijauna vs tobbaco, etc...


----------



## Infanteer

I love when people bring alcohol into the mix.

Two wrongs don‘t make a right.


----------



## Infanteer

> Wrong. I know a lot of people who don‘t do drugs who agree with decriminalization. Plus, I‘ve seen many on T.V. in news stories and so forth.


How many potheads do you know that want to keep it a criminal offence?

I can‘t wait to be debating with you guys one day on why we should decriminalize cocaine possession.  It‘ll happen, because that is the next mainstream drug.  16 year olds in high school now snort cocaine as a party drug.

So we can agree to disagree.  There is a line drawn in the sand and I feel comfortable with where I stand, do you?


----------



## onecat

"And we as a society should be able to decide that paying for your pathetic need for artificial stimulus should in no way require us to pay for your health care when the inevitable consequences catch up to you..."

So Mr. Dorosh, are you going to include in that group of poor choices, people who sit on a$$ all day and eat fast food because its easier.  All the while knowing that‘s making them fat, un-healthy, and will send them to health care all that much faster. Though health problems don‘t come cheap. What about the people, who knowly put there life at risk doing sports like football, mountain biking riding, skiing, etc... one mistake and it‘s our tax dollars that pay for it.

"Should junkies that overdosed on something like heroin be accountable for full bills incurred during treatment? Should they be denied admittance to hospitals at all?"

Answer is yes, but the same could be said for someone who is over 450 pounds, or dying of lung cancer because they smoked for how many years.

Everyone pays for other people‘s consequences... it doesn‘t what you do... your going use them.  And just to point out if smoke pot once and while its not going to wreck your health, and like wine it might even be good for you.


"I guess what I am saying is that much of the problems associated with personal responsibility would be weeded out if we were more accountable."

That right then only the rich will get the correct health care and the rest of  will only get what we can afford.  Have you looked at US style health care? For the avenge Joe, its no better our system, and way more expensive. Or have you not noticed that.

So far I haven‘t read one reason that can stick for pot being illegal.  Its no different than many other artificial stimulus that we humans put into our bodies.  Have you looked at what goes into the turkey we‘ll all eating this weekend.  The drugs should make you sick. But hey this about the pot, not industrial farming.  Now that should be illegal.


----------



## GrahamD

> How many potheads do you know that want to keep it a criminal offence?


I dont know what you mean by that response to the statement I made that I know a lot of people "who don‘t do drugs" and lots of other non users on T.V. who would like to see it decriminalized.
  To answer the question anyway, I don‘t know anyone who smokes pot that would like to see it stay a criminal offence.  What‘s the point you are making?

As for waiting to debate us on the topic of decriminalization of cocaine, you‘d better not hold your breath.   The government isn‘t full of drug dealing conspirators, they aren‘t going to legalize narcotics any time soon.
  You understand that marijuana and alcohol have similar physiological effects, and that neither produce phychotic effects, except in rare cases, and usually only if there is a previous history of drug use or head injury, right?
  Cocaine is a manufactured and refined narcotic that often results in psychotic episodes, seizures, and in some cases death due to heart attack.  Not to mention that it is extremely addictive.  Marijuana? safe on all counts.  Alcohol? almost, but it too is highly addictive.

You‘re comparing apples to oranges.
  And everyone stop trying to say that it costs you money for people to smoke pot.  It costs more money for people to drink and smoke.  Alcoholics spend millions in treatment centers, detox, and take up hospital beds sometimes for months as they die from liver and heart disease.  I just read a report from the ministy of health that stated in British Columbia a couple of years ago, that alcohol was a direct cause in over 50% of the violent crime cases handled by the R.C.M.P. (just over 4000 cases)  We pay those salaries. I‘d rather see them track down cocaine dealers than spend time cleaning up the mess made by people who get violent when they drink, or by people who kill families while they drink and drive.
Don‘t even get me started on the insurance rates being so much higher due to drinking drivers.


----------



## onecat

"I can‘t wait to be debating with you guys one day on why we should decriminalize cocaine possession"

Its sad you have to jump to the extreme in order to try to defend your position.  There is nothing similar about pot and cocaine.  This line of argument is very similar to the one‘s used in the gay marriage debate, when they try it( gay marriage) to PAEDOPHILES.... it just doesn‘t work.


----------



## gate_guard

Radiohead,
Is it such a stretch? Years ago they never believed that pot would be decriminalized. But how times change. So what‘s to stop us from years down the road decriminalizing the next drug in line. And what will the arguments be? "Well, alcohol and smoking can be just as harmful and costs the taxpayers just as much so..." You get the point? Where do we draw the final line? We‘ve got to stop setting temporary legal boundaries. Yes, alcohol and tobacco are both dangerous substances. But, adding a third (and in the future a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc) substance to the mix isn‘t exactly the solution. Society is busy now trying to clean up the mess caused by smoking and drinking via anti-smoking laws and cracking down on drunk driving and rightfully so. 

With regards to others who are in favour of decriminalization, I‘m curious because every point that‘s been argued has referred to how harmless marijuana is. Well do you actually think that pot is a productive substance? That good old Billy smoking a doob after school will be that much smarter and motivated? Okay, make sure you let your kids know that you think pot smoking is a-okay, I‘m sure they‘ll love you for it. Just don‘t piss and moan when they‘re over 30, still living in your basement, eating your lucky charms.
But hey, don‘t worry, they won‘t have a record.


----------



## Spr.Earl

Granted we are against dope.
But what about f!@#$ing your buddy?

That was illeagal but it‘s allowed now but you can‘t love your girl friend in your own room!

But you can have a sex change and then also f&^k your buddy!

Now that Pot may become leagal what will D.N.D. do?Will D.N.D. member‘s have the same right‘s as civies in regard‘s to the law?

As we all know overseas we are alway‘s lectured and reminded of how we still come under the Criminal Code of Canada when it come‘s to our action‘s,so does that mean we can live by the new drug laws?

Were do we draw the line?


----------



## McInnes

Really good points. 
But with alcohol, everbody always brings it up, that it‘s so bad blah blah blah, pot isnt that much worse, while we‘re at it, let‘s compare it to smoking. 
Alcohol is the same with anything really...it all depends on how you use it. Yes countless people die of drunk driving, relationships are ruined, people act like idiots. But how many people die in car crashes, with nothing to do with substance abuse? Is that to say that we should ban cars? And you cannot say that people high off pot act their best either. Look at the new laws in BC for driving. You can‘t drive without someone with their full class 5 licence who is 25 or over untill you‘re 17. And even when you get your N you are only aloud to drive with you and one other person, discounting immediate family. You have to have your N for 2 years. All in all, three years before you can drive normally. No more being the DD for your buds untill your 19.
We as a society have to realise that people will die from stupid preventable things. You can‘t put laws around everything to stop things. People are still going to ride bicycles without helmets, **** em. And my family is Scottish, thus a ****  of a lot of drinking. My family is the closest knit, and funnest family to be around that i know. A lot of the times I‘d rather party with my family over my friends. You can‘t say that alcohol makes bad people. Guns dont kill people, people kill people.    

Cheers


----------



## nULL

the new driving laws in BC are f*ucking retarded. if somebody is goign to drive drunkenly home from a party, are they really going to prevent thier drunken buddies from getting in the car? the only thing that the new laws are going to do is prevent me from learning in british columbia


i‘ve got another address in alberta, hopefully it‘ll be better there...


----------



## GrahamD

Actually you can say alcohol makes bad people.  Drunk guys have date raped women for years.  Alcoholics screw over their friends families and co-workers all the time.  People who are certain that they will drink responsibly, end up driving and murdering people with their cars.  Thats not a bad thing happening to a good person.  Thats a good person made bad by alcohol.

I wouldn‘t say that marijuana isn‘t much worse than alcohol.  I‘d say its better.  People don‘t become as intoxicated, people don‘t get violent on pot, and it‘s not physically addicting.

As for legalizing cocaine.  It‘s never going to happen.  Theres no need to be dramatic about the line in the sand.  Thats just a paranoid argument by people who don‘t know thing 1 about marijuana.  Some people still seem to be trapped in the "reefer madness" propaganda stage with their views on pot.  You know, the movie where marijuana users get jacked up on pot and drive their cars like maniacs, and one guy turns into an axe murderer?

It‘s funny that people are so complacent about alcohol, yet they get so steamed about people being high.  The fact is they‘ve probably hit up on chicks, or chatted with "real stand up guys" who were baked and they never even knew it.  Most of the time you can‘t even tell that someone is high, (unless they are 15 and won‘t stop laughing).  Can you tell when someone is drunk? Almost always, unless they are a real pro drunk.  They are almost always obnoxious and annoying, sometimes rowdy and violent.  Go tell my kids its ok to smoke pot?  I‘ll be sure to do that before I ever tell them to go out drinking illegaly.  Kids don‘t die from a night out smoking pot with their friends.


----------



## Infanteer

I am not being paranoid.

I just don‘t want the country I‘ve dedicated my life to serving to change into something like Amsterdam.

It was funny, I was driving through East Hastings in Vancouver the other day with a friend who lived in Europe for a year.  She said the east end of Vancouver was mild compared to that "showpiece of tolerance and freedom" in the Netherlands."


----------



## Andyboy

AWell I see no-one bothered to read the link I posted. Nice work.

Herre it is again with some hilights copied and pasted for those of you who can‘t be bothered to educate themselves...I guess you‘re all high eating Lucky Charms in your parent‘s basements.

 http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/summary-e.htm 


Ã˜   The size of the national production has significantly increased, and it is estimated that 50% of cannabis available in Canada is now produced in the country;

Ã˜   The main producer provinces are British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec;

Ã˜   Estimates of the monetary value of the cannabis market are unreliable. For example, if 400 tons are grown yearly in Canada, at a street value of $225 per ounce, the total value of the Canadian production would be less than $6 billion per year, less than the often quoted value of the BC market alone;

Ã˜   An unknown proportion of national production is exported to the United States; and

Ã˜   A portion of production is controlled by organized crime elements.

Ã˜   In its natural state, cannabis contains between 0.5% and 3% THC. Sophisticated growing methods and genetic progress have made it possible to increase THC content in recent years, but it is impossible to estimate the average content of cannabis available in the market; it is reasonable to consider that content varies between 6% and 31%.

Ã˜   THC is fat soluble and readily spreads in the innervated tissues of the brain; it reaches a peak in the blood plasma in less than nine minutes and falls to approximately 5% after one hour.

Ã˜   The body is slow to eliminate THC and inactive THC metabolites can be detected in urine up to 27 days after use in the case of regular users.

Ã˜   Psychoactive effects generally last two to three hours and may last as many as five to seven hours after use.

Ã˜   The epidemiological data available indicates that close to 30% of the population (12 to 64 years old) has used cannabis at least once;

Ã˜   Approximately 2 million Canadians over age 18 have used cannabis during the previous 12 months, approximately 600,000 have used it during the past month, and approximately 100,000 use it daily. Approximately 10% used cannabis during the previous year; and

Ã˜   Use is highest between the ages of 16 and 24.

For youth in the 12-17 age group, we observed that: 

Ã˜   Canada would appear to have one of the highest rates of cannabis use among youths;

Ã˜   Approximately 1 million would appear to have used cannabis in the previous 12 months, 750,000 in the last month and 225,000 would appear make daily use; and

Ã˜   The average age of introduction to cannabis is 15.

Ã˜   Most experimenters stop using cannabis;

Ã˜   Regular users were generally introduced to cannabis at a younger age. Long-term users most often have a trajectory in which use rises and falls;

Ã˜   Long-term regular users experience a period of heavy use in their early 20s;

Ã˜   Most long-term users integrate their use into their family, social and occupational activities; and

Ã˜   Cannabis itself is not a cause of other drug use. In this sense, we reject the gateway theory.

Ã˜   Cannabis itself is not a cause of delinquency and crime; and

Ã˜   Cannabis is not a cause of violence.

Ã˜   The immediate effects of cannabis are characterized by feelings of euphoria, relaxation and sociability; they are accompanied by impairment of short-term memory, concentration and some psychomotor skills; and

Ã˜   Long term effects on cognitive functions have not been established in research.


Ã˜   Most users are not at-risk users insofar as their use is regulated, irregular and temporary, rarely beyond 30 years of age;

Ã˜   For users above 16, at-risk use is defined as using between 0.1 to 1 gram per day; and

Ã˜   Available epidemiological data suggests that approximately 100,000 Canadians might be at-risk users.

Ã˜   The Committee feels that, because of its potential effects on the endogenous cannabinoid system and cognitive and psychosocial functions, any use in those under age 16 is at-risk use.

Ã˜   More than one gram per day over a long period of time is heavy use, which can have certain negative consequences on the physical, psychological and social well-being of the user. According to the epidemiological data available, there is reason to believe that approximately 80,000 Canadians above age 16 could be excessive users;

Ã˜   For those between the ages of 16 and 18, heavy use is not necessarily daily use but use in the morning, alone or during school activities;

Ã˜   Heavy use can have negative consequences for physical health, in particular for the respiratory system (chronic bronchitis, cancer of the upper respiratory tract);

Ã˜   Heavy use of cannabis can result in negative psychological consequences for users, in particular impaired concentration and learning and, in rare cases and with people already predisposed, psychotic and schizophrenic episodes;

Ã˜   Heavy use of cannabis can result in consequences for a user's social well-being, in particular their occupational and social situation and their ability to perform tasks; and

Ã˜   Heavy use of cannabis can result in dependence requiring treatment; however, dependence caused by cannabis is less severe and less frequent than dependence on other psychotropic substances, including alcohol and tobacco.

Ã˜   Between 5% and 12% of drivers may drive under the influence of cannabis; this percentage increases to over 20% for young men under 25 years of age;

Ã˜   Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving. Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving. However it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. This in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk;

Ã˜   A significant percentage of impaired drivers test positive for cannabis and alcohol together. The effects of cannabis when combined with alcohol are more significant than is the case for alcohol alone;

Ã˜   Despite recent progress, there does not yet exist a reliable and non intrusive rapid roadside testing method;

Ã˜   Blood remains the best medium for detecting the presence of cannabinoids;

Ã˜   Urine cannot screen for recent use;

Ã˜   Saliva is promising, but rapid commercial tests are not yet reliable enough;

Ã˜   The visual recognition method used by police officers has yielded satisfactory results; and 

Ã˜   It is essential to conduct studies in order to develop a rapid testing tool and learn more about the driving habits of cannabis users.


Ã˜   There are clear, though non-definitive indications of the therapeutic benefits of marijuana in the following conditions: analgesic for chronic pain, antispasm for multiple sclerosis, anticonvulsive for epilepsy, antiemetic for chemotherapy and appetite stimulant for cachexi;

Ã˜   There are less clear indications regarding the effect of marijuana on glaucoma and other medical conditions;

Ã˜   Marijuana has not been established as a drug through rigorous, controlled studies;

Ã˜   The quality and effectiveness of marijuana, primarily smoked marijuana, have not been determined in clinical studies;

Ã˜   There have been some studies of synthetic compounds, but the knowledge base is still too small to determine effectiveness and safety;

Ã˜   Generally, the effects of smoked marijuana are more specific and occur faster than the effects of synthetic compounds;

Ã˜   The absence of certain cannabinoids in synthetic compounds can lead to harmful side effects, such as panic attacks and cannabinoid psychoses;

Ã˜   Smoked marijuana is potentially harmful to the respiratory system;

Ã˜   People who smoke marijuana for therapeutic purposes self-regulate their use depending on their physical condition and do not really seek the psychoactive effect;

Ã˜   People who smoke marijuana for therapeutic purposes prefer to have a choice as to methods of use;

Ã˜   Measures should be taken to support and encourage the development of alternative practices, such as the establishment of compassion clubs;

Ã˜   The practices of these organizations are in line with the therapeutic indications arising from clinical studies and meet the strict rules on quality and safety;

Ã˜   The studies that have already been approved by Health Canada must be conducted as quickly as possible;

Ã˜   The qualities of the marijuana used in those studies must meet the standards of current practice in compassion clubs, not NIDA standards;

Ã˜   The studies should focus on applications and the specific doses for various medical conditions; and

Ã˜   Health Canada should, at the earliest possible opportunity, undertake a clinical study in cooperation with Canadian compassion clubs.

Ã˜   Public opinion on marijuana is more liberal than it was 10 years ago;

Ã˜   There is a tendency to think that marijuana use is more widespread and that marijuana is more available than it used to be;

Ã˜   There is a tendency to think that marijuana is not a dangerous drug;

Ã˜   The concern about organized crime is significant;

Ã˜   Support for medical use of marijuana is strong;

Ã˜   There is a tendency to favour decriminalization or, to a lesser degree, legalization;

Ã˜   People criticize enforcement of the legislation in regards to simple possession of marijuana; and

Ã˜   There is a concern for youth and children

Ã˜   Canada urgently needs a comprehensive and coordinated national drug strategy for which the federal government provides sound leadership;

Ã˜   Any future national drug strategy should incorporate all psychoactive substances, including alcohol and tobacco;

Ã˜   To be successful, a national drug strategy must involve true partnerships with all levels of government and with non-governmental organizations;

Ã˜   Over the years, the intermittency of funding has diminished the ability to coordinate and implement the strategy; adequate resources and a long-term commitment to funding are needed if the strategy is to be successful;

Ã˜   Clear objectives for the strategy must be set out, and comprehensive evaluations of these objectives and the results are required;

Ã˜   At the developmental stage, there is a need to identify clear and shared criteria for â€œsuccessâ€;

Ã˜   The core funding for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) has been insufficient for it to carry out its mandate; proper funding for the CCSA is essential;

Ã˜   There is a need for an independent organization - the CCSA - to conduct national surveys at least every second year; there is also a need to achieve some level of consistency, comparability and similar time frames for provincially-based school surveys;

Ã˜   Coordination at the federal level should be given to a body that is not an integral part of one of the partner departments; and

Ã˜   Canada's Drug Strategy's should adopt a balanced approach - 90% of federal expenditures are currently allocated to the supply reduction.

Ã˜   Early drug legislation was largely based on a moral panic, racist sentiment and a notorious absence of debate;

Ã˜   Drug legislation often contained particularly severe provisions, such as reverse onus and cruel and unusual sentences; and

Ã˜   The work of the Le Dain Commission laid the foundation for a more rational approach to illegal drug policy by attempting to rely on research data. The Le Dain Commission‘s work had no legislative outcome until 1996 in certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, particularly with regard to cannabis.


Ã˜   The MMAR are not providing a compassionate framework for access to marijuana for therapeutic purposes and are unduly restricting the availability of marijuana to patients who may receive health benefits from its use;

Ã˜   The refusal of the medical community to act as gatekeepers and the lack of access to legal sources of cannabis appear to make the current regulatory scheme an â€œillusoryâ€ legislative exemption and raises serious Charter implications;

Ã˜   In almost one year, only 255 people have been authorized to possess marijuana for therapeutic purposes under the MMAR and only 498 applications have been received - this low participation rate is of concern;

Ã˜   Changes are urgently needed with regard to who is eligible to use cannabis for therapeutic purposes and how such people gain access to cannabis;

Ã˜   Research on the safety and efficacy of cannabis has not commenced in Canada because researchers are unable to obtain the product needed to conduct their trials;

Ã˜   No attempt has been made in Health Canada's current research plan to acknowledge the considerable expertise currently residing in the compassion clubs;

Ã˜   The development of a Canadian source of research-grade marijuana has been a failure.


Ã˜   The annual cost of drug enforcement in Canada is estimated to be between $700 million and $1 billion;

Ã˜   Reduced law enforcement activities resulting from amendments to the drug legislation on cannabis could produce substantial savings or a significant reallocation of funds by police forces to other priorities;

Ã˜   Due to the consensual nature of drug offences, police have been granted substantial enforcement powers and have adopted highly intrusive investigative techniques; these powers are not unlimited, however, and are subject to review by Canadian courts;

Ã˜   Over 90,000 drug-related incidents are reported annually by police; more than three-quarters of these incidents relate to cannabis and over 50% of all drug-related incidents involve possession of cannabis;

Ã˜   From 1991 to 2001, the percentage change in rate per 100,000 people for cannabis-related offences is +91.5 - thus, the rate of reported cannabis-related offences has almost doubled in the past decade;

Ã˜   The number of reported incidents related to the cultivation of cannabis increased dramatically in the past decade;

Ã˜   Reported incident rates vary widely from province to province;

Ã˜   Cannabis was involved in 70% of the approximately 50,000 drug-related charges in 1999. In 43% of cases (21,381), the charge was for possession of cannabis.;

Ã˜   The rate of charges laid for drug offences vary significantly from province to province;

Ã˜   The uneven application of the law is of great concern and may lead to discriminatory enforcement, alienation of certain groups within society, and creation of an atmosphere of disrespect for the law; in general, it raises the issue of fairness and justice; and

Ã˜   Statistics on seizure seem to confirm an increase in cannabis cultivation in Canada and also a shift in police priorities regarding this offence.

Ã˜   The cost of prosecuting drug offences in 2000-2001 was $57 million with approximately $5 million or roughly 10% of the total budget relating to prosecuting cannabis possession offences;

Ã˜   In 1999, it was estimated that Canadian criminal courts heard 34,000 drug cases, which involved more than 400,000 court appearances;

Ã˜   The Drug Treatment Court initiatives seem very encouraging, although comprehensive evaluations are needed to ensure such programs are effective;

Ã˜   Disposition and sentencing data with respect to drug-related offences are incomplete and there is an urgent need to correct this situation;

Ã˜   Correctional Service Canada spends an estimated $169 million annually to address illicit drugs through incarceration, substance abuse programs, treatment programs and security measures; expenditures on substance abuse programs are unreasonably low, given the number of inmates who have substance-abuse dependence problems;

Ã˜   A criminal conviction can negatively affect a person's financial situation, career opportunities and restrict travel. In addition, it can be an important factor in future dealings with the criminal justice system; and

Ã˜   Provincial courts of appeal have so far maintained the constitutionality of cannabis prohibition. They have found that because there is some evidence of harm caused by marijuana use that is neither trivial nor insignificant, Parliament has a rational basis to act as it has done, and the marijuana prohibition is therefore consistent with the principles of fundamental justice in section 7 of the Charter. These decisions have been appealed, and the Supreme Court of Canada will soon decide whether cannabis prohibition is constitutionally sound.

Ã˜   Prevention is not designed to control but rather to empower individuals to make informed decisions and acquire tools to avoid at-risk behaviour;

Ã˜   A national drug strategy should include a strong prevention component;

Ã˜   Prevention strategies must be able to take into account contemporary knowledge about drugs;

Ã˜   Prevention messages must be credible, verifiable and neutral;

Ã˜   Prevention strategies must be comprehensive, cover many different factors and involve the community;

Ã˜   Prevention strategies in schools should not be led by police services or delivered by police officers;

Ã˜   The RCMP should reconsider its choice of the DARE program that many evaluation studies have shown to be ineffective;

Ã˜   Prevention strategies must include comprehensive evaluation of a number of key elements;

Ã˜   A national drug strategy should include mechanisms for widely disseminating the results of research and evaluations;

Ã˜   Evaluations must avoid reductionism, involve stakeholders in prevention, be part of the program, and include longitudinal impact assessment;

Ã˜   Harm reduction strategies related to cannabis should be developed in coordination with educators and the social services sector; and

Ã˜   Harm reduction strategies related to cannabis should include information on the risks associated with heavy chronic use, tools for detecting at-risk and heavy users and measures to discourage people from driving under the influence of marijuana.

Ã˜   The expression 'drug addiction' should no longer be used and we should talk instead of substance abuse and dependency;

Ã˜   Between 5% and 10% of regular cannabis users are at risk of developing a dependency;

Ã˜   Physical dependency on cannabis is virtually non-existent;

Ã˜   Psychological dependency is moderate and is certainly lower than for nicotine or alcohol;

Ã˜   Most regular users of cannabis are able to diverge from a trajectory of dependency without requiring treatment;

Ã˜   There are many forms of treatment but nothing is known about the effectiveness of the different forms of treatment for cannabis dependency specifically;

Ã˜   As a rule, treatment is more effective and less costly than incarceration;

Ã˜   Studies of the treatment programs should be conducted, including treatments programs for people with cannabis dependency; and

Ã˜   Studies should be conducted on the interaction of the cannabinoid and the opioid systems.

Â·               The costs associated with all illegal drugs were $1.4 billion, compared with $7.5 billion in the case of alcohol and $9.6 billion in the case of tobacco. 

Â·               Expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the total costs for all substances was 2.67%. Of this, 0.2% was for illegal drugs, 1.09% for alcohol and 1.39% for tobacco. 

Â·               The principal costs of illegal drugs are externalities, that is, loss of productivity - $823 million, health care - $88 million, and losses in the workplace - $5.5 million, for a total of about 67% of all costs related to illegal drugs. 

Â·               The cost of public policies, or opportunity costs, represent about 33%. 

Â·               The cost of enforcing the law represents about 29.2% of all costs, or about 88% of all policy costs.  The balance goes to prevention, research and administration. 

Ã˜   The lack of any real national platform for discussion and debate on illegal drugs prevents the development of clear objectives and measurement indicators;

Ã˜   The absence of a national platform makes exchange of information and best practices impossible;

Ã˜   Practices and approaches vary considerably between and within provinces and territories;

Ã˜   The conflicting approaches of the various players in the field are a source of confusion;

Ã˜   The resources and powers of enforcement are greatly out of balance compared with those of the health and education fields and the civil society;

Ã˜   The costs of all illegal drugs had risen to close to $1.4 billion in 1992;

Ã˜   Of the total costs of illegal drugs in 1992, externalities (social costs) represented 67% and public policy costs 33%;

Ã˜   The social costs of illegal drugs and the public policy costs are underestimated ;

Ã˜   The cost of enforcing the drug laws is more likely to be closer to $1 billion to $1.5 billion per annum;

Ã˜   The principal public policy cost relative to cannabis is that of law enforcement and the justice system; which may be estimated to represent a total of $300 to $500 million per annum;

Ã˜   The costs of externalities attributable to cannabis are probably minimal - no deaths, few hospitalizations, and little loss of productivity;

Ã˜   The costs of public policy on cannabis are disproportionately high given the drug's social and health consequences; and

Ã˜   The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse is seriously under-funded; its annual budget amounts to barely 0.1% of the social costs of illegal drugs alone (alcohol not included). Its budget should be increased to at least 1%; that is, approximately $15 million per annum.

Ã˜   The series of international agreements concluded since 1912 have failed to achieve their ostensible aim of reducing the supply of drugs;

Ã˜   The international conventions constitute a two-tier system that regulates the synthetic substances produced by the North and prohibits the organic substances produced by the South, while ignoring the real danger the substances represent for public health;

Ã˜   When cannabis was included in the international conventions in 1925, there was no knowledge of its effects;

Ã˜   The international classifications of drugs are arbitrary and do not reflect the level of danger they represent to health or to society;

Ã˜   Canada should inform the international community of the conclusions of our report and officially request the declassification of cannabis and its derivatives.

In our view, it is clear that if the aim of public policy is to diminish consumption and supply of drugs, specifically cannabis, all signs indicate complete failure.  

Ã˜   Billions of dollars have been sunk into enforcement without any greater effect. There are more consumers, more regular users and more regular adolescent users;

Ã˜   Billions of dollars have been poured into enforcement in an effort to reduce supply, without any greater effect. Cannabis is more available than ever, it is cultivated on a large scale, even exported, swelling coffers and making organized crime more powerful; and

Ã˜   There have been tens of thousands of arrests and convictions for the possession of cannabis and thousands of people have been incarcerated. However, use trends remain totally unaffected and the gap the Commission noted between the law and public compliance continues to widen.


There is a lot there and basically all I did is copy the point form conclusions from each section.


----------



## Andyboy

To filter it down even further...

 "Thirty years after the Le Dain Commission report, we are able to categorically state that, used in moderation, cannabis in itself poses very little danger to users and to society as a whole, but specific types of use represent risks for users." 

   "We would add that, even if cannabis were to have serious harmful effects, one would have to question the relevance of using the criminal law to limit these effects. We have demonstrated that criminal law is not an appropriate governance tool for matters relating to personal choice and that prohibition is known to result in harm which often outweighs the desired positive effects."


     "Even if cannabis itself poses very little danger to the user and to society as a whole, some types of use involve risks. It is time for our public policy to recognize this and to focus on preventing at-risk use and on providing treatment for excessive cannabis users."  

     "The prohibition of cannabis does not bring about the desired reduction in cannabis consumption or problematic use. However, this approach does have a whole series of harmful consequences. Users are marginalized, and over 20,000 Canadians are arrested each year for cannabis possession. Young people in schools no longer enjoy the same constitutional and civil protection of their rights as others. Organized crime benefits from prohibition and the criminalization of cannabis enhances their power and wealth. Society will never be able to stamp out drug use â€“ particularly cannabis use." 

__________________________________________________

These are some of the findings of the SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL DRUGS in SEP002, taken at face value they could be summed to to say there is nothing showing Cannibus is particularly harmful to society or individuals if used in moderation and even if it were using the criminal justice system to fight it isn‘t working and regardless what the US and Mexico thinks we should be doing what‘s best for our citizens.


----------



## gate_guard

Andyboy,

*"Users are marginalized, and over 20,000 Canadians are arrested each year for cannabis possession."* 

Marginalization in the case of marijuana use is the lack of responsibility and acountability. It‘s like saying "D@mn, I knew it was illegal but I did it anyways and now I have a record and can‘t get a good job." Well, sh!t, you sure stepped on your hammer there, you should have known better.

*"Young people in schools no longer enjoy the same constitutional and civil protection of their rights as others."* 

As who? WHAT? Just what the he11 is this trying to say in relation to the issue here? 

*"Organized crime benefits from prohibition and the criminalization of cannabis enhances their power and wealth."* 

Sure it does, I would rather they grow pot than fields of coca plants or setting up meth labs. They‘re gonna make money one way or another, may as well be something "harmless" like pot.

*"Society will never be able to stamp out drug use â€“ particularly cannabis use." * 

No, it won‘t, society won‘t be able to "stamp out" murder either. There‘ll never be a zero crime rate unless you legalize everything.


First of all, why would you trust anything coming off a gov‘t website? Least of all a "study"? Anyone who has ever taken a Statistics or Research Methods course knows that the accuracy of a "study" is relative to it‘s methods, and even then it still is only an educated guess. I especially like the part about public opinion where they say in so many words "We would have done a representative sample (a relatively "accurate" method) but it was too expensive. So we just did focus groups, and read emails and letters." Wow, highly accurate methods. As for the rest of it, there wasn‘t really any epiphanic revelations for me there. What it comes down to is public opinion, and they can‘t even measure that properly. And that is all this mess boils down to, the type of society that Canadians want to live in. All this nonsense aside, take a vote, if Canadians want it decriminalized then do it, otherwise don‘t. Yes, decriminalizing pot "makes sense." But then again, a lot of things make sense, a Communist society in theory "makes sense", doesn‘t mean I want to live in one. This is a democracy, majority rules.


By the way, next time you feel like posting a "study", Andyboy? Save Mr. Bobbitt the drive space, some people actually do read links, I tend to ignore studies because they‘re no better than someones opinion.


----------



## Infanteer

All these studies on Marijuana are nice, by they focus too narrowly on a single bit of subject matter.

Basically, my whole argument is 
DO WE WANT A SOCIETY THAT IS TOLERANT OF DRUG ABUSE?!?

Illegality is my best way of saying no.


----------



## McInnes

> "Thirty years after the Le Dain Commission report, we are able to categorically state that, used in moderation, cannabis in itself poses very little danger to users and to society as a whole, but specific types of use represent risks for users."


You can say the same bloody thing about alcohol. So stop blaming alcohol. D@mnit, I know a fair amount of people who get violent and do stupid 
sh!t and get completly tanked, well they shouldnt be drinking, or drinking like that. They are idiots if they do. He!l, alcohol in moderation like a beer a day is supposed to be good for you. I know more people who can handle their booze, and if they can‘t, they know it and act accordingly, than idiots who abuse it.


----------



## Andyboy

Hmmm I post a link, no response. I copy and paste from the link and get 3 responses, interesting.


Gate Guard:

Maybe I misunderstand but are you seriously asking why I would post a link to what our Senate thinks about Marijuana and what their recomendations to our Government are? 

I find it interesting and rather telling that you are asking me to clarify a highlight from this study. It‘s not my study, if you want clarification read it yourself. Or ignore it, your choice. 

By the way Gate Guard I‘m pretty sure Mr.Bobbit can speak for himself, if he has aproblem with what I‘ve posted he‘ll let me know.


Infanteer:

We already have a society that tolerates and, in somes cases, encourages drug addiction. Are cocaine and heroin treated the same way as caffeine and alchohol? Should they be?


Aquinus:

I‘m not sure I understand your point. 


To all:

I posted this link and it‘s conclusions so that we could all see what our senate recommended to our government. It‘s not my study, I didn‘t write it. If you want to know where they got their conclusions and why, read it. It took me about 45 minutes. You may be surprised what you learn.


----------



## GrahamD

> Basically, my whole argument is
> DO WE WANT A SOCIETY THAT IS TOLERANT OF DRUG ABUSE?!?


We already do.  

Why should alcohol abusers be permitted to use their drug of choice but not a marijuana user?

They are in the identical class of drug.  Depressants.  A way that some people choose to unwind after a stressful day, or to ease social situations, or whatever.  It doesn‘t make use of alcohol right in a lot of peoples minds, just because its legal.  Just the same as it will obviously never be right in your mind if they choose to eventually lagalize marijuana.

 The evidence has shown that marijuana is a substance that can not be categorised alongside other more potent and problematic drugs, ie cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, LSD, speed.  It‘s not such a simple black and white "say no to drugs" kind of drug.  It‘s mild, safe, only proven to have mild health risks, and ALOT of canadians use it.  Not just kids, not just burned out hippies, its use can be found in nearly every demographic in this country, up to and including our politicians.

That‘s why its happening.  It‘s going to happen, and there‘s not too much that anyone can do about it.  The no side is on the ropes.


----------



## Jungle

There has been no talk of legalizing it.
Now the problem with studies on health effects is the results are not as solid as those on alcohol use. While it has been easy to study the effects of alcohol by following a few drunks around, most studies on marijuana‘s effects on health are short term studies, because of the illegal nature of the drug. There have been no studies on regular use over 30 year-periods... so basically we don‘t really know.
Despite what some pot-heads think (including some on this site) smoking pot will remain illegal, and a criminal offence. If you are caught carrying a few grams, but not smoking you will still be fined... hopefully they will catch enough of you to lower my income tax    
One last thing, don‘t show up in my Platoon  or Coy if you‘re a pot-head, because when I find out I‘ll deal with you, and it will have nothing to do with me buying your shyt !!!


----------



## muskrat89

First of all, I wouldn‘t consider the Senate an authority on anything, except maybe patronage.

Next, I think what disturbs some of the more conservative members is that the Military has always held a different set of standards for it‘s members than the rest of society. The trend, over the years has been to keep imposing Canadian society‘s standards on our military. As civilian standards keep becoming more liberal and pc, the chasm widens, in my view, between traditional military values, and those of the "general population" - in the 40s for example, I don‘t think the differences were that great (if that made sense). Personally, I feel that what is asked of soldiers is far different than what is asked of accountants, lumberjacks, farmers, bankers, etc. I feel this justifies a different set of standards.

I guess, in the long run, regardless of what the civilian side decides, there‘s nothing (hopefully) keeping the military from staying drug free. My employer has a zero drug/alcohol tolerance, including random testing, and post-injury testing. If I don‘t like it, I can work somewhere else. My personal problem, as a Supervisor, with pot is - that it is relatively easy (for me) to tell if someone has been drinking on the job. It is much harder (for me) to tell if someone has been sparking up a zeppelin. I work with cranes, heavy equipment, and machinery that can kill/maim you. I‘d rather not have people impaired, by anything. Much like when I was leading soldiers in the Military.


----------



## muskrat89

Thank you Jungle! What a knack you have for bringing order out of chaos. As always, your posts breathe sanity into some bizarre conversations


----------



## Andyboy

I think you make agood point Jungle in that we really don‘t know for sure one way or the other, but it seems that there isn‘t anything to show that it does do harm. I don‘t have access to any hard data on it but I believe there are several studies that discount the dangers, of course there are several that do say it‘s dangerous too so what are you gonna do. Personally i think there are more harmful substances out there that do more damage on a greater scale and cost more to our society. I don‘t know if we should legalize pot or not though but I do think you‘re right, as long as it‘s considered part of the drug war in the US it won‘t be legalized here.

You make a good point about the workplace, Muskrat. The question is will legalizing it make it a more common occurance? I don‘t know. A good friend owns a factory and has problems with people being stoned at work and like you said Muskrat, they have a zero tolerance policy, (as they should) but why would that policy change if marijuana was legalized? 

I dont‘ necessarily think of them as authorities on anything either and seeing as the point of posting the Senates conclusions seems to be missed let me lay it out. The government commisioned the Senate to investigate marijuana, the Senate did so and came to some conclusions and using those conclusions made a number of recommendations. What you or I think of the senate is inconsequential because this is the only official document our Government has, in other words it will give you some insight into what they think, right or wrong.


----------



## Staff

I read something on another thread earlier, and it‘s been bugging me.

   No matter what the Hippies on civie street can get away with, we (for the most part) are still in the military, therefore subject to military law, and if you are caught smoking pot, you are going to get your PP slapped. If you are caught smoking up at a school, it will be slapped with the biggest **** hammer they can find. Almost all unit commanders have gone almost draconian when enforcing the forces‘ Zero Tolerance rules. I completely agree with them. 

   I thought I‘d mention it for the sake of the younger readers who are thinking about joining.


----------



## Enzo

I was going to respond, but my bong broke. What‘s the topic again?


----------



## Enzo

No worries. I have duct tape. Besides, drugs are bad. Right now I‘m almost sober... well, the 5 scotches are for my stress levels, the 3 glasses of red wine weere forr my heartt. That shot of Tequillaaa wass to pay my ressspectsss to teh Mexicanns. My cigar is for teh atmosphere and that percocet I dropped goes nicely wwith my Viagra.

Yep, no drugs for mee.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Yes drugs are bad!

The last thing I want is my life in the hands of a blade!


----------



## Garry

I‘ve always been told why we do things in the Military- everything from drill to why we button pockets has a solid, common sense/combat efficiency based reason for the action.

It may be worthwhile to add why Marijuana is bad for the average soldier. 

The active ingrediant in marijuana is abbreviated as THC. This drug is hallucinogenic, meaning it not only distorts your version of reality, but adds to it. The THC is stored in the fat cells of your body for quite awhile (no one seems to know for sure just how long). The THC us released from the fat cells, and back into the bloodstream (thereby starting to screw your head up again) by adrenalin. 

Adrenalin is a chemical that your body produces when you are in a stressful situation: it helps the body perform a variety of actions at a faster/better level. 

Since the stored THC is released only during stressful situations, it‘s fair to assume that when you really need your wits about you, you‘ll be impaired. 

Not a good situation.

Hope this helps in your decision making process.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## nbk

Ha wow...

But actually THC is not hallucinogenic. Distort and cloud your judgement it does, but it does not make you hallucinate any more then alcohol does.

Although some THC does stay stored in fat cells for up to a month afterwards, it is a complete myth that it can leech out and make you high again. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is the chemical that makes you high when you smoke marijuana. Most people just call this THC, but this is confusing: your body will change Delta-9-THC into more inert molecules known as "metabolites", which don‘t get you high. Unfortunately, these chemicals also have the word "tetrahydrocannabinol" in them and they are also called THC, so many people think that the metabolites get you high. Metabolites such as "11-hydroxy-tetrahydrocannabinol" and "11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol" remain in your system, (and that is how drug tests can catch you) however these properties can not make you "high".

All drugs (including alcohol and even medicine) impare your judgement, so you are best to avoid them all as much as possible in the field.

If you are going to be in the armed forces. Do not break any laws. And as well do not do things that will compromise your health. Marijuana is still sort of illegal for the time being, so don‘t use it. Smoking anything is very very bad for your health, so dont do it.


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer

What you do at home off duty is your business.What you do in uniform is another. Pot is no worse or better than alcohol. One just happens to be taxable.


----------



## combat_medic

Boomer; if, during your off time, you choose to look at child pornography, smoke crack, or have sex with underage prostitutes, is that also acceptable? All of those activities, along with smoking pot are illegal, not to mention immoral, and have no place in the CF.

Besides, if you‘re in the Reg Force, your time off is not your own. If you get caught drinking excessively, off base during your time off, you can still be charged under the NDA.


----------



## Staff

@Boomer: Members of the armed forces are subject to the code of service discipline and military law whether at home or on base, in uniform or not. 

The opinions of a few doctors, based on the results of a couple of studies, no matter how convincing, will not help in any way if a member of the forces is caught either in possession or using any controlled substance. 

The policy is ZERO tolerance. It is fairly clear what that means. Any comparison between "legal" drugs and "illegal" drugs is moot. The policy is black and white. Booze is tolerated, pot (or whatever) is not.


----------



## koalorka

No member in the CF should have anything to do with pot. This country is becoming a little too liberal in it narcotics and same-sex laws. We are becoming Belgium or even worse...the Netherlands. Now that is one scary place. I use to live in Germany, and I remember all of Europe laughed and was disgusted by those two stupid countries, that lost all moral values and ethics. But there is now a conservative uprising in Belgium and Holland, seems that the people are sick of thousands of dopers and criminals on the streets, not mentioning homosexuals. I just hope that Canada doesn‘t have to go through that.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

Im with Rafal_L. Everybody in the CF has signed a document regarding substance use, and are expected to abide by military standard. in other words, you‘ve given your word to stay away from that **** so many in today‘s society accept as the norm. If your word means anything to you, you‘d stay clear of it. personally, I‘ve never touched a roach in my life, and dont plan to change my habits. i‘ve no problem with Alcohol, but anything above is just flat out pointless, and if your caught with it, you deserve what you get.

Like others have said, i dont necessarily feel like sitting next to a hop-head with a rifle any time soon. And i dont plan on putting anybody else in that situation.


----------



## sinblox

FUBAR, what does homosexuality have to do with this? Do you realize when you joined the CF you agreed not to discriminate against homosexuals?


----------



## Marauder

That doesn‘t mean that you can‘t disagree with that "lifestyle" (that‘s a ******* misnomer if there ever was), nor that you have to praise it.
I know some of you think that appeasing the PC jackboots is the only way to go, but I and most guys I have met in uniform don‘t subscribe to that theory/practice.
And if you can‘t honour an oath to keep your hands off the cheeba, then how can I trust you to keep your word that you‘re gonna watch my back? Druggies of any stripe have no place in the CF.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

Discrimination is bull$h!t. A person is a person. only thing that would bother me is the drug aspect of this topic...


----------



## Gunnar

In spite of your well-reasoned and thought out response, he didn‘t say he discriminated against them.  He said he didn‘t agree.

What that means is, he likely isn‘t going to say "I don‘t want fags in my section, why don‘t you just crawl off an die.  I don‘t have to lift my rifle to defend some homo", but is likely to say "I don‘t agree with the practice of homosexuality.  I believe it is deviant and wrong.  And when some enemy is trying to shoot you in the head, I will pick up my rifle and actively discourage him from that pursuit, because you‘re in the trench with me, and you‘re still one of ours:  Canadian".

Sorry if I‘m putting words in your mouth Marauder, but people forget that "discrimination" is merely making a choice...it is active persecution of people for their beliefs and (as far as they don‘t affect you directly) which is wrong.  The whole "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" while continuing to believe that "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If I don‘t like your haircut, and I tell you, that‘s a sad fact which is likely to offend you, but the price of living in a free society.  If I don‘t like your haircut, tell you at every opportunity, make you miserable, deny your promotion based on it, THAT‘S what‘s wrong.  (Keeping in mind that this is an example of a spurious dislike, and does not refer to specific military requirements for hair styles).


----------



## Gunner

You know, when I first saw the thread title "Mary Jane", all I could think about was Full Metal Jacket (Mary Jane Rotten Crotch...Pretty Pink Panties).


----------



## mattoigta

> Originally posted by Sh0rtbUs:
> [qb] Discrimination is bull$h!t. A person is a person. [/qb]


So if a person does the following 


> Originally posted by combat_medic:
> [qb] Boomer; if, during your off time, you choose to look at child pornography, smoke crack, or have sex with underage prostitutes, is that also acceptable? [/qb]


I shouldn‘t discriminate because Hey! Pedophiles and crackheads are people too! Who am I to Judge?




> Originally posted by Marauder:
> [qb] That doesn‘t mean that you can‘t disagree with that "lifestyle" (that‘s a ******* misnomer if there ever was), nor that you have to praise it.
> I know some of you think that appeasing the PC jackboots is the only way to go, but I and most guys I have met in uniform don‘t subscribe to that theory/practice. [/qb]


Marauder has a good point - and it‘s good to see people speak their mind. Everyone‘s so scared of the PC police that people wont say what they want.


And about the whole tolerance thing; just because you TOLERATE something, doesn‘t mean you have to ACCEPT/EMBRACE it.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

I hope you didnt take what I said the wrong way, i didnt accuse anyone of discriminating. I was just stating my opinion. Personally, I think this comes down to "hate what the person does, but not the person". Im against homo-sexuality, but that doesnt mean Im going to harass them and make their life **** for it, they choose that lifestyle. As for Pedophiles and pervs, I hardly think that runs parallel with discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation. Its a completely different matter altogether.


----------



## Jarnhamar

We throwing PC rules to the wind??

I don‘t think it‘s that we tollerate things. In the military we HAVE to put up with things.

-An officer jacking you up for having dirty boots when you know full well they‘ve never spent a day in the real field.
-A fat sargeant soldier laughing at your platoon running by as they come out of breakfast in the morning. A breakfast you miss because you have to choose between showers and eating.
-A girl private flirting her way out of work and into courses even though theres tons of people with seniority ahead of her.
-a 6 or 7 year corporal who shows up for a tasking and immediatly heads to the medics to get a NO PT chit for the duration of their contract or work.
-Stupid infantry soldiers walking around not only work but the mall talking about how cool it would be to kill someone with a grenade and taking this F-ing trench or that one, how all good soldiers always wear their dog tags.
-Reg force soldier who harps on the reserves stating their not real soldiers when the reg force guy has zero job motivation.
- Trained Reserve soldiders showing up for work or a job knowing next to nothing seemingly being right out of basic and you can‘t fire their ***.
-Civilians being rude and ignorant to you knowing full well if you say anything your *** is in a sling.
-Soldiers who should not be in the military float by because they know the minute anyone looks at them sideways they will scream harassment and doom your carreer.
-NCOs who see an attractive soldier show up in their platoon and immediatly transfer number 2 LMG to number 1 riflemen, right beside them. 
-Male officers who pick female soldiers to be their drivers for obvious reasons (Even going so far as to punt the initial male driver)
-Guys who are so large they need special uniforms ordered for them
-People who have more allergies than a hypocondract.
-People showing up on courses not knowing how to wash properly but know exactly how much leave they are allowed and how to get extra bennifits.
-privates who never have any money are are always moping around begging for cash because they arent responsible enough to look after themselves.
-Warrants who are so old school they do things their own way no matter what and never seem to be punished for it. (If its a bad thing)

I don‘t tolerate this stuff , i wade through it crying on the inside because i know theres not a thing i can do about it other wise.

Hope thats not too negitive or NON-PC.


----------



## Jungle

> Originally posted by Ghost778:
> [qb] I don‘t tolerate this stuff , i wade through it crying on the inside because i know theres not a thing i can do about it other wise.
> 
> Hope thats not too negitive or NON-PC. [/qb]


Ghost, there are things we all can do... For one, try to get promoted, then change what you can at your level. But choose your battles; you can‘t win them all !!!
Remember this though: no matter what you decide as a leader, someone will think it is wrong and would have done things differently.


----------



## kurokaze

> -An officer jacking you up for having dirty boots when you know full well they‘ve never spent a day in the real field.


*shakes head*...Sign of a bad officer.


----------



## GrahamD

> The policy is ZERO tolerance. It is fairly clear what that means. Any comparison between "legal" drugs and "illegal" drugs is moot. The policy is black and white. Booze is tolerated, pot (or whatever) is not.


This is absolutely the most important fact in this discussion.  The Canadian Forces have a zero tolerance when it comes to marijuana use, and possesion.  Zero means zero, even trace amounts you pick up at a rock concert where everyone is smoking up will get you thrown out of the military if detected.  Whether this is seems fair to people who happen to know that most of the propaganda about marijuana is absolutely rediculous does not factor into the military view on the subject one bit, and likely never will.
If getting high is important to you then obviously the military is the wrong career choice for you. 

Keeping with the black and white military policy theme I just want to quote something else that seemed to me was being defended by some.



> No member in the CF should have anything to do with pot. This country is becoming a little too liberal in it narcotics and same-sex laws. We are becoming Belgium or even worse...the Netherlands. Now that is one scary place. I use to live in Germany, and I remember all of Europe laughed and was disgusted by those two stupid countries, that lost all moral values and ethics. But there is now a conservative uprising in Belgium and Holland, seems that the people are sick of thousands of dopers and criminals on the streets, not mentioning homosexuals. I just hope that Canada doesn‘t have to go through that.


Now at least one of you (Gunnar) seem to think this post is not descriminatory.  If you split some hairs, and disect it just right, you may indeed be right.  He may not have said anything overtly descrimanitory.  However, military policy on this topic does not allow for splitting hairs.  He has plainly disagreed with the laws surrounding homosexuality in a public forum.  He may not have descriminated against any one induvidual, or harrassed them, but he has just desciminated against every single homosexual in our country. He has made vauge reference that homosexuals should have less rights than other citizens, and what could be more offensive than that? What is that supposed to mean even? They shouldn‘t be allowed to marry (for example)? Why not?  Are they less of a person than the rest of us? Because that‘s the insinuation that I took from the comment, as I‘m sure many "PC types" would also, and it would only take 1 to complain. When you attend the interview you have it explained that there is zero tolerance afforded towards induviduals disciminating against other members of the C.A.F.
If he expressed this same sentiment to a homosexual memberof the C.A.F. (or any other member of the Forces, who took offence) it would be sufficient grounds for a discharge.

So same as the marijuana, if being allowed to state homophobic views is your thing, then a career in the Canadian Armed Forces is probably not going to work out for you.


----------



## Pikache

Yes, we, as members of CF should watch what we blab, however, we‘re not just soldiers of Canada. We‘re citizens of Canada too. Means we have same right to express our views.

Being a soldier doesn‘t take away our rights.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

then where do we draw the line between excercising our right to our own opinions/freedom of speech, and flexing our moral thread by keeping such comments to ourselves? not an easy solution when both options contradict themselves...

Personally, i think we should simply use as much discretion as possible when dealing with such sensitive topics. I have no problem with people stating what they believe, and I agree with FUBAR. But i also think we need to take into consideration, what we‘re saying can and will effect someone else whether it be negative or positive. 

Sometimes its best to keep things to yourself when not sure of others reactions, and im still debating amoungst myself whether this would be one of those situations.


----------



## Jungle

Hmmm... As far as I know, we are still a Democracy, so we are free to disagree with laws... and let other people know. There are all kinds of lobbies in this country, fighting for all kinds of reasons... why should this be different ???


----------



## koalorka

Wow, my little comment fueled a momentous debate on morality, ethics, freedom of speech etc. Thats good, becuase does are sensitive subjects. I have also been criticized for openly discriminating homosexuals. That was not intended discrimination, I just stated that i disagree with the gay lifestyle, and I would never offend, persecute or harass an individual for their sexual practice. But I do not tolerate potheads, I believe these people to be irresponsible and would not trust such a person on the field with a loaded C7A1. Zero tolerance - All the way!


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

I agree with you FUBAR, and you could always just click the edit/delete option in your post       :warstory:


----------



## Jungle

> Originally posted by GrahamD:
> [qb] Do you disagree that if this induvidual was to express the statement "This country is becoming a little too liberal in it narcotics and same-sex laws", to a member of the C.A.F. who happened to be homosexual, or who may not be but holds antihomophobic beliefs or sympathies, that they would have grounds to file a complaint?
> [/qb]


If this individual was to express the statement "This country is becoming a little too liberal in its immigration laws", would an immigrant have grounds to file a complaint ?
The statement was about the law, not about the individual/ lifestyle.
I should try this though: next time a journalist attacks the Military, I‘ll place a complaint... We‘ll see how far that goes. Maybe it will become illegal to be "Militaryphobic" !!!


----------



## kaspacanada

If people wanted to make pot legal, then it may eventually become legal.  As for any drug ()being legal or illegal), I feel stongly, about possible effects upon reliability or job performance.
As many have so eloquently put, I don‘t trust my life to a rip-head.  That excludes use of marijuana within times that would affect duty, as well as use of alcohol that affects duty.  I do feel that pot has a less detrimental social effect on people than alcohol - can anyone recall instances of pot heads getting stoned and beating the living **** out of their spouses?  Yet we hear of alcoholics doing this all the time. Although it is also safe to say that potheads are also more paranoid and that this could lead to irratic and possibly aggressive behaviour in a variety of circumstances.  I guess we will never really know.  Although, I am sure that alcohol has the same effect as it changes perceptions. However, this does not detract from the simple fact that it is illegal, and as such, it is not appropriate or acceptable for members to use such substances.  On the other hand, this statement does not support abuse of legitimate substances such as alcohol, I wouldn‘t trust a drunk beside me either.  In fact, I think I would trust a drunk less since the coordination is so much more impaired.  (But that too is beside the point)  CF policy is clear - ZERO TOLERANCE, and as long as that is the policy, that is the standard by which I judge myself and those around me.  That will not change even if it is ‘decriminalized‘ so long as DND policy remains the same.


----------



## Gibson

I only meant to provide a helpful warning.  Not open debate on what constitutes harrassment.  I do not think anyone has gotten to that point, but I think it can be done if someone is not careful on this forum.  If you took the tone or context in jest than I apologize.


----------



## GrahamD

"I should try this though: next time a journalist attacks the Military, I‘ll place a complaint... We‘ll see how far that goes. Maybe it will become illegal to be "Militaryphobic" !!!"

A journalist has nothing to fear from the military jurisdiction. Soldiers do.  Being part of the military does take away some freedoms that others "enjoy".  Like being openly biggoted, like not being fired because your boss found out you smoke pot, like choosing the clothes you wear to work, the list could go on and on.  

For some in our country the trade off isn‘t something they would ever even consider, for others its a choice they make with pride.

I agree with the anti biggot approach the military has taken, as well as the zero tolerance for drugs.  It simple and its professional.

The last thing any soldier needs to be worrying about is if his partner is stoned, hung over, a flaming biggot who may harbour such an intense hatered for you that you are scared of him.


----------



## dwild40

My .02 cents and first post as well.  
I was in the HF of C 1979 to 83.  I did not partake of the herb until after the summer GMT course.  within a few short months I became a regular user.  Myself and others within the regiment who shall remain nameless.  
Back then they didn‘t have things like urine testing but I knew my superiors had their suspicions.  I had many close calls but as I look back I believe I had a horse shoe up my ***, because try as they might they could not catch us.  While on posting to the RCR I went to Norway and discovered that some had stashes in their DT60 rad detector (worn with dog tags).  At the time wish I had thought of it.  
FFwd to summer concentration 1982 at CFB Borden.  Out in the field practising patrolling or something I had to have a leak and crawled away from my Section about 10 m and did my business.  I happened to notice the flaura in the immediate area and realized that "gee these plants look familiar."  and decided to change my camo covering.  I stuffed it all over my person and webbing.  When I crawled back the Plt commander  called a section commanders meeting.  perfect timing    I showed up and Lt .... began his briefing and all the while was staring at me.  He finally asked "Wildfong what the **** is that?"  I replied I believe it is pot sir it seems to be growing all over the area.  He demanded that I take it off and being the smart *** I was I replied that our camo was getting old and that we do have to blend in with our environment sir.  He also said that it is ironic that the one time they actually catch me with pot there was really not a **** thing they could do about it.  I reluctantly lead him to the plot and of course it was destroyed in short order.  
Like I said many close calls but if I could do it all over again I‘d do it sober.  You see I finally woke up when I turned 35 and I just stopped smoking it.  I haven‘t touched it in many years.  But we were all young and foolish once.  

Ask about the time while coming down from a mescaline trip I remembered I had volunteered to drive the CO and Coy commenders to Borden for a LMD CO‘s meeting that morning.


----------



## Pikache

You can still find patches at Meaford. One of them was pretty near a biv site.

Interesting to see a former fusilier of old times.


----------



## sgtdixon

Theres Patches growing on base?
Wow i would have never figured this and im serioulsy not being sarcastic...


----------



## kaspacanada

Speaking of amusing stories, I‘ve got a rip off the internet which shows and talks about LSD being tested on British soldiers back in the 50‘s or 60‘s,it may even be a bit earlier cuz it is in black and white.  Mabye someone who knows about the weapons they were carrying could tell what time frame it is from, anyhow, it is absolutely hilarious.  I got it off Kazaa and it is titled "LSD being tested on British Troops"  I could narrate it in here adn that would be funny, but like they say, pictures are worth a thousand words and it is absolutley hilarious to see this.


----------



## sgtdixon

Is this the same one with
"And Now we see the sargent major attempting to rescue something from the tree"?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Imagine living in a society where almost anything you say could be offensive to one special interest group or another.

Blatant hate talk is not to be classed the same as what has been expressed by most members here. However, being soldiers/sailors/airmen  does restrict us from letting anyone know what we feel on a given subject. It‘s called professionalism.

I still don‘t understand exaclty what pot does to permanently affect judgment/performance. But my bosses say it‘s not to be done. So as a professional soldier I don‘t do it. When I retire maybe I‘ll put a few in the vegetable garden if the Old Bird lets me.Until then I‘ll do as I‘m told. That means don‘t piss off the pot police, don‘t piss off the special interest police but try to maintain a bit of intergrity all the while.

You can‘t be everything to everyone all the time.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

To add to this post and whether innapropriate comments have a place on this forum we need look no further than what has just recently happened on the Armyapp.forum. If we want to lose this site we just have to keep going along dangerous ground.  Anything posted by anyone will be associated with the army, even if you are some 13 yr old kid from Schumacher Ontario. 

For more info read this
 http://dgpa-dgap.mil.ca/edgpa/sframe.asp?Lang=E&option=ntl&Selected=ntl


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

Do you happen to know what happenned to the armyapp forum?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

I think it was shut down to evaluate the content WRT comments posted by members. These were probably construed by hyper-sensitive types with too much time on their hands that all comments (whether from troops or civies) were indicative of offically tolerated opinions/comments within the CF. IT‘s a publically funded site.


----------



## Jungle

Here it is... 
PUBLICATION : The Ottawa Citizen 
DATE : 2004.01.15 

HEADLINE: ‘Bush=Hitler,‘ brought to you by Canada‘s army: George W. Bush
is the new Hitler. It‘s time the Liberals got booted out of power. 
Jean Chretien speaks with a funny accent worthy of a Monty Python character.

And if the U.S. does invade Canada, the military could try scorched-earth tactics to destroy everything in the path of the marauding Americans so nothing would fall into their hands. 
While such statements might be typical chatter on Internet sites covering Canadian politics or conspiracy theories, these come courtesy of the
Canadian taxpayer. In an effort to promote professionalism and debate in the ranks, the Canadian army is operating the Internet discussion forum where the public and soldiers can anonymously post statements such as these.

The site, including less-than-flattering comments aimed at Prime Minister Paul Martin and former defence ministers, as well as insults between
participants, has all been copyrighted by the Department of National Defence. "If anyone out there thinks we will be better of with paul martin think again!," warns one participant in a discussion about government funding for the military. "Martin and Chretien are cut form (sic) the same cloth with either one in power the CF is in trouble." "You can be sure that when the Libs are replaced it will be by a right-leaning government and defence spending will increase greatly," writes another. "It‘s only a matter of time, so fear not." 
The U.S. invasion of Iraq is also hotly debated with some suggesting the war was simply an American grab for that country‘s oil. "In my opinion Bush = Hitler," writes one forum participant. "I‘m not insulting anyone or anything but I think america is the cause of all this crappy terrorist garbage ... without america there probably would have not been a sept. 11," states another. 
The six-month old site carries a disclaimer such opinions are "not necessary those of the Department of National Defence" and that personal attacks, insults and inappropriate comments will not be tolerated. 
Army spokesman Lt.-Col. Rejean Duchesneau said he has not seen some of the comments in question, but acknowledged it can be difficult to monitor the site. He said there is no funding available for military staff to do full-time monitoring, but argued that participants have to feel they can
speak their minds. "The discussion forum has to be quite open," he noted. "You can‘t really police it. If you want people to use it you‘ve got to allow them a bit of freedom." 
The Army does not know the identities of the participants or whether any of them are even military personnel. In a follow-up interview, Lt.-Col. Duchesneau said the site was temporarily taken offline Tuesday night to remove inappropriate comments. Those were discovered after the military‘s webmaster returned from being away on a course for 10 weeks. It is not known when the site will be back up. 
Lt.-Col. Duchesneau said the original idea behind the site was to foster discussions on army issues. But the forum has become popular with young people, many whom are new or potential recruits looking for information about the military. Although some forum participants warned others about making political statements, those seem to have little effect. One discussion containing an obscenity-laden attack on former prime minister Jean Chretien was partially
censored. 
Other participants blame Mr. Martin for gutting the military in the mid-1990s while he was finance minister. Defence Minister David Pratt fares better, garnering kudos for his support of the military. But even he is suspect. "Want to silence a critic?" writes one forum member "Appoint him as a minister." 
One of the hottest topics on the site discusses whether the U.S. will invade Canada to seize its natural resources. If the attack did come, Canada
could rely on a scorched-earth policy similar to what Russia did when invaded by Nazi Germany, one participant recommends. "With such emmense (sic) land, and with our cold climates, we may be able to hold them off, even though we have the much weaker military," the individual concludes. 
The invasion debate prompted additional anti-American rhetoric, with one forum member recalling the British attack on Washington in the early 1800s and the torching of the White house. "I‘m proud to know that the Canadians / British are the reason why the whitehouse is white ... way to burn that f--ker down!" was the statement posted on the army site. 
Others suggest the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11 attacks, but that theory was dismissed by most forum participants. In another case, U.S.
President George W. Bush is referred to as a cheat and a liar. 
Former Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Maurice Baril is also roasted. One soldier writes that he was once selected to have lunch with Gen. Baril. "He talked about cartoons, smurfs to be exact," wrote the soldier. "Kind of funny to hear the then CDS talk about a cartoon that people commonly associate with lsd." 
Lt.-Col. Duchesneau said he did not believe the government can be held legally liable for some of the comments. "When we did our research  everything we saw said that discussion forums are wide-open and that there is no body of law that people are being sued," he added. 
Two people have been kicked off the site for inappropriate comments, but army officials suspect they have come back on under new identities.


----------



## Pikache

LMAO


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

There‘s a lesson here: A few troublemakers *can* ruin it for the rest.

Army.ca is not held under the same rules and regulations as the official DND website, but we still need to be careful. While we have more leeway in what can be said, the last thing I want is to show up in the papers as a haven for those who shut down the official site.

I‘ve met with LCol Duchesneau, he‘s a reasonable man. It‘s sad that in trying to provide a much needed service, DND has instead attracted more negative press. And once again, the media will not pay much heed to the fact that it was a witless few; everyone in uniform will be painted as a slathering, mis-spelling anti-US, anti-government wacko. (Notice how there are no news articles about the well thought out and professional debates that have occurred here and on other forums?)

*This* is why we need to patrol these forums and keep threads from going horribly awry.


----------



## mattoigta

That video was the best thing the internet has shown me. Its British troops during 60s or 70s (im guessing because the have the FN‘s, older uniforms and its black and white film) who were given lsd in their water bottles.

edit: i found a link to it:   http://hes.iki.fi/video/LSD_Being_Tested_on_Brtish_Troops.mpg   it‘s 14MB


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Uh oh! I think everyone in my section is being experimented on.

RoyalHighlandfusilier,

I‘ve got a question I‘ve being wanting to ask.
Who‘s Swordmaster Mord Cour?


----------



## meni0n

ArmyApp site shut down because the french part of it was cracked and defaced and all of the messages erased. It appears that there is a bug in the forum software that they were using so they shut down the english part too so that they can find and fix the bug or maybe even replace the software.


----------



## Pikache

Padraig, it is a quote from one of the Dune books.


----------



## dwild40

Also my lady has a copy of Black Yestersays the Argylls‘War.  Interesting read.  Anyway her Dad (The Saint) enlisted at Hamilton at the beginning of WWII at any rate in 1940 the regiment was stationed in Jamacia and according to the Regimental War Diary entries there was a problem of some Soldiers partaking of the local Herbs.  I laughed and of course my lady said "not my Dad, he was a saint"  Just like he did not fratranize with the fraulines in post war Germany too.    Right now she is saying no he didn‘t....There was no mention of any disciplinary action taken other than a stern talking too.


----------



## Enzo

Rather be in the group for LSD tests than those Yanks who took a walk in Nevada desert and tried not to look at the bright light eh


----------



## hoganshero

Mike, 
      I don‘t think you really have any problems here about innapropriate comments here. Th esignal to noise ratio here is very high compared to just about any other forum on th einternet if you want to see a bad forum full of arguments head on over to militaryphotos.net these days....


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Agreed, it‘s actually pretty good here... didn‘t mean to rant.   

Luckily we have a great moderator staff here, which is augmented by a large group of regulars who don‘t hesitate to steer things in the right direction.

We‘ve had to run a few troublemakers out of town, but for the most part people behave, and I‘m glad to see it.


----------



## Danny

I really miss the army discussion site I hope they put it back up soon!


----------



## sgtdixon

> Originally posted by Enzo:
> [qb] Rather be in the group for LSD tests than those Yanks who took a walk in Nevada desert and tried not to look at the bright light eh [/qb]


"No troop you wont need you radiation dosimeter badge today....just tell the pecker checker how much you balls tingle after you walk through the hot zone"


Edit for Sp


----------



## Slacker

Ha, every time I read this forum it cracks me up. You can really tell who the Reseves, Civies and Reg force guys are by their posts. Same as you can tell who are old fossils and who are New guys.

You take a simple subject like Mary Jane and start a Race/sexual orientation battle/LSD debate.

My ideas here (since they are mine and this is JUST another forum on the net):

It‘s not legal yet, so by contract you are not allowed to do it. I wouldn‘t want any of my guys coming in to work stoned, and I would sell them out if they did, regardless. However, I do agree what a guy does in the privacy of his own home, or while he is on leave or off base is his own choice, and he will have to live with whatever happens to him if he gets caught. It‘s sad that these Soldiers that are not allowed to smoke pot are so encouraged to go down to the local bar and drink their faces off. I am more embarrased by the public desplays of intoxicated ***holes that reek of Military with their MEC pants, Jarhead haircuts and stupid "Army" saying like "Get it down range", or "Good to go" than any guy who sits at home a smokes a fatty with a friend while watching TV.

There are more important issues that should be adressed. Pot leads to Munchies, alcohol leads to negligent actions or violence, sooner or later.


----------



## Jarnhamar

*However, I do agree what a guy does in the privacy of his own home, or while he is on leave or off base is his own choice, and he will have to live with whatever happens to him if he gets caught.*

I agree, if your own your own time then knock yourself out but if you get caught don‘t whine about it.

What embarasses me is the constant bickering between the forces.
Regforce does this, reserves do that. Infantry does this, armored does that.  Zero brotherhood.


----------



## Jungle

> Originally posted by Slacker:
> [qb]
> There are more important issues that should be adressed. Pot leads to Munchies, alcohol leads to negligent actions or violence, sooner or later. [/qb]


Yeah right... Nobody ever did anything stupid after smoking pot...


----------



## Roger

I don't want to be dragged into this, and I certainly do not justify or say alcohol is proper or good either. And the Forces do look at alcohol as a drug and when you go on courses now many are alcohol free. But alcohol is legal pot is not. End of discussion, enough said.

If it was legal and the Forces would not let you smoke pot then they would be wrong, we are in the Canadian Armed Forces and we represent that as well as Canada, hence we should not do anything legal, does not mean we should help make it legal but its not.

Our haircuts have nothing to do with it, or stupid civy sayings like cool man.


----------



## GerryCan

Slacker I totally agree with your post other than the fact that you would ‘sell anyone out‘ if you knew they were at work stoned. Do you mean out in the field stoned or back in the Z Lines fried watching his locker? In either case, I would assume an ***-kicking for being a rat, just wanted to know the definition of going to work stoned to you.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Some people may not see anything wrong with it, as harmless as it is, but I personally don‘t have much confidence or faith in someone who spends their time getting stoned watching a locker or sitting on a couch all day playing video games and stuffing their face. Just a matter of personal preference i supose though.


----------



## Slacker

Trap, you obviosly didn‘t get the point. what I was saying is those Army guys out on the town, getting drunk and acting like *******s reek of Army.  It‘s shameful actually. They make us look bad. Fact. You can spot an Army guy a mile away and so can Civies. If you don‘t think so, come play spot the Army dink at Wallmart with me some time. Man, I can tell you what unit these guys are in.

It looks bad but it‘s socially acceptable amoung us because we all want to be the guy who tells the "I got so wasted" story on Monday. Bragging about whatever drunk hog we dragged back and did whatever with. You go to a shack party once, sober, and you leave embarrased to even be associated with these loosers, who are usually the most solid guys you have ever know when they aren‘t drunk beyond their capacity.

Gerrycan. My definiton of coming to work stoned covers any place. Z lines, field, sports day, whatever. I would talk to them and tell them they were taking a risk they shouldn‘t take and send them home. The next time they are going down. call me a rat if you want but coming to work stoned is like coming to work drunk. That kid fries himself (Electricity is not your friend) or hits someone with a Bison, and it‘s my *** as much as his if I let him away with it.

Come 4pm blow it in my face all you want. I could care less. Do you really need to get stoned to go to work? I know it‘s boring at times but if you cant wait till after work, you have a problem.


----------



## portcullisguy

They could legalize marihuana tomorrow, that doesn‘t mean the CF will change their policy and allow it.

"Rules" are not the same as "laws".

As a 28-year-old, I figured I would have no problem snagging a beer or two on course all summer last year at Meaford.  However, my course was a dry one, and the fact that I was "of age" didn‘t matter.  No candidates were permitted off the tent lines until we had freedom of the base, and even then, the mess was not always permitted.  It sucked, but oh well.  I didn‘t join the army expecting there to be no rules.

Perhaps my years of enforcing laws is jading me, but I have less and less respect for dopers.

The more of them the meet, the more I‘m glad I‘m not like them.  I‘ve met violent people who smoke dope -- mainly between their fixes of other kinds of drugs.  When they‘re stoned, they‘re not so bad, but when they come down, or they‘re stressing about other things, they‘re down right nasty.  Generalization?  Sure.  All of them like that?  Probably not.  But I‘ve met some who were.

I have no desire to associate myself with these people.

This summer, several members of my section tent would spend their weekends in nearby Wasaga Beach, smoking bud, drinking their face off, etc.  I recognize they needed a stress relief, and I also recognize that they are mostly the young and stupid.  They are not considering the consequences of their behaviour.  Some will learn, some will not.  I often wonder if those individuals are still in the army right now.  I am guessing they have less than a year before they figure out that their views and the CF‘s views are miles apart.

Would I rat them out?  I didn‘t.  Did I talk to them about it?  Yes.  I cautioned them that they are taking serious risks which may affect their CF careers, and their futures.  But the fact is if their values are that incongruent with the CF‘s, they don‘t belong in it.  If that means one day I would have to report them, then I hope that day doesn‘t come, because I think I‘ll do the right thing.


----------



## Spr.Earl

Civie Life O.K.
In the Force‘s NO!!!!

Up to you who are asking!

If I catch you,your going to Club Ed.!!!!
If not I‘ll make your life so misrable you wish you were in Club Ed or you get out!!!

The old day‘s are gone Kiddies!!!
We are a Force that is active 24 and 7 now not like 15yrs ago when it was all Garrison and the odd F.X.

Dope does not belong.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Northern Touch

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1075830996945_41/?hub=CTVNewsAt11 

CTV.ca News Staff

Military police are awaiting the results of urine tests conducted yesterday on soldiers at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier.

About 30 soldiers from the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment were asked to give urine samples following a raid at the base near Quebec City on Monday, Canadian Forces spokesman Major Marc Theriault said.

Military police, aided by drug-sniffing dogs, raided the base for several hours yesterday. They were looking for evidence of possible drug use by soldiers bound for Afghanistan. 

Theriault initially said nothing was found, but spokesman Capt. Mark Giles says searches carried out on about 10 lockers and offices yielded a small amount of drugs.

"There was a small amount of drugs seized, very small, and those were sent off for analysis,‘‘ Giles told CP. 

It‘s not clear what kind of drugs were involved.

The soldiers from the Royal 22nd Regiment are due to leave for Kabul on Friday to join an earlier Valcartier contingent already deployed.

Theriault said some of the soldiers who were searched may not be allowed to leave, depending on the results of the urine tests. 

Theriault said authorities had information "that these people might have certain habits that are not allowed in the Canadian Forces." He said the police were acting on a tip they received a couple of weeks ago, but would not say where the information came from. 

Theriault said the danger of the mission in Afghanistan made the action necessary. 

"Afghanistan as we all know is not an easy mission. It requires everybody to be totally focused on the mission and there‘s absolutely no room for drug distraction. Everybody needs to be alert and this is to protect the safety of our people in Afghanistan.‘‘

Forces in the area have come under increasing attacks lately and one Canadian was killed in a suicide bomb attack last week.

Results of the drug tests are expected later this week.

Theriault said any soldiers who test positive for illicit drugs could face penalties ranging from a written reprimand to a discharge from the military. 

Criminal charges are also possible.

Theriault said the investigation is not asignal that there is a drug problem in the military.

"Drugs are probably not a problem worse than it is in the civilian area of the community," he said. "But since the Canadian Forces consist of people who come from the civilian (life), we have also certain challenges on this


----------



## dwild40

I just heard 30 were drug tested re: urine samples and interrogated.  And now just waiting for test results before action will be taken.  Man !!! Remember Innocent until PROVEN Guilty.  

BTW was anybody else at CFB London in Feb of ‘81 When they locked down for the big Drug Search? It May have been late Jan of that year


----------



## Foxhound

Yeah, I was there.  I forget exactly which month, as it didn‘t affect me personally.  I lived off base.


----------



## dwild40

Foxhound 
Yeah I can‘t remember the CO‘s name but the speech he gave us after his inspection that morning and the introduction of the MP‘s CID types and dogs kinda blew me away.  
We all had to stay in Beaver Hall and were escorted to our barracks by floor assignments.  While waiting our turn I had to have a leak and I asked an MP for permission who assigned a meathead to go with me and watch me actually urinate.  I have a hard time performing in front of an audience...I had nothing to worry about but I am sure they caught a few guys.  
However when we landed in Norway a few weeks later the Norwegian MP‘s went over our kit with dogs while we stood in a line 30 m away.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Guilty or not it I‘m stunned that troops would be friggin around with dope when getting ready to go on a real time ops overseas. Soft drugs while in garrison are still a bad thing but a pot head in Afghanistan is a whole different matter. A place like that has proven that we need all our wits about us.


----------



## Foxhound

wilfong, at one point that day, I remember clearly as my sect. was marching back to Beaver Hall where our pl. (C. of D.) was situated, we saw that Cpls. N. and M. were being marched out, hatless, over to their qtrs.  It blew us away that two guys from our pl. were picked up in the sweep, but later on we all agreed that in hindsight there were signs.  The ex-boxer that I mentioned in another post kept walking around swearing blood revenge.  Our pl. cmdr., a normally taciturn and very calm man was about to blow a gasket.  You may remember a blond, very red-faced Lt. in the office at Beaver Hall staring blankly at his phone.  As I remember, both guys got six months in Edmonton and both "decided" to resign shortly after release.

At the end of the ex. in Norway, I was "volunteered" to be a casualty on a med-evac Herc. back home.  I was ALWAYS picked to be the casualty because I was light and easy to fling around.  (The tag they tied to my parka said that I had shot myself in the foot.  Thanks, boss!)  Anyhow, before the flight they lined us all up, all the "casualties" had to get up off their stretchers to be searched.  Then when we hit Trenton and de-planed, they looked us over again, even the flight nurses and med-A‘s.

The other thing I remember about the incident is that with so many attachments in from other units, especially the reserves, in preparation for the exercise, we RCR‘s were feeling very ashamed.


----------



## dwild40

Exactly and I was one of those attatchments, and very sorry to this day. The shame was not yours.  It belonged to the guilty.

And Padraig I agree.  What the heck were they thinking???


----------



## Franko

We recently ha a youngin‘ caught with some blow in the shacks( about 6 to 9 months ago).

RSM crusified him. Charge and immediate release 5F

When will these idiots ever learn?

Regards


----------



## GrahamD

> VALCARTIER, QUE. - Seventeen soldiers at the Valcartier military base in Quebec have tested positive for illicit drug use, scuttling plans to send them to Afghanistan.
> 
> "The chain of command is now taking appropriate preventive measures to ensure the safety of troops deployed in Afghanistan," Lt.-Col. Bernard Ouellette, acting commander of 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, said in a statement.
> 
> Urine samples submitted by two other soldiers not bound for Operation Athena in Afghanistan also showed signs of drug use.
> 
> All 19 soldiers face disciplinary measures that could include dismissal from the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence said.


Its scary to think that 2/3 of the group they sampled turned up positive.  What would they find if they tested everyone?

I think that people like these are going to be the cause of mandatory drug testing for all Canadian Forces personel in the future. I can‘t say that I would blame them for doing it either.  19 of 29 people turning up positive is rediculous, and of the 10 who tested clean, how many of them had simply found the means to flush their system, or have been off the dope just long enough to avoid being detected this time.

What a bunch of idiots.


----------



## big_castor

> Its scary to think that 2/3 of the group they sampled turned up positive. What would they find if they tested everyone?


Chances are they acted on the basis of reliable information and targeted a very specific group of people, hence the high number of positive.  They didn‘t test 30 soldiers at random.  We shouldn‘t extrapolate that 2/3 of the members of the Battalion are drug users based on that small sample.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

An update on the above story

Failed drug tests gut Afghan-bound unit

CFB VALCARTIER, Que. (CP) â â€ Nineteen of 29 soldiers in a unit bound for the war on terror in Afghanistan have tested positive for illicit drug use, the Canadian Forces confirmed today. 
The tests followed searches of the base by military police and drug-detecting dogs earlier this week after they received a tip. 

Of those who tested positive, 17 were to have gone to Afghanistan. 

The military said none of the 17 will be going. 

A small quantity of drugs was also found during the search of several offices and lockers belonging to the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment at Valcartier, said the National Investigative Service, the investigative arm of the military police. 

The 19 could face reprimands or discharge from the forces, the military said in a statement. 

â Å“The chain of command is now taking appropriate preventative measures to ensure the safety of troops deployed in Afghanistan,â ? said Lt-Col. Bernard Ouellette, acting commander of 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. 

The military could not immediately say which drugs had been detected in the tests.


----------



## girlfiredup

This is really stupid on their part.  I can‘t believe these individuals chose to risk their career, character, reputation, and possibly the lives of their comrades.. all for the sake of a buzz.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

One of our SLQ‘s is jokingly called a pharmacy.


----------



## girlfiredup

I‘d be a little concerned if I were ever out on the field in enemy territory and my comrad, a stoner, says to me "don‘t worry, I got your back".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

When I was oversea‘s in 2000 we where told that after the R22nds left some guys found a little party palace in a out of the way place with drug parafinilia (sp) and used condoms all over.


----------



## Jungle

> Originally posted by CFL:
> [qb] When I was oversea‘s in 2000 we where told that after the R22nds left some guys found a little party palace in a out of the way place with drug parafinilia (sp) and used condoms all over. [/qb]


Did you see it, or is it just another rumour ?


----------



## GrahamD

> We shouldn‘t extrapolate that 2/3 of the members of the Battalion are drug users based on that small sample.


I fully agree with you there, I definately did not mean to insinuate that those tested represented the whole battalion.

I realise that they would specifically choose the induviduals to test based on the information that they received.  Thats why not every single member was tested.

However I think it would be naive to assume that they managed to tag everyone who uses drugs.  There will undoubtedly be a few fish who escape the net.  Hopefully those induviduals will seize this opportunity to smarten up.


----------



## Roger

What is sad here is all the bad press that we are getting. Everyone in Canada will think we are all drug users. Who leaked this out to the press in the first place? And if there was a problem why wait till they are almost on the plane, shame on the MP's.

I am reading more about this in the paper than almost a months news on what is going on in Afghanistan or a year of news from the Balkans.

On a other point lets not paint everyone with the same paintbrush, how many members are in the R22R. 17 tested positive for drugs, what drugs, and how many in the end will be told that they are sorry but you tested positive but it was a mistake. I wonder how many officers where tested.

If there was a drug problem it was there before, shame on the person who thought of this plan to raid just before they went on tour and shame on them who leaked it to the press, the vultures of the news industry who take the words of the brass that our Iltis jeeps are fine vehicles for driving over land mines but the driver had better not ever smoked pot.

On a last point, I do not do drugs nor do I approve of it but lets get out priorities right.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Jungle:  It came down in an O-group that I was sitting in on so I assume its fact.


----------



## dwild40

Generally Marijuana the most benign of the illicit substances remains in the the urine for up to 2 weeks after smoking however it remains in the blood and hair for up to 4 - 6 months.  Does this mean that 3 weeks after smoking a joint one is still stoned?  Of course not.  It just means that the body takes a long time to metabolize these salts.  A positive urine test for marijuana means that some one had smokes in the past 2 weeks.  HOWEVER other much more harder and dangerous drugs like heroin, cocaine, ecstacy, speed, meth etc..., all metabolize out of the urine within 3 days.  Thats right only 3 days.  
My point you ask?  Just playing devils advocate here.  Now did one test positive for opiates or did they just have a poppy seed bagel at Starbucks yesterday.  The human brain also produces its own cannabinoids under stress situations i.e. runner‘s high.  Do these cannabinoids make it to the urine tract?  I doubt it.  There are also products in the marketplace that assist in passing urine tests.  Which are essentially vitamin B blasts to the systems.
I agree that intoxicants legal or otherwise have no place in a military formation.  As I have said in a previous post "if I could do it all again I‘d do it sober".  But we have to realize that certain drugs have been apart of human culture for thousands of years and are not just going to go away.  When entering into a contract for employment with the CF one should willing submit to regular urine samples to ensure this does not happen as a condition of that employment.  When you violate the rules you are out DISHONOURABLE DISCHARGE.  Do not Pass Go.  Do not Collect Your Pension. BUH BYE
Thanks


----------



## little_mp

Im not to suprised because its something that the CF has to enforce more it happens but like i think unrin tests should be done every 6 months or so, i mean come on flip ur tillie over thats like practicly a weed pouch there  :blotto:   lol    :mg:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think if they do that and 5F all the positive cases we are going to be even more seriously undermanned.


----------



## muskrat89

One comment - a poppy seed bagel WILL NOT produce a positive test for opiates, or anything else. I administer the Drug Testing program at my workplace and had to sit through a couple of days of classes on this stuff. This included the test methods, and debunking the zillion or so urban legends concerning false positives.


----------



## Northern Touch

Full Article 


19 soldiers test positive for drug use
Will no longer be off to Afghanistan

Military cites `security reasons‘


CFB VALCARTIER, Que.â â€Seventeen soldiers who tested positive for illicit drug use won‘t be bound for the war on terror in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces said yesterday.

"The reason why we didn‘t want to deploy them is for security reasons," said Capt. Mario Couture, a military spokesman.

"We can‘t afford to have people under the influence of illicit substances while they‘re conducting patrols."

A Canadian soldier was recently killed in a suicide bomb attack.

A total of 19 soldiers in a unit headed to Afghanistan have tested positive. The other two were not scheduled to go to the strife-torn area, Couture said.

Twenty-nine soldiers were tested for drugs.

The tests followed searches of the base, near Quebec City, by military police and drug-detecting dogs earlier this week after they received a tip.

The military couldn‘t immediately say which drugs had been detected and were awaiting results on tests of drugs seized. 

A small quantity of drugs was found during the search of several offices and lockers belonging to the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment at Valcartier, said the National Investigation Service, the investigative arm of the military police.

The 3rd Battalion, which comprises 600 soldiers, will be shipping soldiers to Afghanistan until mid-month and some have already arrived. None of those is under suspicion, Couture said.

"Nobody that was targeted or nobody that was looked into had deployed so the problem was not transferred over to Afghanistan already." 

Couture said the military takes a hard line when it comes to drug use.

"It‘s clear: it‘s zero tolerance. We don‘t mess with drugs and all the members know that. They know that when they join the forces and they‘re reminded during their career. There‘s no surprise there for them."

He said the military did not take the action just because the troops are being deployed to Afghanistan, known as one of the world‘s major drug producing regions. "It‘s a spot where drugs are available but we just can‘t afford to have people undermined by illicit substances. They pose a threat to themselves and one to their colleagues."

In Afghanistan, Maj. Jurden Rice, social worker for the Canadian contingent, said he has not had to deal with drug use.

"I‘ve had nobody brought to me suspected of using it (drugs), caught using it," he said. "There were no performance deficiencies that someone suspected was linked to drug use."

Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are limited to two beers a day, he added.

The 19 could face reprimands or discharge from the forces, the military said in a statement.

"The chain of command is now taking appropriate preventative measures to ensure the safety of troops deployed in Afghanistan," said Lt.-Col. Bernard Ouellette, acting commander of 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group.


Meanwhile, Prime Minister Paul Martin admitted yesterday in Ottawa that Canada‘s troops are "stretched very, very thin," but he offered to keep 500 troops in Afghanistan after Canada‘s current commitment to the country ends this summer.

Canadian troops now make up 40 per cent of the NATO-led security force patrolling Kabul.

Canadian Press, With files from Bruce Campion-Smith

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

19 Soldiers???  Me being a civilian, and also someone in the process of joining the forces, I can‘t say I find this a morale booster.


----------



## Danny

Thats sickening.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

But I saw it on Seinfield!


----------



## armydrake01

Not to point fingers but let‘s remember this is the second time the VanDoos have embarrassed the forces in front of full media coverage.  The first time put the final nail in the Airborne‘s coffin.  Everyone does stupid things but do these guys try to have the entire country as an audience everytime they screw up.  What will be the fallout this time?  And how many years will it take this time around for Canadians to stop treating our soldiers like criminals?  For those of you who were around, I‘m sure you remember the country pretending the boys coming back from Medak Pocket didn‘t even exist because of the fallout from the Airborne.  They certainly didn‘t get the respect that they deserved and support that they needed.  And the public was actually starting to get past the incident in Somalia when the VanDoos hazing tapes came out and decimated any respectability the Airborne had left.  All of our troops got painted with the same paintbrush.  Let‘s hope history is not about to repeat itself.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The hazing tapes happened well before Somalia.  The Commando that was over there when it happened was ENGLISH.  Drug use is across the board regardless of unit or language and I‘d wager the PPCLI or RCR would fare no better.


----------



## Infanteer

If we are just going to tar our own organization with falsehoods and rumors on this thread I‘ll shut it down.  ****-slinging and finger-pointing does nothing but hurt the Army as a whole.



> Not to point fingers but let‘s remember this is the second time the VanDoos have embarrassed the forces in front of full media coverage. The first time put the final nail in the Airborne‘s coffin. Everyone does stupid things but do these guys try to have the entire country as an audience everytime they screw up. What will be the fallout this time? And how many years will it take this time around for Canadians to stop treating our soldiers like criminals? For those of you who were around, I‘m sure you remember the country pretending the boys coming back from Medak Pocket didn‘t even exist because of the fallout from the Airborne. They certainly didn‘t get the respect that they deserved and support that they needed. And the public was actually starting to get past the incident in Somalia when the VanDoos hazing tapes came out and decimated any respectability the Airborne had left. All of our troops got painted with the same paintbrush. Let‘s hope history is not about to repeat itself.


The Medak Pocket was in ‘93.  The hazing video‘s had not been released yet.  The public was focused on the incident in Somalia.  It was a couple of Patricia‘s that tortured a kid to death in Somalia.  


This is your first post and you‘ve filled out the bare bones on your profile.  Who are you to be attacking one of our Infantry regiments with such a silly statement.  I know Jungle doesn‘t need my help, but I‘m sure he‘ll be along quickly to chat with you quickly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Armydrake01, Before you post here you should know this, this is not a forum board were you can just throw out wild accusations that are‘nt based in some facts.  " Not to point fingers"??? Maybe you should read the rest of your post again. This sounds more like an anti-french rant than anything.


----------



## Jungle

> Originally posted by CFL:
> [qb] I think if they do that and 5F all the positive cases we are going to be even more seriously undermanned. [/qb]


I,d rather be short one man in my Platoon then be stuck with a pothead.
Actually, I am happy they are taking care of this, it just might show the public the CF are serious about drug use, and do not hesitate to take action. 
It seems to me one of the troops didn‘t like the thought of going to Afghanistan with potheads around... can‘t blame him, he did the right thing.
Armydrake01, why don‘t you show up at the 3R22eR lines Monday and tell them your opinion ? They‘d be more than happy to set things straight with you...
We have enough enemies on the outside.


----------



## rcr75vri

Little is actually known how many service members use narcotics. The general public is never made aware of the real problem. This problem has been around for a great number of years. If the public had access to military records of illegal drug use in the forces they would find that at least 35% or more of the personell have used some sort of narcotic sometime in their career. The problem stems from a many number of reason‘s of which are to many to list them all. The biggest of which is stress. Our forces are cash strapped, stretched far and wide and to thin. Overseas deployments in the last 10 to 15 years most likely has contributed to most of the problem. Not having proper and updated equipment. Yes indeed there are other reasons like just to be able to get out of another deployment and this may likely be the case here. Who would really want to serve in a place like Afghanistan? Knowing that you are vulnerable to anything at anytime an adversary can do to inflict terror and casualties, as we are already getting use too. If the military hierarchy in this country is to control this problem it should be dealt with at the Unit level first off. Screening of soldiers should be done from the begining of enrollment and conducted every 6 months for monitoring. How much more would it really cost to drug screen a soldier? Why not make it like a trip to the dentist. These guys are really not at 100% fault here, it is the system to which they are bound to for there service as well. To a soldier that uses drugs frequently, reality becomes an illusion with time and frequent use of drugs. It becomes more evident when that soldier goes through periods of drug deficiency and lack of what they crave. That is when the problems start to arise. If you cant look after the welfare of the troops, and it shows, they will sooner or later develop a mind set that is like "who really gives a ****".....by going the way of escaping from reality whether it is with alcohol or drugs. Frequently testing for drugs would set a precedence on the part of the system, in being that they will test and insure a clean narcotic (substance) free individual soldier. To enforce the laws on the Military level with individuals that choose to use them is the way to punish them, but let‘s not forget why they started to use them, and what can be done to get them clean again. It would be a terrible waste of resources if we just write the problem off with a court martial jail time & a fine. ReHab is something that is never or very rarely offered in cases with the military. Usuallly it is disciplinary action a fine and if it becomes a re-occurring problem their dealt off as an administrative burden and released F5 from the military. Just wash yourself of the problem is basically the remedy for upper eche at that point. The soldier now has an even bigger problem. If the problem arises from within the military, it should deal with it and offer those that are suffering a problem a way out other than just jail time and a fine and ultimately the boot!!. We spend big dollars in training on an individual basis, one infantryman from recruit level to be trained to a level 4 or 5 can cost as much as $250000 to fully train and equip. With an investment of this much in training one soldier, one would think that NDHQ would extend its soldiers the help they need to overcome an addiction problem. JMHO.

X-TowGunner 3RCR PRO PATRIA   :gunner:


----------



## aubbob

I tend to agree in part. the use of Drugs may be forbidden and the penalty for there use well known. One would think that if you have a booze problem they offer rehab, if you beat your spouce they offer help but if you smoke a joint then your problem is outside there umbrella of support.  one would think that in a financially strapped system everyone would be worth saving. With soldiers driving around in on ILTIS, and helicopters falling out of the sky, one would think that you would not want to piss training funds away on retraining just because of an I TOLD YOU SO..


----------



## Michael OLeary

> If the public had access to military records of illegal drug use in the forces they would find that at least 35% or more of the personell have used some sort of narcotic sometime in their career.


And your source for this statistic would be what?


Mike


----------



## Paras

Soldiers continuously endure stress and i think for that reason the (usually )minor problems of drug use should be over-looked .Unless traning for or on an operaton taking drugs isnt hurting anyone if you use in moderation ,much like anything else.


----------



## Infanteer

> Actually, I am happy they are taking care of this, it just might show the public the CF are serious about drug use, and do not hesitate to take action.
> It seems to me one of the troops didn‘t like the thought of going to Afghanistan with potheads around... can‘t blame him, he did the right thing.


Totally agree.  Some may call him a "blade", but I think this is for the best of the Army.  Despite societies tolerance for dope, the military shall remain a bedrock against drug use.


----------



## Infanteer

That is a pretty bold statement, ex-Towgunner.  Any proof (Freedom to information, DND studies?).  I find it hard to believe that 1 in 3 soldiers would lay aside their professionalism in order to get high.



> Yes indeed there are other reasons like just to be able to get out of another deployment and this may likely be the case here. *Who would really want to serve in a place like Afghanistan?* Knowing that you are vulnerable to anything at anytime an adversary can do to inflict terror and casualties, as we are already getting use too.


I don‘t know, but reservists always seem to be willing to volunteer to go over.  I think you are not giving enough credit to the professionalism and motivation of our troops.



> Soldiers continuously endure stress and i think for that reason the (usually )minor problems of drug use should be over-looked .Unless traning for or on an operaton taking drugs isnt hurting anyone if you use in moderation ,much like anything else.


...and condone illicit substance abuse as an acceptable form of stress relief.  You are out to lunch.
If you can‘t trust a soldier to hold his word on drugs, could you trust them with much else?


----------



## rcr75vri

> Originally posted by Michael OLeary:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the public had access to military records of illegal drug use in the forces they would find that at least 35% or more of the personell have used some sort of narcotic sometime in their career.
> 
> 
> 
> And your source for this statistic would be what?
> 
> 
> Mike [/qb]
Click to expand...

Mike I appreciate your question. My answer to it would be that I think I have a pretty good guesstimate on it. Statistic wise I dont have any concrete information. I have served with many in the years I was in, I‘ve seen guys come and seen them go. Whether they are Infantry, Armoured or Air Force & Navy, the problem with drug abuse is there. There is no doubt about it. Just like Civy street, but on a smaller scale. JMHO


----------



## Foxhound

Hmmmm.  Wondered when THAT was going to creep in.  That, "It's almost legal now, so why not let a grunt have a toke now and then?â ? question.

Paras, if you've read the other thread in this forum, "CFB Valcartier soldiers tested for drug useâ ?, you'll know that I'm uniquely qualified to hold an opinion here, so here's my two cents.

The two cpls. that were charged from my pl. were not what any commander would term "idealâ ? soldiers.  They maybe started out just relieving "stressâ ?, but they weren't under any stress that I could see.  They hung with a clique of about eight other guys from the bn. who were also charged.  I forget exactly how many total were implicated, wasn't my focus at the time.  Every ex. we were on, these two would find any excuse to leave the pl. to find others of their stripe.  They were rude, and their idea of a good joke was to pull rank and have some poor FNG perform some disgusting or degrading act.  They couldn't be counted on to perform ANY task without supervision, unless it was a task where all THEY had to do was supervise.  When they got back from Edmonton, they hadn't changed any except that now they thought that their time in jail somehow made them ÃƒÅ“ber-grunts.  

Let's not ignore the fact that the CF has good reasons for its policies on drug and alcohol use.  All studies that I have heard of that had to do with researching the cumulative effects of marijuana use came to a conclusion that long-term memory loss was a factor among other things.   I don't know about you, but I'd rather train with an NCO who can remember ALL of the battle drills than one that doodles at an O gp.

We are a group of men and women who not only lead by example, but learn from example as well.  Charging or giving the boot to users of drugs will serve to reinforce in the minds of young soldiers that we simply won't tolerate their deliberately making themselves less than 100%fit for battle.


----------



## muskrat89

I don‘t get any of it. If I don‘t agree with all of the policies and traditions of the Masonic Lodge, I don‘t join. If I can‘t abide by the requirements of the Knights of Columbus, I don‘t join. Easy....  To bend the rules to satisfy your own social/moral/ethical standards is wrong. To knowingly circumvent rules that you agreed to, prior to enlisting - is an indication of your character. To whine about the ramifications of getting caught is childish. I want to trust my life, or the lives of my men - with far more sturdier souls than that.


----------



## Infanteer

From what Foxhound says, it sounds like we are going to be better off without them.


----------



## gate_guard

> Originally posted by muskrat89:
> [qb] To bend the rules to satisfy your own social/moral/ethical standards is wrong. [/qb]


I couldn‘t have said it better myself. Furthermore, this same argument applies to the Canadian public as well. It is well known that drug use is against the law, so for people to ignore it and justify their drug use as just being a minor crime that doesn‘t hurt anyone is just a copout. The issue isn‘t how minor the affects of a drug may be, the fact is that it *is* against the law, end of story.


----------



## Armymedic

The CF has opportunities for soldiers to undergo drug rehab tng. Our facility here is in North Bay, and from what I‘ve seen here in the few cases of drug use in Petawawa, most are given this opportunity as part of thier counselling etc...


----------



## GrahamD

> Soldiers continuously endure stress and i think for that reason the (usually )minor problems of drug use should be over-looked .Unless traning for or on an operaton taking drugs isnt hurting anyone if you use in moderation ,much like anything else.


You need to be specific with what drugs you are refering to here.  I‘m asuming that you‘re talking about marijuana, and to a degree I would agree that a little pot is not a big deal, aside from the fact that they are blatently breaking DND policy.

  However if those soldiers do a little bit of narcotics like heroin, cocaine, or barbituates, or some halucinogenics like LSD, or mescaline, or any of the "designer drugs" typically stimulants like ecstacy and methamphetamine, then there could be serious problems.

Just a note here also to people who incesantly argue the flashbacks, decreased short term memory, and pshycotic episodes as a result of smoking marijuana  I want to point out that while there is evidence that suggests that at least some (one) of these events may result, it is generally accepted that it happens only after long term chronic use.  I can assure you that I know plenty of people from B.C. who have smoked near chronic levels of marijuana for many years and still manage to perform highly stressful and mentally challenging jobs.  I have friends who smoked pot throughout law school, med school (this one was casual only though) and engineering programs.  I would say that I‘ve met and discussed marijuana with a minimum of 300 people who all have their own backrounds in marijuana use, in addition to what they‘ve learned from the probably hundreds of people that they‘ve talked to.

To get to the point, I‘ve never heard anyone say to me that they‘ve had a hallucinogenic experience, psychotic episode, or any kind of flash back from marijuana use.  The only people who have ever indicated to me, or who I could simply tell on my own had suffered any kind of short term memory loss were the absolutely most hardcore users I met.  People who smoke pot like its cigarettes, joints before breakfast right through to joints before bed.
  I‘m not trying to say its safe, because obviously the damage that eventually does become noticable begins to happen at some point prior to when you can actually identify that the damage is done, but it seems pretty obvious that if someone got high only 2 or 3 times a month, any ill effect suffered would be so insignificant it would probably measure less damage on your brain than simply breathing the polluted air we do every day.

On the flip side, to anyone who‘s pro marijuana use, even for members of the military, you need to either remember or realise right away that marijuana and hash are notorious for turning up laced.  I have known many (and I mean many) people who have inadvertently smoked narcotics while smoking a joint.  It‘s common practice for a "dealer" to lace bags of low grade marijuana with cocaine or speed to give the user a really strong high and make them belive they are smoking top grade pot.  Before you say that it‘s not practical that they would not do that, because the cocaine is expensive, im going to say "trust me, im in the know on this one" and it‘d take time to explain why its profitable.

When I was growing up there was a phenomenon known as "creeper weed", some of you pot heads out there may know the term.  Those of you who don‘t, it means when you smoke it you get a good buzz or high, and about 20 minutes later you suddenly discover that you‘re getting more high, and not just a little bit.  You get wasted, and it can be really scary if you were already pretty high in the first place.
The thing is, generally a marijuana high will begin to ebb off after about 15-30 minutes, thats why the creeper weed is so peculiar.  The answer why that happens has nothing to do with specially grown or modified marijuana, its because after 20 minutes or so, when the pacifying and relaxing effects of the actual marijuana that was in the joint/bowl wear off, the longer lasting effects of whichever substance it was laced with become the dominant effect.  So whats really happening is that the induvidual is really coming to feel the effects of smoking narcotics, and thats why "creeper weed" causes intense paranoia 9/10 times.

Before any potheads jump on me and try to dismiss what I‘m saying, I‘m going to say that I know what I‘m talking about.  I‘ve seen the process, I‘ve seen the things people lace marijuana with, I‘ve seen people buy laced drugs and disappear off without a clue.

To make this long story end, I‘m going to get back to the point and say that ultimately a soldier smoking pot in his free time could very easily be hurting himself and putting others at risk.  The fact is, if you don‘t grow marijuana yourself you really don‘t know whats in it.  It‘s not regulated by health inspectors like alcohol is.

These are things I‘ve known people to smoke in a joint, and usually without prior knowledge:
 PCP, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Heroin, psilocybin (magic mushrooms), various prescription and over the counter medicines, and Lysol brand disinfectant spray.  The Lysol is know to cause visual hallucinations when applied during the curing process of the marijuana buds.

I would guarantee that for those of you who smoke pot, or "used to smoke pot", that if you ever bought any marijuana from guy on a street corner and not from someone you know who grows it, that you have definately had some contact with laced drugs.  It‘s a very common practice.  High grade marijuana is very expensive, most kids could not afford it.  So they load up the cheap stuff with  a little something to give it some extra kick.


----------



## rcr75vri

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] That is a pretty bold statement, ex-Towgunner.  Any proof (Freedom to information, DND studies?).  I find it hard to believe that 1 in 3 soldiers would lay aside their professionalism in order to get high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed there are other reasons like just to be able to get out of another deployment and this may likely be the case here. *Who would really want to serve in a place like Afghanistan?* Knowing that you are vulnerable to anything at anytime an adversary can do to inflict terror and casualties, as we are already getting use too.
> 
> 
> 
> I don‘t know, but reservists always seem to be willing to volunteer to go over.  I think you are not giving enough credit to the professionalism and motivation of our troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers continuously endure stress and i think for that reason the (usually )minor problems of drug use should be over-looked .Unless traning for or on an operaton taking drugs isnt hurting anyone if you use in moderation ,much like anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and condone illicit substance abuse as an acceptable form of stress relief.  You are out to lunch.
> If you can‘t trust a soldier to hold his word on drugs, could you trust them with much else? [/qb]
Click to expand...

infanteer: I dont agree with that second quote or who posted , my statement says that you will find that about 35% of the people have tried a narcotic substance of some sort in their career. I stand by what I say and have spent enough time in the Regs to know of the problem. Drug use is a problem in our forces. Period. I have served with Pot heads and alcoholics alike, in the end I feel very sorry for these individuals and I would most likely fight with any of them anywhere, they for the most part are good soldiers but with a problem of addiction of some sort. I would still be very proud to serve with them, I would not condem them, I would most likely try to help them to a point where they can help themselves to get out of the problem. Like some sort of Rehab and support. Our forces are to me Number 1 in the world. Short in numbers but very high in spirit and comraderie. Where in the world can you find better soldiers that really give all that they can to help a nation in crisis?


----------



## rcr75vri

> Originally posted by Armymedic:
> [qb] The CF has opportunities for soldiers to undergo drug rehab tng. Our facility here is in North Bay, and from what I‘ve seen here in the few cases of drug use in Petawawa, most are given this opportunity as part of thier counselling etc... [/qb]


Granted....great program, but you stated only a few? There are alot more out there that need the help also.


----------



## rcr75vri

> Originally posted by Foxhound:
> [qb] Hmmmm.  Wondered when THAT was going to creep in.  That, "It's almost legal now, so why not let a grunt have a toke now and then?â ? question.
> 
> Paras, if you've read the other thread in this forum, "CFB Valcartier soldiers tested for drug useâ ?, you'll know that I'm uniquely qualified to hold an opinion here, so here's my two cents.
> 
> The two cpls. that were charged from my pl. were not what any commander would term "idealâ ? soldiers.  They maybe started out just relieving "stressâ ?, but they weren't under any stress that I could see.  They hung with a clique of about eight other guys from the bn. who were also charged.  I forget exactly how many total were implicated, wasn't my focus at the time.  Every ex. we were on, these two would find any excuse to leave the pl. to find others of their stripe.  They were rude, and their idea of a good joke was to pull rank and have some poor FNG perform some disgusting or degrading act.  They couldn't be counted on to perform ANY task without supervision, unless it was a task where all THEY had to do was supervise.  When they got back from Edmonton, they hadn't changed any except that now they thought that their time in jail somehow made them ÃƒÅ“ber-grunts.
> 
> Let's not ignore the fact that the CF has good reasons for its policies on drug and alcohol use.  All studies that I have heard of that had to do with researching the cumulative effects of marijuana use came to a conclusion that long-term memory loss was a factor among other things.   I don't know about you, but I'd rather train with an NCO who can remember ALL of the battle drills than one that doodles at an O gp.
> 
> We are a group of men and women who not only lead by example, but learn from example as well.  Charging or giving the boot to users of drugs will serve to reinforce in the minds of young soldiers that we simply won't tolerate their deliberately making themselves less than 100%fit for battle. [/qb]


Good opinion, but I still think they deserve some sort of help. ProPatria


----------



## KeV

And taking drugs because of stress is a really weak reason. It‘s like saying, "I shot the guy cause he wanted to knife me!". There are hundreds of other ways of releiving stress. Yes smoking pot is a good one but it‘s illegal and you aren‘t allowed to take any because of good reasons. Yes if someone smokes a joint here and there isn‘t bad. But if people start accepting that, they will take more and abuse it. We give an inch, they take a mile. And it‘s just plain wrong. If you take drugs and don‘t respect your role as a soldier, then you don‘t deserve to get my respect. Plain and simple.


----------



## armydrake01

Since I obviously caused some confusion and offended some with my first post, I will try to be more concise this time.  I wasn‘t trying to slam the VanDoos just pointing out that this is their second run in with the media piranahs.  Somalia DID happen in ‘93 and we couldn‘t get rid of it for two years.  Medak happened in Sep ‘94. The boys came home 4 weeks later and were swept under the rug because of the fallout from the Airborne scandal.  The general public didn‘t have any idea or want to have any idea why our people were in Yugo or what they accomplished.  3 months later (Jan ‘95) the hazing videos hit the news.  And the fallout from that has lasted, well, I had someone throw it in my face about a year ago.  My issue is not with the 19 caught, any idiot should know, that is a very small percentage.  My issue is with the fallout since I‘m sure the media will no doubt make every soldier look like a criminal to the general public.   As far as my opinion on whether members should be allowed to use if it becomes legal, definitely not.  I have lost too much over the years to other peoples drug habits to ever view them as benign but I don‘t think that this should have been made public.  It‘s a military issue let the military deal with it.


----------



## willy

Marijuana Party pipes up with election platform
CTV.ca News Staff

The federal Marijuana Party has officially rolled out its election campaign platform. Campaigning under the slogan "Let's Roll," the party has high hopes of putting candidates in 100 ridings across Canada.

About 40 will be running in Quebec ridings, with another 25 candidates vying for seats across Ontario. And seven candidates will be on the slate in the Winnipeg area.

The party won't be represented, however, in P.E.I., Newfoundland or the Northwest Territories.

According to Marijuana Party leader Marc-Boris St-Maurice, 35, his team is running on a single issue -- the legalization of marijuana.

But, he says, his party's narrow platform actually covers a broad range of legitimate government concerns, from finance and justice to international relations and agriculture.

"We are a single-issue party but that issue covers finances, social climate, justice, international relations and agriculture," he told reporters on Tuesday.

"There's hardly any ministry that would not be affected. In fact, I think we should have a Ministry of Marijuana at some point." 

In a platform published online, the party outlines a number of marijuana-related goals that includes:

demonstrating the social advantages to ending cannabis prohibition; 
creating a defence fund for those accused of cannabis-related crimes; 
developing legislation to legalize the drug; 
ensuring access to medical marijuana; and 
pressuring the international community to follow suit.
Mike Foster, the Marijuana Party candidate in Ottawa Centre says he believes that the party has more support than many would like to admit.

"There are more than three million Canadians who smoke (marijuana). I think it's time we all came out of the weed closet and addressed this issue once and for all." 

Interestingly, the party does promote one agenda item that's not entirely marijuana-centric. It wants an overhaul of the Canada Elections Act, "to offer solutions to the parliamentary representation deficit."

"We feel we are under the obligation to be critical of any abuses or inequities within our democratic system," the party writes on its website.

"This reform would serve to better interpret election results and distribute power fairly."

When Canadians last went to the polls in 2000, they gave the Marijuana Party 0.5 per cent of the national vote -- more than 66,000 votes.

This year, St-Maurice is planning to run against Paul Martin in the prime minister's Montreal-area riding of LaSalle-Emard.

To help pay for the campaign, party fundraisers are reportedly selling marijuana seeds at a going rate of 10 seeds for $12.


----------



## Infanteer

The fact that these guy will get votes shows the weakness in universal enfranchisement.

_"To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy.   The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority...other than through the tragic logic of history.   The unique "poll tax" that we must pay was unheard of.   No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority.   If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead_ (emphasis mine)_ - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple."_

Robert Heinlein. Starship Troopers, 183.


----------



## Goober

The fact that these guys will get votes shows the power of democracy and the freedom of will.


----------



## nbk

I am all for legalization like everyone else, but these guys have some really stupid ideas, when it comes to other issues. The sillyness of their party distracts people from the real issue--that legalizing marijuana will be a great benefit to the nation, and fix many of its problems, particularly in the urban centres.


----------



## Infanteer

Considering most of the inner city problems stem from hard core drugs, I don't think legalization will be the great saviour you're portraying it to be.

However, you're right, the party is silly.   A single platform party like this is foolish at best.

Where are the Yogic Flyers when you need them?


----------



## nbk

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Considering most of the inner city problems stem from hard core drugs, I don't think legalization will be the great saviour you're portraying it to be.



Interesting. I have never heard of marijuana being called a hard core drug before. The problem arises with drug dealers. The drug dealers primarily sell marijuana because it is the easiest to get, and most people smoke it, so it is easy to sell. They then use the money they make to further their other criminal activities, get illegal weapons, what have you.

If marijuana (and a handful of other non addictive, but currently unjustly illegal drugs) is completely legalized, and sold in government run businesses like the LCBO, people will go to these stores to buy it, where the quality and purity can be assured, and the sale can be taxed, and have the taxes go to whatever (like the taxes on alcohol).

Stiffer sentences should be given to anyone buying or selling marijuana on the streets, for example mandatory 20 year jail time, in order to force people to buy from the stores, and put the drug dealers out of business.

Licences would be issued to parties who want to grow amounts for sale at the stores, and they would be watched closely by the government to ensure they are doing everything correct.

If people had a legal way of obtaining these drugs, they would use it. But the way the laws are now, force people to break the law, and in turn the laws  do not serve in the best intrest of the people. Alcohol is the perfect example. When it was illegal, people had to use bootleggers to get it. They did not stop using it because it was illegal. Now that alcohol is regularly available, when was the last time you heard of anyone going to a bootlegger to get it? Are all people raging alcoholics? The government lets many more dangerous things be legalized, such as alcohol and cigarettes, so there is really no reason to have some drugs legalized.

The problem with drug use, stems from overuse. Like your mum surely always told you "too much of anything is not good". Lots and lots of people use drugs recreationally, and it is only a very very very small amount of them who have issues with them. This leads one to the probablility that the problem lies with the people's own addictive personalities and personal problems, then the drugs being the problem. If you have more serious underlying issues, then anything can be abused and things will turn out negative for the person. Some people abuse alcohol, some abuse painkillers, some abuse food. Rush Limbaugh abuses all three. Should these things be made illegal just because a small minority abuse them? No, of course not, after all people need food to live, people can use painkillers to medicate themselves, people can use alcohol to enjoy themselves. Well the government has already shown that they believe marijuana can be used to medicate people. Many safe drugs can be used by people to enjoy themselves, and some drugs can help feed one's mind and improve their life.

People in this hemisphere have been conditioned to think all drugs are the same and all drugs are evil. This is of course, not a realistic assumption. A plant or chemical can not posess personality charicteristics. People need to be more properly educated about drugs. If and when they are legalized, scientists and researchers can find out much more about them, then they are currently allowed to, and not be forced to write false, biased reports on them.

Everything in the universe has a "good" and "bad" side. Drugs are no exception. Some drugs, the "good" side outweighs the "bad" side, and some it is vice versa. I can give examples. Crack cocaine is what I would call a "bad" drug. It is quite easy to overdose and kill yourself, the high is short, and it is physically addictive--your body goes into withdrawl after only using a small amount. This kind of drug should be banned, and its useage condemned. Other drugs such as heroin, and basically any opiate, PCP, and any other physically addictive drug, should be banned outright, and stricter laws should be in place for those who would sell or buy these drugs. The negative side of these drugs outweigh the positive side, so these are overall negative drugs. Again, "too much of anything is no good".

However if you accept this, then you must accept that some drugs have a positive side that outweighs the negative side. Marijuana is the most widely used. The only real negative effect is that smoking marijuana can harm your lungs, and the usual factors including imparing judgement, as alcohol or other legal drugs do as well. Some other drugs that I would classify as "positive" drugs, include things, such as LSD, DMT, Psilocybin mushrooms, cacti and soforth. These again, are not in the least addictive, and in fact, the experiences are usually so intense and often life altering, that one does not want to use them more then maybe a few times a month at the absolute most. Effects also disapate with overuse, so the drug itself prevents abuse. Not to mention these drugs are much more difficult to overdose on, and problems really only arise with people who are not prepared for the experience, and they end up losing too much of their judgement, as they were not expecting the trip that they got and became overwhelmed and tried to kill themselves or the like. Prohibitionists like to "sex up" unusual phenomenon like LSD "flashbacks" to try and scare people out of using drugs, when in actuality very little is known about these occurances, and more research should be given to understand why, in rare instances, they do occur. If people can figure out if they happen when used in combonation with other drugs or whatever, then they can be prevented (or enhanced, depending on what one desires). There is very little reliable research done on drugs, and it is a disservice to all, not having this information available so that people can make informed decisions about what they want to do to themselves.

With legalization, these "good" drugs can be packaged and sold to the public. The government can research, and develop proper education to inform the people. Tell how much to take, when to take, how much is too much, what to do if you have taken too much, what to expect when you take the drug and so on. The taxes from selling the drugs can go to addiction treatment programs to treat the small minority of people who do become addicted, or need help.  It can also educate people that they should not be taking drugs with a negative mindset, or to escape problems in their lives, but rather to enjoy, and experience and enhance all that life has to offer.


----------



## muskrat89

> and most people smoke it





> I am all for legalization like everyone else



NBK - if you can't see that your beliefs are different than the majority of us on this board, then you have indeed spent far too many hours drawing on the cool end of a zeppelin. These statements may be true in the circles you run in (where the majority of people are bisexual, if I remember correctly), but please don't make broad statements like that, which can insinuate that we agree with you. Frankly, I am surprised of your interest in the Military. The vast majority of people I have served with were anti-pot, anti-hard drug, etc.

Your opposing point of views are fine, but you would be the first to wail and gnash your teeth if some of us with..umm.. more "old-fashioned" ideals were to make broad statements that indicated our point of view was "normal" and included your support...


----------



## Military Brat

A Ministry of Marijuana? Don't we already pay enough federal bureaucrats?

As a sidenote, nothing beats the platform that the Rhinoceros Party of Canada ran on before it was disbanded in 1993. Here are some examples of their brilliant ideas:

- repealing the law of gravity, 
- paving the province of Manitoba Manitoba to create the world's largest parking lot, 
- instituting illiteracy as Canada's third official language,
- tearing down the Rocky Mountains so Albertans could see the Pacific sunset, 
- building sloping bicycle paths across the country so that Canadians could "coast from coast to coast", 
- annexing the United States, which would take its place as the third territory in Canada's backyard, in order to raise the average national temperature, 
- breeding a mosquito that would only hatch in January so that "the little buggers will freeze to death", 
- turn Montreal's rue Ste-Catherine into the world's longest bowling alley,
- selling the Canadian Senate at an antique auction in California, 
- painting Canada's coastal sea limits so that Canadian fish would know where they were at all times, 
- counting the Thousand Islands to make sure none are missing,
- banning lousy Canadian winters.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Rhinoceros%20Party%20of%20Canada

And to think this party at one time came in 2nd in some ridings, even ahead of the Conservatives. 

Sorry, I'm getting off topic now.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

If you see how many people are killed in drunk driving accidents (including one from my former high school, less than a month ago)  even with all of the warnings, info etc... does anyone honestly think that people will always use marajuana responsibly, legalized or not?



> creating a defence fund for those accused of cannabis-related crimes;



what kind of offences would these people need defense money for?  Dealing?  Possession?  Mischief while high?  The users can pay for it just as long as they don't take money off our taxes for such a purpose.



> The government lets many more dangerous things be legalized, such as alcohol and cigarettes, so there is really no reason to have some drugs legalized



Last time I checked, Canada was moving away from cigarettes, with public smoking bans/campaigns becoming more prevalent.  Cigarettes are only legal now because they were instituted in times when we did not know how hazardous to our health they were, and only consumer demand is keeping them legal.  Do you want the same thing to happen to marajuana?  Marajuana does have some longer-term effects, such as memory loss, and who knows what else it does?  It already has side effects such as memory loss.   ;D


----------



## dann0

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> These statements may be true in the circles you run in (where the majority of people are bisexual, if I remember correctly),...



That seems like a rather broad statement.


----------



## muskrat89

Danno - NBK stated that, in another thread 



> One more thing. I cannot think of one single girl that I have ever met since junior high who was not very openly bisexual. Almost all the guys I know, save a few fascists who just "tolerate" are quite openly bisexual as well.
> 
> Most people are bisexual. If you think about it, there is no reason not to be bisexual. If you only like boys or only like girls, you are cutting off 50% of the entire population that you may have a meaningful, loving relationship with.




Try again, pup


----------



## dann0

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Try again, pup



My apologies, dog


----------



## muskrat89

Attaboy!     

I even gave you a "promote" thingy, because you took a jab standing up


----------



## nbk

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> NBK - if you can't see that your beliefs are different than the majority of us on this board, then you have indeed spent far too many hours drawing on the cool end of a zeppelin. These statements may be true in the circles you run in (where the majority of people are bisexual, if I remember correctly), but please don't make broad statements like that, which can insinuate that we agree with you. Frankly, I am surprised of your interest in the Military. The vast majority of people I have served with were anti-pot, anti-hard drug, etc.
> 
> Your opposing point of views are fine, but you would be the first to wail and gnash your teth if some of us with..umm.. more "old-fashioned" ideals were to make broad statements that indicated our point of view was "normal" and included your support...



Haha, I know very much that the loudest people on this forum are the polar opposite of me when it comes to some things. I dont believe that I have ever said that everyone on this fourm belives in the same things that I do. Or anyone else for that matter. If I did say that, then please show me where I said that, and I will retract it, because I never believed that. What would be the point of participating on this forum if I just replied with "yes I agree" to every post, especially when I disagree? I believe that I read a survey once that said something along the lines of most Canadians had used marijuana at one or more times in their life. I dont remember the survey however so that doesnt mean much. I think most Canadians have used some drug at one time or another. Maybe not you or your friends, but this is a big country, with a diverse population.

I as well think it may have a lot to do with a generation gap. You are much older than I, and are likely out of touch with several generations which have progressed since yours. I would not expect you to think the same way as I.

Frankly I am suprised at your intrest in the military. The vast majority of people in the Canadian Forces that I know are open minded, intelligent and tolerant of new ideas, and more interested in debating arguments then making attacks on someone who has an opposing viewpoint, just because they can not find a fault with it.

If you want to debate any points I made than it would fill me with such glee to hear them. I did not mean to try and represent army.ca, but I would much rather have someone make posts criticizing the points I made. I think what I have said made a lot of sense, and if people an find flaws in it, then please tell me, so I can consider them and try to figure out if they are real problems with my view or not.

Express your "old fashioned" ideas on this forum, by all means, and if I feel like it, I will be more than happy to point out all the ways in which you are wrong  ;D


----------



## muskrat89

nbk - refer to my quotes (from your posts) above. I would imagine that most of the participants on this board, consider themselves part of "most people" and "everyone else" - surely even you can follow that logic - please consider yourself shown. Or, to demonstrate that I am a reasonable man, explain to me, and other members of this board why we, or even most of us - *aren't* included in those two groupings.


I am also interested in knowing, since you brought it up - how many people you have actually known, know, or have met - in the Canadian Military. Use as many years as you like. Then we can determine which of us has had a more representative sampling...when it comes to "anti-drug", as opposed to "open and tolerant".

I am not attacking your viewpoint - I simply stated that you were making assertions like "everyone else" and "most people" - when I did not believe that to be accurate. In fact - re-read your own post, where you quoted me - I said "your opposing views are fine".


----------



## Yes Man

What I find funny about this is that every where in Canada they are blocking poeple from smoking, they spend millions on adds telling all the damage that smoking does to people and then they want to decriminalize another substance.


----------



## Goober

Marijuana in my opinion should stay illegal, however; there are proven medicinal uses for it, and I think that should be explored.


----------



## nbk

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> nbk - refer to my quotes (from your posts) above. I would imagine that most of the participants on this board, consider themselves part of "most people" and "everyone else" - surely even you can follow that logic - please consider yourself shown. Or, to demonstrate that I am a reasonable man, explain to me, and other members of this board why we, or even most of us - *aren't* included in those two groupings.



I re read all of the posts on this thread that I made, and cannot see where I've stated that "everyone on army.ca supports legalization of marijuana". I see where I wrote "I know very much that the loudest people on this forum are the polar opposite of me when it comes to some things" and "I believe that I read a survey once that said something along the lines of most Canadians had used marijuana at one or more times in their life" but I do not see where I stated that I represent the general consensus of the views of the people on army.ca. 



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I am also interested in knowing, since you brought it up - how many people you have actually known, know, or have met - in the Canadian Military. Use as many years as you like. Then we can determine which of us has had a more representative sampling...when it comes to "anti-drug", as opposed to "open and tolerant".



Well I personally know about 2 dozen people in the navy and army, reserves and regular force. However it is worth noting that that part was said more to mock what you said about my intrest in the military, then try to justify your belief that I think people on army.ca (or the military in general) support legalization of marijuana (which I have stated several times is a false belief, stemming from twisting my words around, and trying to read something else into what I wrote).



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I am not attacking your viewpoint - I simply stated that you were making assertions like "everyone else" and "most people" - when I did not believe that to be accurate. In fact - re-read your own post, where you quoted me - I said "your opposing views are fine".



As stated several times now, when I said "like everyone else" I was referring to all of the people that I know personally in this country, see in public, on school campuses, in the media, etc, etc. Not knowing or having spoken to anyone who opposes legalization of marijuana, it would not be fitting for me to say anything less than "everyone else" when I am speaking about what, from my own experiences, seems to be the general consensus among Canadians. Perhaps you should not read too literally into my words. I obviously do not know every person in this country, so do you really think that when I say "everyone else" I believe am actually speaking for absolutely every other human being? When I say "everyone else" I am speaking about everyone else that I know about.

But again, why is this a discussion about semantics when I have made a post with many points about an issue that you obviously disagree with. Please read my second long post in this thread, and tell me how my argument is flawed, and we can discuss that instead of these other trivial things.


----------



## muskrat89

My apologies - taking words literally is a flaw of mine.

So - if I said "NBK, you should support George Bush, just like everyone else" that would OK, because it would be inferred, somehow that what I really meant was just like "most of the people I know". Gotcha

We do agree on one thing - this is exasperating! 

You go ahead and keep typing - it just reinforces my point.


----------



## BuzzzWorthy

A TEN HUP!

I was a mar eng tech 312  and got kicked out in 77 for smoking some hash I bought in Albourg Denmark.

This year I am coordinating three marijuana festivals and they are in Toronto Hamilton and Niagara Falls.

The Date is Aug 21 for all three and the event is called CANABIAN DAY FEDTIVAL.

To get info on these three events please visit http://www.canabianday.ca

Or buzz@canabianday.ca

Oh and by the way, I still smoke and am still healthy.

Dismiss!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Ask your lungs that question.


----------



## Infanteer

Whatever, dopey.   Glad you and your illegal drugs got the walking papers.  Have fun at your little drug party, the Hells Angels appreciate your support....


----------



## Slim

[quote author=BuzzzWorthy]
I was a mar eng tech 312   and got kicked out in 77 for smoking some hash I bought in Albourg Denmark.
[/quote]

Well done Jackass

There's nothing like having the service well represented by some glassy-eyed druggie...Glad they caught you. Too bad your release wasn't by way of Club Ed. It might have smartened you up!


----------



## SFontaine

Living in Victoria, BC you can imagine that a lot of kids around here do weed and other such drugs. Ever since Grade 8 I've known at least two dozen people who have begun smoking weed and becoming total braindead morons. They start suffering in school, then you just stop seeing them there, then when you see them again they're either going to some sort of part-time moron school or dropped out entirely and they're complete dirtbags, long greasy hair, dirty smelly clothes etc. Hell I know a girl who in Grade 7 was really smart and was going on to the challenge program at a High School around here.. She did that for a bit, then fell into drugs and transferred to the school I go to, having utterly failed at the other school. After a while you just stopped seeing her there but whenever you do she's visibly screwed up and is failing her classes.  Not exactly a shining endorsement for weed.

Then again, to be fair and balanced, I'm friends with a few guys who do smoke weed once every month or two and they're generally smart guys who know what they're doing in life and haven't fallen into the rut that I've seen a lot of potheads fall into. Oh well who knows. All I know is I'm staying away from that trash because I don't wanna take any chances with my future in the military, and with my future in general.


----------



## gate_guard

I've made my own personal opinion about pot well known in the past. But just to rehash, I could care less if people smoke it, just don't do it around me, especially when I put the uniform on. As far as geting rid of the criminal element by legalizing pot, I don't buy it, they'll just find something else to push. Eliminating prohibition didn't put the bootleggers out of business, they just switched industries. As for marginalizing young people by giving them records, too bad, ignorance of the law is not an excuse (it's in the crim code, look it up) so don't whine when you get charged and screw up any chance of a decent career, you knew it was illegal. And yes it's bad for you, just because we can smoke and drink, doesn't mean we need another useless mind numbing intoxicant added to the mix. Call me old fashioned, but pot is for losers.


----------



## BuzzzWorthy

Sorry if I pissed on your shoes Boy's but at least I did'nt tell you it was rainin.

Opinions vary, like assholes, everybody has one.
Buzz


----------



## SFontaine

Go post your druggy bullshit somewhere else.


----------



## Slim

BuzzzWorthy said:
			
		

> Sorry if I pissed on your shoes Boy's but at least I didn't tell you it was rainin.
> 
> Opinions vary, like assholes, everybody has one.
> Buzz



I don't know if you being on this site is quite appropriate, in view of your past and the fact that you seem to be rather proud of it.

I'm sure there are other places that would be more in keeping with your personal objectives and values, and others who share your outlook on the world.

This forum is for soldiers and those who are interested in the military. I don't think that describes you at all now does it.


----------



## nbk

BuzzzWorthy said:
			
		

> I was a mar eng tech 312  and got kicked out in 77 for smoking some hash I bought in Albourg Denmark.



Maybe in a few more years, when we do away with the facist leaders we have in Ottawa now, you will be pardoned for that gross injustice.  

And to all the people who say "I had some friend who smoked weed once and now he is an idiot" realize that your friends would be idiots no matter what they decided to get involved with. If they had access to alcohol instead of marijuana, they would all be drunkards. If they didn't have access to anything of that sort, then they would eat too much food and get big and fat.

FACT: Marijuana is in no way physically addictive. Marijuana is not heroin, it is not crack.There is not one single chemical in it that science has found that makes it addictive. No nicotine in marijuana.

The problem arises with weak people, who can't control themselves, and over indulge and can't stop themselves. Just because they choose marijuana doesn't mean that marijuana is the problem. Look at fat people, they over indulge in food. Using your logic, food should be banned because a very small minority of people who use food, over use it.

I can think of one person who I knew who was smoking and drinking by grade 6, smoking weed by grade 9 and dropped out of school after grade 10. Did any of the drugs do this to him? No. Its his own dumbass fault for not dealing with his problems and turning to drugs to escape them. So don't blame drugs for your own personal problems. If everyone who ever smoked a joint, dropped some acid or munched on some shrooms turned into some drug addicted burnout then everybody in the world would be that way.

Drugs are powerful substances that demand respect. If you don't respect them you will fuck yourself up, but if you do respect them they can teach you much about yourself, about life and about the universe. Drugs are like a knife. If you are careful and use it properly, it can aid your life, cut up your food, whatever. If you don't use it properly you will cut yourself, and if you really don't know what you are doing you can kill yourself quite easy.

Weak people will use whatever they can to deal with their inadequacy, but equally weak are those who revel in their ignorance, choose to remain uneducated about drugs, and dismiss the benefits that using these substances in moderation can have on one.


----------



## nbk

Actually I just thought of something...were you on duty when you were smoking that hash? Or was it just leisure time as I originally assumed.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

speaking of FACTS...

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg9-10.html

=======================================================

Q: What are the long-term effects of marijuana use?
A: Findings so far show that regular use of marijuana or THC may play a role in some kinds of cancer and in problems with the respiratory and immune systems.


Cancer
It's hard to know for sure whether regular marijuana use causes cancer. But it is known that marijuana contains some of the same, and sometimes even more, of the cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per day may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day (15) .


Lungs and airways
Lungs and airwaysâ â€People who smoke marijuana often develop the same kinds of breathing problems that cigarette smokers have: coughing and wheezing. They tend to have more chest colds than nonusers. They are also at greater risk of getting lung infections like pneumonia.


Immune system
Animal studies have found that THC can damage the cells and tissues in the body that help protect against disease. When the immune cells are weakened you are more likely to get sick.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What if a person wants to quit using the drug?
A: In 2001, over 255,000 people entering drug treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse. However, up until a few years ago, it was hard to find treatment programs specifically for marijuana users. 

Now researchers are testing different ways to help marijuana users abstain from drug use. There are currently no medications for treating marijuana addiction. Treatment programs focus on counseling and group support systems. There are also a number of programs designed especially to help teenagers who are abusers. Family doctors can be a good source for information and help in dealing with adolescent marijuana problems.

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

Q: What does marijuana do to the brain?
A: Some studies show that when people have smoked large amounts of marijuana for years, the drug takes its toll on mental functions (4). Heavy or daily use of marijuana affects the parts of the brain that control memory, attention, and learning. A working short-term memory is needed to learn and perform tasks that call for more than one or two steps.

Smoking marijuana causes some changes in the brain that are like those caused by cocaine, heroin, and alcohol. Scientists are still learning about the many ways that marijuana can affect the brain.



=====================================================================================

sounds pretty addictive to me and damaging to me...


----------



## Pieman

I am certainly no expert, but I believe Pot taken in moderation is not a big deal, you are just as likely to do as much damage to your lungs inhaling car fumes walking down a busy street. Smoke a lot, and you are going to pay. The same goes for drinking and just about any other kind of habit. 

I am not opposed to legalization, as I have seen the upside/downside of that situation in other countries first hand, and I think it is better to go in the legalization direction.

Personally, I never used it, as I never understood the appeal of it. I find it makes people docile and boring. Especially at parties. Drinking is much for sociable and you can meet hot girls easier. People I know and seen using pot on a regular basis tend to sit around, watch TV, munch on chips, and do basically nothing. For a heavy pot smoker, a night out turns into them sitting on the couch smoking.   In countries where this is legal, they go to a shop that sells pot and they sit on the couch there. Wow, wild and crazy nights!!! Those guys are super cool, eh?

I'll stick to my pint of Guinness.


----------



## Infanteer

Let's clear something up here.  Casual marijuana will not turn people into raving crackfiends.  Please don't imply that this is my position.  I know plenty of people who do use it casually and they are quite competent and successful at what they do in life.  However, using an illicit drug implies a certain lack of any sense of social responsibility.  Just remember that next time you toke up you are breaking the law and partaking in an activity much involved with violent crime and organized racketeering.



> Maybe in a few more years, when we do away with the fascist leaders we have in Ottawa now, you will be pardoned for that gross injustice.



There is a little thing in the military we call obeying orders.  Regardless of the fact that it may or may not be illegal for civilians to indulge in marijuana use down the road, the zero tolerance policy is in effect in the CF; you sign a form when you join saying you will adhere to such.  We can't pick and choose the orders we obey, nbk.



> but if you do respect them they can teach you much about yourself, about life and about the universe.



 :


----------



## Scott

nbk said:
			
		

> BuzzzWorthy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a mar eng tech 312  and got kicked out in 77 for smoking some hash I bought in Albourg Denmark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in a few more years, when we do away with the facist leaders we have in Ottawa now, you will be pardoned for that gross injustice.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't know what the recruiting process was like in the 70's. Here is what happened during my interview in 1996, please forgive the fact that it is not verbatim:

I was given a list with the street names and Latin names of some drugs such as pot, LSD, heroin, cocaine, etc. I was asked to point to the ones which I had used in the past and had to recall the last time that I may have used these substances. It was then made abundantly clear to me that using any of the highlighted substances while engaged in a contract with the Military was WRONG. End of story.

If you are in the CF and you are caught using drugs you deserve everything you get and you should be released 5F (Do they still have that classification?)

In my job they make it very clear that they don't give a damn about what I do when I am away from work, hippies rejoice. But they also make very clear the consequences if I ever fail a drug test. There are rules, you break 'em, you pay, it's a concept older than anyone here. Not all occupations have to have standards like the CF does, so, if you do not like the standards you may feel free to PFO to somewhere else.

Cheers!


----------



## nbk

Kirkpatrick said:
			
		

> speaking of FACTS...
> 
> http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg9-10.html



You go to a site called "National Institute for Drug Abuse" to get "facts"? Are you kidding me? Next you will be quoting Pravda and telling me the Soviets won the cold war.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Let's clear something up here.  Casual marijuana will not turn people into raving crackfiends.  Please don't imply that this is my position.  I know plenty of people who do use it casually and they are quite competent and successful at what they do in life.



Fair enough I misunderstood your position. I was also responding to the other people on this thread too.




> There is a little thing in the military we call obeying orders.  Regardless of the fact that it may or may not be illegal for civilians to indulge in marijuana use down the road, the zero tolerance policy is in effect in the CF; you sign a form when you join saying you will adhere to such.  We can't pick and choose the orders we obey, nbk.



I was honest when I told them about drugs I had used. They told me about the policies in the CF and why they need troops to follow them. I honestly told them that I would have no problem following their terms, and they accepted it, because of my honesty and professionalism in speaking about it, as well my extremely appealing charisma, that you are no doubt accustomed to by now. My experimentation has gone down a lot over the past few years due to the fact that I started working out a lot in preperation for my joining the CF and didn't want to waste a day's training just for relaxation's sake. I can make the distinction between my military life and civilian life, and realzie that I have certain responsibilities as a soldier, that I don't have as a civilian. I have to make sacrifices to get the job that I want, sacrifice my privacy, my freetime, and even my mental/spiritual health. There are good sides and bad sides to everything, and I took all things into account when making the informed decision to join the CF.

And although it is an undebatable fact that the Liberal government is an incredibly right wing totalitarian institution, it is maybe a good idea to assume people who use the word "facist" to describe the government of Canada are edging in on being sarcastic.


----------



## Scott

nbk said:
			
		

> I was honest when I told them about drugs I had used. They told me about the policies in the CF and why they need troops to follow them. I honestly told them that I would have no problem following their terms, and they accepted it, because of my honesty and professionalism in speaking about it, as well my extremely appealing charisma, that you are no doubt accustomed to by now. My experimentation has gone down a lot over the past few years due to the fact that I started working out a lot in preperation for my joining the CF and didn't want to waste a day's training just for relaxation's sake. I can make the distinction between my military life and civilian life, and realzie that I have certain responsibilities as a soldier, that I don't have as a civilian. I have to make sacrifices to get the job that I want, sacrifice my privacy, my freetime, and even my mental/spiritual health. There are good sides and bad sides to everything, and I took all things into account when making the informed decision to join the CF.
> 
> And although it is an undebatable fact that the Liberal government is an incredibly right wing totalitarian institution, it is maybe a good idea to assume people who use the word "facist" to describe the government of Canada are edging in on being sarcastic.



nbk, pardon me for being confused, but if you understand the policies and why the CF needs troops to follow them and you go further to say that you are willing to follow them then why do you think someone who broke the rules would be pardoned and why would you defend them? I applaud anyone for taking a stand in their beliefs but it seems a tad bit contradictory on your part. 

As far as the leadership in Ottawa, I don't think that you will see the laws change so far as the Military is concerned for quite some time to come. 

You also state that your experimentation has gone down quite a bit in the last few years. nbk, according to your profile you are 19 years old. Just how long have you been experimenting? That is just my curiosity asking.

Furthermore, if you are truly interested in a career with the CF, as you state that you are, then you will have no problem giving up your "recreational" habits if they are the type that conflict with the rules that everyone else must follow. I say to you "Good Luck"

I'm not here to debate what pot does to kids, society or wether or not it should become legal. I have no use for it, I like beer much better. If they start selling it in every 7-11 nationwide this probably won't change. The rules, pertaining to drugs and the CF, are very cut and dried and I don't think it's possible for anyone to plead ignorance as the CF is very good in letting you know exactly what these rules are.

Cheers


----------



## Pieman

> ....as well my extremely appealing charisma, that you are no doubt accustomed to by now.


Ah man, that made me laugh nbk.   ;D :dontpanic:


----------



## SFontaine

nbk said:
			
		

> Kirkpatrick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> speaking of FACTS...
> 
> http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg9-10.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go to a site called "National Institute for Drug Abuse" to get "facts"? Are you kidding me? Next you will be quoting Pravda and telling me the Soviets won the cold war.
Click to expand...


Rather get it from an actual institute that studies this sort of thing than from some guy who claims the Liberals are right wing and totalatarian.


----------



## gnplummer421

Funny, but in my case Alcohol and drug use was not an issue until I joined the army. It was after my arrival in Petawawa that I started to drink heavily, mostly because my supervisors and co-workers encouraged it. In those days, if you didn't go drinkin with the boys you didn't fit in and were considered a candy-ass. This changed toward the end of my time in the Forces when the so called "pepsi generation" were coming in and the pressure to drink diminished. As far as drugs are concerned, the 35% mentioned by another author actually sounds light to me. It just seemed that everyone was doing it around me, and lots of people were getting busted for it. A comprehensive drug screening program would certainly discourage use and possession, but I don't think it is possible to completely get rid of it. The Americans test regularly, and I don't believe they have as much of a problem with it. As a society, we seem to be more and more tolerant towards soft-drug use, and although not desirable or legal, serving members are affected by this trend.


----------



## kruger

If the numbers are true I am very embarassed for this nation.


----------



## FastEddy

KeV said:
			
		

> And taking drugs because of stress is a really weak reason. It's like saying, "I shot the guy cause he wanted to knife me!". There are hundreds of other ways of releiving stress. Yes smoking pot is a good one but it's illegal and you aren't allowed to take any because of good reasons. Yes if someone smokes a joint here and there isn't bad. But if people start accepting that, they will take more and abuse it. We give an inch, they take a mile. And it's just plain wrong. If you take drugs and don't respect your role as a soldier, then you don't deserve to get my respect. Plain and simple.



Thank God for the voices of the Members logical and sound reasoning out there regarding,  prohibiting the use of Illegal Drugs by the Public or our Armed Forces.

As for stress "If you can't stand the heat, Get out of the Kitchen".

The road to becoming a Junky is usually that first toke.

Drugs are an all consuming blight and cancer on our society today.

Zero tolorance is the only way to begin to combat this problem._


----------



## BuzzzWorthy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Let's clear something up here.   Casual marijuana will not turn people into raving crackfiends.   Please don't imply that this is my position.   I know plenty of people who do use it casually and they are quite competent and successful at what they do in life.   However, using an illicit drug implies a certain lack of any sense of social responsibility.   Just remember that next time you toke up you are breaking the law and partaking in an activity much involved with violent crime and organized racketeering.
> 
> There is a little thing in the military we call obeying orders.   Regardless of the fact that it may or may not be illegal for civilians to indulge in marijuana use down the road, the zero tolerance policy is in effect in the CF; you sign a form when you join saying you will adhere to such.   We can't pick and choose the orders we obey, nbk.
> 
> :



All apologies for the intrusion. I guess I'd have to agree that I lost the right to post on this site when I made the choice to smoke cannabis and or hashish instead of drinking alcohol (something I have done three times in my 51 yrs of life). I would request the opportunity to respond in defence of my position which I will briefly outline below and depending on the subsequent posts thereafter will judge myself accordingly. Once again, All apologies.

I've had thirty yrs to contemplate the ramifications of my actions and speaking as a still PROUD Canadian I have nothing to repent. I now work with numerous Compassion Clubs to supply Quality, Chemical Free, Organically Grown, Strain Specific Medical Marijuana to our fellow Canadians who are termanally ill and or suffering from chronic pain for which main stream highly addictive narcotics offer no relief. To be more specific, I (due in llarge largeo my trades training) now act as a Medical Marijuana Production Facility Safety Consultant. I offer free services to Federal Exemptee's who are but the chosen few to be blessed with the sacred licence to grow and possess. Yes these terminally ill and chronic sufferers do have some rights even with you who opposes them pissing down there throat.. There is absolutely no connection to organized crime with these individuals cases
 so let's not try to go there OK?

I was proud to wear my uniform and even though I'd be given some of the dirtiest jobs aboard ship on my way home by way of duty boat or public transit my appearance was as close to regulation as possible at all times. I tolerated the drunken stupor's my shipmates seemed to find enjoyable and on that note I'd ask you all to go through this thread and simply switch each instance of the words marijuana and alcohol so you get a clearer picture of just how much of a Red Neck attitude you've got. 

I never smoked ON DUTY. How many of you can say the same about drinking? Laws? Are you sure you know the current state of our Canadian laws? Do you know that Supreme Court of Canada struck marijuana from the CDSA in 2001? Do you know that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeals on Oct 07 2003 was invalid leaving Canada, a democracy with no laws governing the consumption, possession or sale of marijuana??

When they order you to DISPERSE THE CROWDS make sure you know who the real enemy is. Canada just put the famous five on the back of the new fifty dollar bills. To get a history lesson on Emily Murphy (Judge) just go to the link http://www.cannabiscanada.ca

It seems that time goes by so quickly when your an old burnout but I'll somehow find the time to help organize the upcoming Hwy 420 Cannabis Forum on April 16 in Niagara Falls and if there are those of you who have an opinion and would like to speak on behalf of whatever we welcome the opportunity to debate.

I really miss working on the Bailey 750 Sequencing System aboard the Triball   Class Destroyers as it was state of the art pneumatic sequencing that helped me with my civilian career. No grudges, shit happens.


----------



## dutchie

First of all, I don't think you should have any posting rights, as you are soliciting participation from CF members in an event that advocates drug use, which is still a violation of the Criminal Code, not to mention the National Defence Act.

Second, I, and others, view the recent struggle for mainstream acceptance of 'Medicinal Marijuana' as a complete farce. Many, including I, feel that this is merely an excuse for druggies like you to justify their ADDICTION. Does marijuana releive pain? Sure it does, but so does heroin. You don't see people advocating legalization of heroin do you? No. Also, why legalize it? Don't we have enough legal narcotic pain killers (Percodan, morphine, etc) that can alleviate pain? The answer is simple (to me): a)-there is no shortage of effective pain killers and b)- people that smoke marijuana are not credible advocates for the medicinal use of marijuana as they invariably have a bias (that has nothing to do with the medical qualities of then drug).

I don't care if you were proud of your service or not, you knew what you were doing was wrong (or at least illegal), and you did it anyway. Your pride in your service is grossly overshadowed by your violation of the law, and worse, your continued involvement in the drug world.

When they order you to DISPERSE THE CROWDS make sure you know who the real enemy is. Canada just put the famous five on the back of the new fifty dollar bills. To get a history lesson on Emily Murphy (Judge) just go to the link http://www.cannabiscanada.ca

Yeah, ok, I'm going to go to 'cannabiscanada.ca' to get truthful, objective, and accurate information on marijuana. Do you think we're retarded? Also, who is the real enemy? 'The Man'? Or is this just a delusion in your paranoid mind caused by years of marijauna (ab)use?

Are you sure you know the current state of our Canadian laws?

It is still illegal as per the Canadian Criminal Code. And should remain so, IMHO.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

....and new life breathed into a dead horse[where have I heard that before?].........oops she's down again :sniper:

Folks the drug thing is one of those issues that probably has been done too many times here, do a search and you will find threads up the hoop......


----------



## 48Highlander

I know I'll probably get flamed for this because of recent events, but after seing some of the comments in the other thread I just had to say something.

I was recently going over the "gun control" thread where I found some very good points made about how the perception of the media and the general public tends to be quite different than reality.   There were figures brought up which suggested that criminalizing or restricting the ownership of firearms actually produces MORE violent crime rather than less.   Seems that when you make guns illegal, only criminals have guns.   Made sense to me anyway.

Then, roughly one day later, I see some of the same people saying that the killing of 4 RCMP officers is a good example of why marijuana needs to stay illegal.   Now, that just doesn't sit right with me.   If most of us can agree that making weapons illegal does nothing to curb crime, how can we argue that making drugs illegal does anything positive either?   The fact of the matter is that whenever we criminalize any commodity, we invite the criminal element to exploit it.   Wether it's criminalizing the production and sale of alcohol, marijuana, gambling, or trying to control the sex trade, the result has always been an increase in criminal activity.   Criminalize alcohol and you get rum-runners.   Criminalize marijuana and you get grow-ops.   Criminalize gambling and you get bookies and loan sharks.   Criminalize prostitution and you get pimps and kidnappers.

I'd like to hear what the rest of you think.   I started a new thread specificaly so this wouldn't be linked to the tragedy in Alberta, so let's keep it seperate ok?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Prohibited substances are prohibited for a reason.  People who use firearms don't incur major health care costs ie become a burden to the rest of society simply by using them, in the way that drugs (legal or otherwise) do.


----------



## TheCheez

I disagree.

Just because something is popular(and therefore profitable) should not be grounds for making it legal. Yes we spend a lot of resources trying to stop pot from getting onto the street(where it is effectively legal) but lets say it became legal and we would now spend the money trying to get people to use it responsibly instead. Like: Don't toke and drive and employer drug tests. Once criminal activities that have been legalized may promote freedom of the population(which is great) but some things need to be restricted to promote an overall healthy society. Whether or not pot is one of them is not what this is about though.

To apply this to some other examples you gave: Gambling only becomes uncontrollable to a small % of people compared to those who are capable of simply buying a 6/49 once in awhile or spending Friday night at the Casino with the boys. Alcohol has so many social and economical ties that getting rid of it to ensure no one comes to work hung over and attempting to stop drinking and driving. If everyone had a gun the crime would just be committed by those with the most guns. Would you really want to live in a society knowing that anyone on the street, in your office, on your bus, is capable of killing you?

People who are really determined are going to do it anyway. Whether or not having something available to the general population legally is up to government and society to determine if that is the culture we want to live in.


----------



## pbi

I am of two minds on this issue. Right now it is very difficult to discuss under the shadow of the RCMP murders: you are right to say that we will get flamed. In fact, it might be wise to realize that they did not die because of anybody's personal views on the subject of legalization-they died because a homicidal/suicidal maniac, who apparently exhibited every known trait of antisocial personality disorder in one squirming mind, was very well known to police and should have been jailed, hung or drowned years ago, decided to kill some policemen. But, anyway...

Under the Volstead Act in the US in the 1920s,the sale of alcohol was illegal: we call this time period "Prohibition". The proceeds to be made from the sale of illicit booze were so high (the huge demand for booze did not drop-it was just harder to get...) that criminal violence reached frightening proportions, including gun battles between police, Revenue, and FBI agents on one hand, and the gangs and booze runners on the other. These fights sometimes included weapons as large as GPMGs mounted on police vehicles and .50 cal weapons mounted on US Coast Guad cutters on the Great Lakes. IIRC there are some Canadian homes on the shore of Lake Erie near Windsor that still have slugs and bullet marks from some of the firefights. Police, criminals and innocent citizens died. People died horrible deaths from badly distilled bath tub hooch. Canadians made lots of money selling and running booze to the US (sound familiar?). The social toll from all of this was pretty disastrous. Organized crime grew exponentially, fuelled not just by booze profits but by the the related industries of prostitution and protection/extortion. Judges, public oficials and police were corrupted. Eventually the Volstead Act was repealed, as having achieved very little.Which brings me to my dilemma.


Clearly, not a lot of money is made today from the sale of illegal booze in North America. Not very many gangs and criminal organizations get violently involved in selling beer or wine out of the back of cars on street corners. The police are not raiding stills or shooting it out with booze runners. So, it could be said that legalizing alcohol, by repealing the Volstead Act, brought about the sharp reduction in crime and criminal profits associated with the illegal sale of booze. So maybe we should do the same with drugs: remove the incentive for criminal activity by legalizing it.

But, on the other hand, only an ignorant fool (or perhaps an unscrupulous distiller...) would try to deny the huge and pervasive damage done by alcohol in our society. It is heavily involved in domestic violence, child abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome, aboriginal problems, drunk driving crashes, rowdy and stupid public behaviours, and careers and lives wrecked by alcoholism. And all of this has been going on for decades, so that the toll of affected North Americans is probably in the millions. There is an idea floating around that in "some European countries" because alcohol (especially wine...) is introduced at the family table, there are somehow less alcohol-related issues. I am not sure that this is true. I have some relatives who are involved in alcohol counselling and rehab in Portugal-they have told me that the teen alcohol problem is severe, to a great extent because booze is so easy to get. It makes sense: if you could never get booze at all, there would probably be no alcoholics. If there is an unlimited supply of booze (as we enjoy today...) then every individual with a predisposition to substance addiction who cannot handle the stresses in their life can easily turn to booze: thousands (if not millions...) do.

So-there you have it. If we legalize drugs, we will probably spare ourselves the social burden that criminal involvement brings us. On the other hand I am not sure that we would not just be exchanging one social burden for another, and adding to the massive problem we already have with booze.

Cheers


----------



## 48Highlander

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Prohibited substances are prohibited for a reason.   People who use firearms don't incur major health care costs ie become a burden to the rest of society simply by using them, in the way that drugs (legal or otherwise) do.



Yeah, obviously healthcare concerns are something that's going to trouble our great socialist leaders.   However, smoking and drinking produce the same sort of burden on our society, yet both are legal.   Alcohol consumption is even glorified in commercials, even though it leads to vehicular accidents, brain damage, weight gain, and liver problems.   So obviously healthcare costs aren't that big of a concern.   And even assuming they ARE, does that mean that criminalizing a substance will eliminate that cost to our healthcare system?   Or that it will significantly impact the number of people who use/abuse that substance?   Hardly.   It just means we're going to spend a lot more money attempting to fight it, while giving all the revenue to the criminal element.   Revenue which they can then use to buy weapons, and branch out into other illegal activities.   

Instead of spending billions a year to create jobs for criminals, why not legalize it, licence it, tax it, and use the revenue to fund the healthcare system?   That way you eliminate the criminal element, and the number of users should stay roughly the same, or if the netherlands are any indication it should even drop.   At the same time you're generating revenue for the healthcare system, so it ends up being in better condition than it is now while drugs are illegal.   What I'm trying to say that, if people are going to do it anyway, and our current system isn't stopping them, isn't it time to try something else?   How long do we have to keep beating our heads against the wall and throwing more money at the problem before we're ready to try a new approach?


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I think this is a real bad time to start this post.

It just shows that Grow ops are not the mom and pop operations some people think they are.  They present a danger to the entire community.  What if it had been two kids who just stumbled onto the property and where shot as he protects his crop.  What of the drug houses busted in BC last week that had toxins flowing into the townhouse complex affecting the whole neighbourhood.

The risks far outweigh the benifits (if any) of this drug.  It is dangerous in all forms weither you are a light or heavy user.  

Could you imagine how dangerous the roads would be.  the only way to test imparied under this influence is through a blood demand.

How messed up the schools would become.  You see the kids smoking now under 18 how hard do you think i would be for them to get this stuff.

I think the penaltiles need to be harsher for grow ops and the judges need to wake up and smell the coffee.  If they had to run for election every 5 yrs they would sure as hell represent the will of the people within the limits of the law a lot more then the tend to now.

rant done

sorry

little heated on this issue right now.


----------



## Thirstyson

> You see the kids smoking now under 18 how hard do you think i would be for them to get this stuff



It's invariably easier for a kid an any city these days to obtain pot rather than cigarettes or alcohol. All they have to do is ask their friends, unlike convincing a store clerk that they're 18/19.


----------



## McG

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Instead of spending billions a year to create jobs for criminals, why not legalize it, licence it, tax it, and use the revenue to fund the healthcare system?


Then where do you draw the line?  There will always be that next level of high that the criminal element will be ready to provide.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

> Then where do you draw the line?   There will always be that next level of high that the criminal element will be ready to provide.



thats a good point - what would we consider the next "common" illegal street drug, if marijuana was legalized?   The repeal of prohibition did not stop criminal organizations from committing crime, they just moved on to other areas.   What would all these illegitimate pot suppliers do once their business stopped - since I'm assuming if marijuana was decriminalized it would be sold in stores by legal suppliers - would they just give up and find a legal business to run?   Or would they figure out how to start a heroin lab, or other more serious drug type, and making it more available to the public?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Maybe the answer is to teach discipline and respect for one's own body starting in elementary school. Don't tell kids its ok to eat cheezies for breakfast or sit around like a slug playing videogames - conscript for national service out of high school and give people some sort of purpose in life, and they will be less likely to "need" to escape from reality with mind-altering substances.  Some people can handle using them recreationally, for others - and it seems to be becoming way too common - it is simply a crutch.

In other words are we talking about real problems, or symptoms?  I think the problems associated with illegal substances are symptoms.


----------



## 48Highlander

Kirkpatrick said:
			
		

> thats a good point - what would we consider the next "common" illegal street drug, if marijuana was legalized?   The repeal of prohibition did not stop criminal organizations from committing crime, they just moved on to other areas.   What would all these illegitimate pot suppliers do once their business stopped - since I'm assuming if marijuana was decriminalized it would be sold in stores by legal suppliers - would they just give up and find a legal business to run?   Or would they figure out how to start a heroin lab, or other more serious drug type, and making it more available to the public?



Well, statistics from the Netherlands (ie. Amsterdam) show that after marijuana was legalized, the percentage of the population who use it went down, and is now lower than the level of usage in the US.  Along with this, the average age at which people became exposed to marijuana went up, and the usage of "hard" drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc) also went down.  Now, obviously I can't gaurantee that we'd have the same result if we legalized it in Canada, however, I think it's worth a shot.  You're right that career criminals wouldn't simply give up, however, if they turned to producing harder drugs they'd be creating more supply without an increase in demand.  The result?  Probably more gang related shootings in the short term.  Considering the state of our "corrections" system, I can't say I'd be too opposed to that   Criminals eliminating eachother is preferable to criminals killing cops.

I know there's probably some holes in my argument, however when I look at what an absolute failiure the "war on drugs" has turned out to be, and how much money is wasted on it every year....and then I look at the Netherlands and how much better their situation is....well, like I said, isn't it time we tried something new?  It reminds me of the long-guns registry fiasco.  Just keep pumping more and more cash into a system whose entire prmise is totaly flawed, and hope that it'll somehow fix itself.  There has to be a better way.


----------



## chrisf

I just had to interject this little tid bit... you all realise that the primary reason that marijuana is illegal is because of the lobby of the alcohol producers pre-prohibition days? They saw it as a danger to their business, as it was possible for the consumer to grow and consumer their own marijuana much more easily then it was possible for the consumer to distill and consume their own alcohol...

Obviously I'm not going to claim there are no downsides to marijuana, but I am willing to say that the long term effects are no worse then alcohol. The only functional argument I can see to maintaining it's illegality is because there is no quick tests for it's effects at say a police roadblock to check drivers...

As others have pointed out, if you legalize it, you remove the criminal element that deals with it now.

While, to be honest, I've never actually used marijuana, I can assure you, while underage, it would actually have been easier for me to obtain marijuana then alcohol.


----------



## 1feral1

Nope to dope!

Never legalise it periodfor general consumption. Thats my opinion.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## McG

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Obviously I'm not going to claim there are no downsides to marijuana, but I am willing to say that the long term effects are no worse then alcohol.


Except that alcohol does not produce second hand smoke that can cause cancer in non-users or impare designated drivers.



			
				Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> As others have pointed out, if you legalize it, you remove the criminal element that deals with it now.


No, you just force that criminal element to deal in "harder" drugs.


----------



## rw4th

All other issues asside, I   think the real question is simple: when do we declare the "war on drugs" lost? It seems to me that with the quasi-acceptance marijuana has in our current society that the "war on pot" has defenitly been lost. I think we need to re-org and re-think our strategy. Making marijuana legal but controlled (like booze) seems to me like the only logical direction to move in. I don't think it's a good thing, but at this point it might be the only thing left to do to control it. 

As for what happened with the RCMP recently: making pot legal won't really reduce these types of confrontations, it will only shift them. Meth tweakers can be even more dangerous.


----------



## QORvanweert

rw4th said:
			
		

> All other issues asside, I   think the real question is simple: when do we declare the "war on drugs" lost? It seems to me that with the quasi-acceptance marijuana has in our current society that the "war on pot" has defenitly been lost. I think we need to re-org and re-think our strategy. Making marijuana legal but controlled (like booze) seems to me like the only logical direction to move in. I don't think it's a good thing, but at this point it might be the only thing left to do to control it.
> 
> As for what happened with the RCMP recently: making pot legal won't really reduce these types of confrontations, it will only shift them. Meth tweakers can be even more dangerous.


Speaking from personal observations, I believe that tobacco and marijauna should be prohibited. Pot is certainly far far far easier to get then anything else and it causes the most problems. Yet, I think that it would be unfair to legalise tobacco and prohibit marijauna. They should both be contraband. With regards to the alcohol quandary, well, I am a lowly no hook private certainly not qualified to comment on that.  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows

Part of the difficulty faced by the US during Prohibition is that in Canada there was no Prohibition.

Many people - especially those who favour decriminalization - misunderstand the situation: if we decriminalize in Canada we will not eliminate the problem the US eliminated by repealing Prohibition; we will instead create an analogous situation.  Unless the US gets on board with decriminalization at the same time we do, I suspect we will enrich the people who currently run the industry (changing them from criminal to businessman overnight) and antagonize the US.


----------



## CivU

"Pot is certainly far far far easier to get then anything else and it causes the most problems"

How is this the case?  Alcohol is far more socially problematic than marijuana...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

First, I must agree with PBI that this current thread has little, if anything, to do with that anti-social wack job in Alberta.

I must admit to being seriously conflicted on this issue- because it is not a simple one.

I have had a sneaking suspicion for years that the "war on drugs" has been an abject failure.   Most of the so-called war has been focussed on removing supply, rather than attacking demand.   Yet, despite years of effort, prices for most drugs have fallen and availability has grown.   In BC, there is quite literally at least one grow op on each city block.   It is estimated that the crop is worth $ 7 BILLION dollars/year (source: Global news BC, last night).   Much of the crop goes to the US, (in exchange for illegal weapons, cash and cocaine) but alot of it stays here.   You cannot walk downtown Victoria and not see people openly smoking Pot.   The cops do not even bother stopping it, because the prosecutors won't go to court over simple possession.   So why not attack the buyers?   Well, the buyers are you and me (well, not literally- no one on this board would smoke pot, right   ) and we are voters and that would not do.   No government would last it's term if they went after everyone who smoked pot.   I suspect (I have never used pot) that people who use pot are much like those who use alcohol- there are those who have limits and those do not.   I think that those who are going to abuse a substance may either be genetically pre-disposed to an addiction or may have some sort of emotional or other problem that they are trying to mask (think sexual abuse or PTSD- something like that).   If I am right in my supposition, it would be incredibly complicated to "heal" everyone who abused a substance- but I think that this is where the real root of almost all the problems that our society faces.

So much for theory- now the practicalities.   Pot is illegal in the US.   Will remain so for the forseeable future.   I suspect that if we full-on legalized pot up here (you know- Labatts and Moosehead selling the stuff under their brand name), the border would almost completely snap shut, at least in the short term, with us having the most to lose, economically.   I think it would also put us in violation of several UN drug eradication and trafficking agreements that we have signed (recent opponents of our participation in missile defence take note!   You can't have it both ways!).

To legalize pot, we would need to have a reliable road side test.   After we have spent the last 20 years fight drunk driving, I do not want to share the road with those so stoned that it would take them 30 seconds or more to decide to hit the brake at a stop sign.

I think the jury is still out on the relative health risk (long and short term) of pot.   It would seem a bit hypocritical to me for the goverment to continue running ads against smoking and drinking while at the same time legalizing another substance like pot.   That said, we would still have to have prohibitions against people like pilots, professional drivers, heavy equipment operators, soldiers, etc for consuming pot because we cannot have a situation where THC gets re-released into a 747 pilot's booldstream during in a stressful situation.

Would we really get rid of organized crime by legalizing pot?   The US experience with Prohibition suggest to me that they would just change games.   Once alcohol was re-legalized in the US, did the mob not just turn back to gambling, extortion and prostitution?   What would stop our organized crime syndicates from just moving into methy or something like that?

Having something illegal that is this widely used anyway just promotes cynicism and a lack of respect for all laws in general.   Maybe this stuff should be made legal (and taxed) and brought out into the open.   On the other hand, I hate legalized gambling in BC, because I see it as a tax on the stupid and the poor.

We need a full debate on this issue in this country.   Not one where 15 second sound bites get thrown around, but a real one.   I still can't make up my mind...

Cheers!


----------



## chrisf

MCG said:
			
		

> Except that alcohol does not produce second hand smoke that can cause cancer in non-users or impare designated drivers.



While I agree with both your points...

Cigarettes produce second hand smoke, yet they're quite legal.

On the subject of impairing designated drivers, you're not allowed to drink in a vehicle, I see no reason why you should be permitted to smoke marijuana in a vehicle either.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> No, you just force that criminal element to deal in "harder" drugs.



The criminal element already deals in the harder drugs. I'm afraid I miss your point here. Decriminalising small quantities of marijuana has already freed up some of the strain on the courts... in addition to hauling a good deal of the business out from under the feet of organized crime, you also clear up the strain on the police forces and the courts from dealing with these criminals.


----------



## Jungle

Here's a reference: http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html



> *Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior*
> 
> Depression(19), anxiety(20), and personality disturbances(21) have been associated with marijuana use. Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills. *Moreover, research has shown that marijuana's adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off*


Now I agree alcohol is causing a lot of problems. But for the vast majority of consumers, the effects are short-lasting, usually hours, and they are back to normal. Whereas with pot, the effects are longer lasting, and more difficult to detect. I also read another study, in which they mentionned that long-term effects of pot use were not well-known, due to the illegal nature of the drug. You can also tell the pot-smoking opposers of genetically modified organisms that their drug of choice is one of the most genetically-modified plants around: the THC level has been "tweaked" to multiply it by up to 10 times compared to the plant in the wild.
Finally, on a personal note: I strongly dislike the lifestyle that often comes with smoking pot: laziness, rebellious attitude, little respect of self-image, etc... So I am against legalization or decriminalization, and in favour of tougher sentences for dealers and growers.


----------



## McG

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> On the subject of impairing designated drivers, you're not allowed to drink in a vehicle, I see no reason why you should be permitted to smoke marijuana in a vehicle either.


This would not protect the driver before hand while at a bar, party, or the Tim Hortons smoke room.



			
				Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> The criminal element already deals in the harder drugs. I'm afraid I miss your point here. Decriminalising small quantities of marijuana has already freed up some of the strain on the courts... in addition to hauling a good deal of the business out from under the feet of organized crime, you also clear up the strain on the police forces and the courts from dealing with these criminals.


Yes, criminals do deal in harder drugs now.   However, if marijuana were taken out of their hands and given to "legitimate" industry, then the criminals would suddenly find themselves with excess capacity to create and move drugs illegally.   This excess capacity could be used to increase the flow of harder drugs.



			
				Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Cigarettes produce second hand smoke, yet they're quite legal.


I would not hold this out as a high point of our society.


----------



## CivU

"Now I agree alcohol is causing a lot of problems. But for the vast majority of consumers, the effects are short-lasting, usually hours, and they are back to normal. "

Tell that to someone with liver damage or the family of a victim of drunk driving.  Alcohol's long term effects are very damaging.

"This excess capacity could be used to increase the flow of harder drugs"

The increased flow of hard drugs would only come as a result of an increased demand.  Unless people suddenly decide that Friday after work their gonna hit a rail and that Saturday's are now reserved for smack, I do not see the potential for an excess of hard drugs over what is already present.

"This would not protect the driver before hand while at a bar, party, or the Tim Hortons smoke room"

It would be treated like alcohol.  One cannot consume a specified amount and operate a vehcile.


The money saved on busting fourteen year old kids with a gram of marijuana and nothing to do on Tuesday afternoon could be better directed at education and treatment measures, such as safe injection sites and methodone access, for users of hard drugs.


----------



## McG

CivU said:
			
		

> It would be treated like alcohol. One cannot consume a specified amount and operate a vehcile.


How very excellent.  Now, remembering that we are talking about second hand smoke causing the imparement of a potentially unaware driver.  This would mean that pot could not be used in any public venue and it would be illegal to drive if you had been around pot smokers in a private setting.



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> The increased flow of hard drugs would only come as a result of an increased demand. Unless people suddenly decide that Friday after work their gonna hit a rail and that Saturday's are now reserved for smack, I do not see the potential for an excess of hard drugs over what is already present.


Increased capacity would result in lower costs and lower costs would result in a higher demand.


----------



## Sailing Instructor

I'd like to pull out the old conservative/traditionalist argument: let's just keep these marihuana laws as they've been since it seems to be working out pretty well for the Canadian people.

But then, when one realises the illegality of marihuana arose from business interest (rather than interest in the good of the people) it becomes very hard to support a tradition that arose from a mistake.

Man really must really be quite mad to inhale smoke on purpose yet want fresh air in a fire, & drink alcohol yet go to the hospital after accidentally ingesting something of a higher proof.  That said, there may be sour grapes as I am sitting at the computer on a friday night....


----------



## 48Highlander

MCG said:
			
		

> Increased capacity would result in lower costs and lower costs would result in a higher demand.



Sorry, but as I've stated before, statistics from the netherlands show that decrimializing "soft" drugs tends to LOWER the demand for "hard" drugs.  Kinda like how legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes.  It's counter-intuitive, but that's how it works.  Don't beleive me, google it.  Or if you're really lazy just ask and I'll track down some links.


----------



## McG

You've suddenly become a lot more confident that the results from another country will be mirrored here.  That is a long shot when there are no other statistics to show that trend is or is not likely to be repeated in other locations. 





			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Now, obviously I can't guarantee that we'd have the same result if we legalized it in Canada


However, it is an accepted principle of economics that if supply is increased prices will drop to bring the demand up to meet the level of supply.  



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Kinda like how legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes. It's counter-intuitive, but that's how it works.


The firearms example is an orange to the apples we are talking about on this thread.  However, it is a nice example to illustrate how other factors can make statistics taken from one place completely inaccurate for another place.  It has been "prooven" in the US that legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes.  This is because criminals avoid using firearms because anybody around them could be armed and ready to shoot back.  However, this has been by comparing results in US states.  With no controlled boarders between states, weapons flow freely and easily between them and this means that a ban in one state does not reduce the availability of firearms to the lower class criminal.  However, by controlling the flow of fire arms across its boarders, a country can control the availability of firearms to criminals (the guy going to knock of 7eleven would never have the money to get an illegal firearm) and thus decrease gun crimes by taking weapons off the street.  This has been seen is various countries despite the contrary results seen between US states.

The moral: don't expect results to mimic themselves in different countries unless you can show similarity in the social, economic, and political variables that allowed for those results in the first country.


----------



## atticus

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Sorry, but as I've stated before, statistics from the netherlands show that decrimializing "soft" drugs tends to LOWER the demand for "hard" drugs.  Kinda like how legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes.  It's counter-intuitive, but that's how it works.  Don't beleive me, google it.  Or if you're really lazy just ask and I'll track down some links.



Hey, I didn't believe that so I did google it and I found your pretty right! The only thing is that it wasn't just the decriminalizing of soft drugs (the only "soft drug" is mj), it was also the social programs they brought into schools and the fact that it lowed the allure of mj. It was also about showing the health affects and saying, "Hey, its your body, you mess it up your stuck with it". I also highly doubt that the same figures would be mirrored in Canada, being the big 'ol 300 million to our south.

http://www.amsterdam.nl/asp/get.asp?ItmIdt=00001152&SitIdt=00000005&VarIdt=00000002

With the gun control allegory, recently they have found in Texas that shooting are quite high, with many people being innocently shot (eg. a few weeks ago their was a shoot out in a church) with people thinking they were protecting themselves.

I still wouldn't want to work with somebody who I knew smoked pot, its something I really don't like. People argue that alcohol and mj are very similar in that drinking gets you impared, and smoking a joint gets you impared, the thing with that is it is possible to go out and have a few drinks and not be drunk and be completely under the legal limit; while its not possible to go out and smoke a few joints and be completely sober. Maybe the gov't should work on making drugs loose their allure, but maybe thats where they are trying to go with the decriminalization of a few grams.


----------



## 48Highlander

Yes I know, we might not get the same results here.  But no matter what we try, it can't have any worse results than current laws and programs.  Use smoking (tobbaco) as an example.  The percentage of people in Canada who smoke has only gone down due to extensive government programs to educate the public, as well as high taxes on smokes.  Now if tomorrow we made it illegal, smoking would suddenly seem even more appealing to the rebelious teenage crowd, it would go down in price making it more available, and it would become easier for children and teens to purchase.  Do you seriously beleive outlawing the smoking of cigarettes would decrease the ammount of people who use them?  Culdn't we maybe draw an analogy between that and current drug laws?


----------



## McG

48Highlander said:
			
		

> But no matter what we try, it can't have any worse results than current laws and programs.


If harder drug use becomes more common, I'd say that is worse.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Now if tomorrow we made it illegal, smoking would suddenly seem even more appealing to the rebelious teenage crowd, it would go down in price making it more available, and it would become easier for children and teens to purchase.


How does something become more available when all the legal means of distribution are shut off?   The supply will drop but the demand will remain the same, and this means prices can go up.   The criminal element that would eventually step in with illegal distribution already knows what smokers are willing to pay for cigarettes.   Why do you think they would sell at a lower price?



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Do you seriously beleive outlawing the smoking of cigarettes would decrease the ammount of people who use them?


If it was done in both Canada and the US, then I do believe it would cut the number of smokers.   If one country were to go it alone, then there would be legally produced supply readily available just across a boarder.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> The percentage of people in Canada who smoke has only gone down due to extensive government programs to educate the public, as well as high taxes on smokes.


So, why do we need to legalize marijuana before we can educate the public?   I've seen some very excellent in your face advertisement campaigns, that have come out of Australia, and encourage responsible driving and driving sober.   Graphic & brutally honest.   I've also seem some excellent advertisements against smoking that take the "glamour" out of the habit, reflect the financial costs, and graphically display the health risks.   I've never seen anti-drug advertising as powerful as the stuff we produce for either of these other issues.   Especially when we could show many of the same cancer risks as smoking, the same risks to driving as alcohol, and the monetary cost to users.   One other thing that could be forced down the public's throat is that casual drug users finance a criminal industry that is responsible for murder.   I'm not only talking about the four RCMP officers just the other day.   I'm even thinking back to gang turf wars in Montreal that saw children killed by car bombs.   The message we need to sell is simple:

*Casual Drug users finance the murders of a criminal industry.*​


----------



## CivU

"Increased capacity would result in lower costs and lower costs would result in a higher demand."

This is akin to Stephen Harper's polygamy/slippery slope.  Laughable at best.  If marijuana were leagalized tommorow, millions of Canadians would not decide to go out and use crack, cocaine, heroin, meth just because there is now more oppurtunity for dealers to move it.  People make a concious decision to not use that to begin with, why would that change?

Your entire argument is based around the notion that marijuana is pure evil...I think you need to turn reefer madness of a loop and realize that there are far more concering social epidemics.


----------



## 48Highlander

MCG, that picture is just horrible.  Were four of our boys got killed in afghanistan, did you put up a picture of four CF graves with the words "These deaths financed by the US tax payer"?


----------



## McG

The difference being our soldiers were killed by mistake.   Those four RCMP officers, and many others, have been murdered by the conscious decisions of agents of the drug industry, and it is the casual users that support that industry.

Yes it is horrible.  Is that where you want your money going?


----------



## 48Highlander

MCG said:
			
		

> The difference being our soldiers were killed by mistake.   Those four RCMP officers, and many others, have been murdered by the conscious decisions of agents of the drug industry, and it is the casual users that support that industry.
> 
> Yes it is horrible.   Is that where you want your money going?



No, our soldiers were deliberately murdered by the CIA because they had evidence of a UFO crash.

See, I can make assenine comments too.

If you don't like my comparison, how about posting a picture of that Somali kid with the caption "This murder brught to you courtesy of the Canadian Forces"?


----------



## George Wallace

Time for someone to go out for a WOBBLY POP!


----------



## big bad john

I remember the old billboards on the way from the airport in Kuala Lumpur, "Drugs Mean Death".   They have executed several western tourist who have bought heroin over the years.   I am a believer in a 0% tolerance.   Heavy jail sentences and more!

On this I am slightly to the right politically of Genghis Khan.


----------



## KevinB

MCG - 100%


  48th Truth hurts - suck it up.

Fact is despite what the media and other long hair dope smoking tree hugging type want your to think - Org crime runs the business - just like peeler bars etc.


----------



## ArmyRick

I like the death sentence idea (malaysia) for drug dealers and growers...

We can not and must not tolerate drug use or even think of legalize it.

I have know some one who is barely 20 years old and his brain is fried, I mean freaking done by simply using soft drugs (mostly marijuana).

Yeah legalize it? We are asking for a heap of trouble.


----------



## 48Highlander

Well obviosly the mob is against me here, so I'm about ready to throw in the towel, but let's give it another shot first.



			
				big bad john said:
			
		

> I remember the old billboards on the way from the airport in Kuala Lumpur, "Drugs Mean Death".   They have executed several western tourist who have bought heroin over the years.   I am a believer in a 0% tolerance.   Heavy jail sentences and more!



A guide to buying drugs in Kuala Lampur:
http://www.sixthseal.com/000673.html

Drug problem at a dangerous level:
http://www.mapinc.org/safe/v05/n308/a03.html

Their zero tolerance policy seems to be working just as well as our 50% tolerance policy 



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> 48th Truth hurts - suck it up.
> 
> Fact is despite what the media and other long hair dope smoking tree hugging type want your to think - Org crime runs the business - just like peeler bars etc.



If you find the truth painful, you have my pitty.  In any event, you saying that something is true doesn't make it so.  MCG's little diagram is misleading, inaccurate, and done in poor taste.  It does absolutely nothing to further the discussion or back up his/your opinion on drug laws.  I could just as easily argue that the government caused these deaths by making drugs illegal.  I'm not GOING to make that argument because I know it's not a valid one.  And MCG's argument falls in the same category.  The only person responsible for the death of those mounties was the asshole who pulled the trigger.  You start playing the blame game and pretty soon you'll be able to convince yourself that it was the fault of marijauan users, gunmakers, the government, the police, beer, television, and the music industry.  Everyone except the gunman.



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I like the death sentence idea (malaysia) for drug dealers and growers...
> 
> We can not and must not tolerate drug use or even think of legalize it.
> 
> I have know some one who is barely 20 years old and his brain is fried, I mean freaking done by simply using soft drugs (mostly marijuana).
> 
> Yeah legalize it? We are asking for a heap of trouble.



I know someone who died in a car crash at 18.  Let's make cars illegal.
I know of a 5 year old kid who drowned in a swimming pool.  Let's make them illegal.
I know a guy in his early 20's who's an alcoholic with seriuos liver problems.  Let' make alcohol illegal.
I have a friend who, at the age of 18, developed an ulcer from drinking too much cocke (the legal, liquid kind).  Let's make coke, sprite, pepsi, etc. illegal.

I think you get my drift.  I don't care who you know or what their problem is, that individual is NOT a reason to make something illegl.  Laws should be based on though and logic, not half-trouths, misconceptions, and fears.


----------



## CivU

"We can not and must not tolerate drug use or even think of legalize it."

What are alcohol and tobacco, if not dangerous drugs?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

This thread is going nowhere just like I thought it would when I locked it yesterday, but rescinded.
This kife can be argued on some other means that caters to this stuff.
I'm sure I can find every post here almost word for word in all the other drug threads.
This is worse than the movie, "He Said, She Said".....find something else that has some relevance to this forum.
There is a fact here children, drug use is not tolerated in the CF, if you are serving, or wish to,and want to do illegal drugs, you had better start sending your posts to a higher authourity than anyone at this website has.
Bruce


----------



## Armymedic

Guess what is stopping Pot laws...

Fear of US Political Backlash

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126462140009_149/?hub=Canada

Pot bill shelved until after next election
CTV.ca News Staff

The Liberal government's controversial bill to decriminalize marijuana will be shelved until after the next election, CTV News has learned.

The contentious cannabis bill has been sitting in legislative limbo for more than two years.

While the Conservatives oppose the proposed marijuana legislation, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois support decriminalization but they want major amendments, including an amnesty.

"It's been estimated about 600,000 Canadians have a criminal record as a result of personal possession," said NDP MP Libby Davies.

The minority government now concedes the bill will likely be put off until after the next federal election.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has pledged he will call the next election about a month after Justice John Gomery releases his final report on the sponsorship scandal, which is due to be submitted before the end of the year. That would mean a mid-winter or early spring election.

"The problem is that it's an abbreviated parliamentary session. It's a minority government situation. Parliament is a master of its own procedure," Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said.

The bill would impose fines rather than criminal charges for simple possession and heavier penalties for grow-ops.

But some police officers want even tougher penalties and marijuana activists say the bill would only encourage them to lay more charges for simple possession. 

"This bill, I'm just as happy to see it die. It doesn't please anybody," said Mike Foster of the National Organization for Marijuana Reform.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is threatening major border delays if the marijuana bill ever passed.

"The United States is opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana," said U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins. 

Critics say this reason is significant enough to let the bill die.

"So it's not surprising at all that they are now trying to backpedal and get away from dealing with this issue because they are afraid of the reaction," Davies says.

With so much opposition to the bill, officials say the Liberals are content to leave marijuana reform on the backburner, which could mean it will be many more years before there is another attempt to decriminalize marijuana.

With a report from CTV's Robert Fife



So don't light up just yet...


----------



## Glorified Ape

CivU said:
			
		

> "We can not and must not tolerate drug use or even think of legalize it."
> 
> What are alcohol and tobacco, if not dangerous drugs?



Thank you. I don't think there's a great mystery as to which ones kill the most people, either. From my experience, stoned people are generally less violent, belligerent, destructive, etc. than drunk people. If I had to choose between weed and booze, which drug to outlaw, it would be booze - especially when you look at the chemical dependency issue. That would make me sad, of course, since I drink but don't smoke (weed, anyway). 



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> MCG - 100%
> 
> 
> 48th Truth hurts - suck it up.
> 
> Fact is despite what the media and other long hair dope smoking tree hugging type want your to think - Org crime runs the business - just like peeler bars etc.



Sure it does, just as it did when prohibition was going - then the booze became legal and a major source of income was removed from organized crime's roster. Right now we don't make squat from weed, it just costs the government money prosecuting penny-ante cases. If it were legal it could be taxed, generating government income.


----------



## Hunter

If pot was legalized, how do people think this would impact CF policy on marijuana?  If something was legal in Canadian society, would the CF be forced to change it's policy?  Just wondering what people's opinions are.


----------



## Armymedic

read this from the start, and see in the recruiting threads..its all there in overly torid detail.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Hunter said:
			
		

> If pot was legalized, how do people think this would impact CF policy on marijuana?   If something was legal in Canadian society, would the CF be forced to change it's policy?   Just wondering what people's opinions are.



There's 17 pages on this thread alone, plus others if you "search". I know for a fact, that the discussion of your question has already taken place.


----------



## 1feral1

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Thank you. I don't think there's a great mystery as to which ones kill the most people, either. From my experience, stoned people are generally less violent, belligerent, destructive, etc. than drunk people. If I had to choose between weed and booze, which drug to outlaw, it would be booze - especially when you look at the chemical dependency issue. That would make me sad, of course, since I drink but don't smoke (weed, anyway).



I disagree completly with the above quote! So you would approve of drugs within the CF? Not slinging shyte at ya GA, but thats pure and UTTER nonsense! Time to take a bite out the reality choc chip cooke, and not laced with hash either!

Hummm, stoned people less violent? PCP, crack, and other nasty things like heroin. Many will mug you, some will even KILL to finance their fix. Most don't have jobs (many prostitute themselves [men-women and sadly and most sickening, boys and girls]), are a burden on society and the system, and would gladly break into your house, steal your property, snoop thru your personal things, vandalise your house and VIOLATE your privacy, and if you or your wife/kids are there, many say so what.

Soft drugs in many cases are a stepping stone to the worse ones, where in booze you can only go from beer-wine to whiskey (and yes there is also violence involving this too). At the end of the day, its called being responsible for one's actions. You only get issued ONE life, so be careful with it.   

In your experience, you're 24yrs old (according to your profile)! If this is the case of the new quality jr leadefship in the CF, they must be handing out commissions like speeding tickets at the Indy 500!

The CF and any other professional army should maintain a ZERO tollerance on drugs. You know where I stand.


----------



## 48Highlander

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Hummm, stoned people less violent? PCP, crack, and other nasty things like heroin.



We weren't talking about any of those drugs, so don't confuse the subject.  The discussion is about mariyuana.  If you don't understand the difference, perhaps you should do a bit of reading before you post?



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Soft drugs in many cases are a stepping stone to the worse ones



Want to provide some evidence for this?  The link has never been proven, nor has there been even semi-conclusive evidence for it.  If you're so confident of this, you should have no problem providing some statistics to back up your claim.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, its called being responsible for one's actions. You only get issued ONE life, so be careful with it.



Yep.  When the government forbids you from doing something that MAY affect the way you behave, they're assuming that you're not going to be responsible.  Personaly, I don't like being presumed guilty and told I can't do something just because someone thinks I might use it irresponsibly.  The same reasoning was behind the prohibition.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> The CF and any other professional army should maintain a ZERO tollerance on drugs. You know where I stand.



In that case, why not a zero drinking policy?


----------



## 1feral1

EDITed with link - hopefully it works (it still is not)

48, I am NO idiot, so don't talk to me like one. Besides, what do you know, you can't even spell it correctly, there is no 'y' in it. We are both seasoned posters, so no reason to have an attitude or to get stroppy over my post.

Over the past 30yrs, have seen my fare share of the after effects on drug abuse, which evolved from soft drugs to much harder ones, and sadly invloved the cold blooded MURDER of my couisn and her husband in Vernon BC in the late 90's, and the murder of a school friend in Regina in 1977 (over grass). I have also heard the same from seasoned members of the police in three countries (Canada, USA, and Australia). So I do know the difference, and although I am no expert on the matter, I think life experience helps out in this case, so I know exactly what I am talking about to some degree anyways.

Firstly, GA's quote said STONED people, not stoned people on grass.

ZERO tolerance on drinking in the CF and ADF   - Isn't there already the case in many instances within Defence? Some examples, in uniform, on EX, on duty 9in civvies or not), a time period before operating a DND veh, etc. Its pretty much the same here in Australia, and no booze in the field means NO booze. However at ENDEX, at the COs discretion, its a different story, but I have seen dry Ex's from begining to end without ONE drop of booze. Besides at the end of the day we are training for war, not to drink ourselves into a stuper, and become a safety hazard and a risk to our fellow soldats.

As for my mentioning about soft drug use leading to other harder drugs, give this a try.... www.newscientist.com/channel/beinghuman/drugs-alcohol/dn3921 , (EDIT- This aint working, I'll try to rectify this) and if anyone can find another, post it please. In furtherance to this, there has been some good specialist documentries and programs recently here in Australia on the topic, plus lastly, speaking from personal experience of friends and family, and thats better than any graphs and studies.

Seems many sites that disagree with the gateway theory are for the pro-use of this drug, and other leftist type sites. I am not saying that this is in all cases, as I know many who have stayed at the soft drug level, and still are doing it (after 30yrs), others grew out of it, while others yet again graduated to the worst kind, and are now ruined because of this.

Others claim teen use (undermatured brains in youth) promotes permanent brain damage, and a host of other problems in older people. 

In most asian countries, it can be a DEATH penalty for even to be inpossession of grass alone. Look at Indonesia, and Singapore for example. Its not just in our culture that drugs are considered bad, and to top it all off look at those Mounties who were killed, all because of grass.


Wes


----------



## Fishbone Jones




----------



## ArmyRick

Yes alcohol has its problems, but if taken responsible, it has no negative effects. Please note the big R word.

Soft drugs and hard drugs? I have watched one of my cousins destroy his life on nothing but marijuana (SP?) and I have seen another person I know from High school end up in the slammer for stupid things while stoned out of his mind. Everybody I know who is only a "Casual" user or whatever lame term I have heard that smokes up, I have watched how they slowly destroy their lives.

Pretending that marijuana has no real negative effects is living with your head in the ground...


----------



## Glorified Ape

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> I disagree completly with the above quote! So you would approve of drugs within the CF? Not slinging shyte at ya GA, but thats pure and UTTER nonsense! Time to take a bite out the reality choc chip cooke, and not laced with hash either!



No offense taken. I'd say the same thing to me if I thought that was what I was saying. I worded it incorrectly, my apologies. 

Hummm, stoned people less violent? PCP, crack, and other nasty things like heroin. Many will mug you, some will even KILL to finance their fix. Most don't have jobs (many prostitute themselves [men-women and sadly and most sickening, boys and girls]), are a burden on society and the system, and would gladly break into your house, steal your property, snoop thru your personal things, vandalise your house and VIOLATE your privacy, and if you or your wife/kids are there, many say so what.[/quote]

I agree with you completely if we're discussing heroin, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, or PCP. I think I phrased it badly, by "stoned" I meant people high on weed, not on anything else. My best friend for years was a "recovering" heroin and crack addict but, low and behold, when he had his "relapses" things would go missing, his behaviour became unpleasant (to say the least) and he'd engage in criminal enterprise (other than stealing from my family) to support the habit though the worst part was for my sister since he was her boyfriend. I wrote him off some time ago, as did she.  



> Soft drugs in many cases are a stepping stone to the worse ones, where in booze you can only go from beer-wine to whiskey (and yes there is also violence involving this too). At the end of the day, its called being responsible for one's actions. You only get issued ONE life, so be careful with it.



I agree with the last two points. As for the "gateway" theory, I'm not sure I agree really. I smoked weed for about 4 years between junior high and highschool, then quit 'cause I just didn't enjoy it anymore - paranoia wasn't fun. It never caused me to go on to crack, coke, heroin, meth, pcp, etc. Nor did it for my friends, many of which still smoke - one's in his final year of law school, another is a firefighter, another's a financial analyst, and the list goes on.     



> In your experience, you're 24yrs old (according to your profile)! If this is the case of the new quality jr leadefship in the CF, they must be handing out commissions like speeding tickets at the Indy 500!



Yes, lets cast aspersions on my professional potential because we disagree on drug policy. :
I don't smoke weed, wouldn't advocate anyone else do it, wouldn't tolerate it being done by subordinates, and have no desire or intention to smoke, snort, inject, or ingest any drug, legal or otherwise. 

Yes, I'm 24 years old but judging from your apparent inability to distinguish the difference between crack/heroin and weed, I'd wager your experience in the subject isn't anymore extensive than mine. It's like equating alcohol with ecstacy - they're both drugs but their effects, both long and short term are severely disproportionate. 



> The CF and any other professional army should maintain a ZERO tollerance on drugs. You know where I stand.



I agree. Illegal drugs should have a zero tolerance policy attached - weed included as long as it's against the law. As I said, I wouldn't tolerate pot smoking in my subordinates (or superiors for that matter, but my ability to affect change there would likely be more difficult). My belief that it should be legalized doesn't conflict with my belief that CF policy is CF policy and must be enforced, lest an inch become a mile. I'm not in disagreement with the policy - how on earth could the military function if it wasn't compliant with the laws it's there to protect?

I don't consider alcohol and weed to be all that different in their severity. Yes, there have been people whose lives have been destroyed by weed just as there are those whose lives have been destroyed by alcohol. Both my father and grandfather were alcoholics (successful ones, but boozers nonetheless) and while it didn't destroy their lives, it certainly didn't help them. I don't believe them to be evidence in support of prohibition, only examples of what can happen when a relatively benign substance is used irresponsibly.


----------



## 48Highlander

Wes, we're obviously not making much progress here, but I'll try one more time.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> 48, I am NO idiot, so don't talk to me like one. Besides, what do you know, you can't even spell it correctly, there is no 'y' in it. We are both seasoned posters, so no reason to have an attitude or to get stroppy over my post.



Didn't intend to insult you, and reading back I can see some of my comments were a bit...inappropriate.  I apologise.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Over the past 30yrs, have seen my fare share of the after effects on drug abuse, which evolved from soft drugs to much harder ones, and sadly invloved the cold blooded MURDER of my couisn and her husband in Vernon BC in the late 90's, and the murder of a school friend in Regina in 1977 (over grass). I have also heard the same from seasoned members of the police in three countries (Canada, USA, and Australia). So I do know the difference, and although I am no expert on the matter, I think life experience helps out in this case, so I know exactly what I am talking about to some degree anyways.



Life experience makes you biased, not educated.  If you have a family member get shot, you might advocate banning all weapons, or you may swing the other way and advocate concealed carry laws.  All that negative experience does is make you a firm beleiver, it doesn't neccesarily make you any more right.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Firstly, GA's quote said STONED people, not stoned people on grass.



You knew what he meant.  Or should have.  His comment was in the marijuana thread, and he was advocating leaglizing marijuana.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> ZERO tolerance on drinking in the CF and ADF   - Isn't there already the case in many instances within Defence? Some examples, in uniform, on EX, on duty 9in civvies or not), a time period before operating a DND veh, etc. Its pretty much the same here in Australia, and no booze in the field means NO booze. However at ENDEX, at the COs discretion, its a different story, but I have seen dry Ex's from begining to end without ONE drop of booze. Besides at the end of the day we are training for war, not to drink ourselves into a stuper, and become a safety hazard and a risk to our fellow soldats.



And a notional drug policy (assuming drugs became legal) could/would be the same.  Ofcourse you're not going to be getting stoned on duty.  No booze in the field, no weed in the field.  What you do when you're at home is up to you, as long as it doesn't impact your performance in uniform.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Seems many sites that disagree with the gateway theory are for the pro-use of this drug, and other leftist type sites. I am not saying that this is in all cases, as I know many who have stayed at the soft drug level, and still are doing it (after 30yrs), others grew out of it, while others yet again graduated to the worst kind, and are now ruined because of this.



In other words because SOME of the people who did weed went on to do harder drugs, it MUST be a gateway drug?  Come on wes  :  you know full well that that's faulty logic.  Those who want to do harder drugs are going to do them wether or not they try weed first.  You may as well argue that alcohol is a gateway drug - while growing up me and my closest friends tried booze long before we touched our first joint.  In fact, one of them eventualy stopped smoking weed and became a full blown alcoholic instead.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Others claim teen use (undermatured brains in youth) promotes permanent brain damage, and a host of other problems in older people.



Ditto for booze 



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> In most asian countries, it can be a DEATH penalty for even to be inpossession of grass alone. Look at Indonesia, and Singapore for example. Its not just in our culture that drugs are considered bad, and to top it all off look at those Mounties who were killed, all because of grass.



So because a bunch of aseans do it, it's good enough for us.  I don't know wess, I've never found the "look, they do it too!" line of reasoning very compelling.  No matter how many people shoot themselves in the foot, I won't be inclined to follow.

As for the Mounties, they wouldn't have been killed if "grass" weren't illegal, so you're really arguing to legalize it.  After all, when's the last time you heardf of a caop getting killed by rum-runners?


----------



## ArmyRick

NO DRUGS ! Thats my stand and I know alot of Canadians do support it! I also asked my cousin (who is a metro cop) and he said we are going to open a huge bag of problems if legalize or decriminalize soft drugs.


----------



## 48Highlander

You know, I REALLY hate the "I asked my uncle Fred, and he said..." argument.  Who cares?  There's also plenty of cops who beleive the exact opposite.  Relating the opinions of people who, for all I know, may or may not actualy exist, isn't very useful in these types of discussions.

Ditto with "a lot of Canadians do support it!".  So what?  A lot of Canadians also oppose it.  In fact, public opinion within Canada on wether or not it should be legalized is pretty much split down the middle.  And even if it wasn't, what does public perception have to do with what's right?  The majority of Canadians think of us only as peacekeepewrs when they think of us at all.  Does that mean we should change the CF to suit public perception?  Mob rule is no way to run any organization, let alone a country.


----------



## dutchie

I have heard some comelling arguments on how legalizing marijuana wouldn't be 'that bad', but I've NEVER heard an even remotely compeling argument on how legalizing marijuana would actually improve society in some way.

Marijuana provides no benefit to society. Neither does alchohol, but it's not illegal, and it's widely accepted as a socially acceptable drug. The same can't be said for marijuana.

Keep arseholes like Emery on the fringe (or in a US jail) where they belong.


----------



## 48Highlander

Sure it would.  For one thing, 1 acre of hemp field can be used to make as much paper as 4 acres of forest.  The environmental impact alone would be worth it.

As far as recreational use:



> The crime rate in Amsterdam is lower than many major U.S. cities. Mario Lap, a key drug policy advisor in the Netherlands national government says "We've had a realistic drug policy for 30 years in the Netherlands, and we know what works. We distinguish between soft and hard drugs, between traffickers and users. We try not to make people into criminals" (Houston Chronicle). In 1989 the LAncet report states "The Dutch have shown that there is nothing inevitable about the drugs ladder in which soft drugs lead to heard drugs. The ladder does not exist in Holland because the dealers have been separated."



Amsterdam's legalization of marijuana removed the criminal element from the industry, thereby providing many positive changes in their society such as:

1)  Making it safer for users to obtain their product
2)  Reducing the ability of your average highschool kid to turn into a criminal by becoming a "dealer"
3)  Reducing the ammount of money being exchanged through criminal means, and instead generating extra tax revenue which can be used for social programs, policing, military spending, or any number of programs which would be beneficial to society.

While there are no positive aspects to people USING marijauana, there are certainly positive changes which would occur through it's legalization.  In other words, people doing it isn't neccesarily good for society, but our over-reaction to it's use is infinitely more harmful.


----------



## Britney Spears

Alcohol provides NO benefit to society?!

You argument will go really far with that kind of assumption.


----------



## Michael OLeary

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Amsterdam's legalization of marijuana removed the criminal element from the industry, thereby providing many positive changes in their society such as:



I presume that the real underlying debate here is whether soldiers should be permitted to partake, even if marijuana was decriminalized. All too often the decriminalization of marijuana on the streets of Amsterdam is tossed out as the fait accompli for success in a western society for pot usage.

So, would your extensive pro-legalization research include the specifics of the Royal Netherlands Army's regulations of drug use? How has this open-minded society reconciled availability and use on the steet with the demands and responsibilities of military service?

Perhaps this helps define that what works on the streets of Amsterdam is not necessarily acceptable for the country's armed forces:

*Core Values, the Development of an Ethical Decision-Making Model and the Call for an Ethical Standards Committee in the Royal Netherlands Army*
http://atlas.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE99/Heijster99.html




> CODE OF CONDUCT OF THE ROYAL NETHERLANDS ARMY
> 
> As a serviceman/woman or civilian employee I make an important contribution to the defense of our country and to peace and safety in the world. In doing so, I adhere to the following code of conduct:
> 
> 1. I try to do my best and am prepared to learn from my mistakes.
> 
> 2. Both my attitude and my behaviour show that I am proud to work for the Royal Netherlands Army.
> 
> 3. As a member of a team, I need my colleagues and they need me. For this reason I also feel responsible for their well-being and, if necessary, I call them to account for their actions.
> 
> 4. I am responsible for the correct use of the equipment and funds entrusted to me and of the services offered to me.
> 
> 5. *In all my actions I consider the safety of myself and my surroundings. For this reason, I avoid drugs and limit my alcohol intake.*
> 
> 6. I respect human rights and adhere to the rules laid down in the law of war. I treat everyone equally and with respect, and wherever possible offer aid to fellow humans in need.
> 
> 7. I carry out my assigned tasks professionally, even in difficult circumstances or in the event of danger to my own life.
> 
> 8. I never abuse the power entrusted to me. I shall use force if ordered to, but never more than is necessary for completing my tasks. Anyone, certainly my opponent, may be sure that I am resolute and persistent.


----------



## KevinB

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Sure it would.   For one thing, 1 acre of hemp field can be used to make as much paper as 4 acres of forest.   The environmental impact alone would be worth it.



Hemp is NOT marajuana - it has no THC - although still controlled.

 Don't try to obsfucate the issue, one has ZERO to do with the other.  I'm mean really what does legalizing marajuana have to do with Hemp fields being used for pulp???

BTW My significant other works for Alberta Reseach Council, doing GMO research on HEMP and productivity (she only plays a medic on the weekends...)  I have a pretty good grounding (and can alway call in backup) on the Hemp issues.


----------



## Marauder

You know what I like about weed? The fact that when I punch the shit out of some stoned up hippie Red, he can't remember who to blame for making him that one fraction uglier.


----------



## Jungle

Hmmm... 48th Highlander, I suppose you oppose GMOs, right ?? The THC content of marijuana has been multiplied by ten in the last decades, pot being one of the most genetically-modified plants on the planet... try boosting alcohol content in wine by ten...   :
Now most research about the effects of pot on the brain are inaccurate. There have been no studies on long-term use of it, like there was for alcohol, because of the illegal nature of the drug. One thing that did come out: THC has the capacity to lodge in fat cells of the body, and be released during a traumatic experience. Now that is something I don't want in people around me when bullets start flying...
As Paracowby said: remember why they call it DOPE !!!


----------



## dutchie

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Alcohol provides NO benefit to society?!
> 
> You argument will go really far with that kind of assumption.



Ok, you got me there. I hear it kills brain cells. But like the lions of the Savannah, it only kills the weakest and oldest brain cells, thereby making the brain much stronger overall. Beer makes you smart.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Hemp is NOT marajuana - it has no THC - although still controlled.
> 
> Don't try to obsfucate the issue, one has ZERO to do with the other.   I'm mean really what does legalizing marajuana have to do with Hemp fields being used for pulp???



You beat me to it Kevin. I get a kick out of people who try and justify legalization of marijuana with the hemp issue. The plain, cold, hard fact is that people who agree with the legalization of marijuana for the most part fall into 2 categories:

1-They like to get stoned
2-They believe the rhetoric being slung about by those who like to get stoned.

This really has nothing to do with pain relief, easing of crime, paper, rights, prohibition, or anything else. It about addicts wanting to get stoned without being prosecuted. Period.

Re:Amsterdam. You can't really compare Amsterdam and Canada. There are too many differences between the Dutch and Canadaians to make a fair comparison.


----------



## Joe Blow

I perused the thread and thought I would drop my two cents.  

I don't really feel strongly about it one way or the other but it seems to me that if it was legalized and taxed at a level that would keep the involvement of organized crime to a minimum the negative impacts of the stuff on society would be lessened.

Then again, it would probably lead to greater consumption ..and a greater strain on the health care system.  But it certainly isn't addictive and the 'gateway drug' theory doesn't hold water either.  (Sure ..maybe 100% of heroin users smoked pot first ..but that doesn't tell us how many pot users go on to try heroin.)

Anyway, I think it would be worth it just to keep all that money out of the black market (Lord knows where it ends up) and put it into the hands of farmer's and the tax man.  

I don't usually make arguments for the tax man, but I can dream up all kinds of ways to use that dough.  ..Health care ..defence budget.  Hey - here's a novel idea - how about lowering income taxes, or the GST!  Or even (Heavens!  Can we dream it?) a nice low flat tax.  

EDIT: Just so my own position _visa vis_ pot is clear ..there are all kinds of good reasons not to smoke it.  But we can say the same thing about smoking, drinking and gambling.  In my mind, whether or not these things should be legal is another question.


----------



## Joe Blow

Another thought:

I quickly googled this http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/marijuana/statistics.html

3 million - The number of Canadians who used marijuana in 2002.
10 million - The number of Canadians who reported having used marijuana at least once in their lives.

Is a law that would (if thoroughly enforced) subject so many Canadians to legal sanctions a just law?  

Maybe it is ..if 10 million Canadians murdered people, does that mean we should stop prohibiting murder?  Certainly not.  But what if the prohibition on the activity is hurting more people than the activity itself would, by creating a market for organized crime?

We have a law 

against an activity that (if done in a controlled, regulated way ..like drinking is.) harms - by and large - only the people who engage in it.
A law that creates a black market
and which - if it were applied thoroughly - would result in legal sanctions against 10 million Canadians.  (..I believe the death penalty has even been suggested in this thread...?)
    

Is this smart?

OK.  I admit I'm just tossing gas on the fire now.  ;D  ...try and think of it, not as gas,  as food for thought.

*ducking and covering*  

[Edited for clarity of thought]


----------



## atticus

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> But it certainly isn't addictive



Isn't addictive? I'm sorry but bs, one of my good friends is seriously addicted to it. He smokes it every day and can't get by without smoking it. Another one of my friends has a cousin, his mother died and to cope with it all he does all day is sit in his house and smoke pot that his girlfriend buys him (and its been about a year now), can't hold a job for more than a few days without it getting in his way and because of this he still grieves for his loss. Whenever he feels sad he just lights up and doesn't have to think about it for a little while, and therefore never gets over it. If its not addictive why can't people I've had to work with in the past not be able to go a few hours without smoking it, or even sleep without smoking it?


----------



## Joe Blow

> Another one of my friends has a cousin, his mother died and to cope with it all he does all day is sit in his house and smoke pot that his girlfriend buys him (and its been about a year now), can't hold a job for more than a few days without it getting in his way and because of this he still grieves for his loss. Whenever he feels sad he just lights up and doesn't have to think about it for a little while, and therefore never gets over it.



I don't want to presume to understand the place that your friend is in, but I think it's possible that he might have more general problems that (perhaps caused by his grieving) that have lead to - or reinforced - some other difficulties, including his pot use.  [EDIT - Which is to say that perhaps the problem is escapism.]

I can relate anecdotes wherein people have just gone cold turkey after many years of heavy use without any difficulty what-so-ever.  I know a fellow who simply ran out of money one day (after rent was paid and all that) and by the time he had enough for a bag again had started jogging and really didn't care buy any.  Heavy (as in daily ..like stressed if he didn't have it) user through university.

Anecdotes are anecdotes.  I would be interested to know what the science says about pot's chemical addictive properties.  Maybe I'll look it up one day ..meh ..probably not.


----------



## 48Highlander

KevinB said:
			
		

> Hemp is NOT marajuana - it has no THC - although still controlled.
> 
> Don't try to obsfucate the issue, one has ZERO to do with the other.   I'm mean really what does legalizing marajuana have to do with Hemp fields being used for pulp???



As far as I'm aware, hemp is the "male" marijuana plant.  Kinda hard to make male plants without female plants, no?

Now I know there are other forms of hemp, such as Ontario Hemp, which have very little thc in both the male and female variety.  Wether there's any control over these or not I don't know.  Certainly it'd be rather annopying to have the RCMP raiding your hemp field every couple days because they think they saw a weed plant.  I will however admit that I don't know enough about that side of the issue to make any sort of argument about it, so I'll take your S/O's word on it.  My other points still stand though.



			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> Hmmm... 48th Highlander, I suppose you oppose GMOs, right ??



wow, you don't stereotype at all!   yeah that's right man, I'm a typical pot-smoking free-love anti-genetic-engineering anti-war tree-hugging hippie.   and you're a dick.



			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> The THC content of marijuana has been multiplied by ten in the last decades, pot being one of the most genetically-modified plants on the planet... try boosting alcohol content in wine by ten...   :



It's called moonshine.   Rakia, which you'd be quite familiar with from your overseas experience, is basicaly re-distilled wine.



			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> There have been no studies on long-term use of it, like there was for alcohol, because of the illegal nature of the drug. One thing that did come out: THC has the capacity to lodge in fat cells of the body, and be released during a traumatic experience. Now that is something I don't want in people around me when bullets start flying...



Rumour.   Trace ammounts lodge in fat cells, but it's never been proven that they get released, or affect the body in any way.

Considering the fact that at least half of the CF smokes the shit anyway, maybe you should quit?


----------



## Michael OLeary

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Considering the fact that at least half of the CF smokes the crap anyway, maybe you should quit?



Supporting evidence??


----------



## larry Strong

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> In most asian countries, it can be a DEATH penalty for even to be inpossession of grass alone. Look at Indonesia, and Singapore for example. Its not just in our culture that drugs are considered bad, and to top it all off look at those Mounties who were killed, *all because of grass.*
> Wes



Thats not exactly true, yes there was grass growing there, However the RCMP went there to look for stolen vehicles. You also have to take into account, the retard's pathological hatred for authority and the RCMP in particular. To bad he just did not commit ''suicide by cop ', and that he had let the 4 live.

On the subject of this thread, I would sooner have a "pothead" at work than a "drunk" any day, hands down.


----------



## Old Ranger

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> On the subject of this thread, I would sooner have a "pothead" at work than a "drunk" any day, hands down.



How about neither!  Both cause problems at work.
And by "pothead and Drunk" I'm refering to the extreme.


----------



## Old Ranger

Dire said:
			
		

> This isn't a flame issue, if you are an anti marijuana you have no right to flame unless you can dig up positive facts that Marijuana is truly bad for you. (and when I say bad, i mean is it worse then drinking alcohol?)



Simple: When I drank, my tolerance level would go down and I would end up smacking so people around.
                 The times I tried pot, I would beat the living crap out of people until I would "come down".

Don't even try to argue that pot is good and I probably got some bad stuff.   Sorry but pot makes me more violent than I already am.
Yes there is something in my metabolism that reacts poorly with weed.
You want it decriminalized?   Just accept the fact; you blow it in my direction, I might rip one of your arms off and beat you with the wet end.

When you see peoples lives deteriorate because it all started with a little weed.   You might have a different outlook.

Now I'll read through the rest of this 19 page thread to see what others have to say.


----------



## Infanteer

Let's not let this get nasty.

Way I see it, we may as well legalize it.   Enough people like to partake in it that keeping it illegal just makes a farce out of the justice system.   I don't think marijuana can be shown to be a direct cause in being a social reject - I know of writers (Pierre Burton - admitted "pothead"), CEOs, and <gasp> a President of the United States (who happened to be a Rhodes Scholar) who all smoked it.  Don't see a direct link between _pot_ and _loser_ there (although I still feel Clinton was a putz).

Of course, you also have the losers who smoke pot, steal, get into heavier drugs and are generally a burden to society - but is this necessarily because they smoke pot?   Perhaps they're losers because, like drunks, they don't really do anything productive with their time (preferring to feed their dependencies instead).   Legal or not, it probably doesn't make a difference to these folks.

Screw it, if a guy wants to sit in his basement a smoke a joint to enjoy his evening, that's his prerogative not mine.   Like our approach to alcohol, he shouldn't be able to do it in public (except in a specific location catering to it), he shouldn't be able to operate a MV or use a firearm etc etc, and it should be regulated in a manner which tries to cut organized crime out of it as much as possible (you don't see rumrunners and bootleggers hogging the Organized Crime headlines anymore, do you?).   If the guy is an all-around douche-bag, then it probably isn't the joint he's carrying that we are going to be concerned about.

As well, this has nothing to do with the CF Zero Tolerance Policy, so don't throw it in as a red herring in an attempt to undermine credibility.   As far as I see it, the argument concerns decrim/legalization within a broader social context.   If you want to discuss the CF Policy (which, to me, seems straightforward), start a new thread.


----------



## Old Ranger

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Let's not let this get nasty.



Sorry, just answered his question with fact.

And from reading the last 19 pages; POT----BAD, CF---GOOD

Especially since the majority of pot supporters......disappeared somewhere?


----------



## Infanteer

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Sorry, just answered his question with fact.



Not directed at you, just a general reminder that people are allowed to share opinions here without being shredded to pieces.  Sure, they can be shred to pieces if the opinion proves to be a retarded one, but judging from the see-saw nature of this topic, you ain't going to find a "knock-out punch" for the debate.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Old Ranger

True;

Just a touchy subject for me.   (I'll work on phrasing my points better to a debate)

That's part of the reason I only drink in non extradition Country's. ;D


----------



## Britney Spears

> Especially since the majority of pot supporters......disappeared somewhere?



I'm getting around to it. Watch your arcs and start digging.


----------



## 48Highlander

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Supporting evidence??



Personal experience.   Most of them certainly aren't stupid enough to volunteer for a survey, however, I DID smoke it occasionaly up untill about 4 years ago, and I know of MANY members who still do.   If I ever caught one of them doing it on duty there'd be hell to pay, but they're all intelligent enough to confine it to their off time.

Anyway, as I obviously cannot offer stats, I'll subtract the statement if you wish.   The percentage within the CF isn't important to me, the point is that there obviously are going to be individuals who do it - that there's a damn good chance that at least one or two individuals within your section do it on a regular basis - and that if you feel "unsafe" around users once the bullets start flying then you may as well get the hell out because you're always going to be around them.


And just to clarify for those who seem to think of me as some pot-smoking long-hair, I did it occasionaly when I was younger, stopped for about 2 years once I joined the CF, started again on-and off for a little while, and haven't touched it now in about 4 years.   I'd be happy to do a drug test if anyone doubts me and is qualified to administer one   For me there's no draw to legalizing it since I really don't enjoy it - I prefer alcohol dammit.  I just think it's absolutely hypocritical to make marijuana illegal while selling cigarettes and booze, AND I truly beleive (and have tried to offer evidence to prove it) that keeping it illegal is more damaging to our society than legalizing and regulating it.


----------



## ArmyRick

Every section? Maybe in the Toronto units they do. I lived in Toronto for several years and I did notice that it is more widely accepted down there.   Up here in the town of meaford, I have noticed a disproportionate number of youth   using it. 

They have have bloody dog searches up here at LFCATC M-ford and a few troops have been given the black cadillac in the glutes for it. No every section does not have people using it in the CF.


----------



## larry Strong

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> How about neither!   Both cause problems at work.
> And by "pothead and Drunk" I'm refering to the extreme.



That would be the ideal situation, but out on the rigs here, thats not the case. Piss testing is only done upon hiring, and only if there has been an accident after that. I was drilling for a small company up by the NWT boarder, my motorman and one of the roughnecks were high on Crystal Meth 24/7, and there was nothing I could do about it. So I quit that outfit, but despite everything it's pretty rampant out here.


----------



## sigtech

Why not make it legal. Tax it and let the fools that smoke it have to pay for it. Us morons that smoke cigs have to pay huge taxs so why the pot heads. I think the court cost etc etc is a compleat waste of money. Legalize it tax it and good to go. Next tax the hookers why fight a battle that is unwinable change the rules and make a profit I say


----------



## KevinB

Hemp has male and female plants.

 It is a cousin of mj - not the same plant. 

ACKKKKKKK!

 This is why I cant take the MJ'ers arguments seriously, innuendo and rumour are not scientific fact.
Secondly reserchers now have an oral THC medication, take the argument right out of the smoke for pain releif crowd..


----------



## atticus

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> That would be the ideal situation, but out on the rigs here, thats not the case. Piss testing is only done upon hiring, and only if there has been an accident after that. I was drilling for a small company up by the NWT boarder, my motorman and one of the roughnecks were high on Crystal Meth 24/7, and there was nothing I could do about it. So I quit that outfit, but despite everything it's pretty rampant out here.



The rigs are a horrible place for somebody who isn't a perverted drug smoking social reject. I think 90% of the roughnecks are messed up on something. I did some wellhead service for a while and every service/drilling rig I ever went on had the guy(s) who was really messed over on something and is groping the new guy. I was always the "new" guy too since I just came on the rigs, cut the casing, installed the wellhead and left.


----------



## mover1

Let it be legal and free. 
Can you inmagine the run off busness the messes would have. 
TGIF the food would be eaten in a heart beat. 
No more hung over troops in the morning. Just sore throats and full tummies.


----------



## Jungle

48Highlander said:
			
		

> ... yeah that's right man, I'm a typical pot-smoking free-love anti-genetic-engineering anti-war tree-hugging hippie.


I knew that  
Now even moonshine cannot go above 100% alcohol... alcohol content cannot be manipulated like THC. And it's pretty obvious when you're drinking a bomb, just by the taste.
You're very emotional about this, maybe you should seek help...  :


----------



## larry Strong

atticus said:
			
		

> The rigs are a horrible place for somebody who isn't a perverted drug smoking social reject. I think 90% of the roughnecks are messed up on something. I did some wellhead service for a while and every service/drilling rig I ever went on had the guy(s) who was really messed over on something and is groping the new guy. I was always the "new" guy too since I just came on the rigs, cut the casing, installed the wellhead and left.



No, you were the "service hand", and I agree they do tend to get picked on ;D haven't seen much groping though. I've been at it for 26yrs and am stiill sane, besides where else can you make 4K a week?


----------



## 48Highlander

Jungle said:
			
		

> I knew that
> Now even moonshine cannot go above 100% alcohol... alcohol content cannot be manipulated like THC. And it's pretty obvious when you're drinking a bomb, just by the taste.



Ditto for THC.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Hemp has male and female plants.
> 
> It is a cousin of mj - not the same plant.
> 
> ACKKKKKKK!
> 
> This is why I cant take the MJ'ers arguments seriously, innuendo and rumour are not scientific fact.
> Secondly reserchers now have an oral THC medication, take the argument right out of the smoke for pain releif crowd..



Well, you're obviously smoking something else 

Hemp is a common name for Cannabis sativa and the name most used when this annual plant is grown for non-drug purposes. These include the industrial purposes for which cultivation licences may be issued in the European Union (EU). In the UK licences are issued by the Home Office under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. When grown for industrial purposes hemp is called, often, industrial hemp, and a common product is fibre for use in a variety of different ways.

Thanks for coming out?


----------



## dutchie

sigtech said:
			
		

> Why not make it legal. Tax it and let the fools that smoke it have to pay for it. Us morons that smoke cigs have to pay huge taxs so why the pot heads. I think the court cost etc etc is a compleat waste of money. Legalize it tax it and good to go. Next tax the hookers why fight a battle that is unwinable change the rules and make a profit I say


&


			
				mover1 said:
			
		

> Let it be legal and free.
> Can you inmagine the run off busness the messes would have.



Sarcasm on. 
Hey, while we're at it, let's legalize and tax heroin, coke, and acid. Why not bestiality? We could have Government run farms where we breed horses so sickos can have some fun! Hey, why not, we'd make a killing! 
sarcasm off.

Why not? Because there are some things that are deemed to be unacceptable. We outlaw them because they cause harm to society, or it's citizens, or they're just plain wrong. MJ counts for all 3 of those.

BTW, why is marijuana different from cigs? Cigs don't make you high (once your addicted). Big diff. 

Sigtech, you also advocate giving up a battle you feel we're losing. Nice attitude for a soldier. Wouldn't want you next to me when it counts.



			
				mover1 said:
			
		

> TGIF the food would be eaten in a heart beat.
> No more hung over troops in the morning. Just sore throats and full tummies.



Yeah, stoned troops. That's what we need. Don;t confuse the issue. We're talking about legalization of marijuana in Canada, not the CF drug policy. Even with legalization, CF members likely won't be permitted to partake in the ganja. And rightly so.


----------



## KevinB

Hemp grown for industry has NO THC (well trace amounts you'd have to smoke a ton, and youd be dead of carbon monoxide poisoning long before you had a buzz)

 48th I fully agree with Jungle on this issue - your a wee bit too emotional about this.


----------



## 48Highlander

I get emotional any time I see irrational people making idiotic claims.

So, yeah I get emotional often.


----------



## Island Ryhno

Caesar said:
			
		

> &
> Why not? Because there are some things that are deemed to be unacceptable. We outlaw them because they cause harm to society, or it's citizens, or they're just plain wrong. MJ counts for all 3 of those..



As opposed to the virtue that is alcohol? 



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> &
> Yeah, stoned troops. That's what we need. Don;t confuse the issue. We're talking about legalization of marijuana in Canada, not the CF drug policy. Even with legalization, CF members likely won't be permitted to partake in the ganja. And rightly so.



You're assuming that troops will smoke it at work. Well alcohol is legal and soldiers don't go to work drunk. Why would they go stoned? Also the CF should not or would not put up with either.


----------



## dutchie

Island Ryhno said:
			
		

> As opposed to the virtue that is alcohol?
> 
> You're assuming that troops will smoke it at work. Well alcohol is legal and soldiers don't go to work drunk. Why would they go stoned? Also the CF should not or would not put up with either.



We're not talking about alcohol, are we? If alcohol was invented today, it likely would be illegal, for obvious reasons. But it wasn't invented today, and it is still considered to be socially acceptable to consume in certain situations, in varying amounts. It is part of our social fabric. Marijuana is NOT part of our culture, is not socially acceptable, and is not consumed by most Canadian adults. Alcohol is. 

Want evidence? How about an example. If your daughter was 19 and said she was going to a dinner and a movie with her boyfriend, and maybe a drink afterwards, that would be OK, right? Now, what if she said she was going with her boyfriend to dinner and a movie and then smoke some dope or do some hash afterwards....would you be OK with that? For most, I suspect that it would not be OK.

Until it is socially acceptable, the CF will likely not allow it's members to partake, on or off duty.


----------



## Island Ryhno

Come now, something has to be socially acceptable for hundreds of years for it to be acceptable now? Alcohol went through prohibition when the government tried to rule how people live their lives. It came back because people pushed for social reform and didn't cave to what the government wanted deemed as socially unacceptable. And MJ is certainly not a new kid on the block, it's been around for a long time. As for not being consumed by most Canadians well, I don't know that and neither do you. Here is some stuff about american consumption though.

There were an estimated 2.6 million new marijuana users in 2001. This number is similar to the numbers of new users each year since 1995, but above the number in 1990 (1.6 million). In 2002, over 14 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, and 12.2 percent of past year marijuana users used marijuana on 300 or more days in the past 12 months. This translates into 3.1 million people using marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis over a 12-month period(1).(National Institute on Drug Abuse)


----------



## 48Highlander

Caesar said:
			
		

> If alcohol was invented today, it likely would be illegal, for obvious reasons. But it wasn't invented today, and it is still considered to be socially acceptable to consume in certain situations, in varying amounts. It is part of our social fabric. Marijuana is NOT part of our culture, is not socially acceptable, and is not consumed by most Canadian adults.



Ah, THERE is some sound logic for ya!

Really, I'm not going to bother pointing out the holes in the way you approached that argument;   instead I'll just toss out some facts to disprove your "not socialy acceptable" and "not consumed by most Canadian adults" statements.



> According to an SES/Sun Media poll, 69% of Canadians favour decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
> 
> The survey found that Canadians who were teenagers during the "flower power" '60s were the group most likely to support easing our pot laws.
> 
> It showed that 76% of Canadians between 50 and 59 support decriminalization, while 72% of the 40-49 age group agree the laws against smoking dope should be relaxed.
> 
> The poll surveyed 1,000 people between Feb. 2 and Feb. 11. The poll is accurate plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.



Every article I've ever seen on the matter claims that between 40% and 50% of Canadians use it occasionaly.   More than that "have tried it".   Now, how in the hell does it do us any good to criminalize a substance that half of our population is going to use anyway.   There's no reasonable justification for it.


----------



## dutchie

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Ah, THERE is some sound logic for ya!
> 
> Really, I'm not going to bother pointing out the holes in the way you approached that argument;   instead I'll just toss out some facts to disprove your "not socialy acceptable" and "not consumed by most Canadian adults" statements.
> 
> Every article I've ever seen on the matter claims that between 40% and 50% of Canadians use it occasionaly.   More than that "have tried it".   Now, how in the heck does it do us any good to criminalize a substance that half of our population is going to use anyway.   There's no reasonable justification for it.



Nice of you to gloss over my question. To answer your point, I am referring to legalization, the stats you quoted were regarding decriminalization. There's a big difference.


----------



## Infanteer

Is the world seriously going to end if we legalize it - considering that I think we can all agree that a good portion (25-75%) of Canadians partake in it and its effects are as serious as alcohol (sparingly - fun if you like that thing, routinely - probably not good).

 :argument: (Just getting some mileage out of the new smilies - maybe we need one of a guy smoking a joint?)


----------



## Island Ryhno

Infanteer said:
			
		

> (Just getting some mileage out of the new smilies - maybe we need one of a guy smoking a joint?)



I have one that's smoking, I guess you could imagine it was a joint. The gods of political correctness though hast smiled upon me, so I can't use it. DOH!


----------



## dutchie

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is the world seriously going to end if we legalize it - considering that I think we can all agree that a good portion (25-75%) of Canadians partake in it and its effects are as serious as alcohol (sparingly - fun if you like that thing, routinely - probably not good).
> 
> :argument: (Just getting some mileage out of the new smilies - maybe we need one of a guy smoking a joint?)



Do I think the world would end if they decrimed/legalized it? No. Would it cause harm to Canadian society? Probably, but so do a lot of things. I guess you could summaraize my position as this: "If at best it's a 'push', and at worst it's detrimental to society, why bother decriminalizing/legalizing it?"


----------



## Infanteer

Do you think it is honestly a push though?  Having grown up in the '90s and went to University in the '00s, I can tell you that if people are going to smoke pot, they are going to smoke pot.  I don't think the law is holding anyone back, especially when you consider that there are "cafes" in downtown Van that cater to this.


----------



## dutchie

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do you think it is honestly a push though?   Having grown up in the '90s and went to University in the '00s, I can tell you that if people are going to smoke pot, they are going to smoke pot.   I don't think the law is holding anyone back, especially when you consider that there are "cafes" in downtown Van that cater to this.



When I was in high school, almost everyone drank booze at some point, some more than others, despite the drinking age being 19. I don't think they should lower the drinking age to 17 because lots of 17 year olds get blasted on the weekends....do you?


BTW, I think they should shut down all of those cafes, but that's beside the point.


----------



## Infanteer

Caesar said:
			
		

> When I was in high school, almost everyone drank booze at some point, some more than others, despite the drinking age being 19. I don't think they should lower the drinking age to 17 because lots of 17 year olds get blasted on the weekends....do you?



Well, I do think they should lower the age to 18 across Canada.  It seems ridiculous that in one province a guy is not considered mature enough to buy beer, while in the next province he is.  Where do we get the moral authority to say that?  Age limits are arbitrary, and they are really meaningless (especially after being in Europe lots and seeing none).  I think if we do have them and choose to enforce them, they should at least be uniform.

But that's not the point of the debate, so don't try and derail it.  I'm talking about consenting and (hopefully) responsible adults (wherever we want to set the age - 18, 19, 21) and your concept of the "push".  Do you honestly think that if we legalized marijuana and treated it like alcohol that Canada would see more pot use then we see now?  Judging from who I've seen use it, I can honestly say no.

I really believe we are fighting a losing battle by treating marijuana as an illicit narcotic.  The justice system is suffering because its widespread use means enforcement resources are wasted on it and Canadian citizens are increasingly seeing it as a farce - guys smoke pot in the streets and everybody turns a blind eye.  I'd rather see us stick to laws that are enforceable and are worth enforcing.


----------



## dutchie

Infanteer said:
			
		

> But that's not the point of the debate, so don't try and derail it.   I'm talking about consenting and (hopefully) responsible adults (wherever we want to set the age - 18, 19, 21) and your concept of the "push".   Do you honestly think that if we legalized marijuana and treated it like alcohol that Canada would see more pot use then we see now?   Judging from who I've seen use it, I can honestly say no.
> 
> I really believe we are fighting a losing battle by treating marijuana as an illicit narcotic.   The justice system is suffering because its widespread use means enforcement resources are wasted on it and Canadian citizens are increasingly seeing it as a farce - guys smoke pot in the streets and everybody turns a blind eye.   I'd rather see us stick to laws that are enforceable and are worth enforcing.



What I was trying to illustrate with my underage drinking reference was this: Just because people break the law, even in high numbers, does that mean we should legalize the activity? Or should we find other ways to 'fight' the activity?


----------



## Island Ryhno

Our government spends a fortune "fighting" something that is no more harmful than alcohol. You wouldn't rather see all that money go into, oh I don't say DND, health care, education?


----------



## KevinB

My bad.  I have been corrected (by the SME)



> Hemp and Marijuana are the same species except that hemp has been bred for
> decreased THC content.  They are morphologically and chemically the same
> otherwise, other than specific cultivar-specific traits (ie. higher seed
> oil content, fibre profiles, sex ratios - diaciousness).
> Someone who perhaps had bred or grown a marijuana plant would argue that
> marijuana plants are leafier and predominantly female - but that is a
> cultivar trait not a species difference.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

KevinB said:
			
		

> I have been corrected (by the SME)



Must have been. To many big words, used in the right context. ;D


----------



## Infanteer

Caesar said:
			
		

> What I was trying to illustrate with my underage drinking reference was this: Just because people break the law, even in high numbers, does that mean we should legalize the activity? Or should we find other ways to 'fight' the activity?



Well, I guess that takes the question to a philosophical one.   What does Law serve?

Obviously, there is a safety issue.   Many Canadians speed against a traffic sign, but there are definite risks by saying "Ok, go 180".   However, is marijuana really a safety issue?   If it is, then as others have pointed out, we better make alcohol and tobacco illegal as well, as dead livers and lungs are probably worse then a few burnt out brain cells.  Hardcore drugs (Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Ecstasy) are clearly another issue, however, I'm convicned that marijuana is benign as alcohol for casual users - I know many people who have used it for decades, and they're fine - they enjoy it like my mother enjoys her wine at night.   So, I can't justify to myself keeping it illegal along the lines of a safety issue.

As to the philosophical issue - now, in my opinion, laws should be designed to keep order (maintain our liberties) while maximizing our freedoms.   Does marijuana really present a threat to order?   Pot users are about as big a threat as drunks, probably less so.   Treat it like alcohol (confine it to private areas or specific locations like cafes).   I'd say the biggest threat is the fact that OC controls the traffic and distribution of it - like ending prohibition stole the bootlegging cashcow from OC, so maybe we should think about doing that with the grow-op distribution industry as well.   As for the maximizing freedom part, is it really your problem is somebody else is sitting in their house smoking a joint?   The libertarian in me says no, So, I can't justify to myself keeping it illegal along the lines of a philosophical issue.

Finally, there is the moral issue, which you've brought up with "does high amounts of breaking the law mean we should legitimize law breaking?"   Who is the law designed to serve?   The politicians?   Interest groups?   Is the _Controlled Drugs and Substances Act_ handed down from some mystical source that has deigned it as right for all time?   It seems to me that the Law derives its moral authority from the people for which it exists.   If a majority of people think that a law serves no purpose in our society, then in my opinion it is unjust as it has no moral basis.   If a law has no moral basis, people will overlook it/ignore it - and that is clearly what is happening in Canada.   Crackdown and try and enforce laws with no moral basis, and you have the start of tyranny.   Look at prohibition - it is the 18th Amendment to the Constitution; you can't get any more legal authority than that.   However, it had no moral authority, and most people ignored it.   By making it illegal, the line was moved on "illicit behaviour" and the black market took over for the free market.   They realized it was a bad decision and repealed it with the 21st Amendment.   I see this as being no different - laws must move with the times, and if society in general condones it, then the law should.   Sure, you could try the "slippery slope" counter-argument with murder, crack, or theft, but then you have to prove to me that their is a real possibility of Canadians accepting murder, crackheads, and rampant theft as a good thing.   If, for some reason, they do - then I guess we reap what we sow, because the law won't protect us from anything if 10 million Canadians become thieving junkies.   So, stepping back and looking at things leads me to believe that I can't justify to myself keeping it illegal along the lines of a moral issue.

There, that's pretty much my take on things.   I don't use drugs, I don't really care who uses them, and I fully support the CF Policy, but I can't see why it is necessary to continue considering marijuana use as illicit substance in mainstream Canadian society.   I've examined it from a safety perspective, and philosophical perspective, and a moral perspective and I can see no solid, consistent rationale that tells me our current course is the right one to take.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## dutchie

A pretty well thought out argument, Infanteer. And one that is mainly based on perspective, perception, and personal beliefs on how law serves us. Far be it of me to tell you your beliefs are wrong. To you, you see marijuana legalization as 'Well, a lot of us smoke it, most of us don't have a problem with it, so screw it - legalize it'. I don't share your beliefs, but that's me. 

I prefer to think that despite the current attitude towards marijuana, it's use should be minimized, if not eradicated. I do buy into the gateway drug theory, in a limited sense. I also know that a large amount of the HA's income comes from it. Of course, many will say "legalize it and take it away from the HA'. Well, sure, but most of the dope is not staying in Canada anyhow, and because the US is not about to legalize it, we'd actually be making the overall drug problem in Canada worse. We'd be left with no ability to legally shut down grow-ops whose product is destined for our friends to the south. They sell marijuana to the US, and import other drugs (mainly coke) from the US. By legalizing marijuana, we make it easier for criminals like the HA to import the really deadly drugs, like coke. Decriminalization and especially legalization of marijuana would only strengthen the HA (and other criminal organizations), and allow them to further corrode our society in other ways (like coke dealing, prostitution, extortion, murder, etc), all on the profits of dope running to the US.

I could care less if some doper wants to toke up in his basement. I DO care if the HA imports more poison to Canada because of the legalization of marijuana.


----------



## Joe Blow

> ..most of the dope is not staying in Canada anyhow, and because the US is not about to legalize it, we'd actually be making the overall drug problem in Canada worse. We'd be left with no ability to legally shut down grow-ops whose product is destined for our friends to the south.



Good point.  I suppose we could have the government issue licences for production to applicants who would then be allowed to produce a certain tonnage.  (Farmers could bid for the licences.)  We could then focus enforcement on those 'rogue' producers.  ..But really; 


organized crime would still be a factor - production for the export market,
we would still have the expense of enforcement on our hands,
the cash/tax winfall would not be any where near the levels on might expect when we hear things like 'Marijuana is BC #1 cash crop'. (I think I heard it on the CBC ..please don't make me look it up.  :-\ )

..so what do we really gain by legalizing it?  Well, we might look at it the other way around.  *Perhaps we should assume that people should have maximun liberty and that the burden of proof is on people who want to limit it.  With that in mind I propose we turn the question on it's head.  What has society gained by criminalizing marijuana?*

I think it's worth asking because - as I mentioned earlier - we have a law that categorizes a full 1/3 of the entire population as being criminal on at least one occasion in their lives.  That being the case it might be time to reassess why we have that law.

For my part, I'm not sure I buy the 'society will go to hell' argument.  First, it's allready widely available and it would be hard to point to any one societal malady that can be attributed to widely available pot ..and no other cause. I think that pot can play a role in the minority of cases where (for ex.) violence or crime is a factor, but my money says that if we want to solve these problems we would go farther if we combat poverty and work on instilling some values in society again.

I don't expect that we would really have people showing up high for work or driving or being otherwise stupid any more than happens already ..or any more than we have people behaving this way with booze. (...and I rather suspect that these would be the same people anyway.) It would happen but would be relatively infrequent and could be dealt with on a case by case basis.

(Maybe there is some evidence of pot being a 'gateway drug', but I'm really not aware of any.  Mostly (I think) it is claimed that since all heroin users used pot first, pot can lead to heroin.  A mistake in logic. _All 'B's first were 'A's, therefore all 'A's will become 'B's ..or being an 'A' means you have a greater propensity for becoming a 'B' ..or first being an 'A' is a necessary prerequisite for becoming a 'B'._ Nope. None of that follows.)

So how about it?  What is the law gaining us?


----------



## Infanteer

Caesar said:
			
		

> A pretty well thought out argument, Infanteer. And one that is mainly based on perspective, perception, and personal beliefs on how law serves us. Far be it of me to tell you your beliefs are wrong. To you, you see marijuana legalization as 'Well, a lot of us smoke it, most of us don't have a problem with it, so screw it - legalize it'. I don't share your beliefs, but that's me.



Thanks.   My only goal was to highlight how I came to my conclusion.   I hope it seems rational enough - nobody has to agree with it, but recognizing it as a legitimate argument is nice.   The trick is to put all the rational arguments up, measure them against eachother, and decide the best Course of Action.   Of course, once politics gets involved, that flies out the window.... 



> I prefer to think that despite the current attitude towards marijuana, it's use should be minimized, if not eradicated. I do buy into the gateway drug theory, in a limited sense.



From my own personal observations, alcohol is the biggest gateway drug out there.   Alcohol lowers inhibitions - there is some sort of biological process to it, I remember reading it, but I remember it their.   Most people start hitting the heavier stuff after a night fueled with booze, not after smoking a joint and watching TV.   Does this mean we should get rid of booze because it's a gateway?   No (as we've seen, it doesn't work).   We depend on people to be responsible, and most people are with alcohol.   If they aren't, 

Good luck minimizing and eradicating attitudes towards marijuana, seriously.   I don't know where we will get the "moral ammunition" to tell a guy that he is doing the wrong thing - especially if he is a casual user, works hard, and pays his taxes (know plenty of them).   This is the libertarian in me again, but I think it is the best way to go considering human nature.   There are lots of things that you or I won't like (marijuana, porn, booze, gambling, red meat, McDonalds, Star Trek, the SCA), but it isn't really our prerogative to tell others that they shouldn't be doing it, is it?   As long as it doesn't violate the safety of society, the philosophical intent of legal boundaries,   or general social mores, then it seems to be fair game to me.

Give me a rational argument that shows where we have the right to do so, and I'll gladly consider it.



> I also know that a large amount of the HA's income comes from it. Of course, many will say "legalize it and take it away from the HA'. Well, sure, but most of the dope is not staying in Canada anyhow, and because the US is not about to legalize it, we'd actually be making the overall drug problem in Canada worse. We'd be left with no ability to legally shut down grow-ops whose product is destined for our friends to the south. They sell marijuana to the US, and import other drugs (mainly coke) from the US. By legalizing marijuana, we make it easier for criminals like the HA to import the really deadly drugs, like coke. Decriminalization and especially legalization of marijuana would only strengthen the HA (and other criminal organizations), and allow them to further corrode our society in other ways (like coke dealing, prostitution, extortion, murder, etc), all on the profits of dope running to the US.
> 
> I could care less if some doper wants to toke up in his basement. I DO care if the HA imports more poison to Canada because of the legalization of marijuana.



The problem with the drug industry is that, because it is part of the black market and not the legitimate market, it is hard to know any stats or truth on the matter.   Do we know how many grow ops there are in Canada?   Do we know where most its crops go?   Do we know how much OC controls and how much is just small timers.   Do we know how much of it heads south and how much of it stays here?   I prefer not to make definitive statements on these things, because I have no way of backing it up.   It is clear that we can recognize that their is lots of grow ops (the police make that very clear), that OC has a big hand in producing/moving it and makes alot of money from the marijuana market, and that lots of stuff heads South in cross border drug trade.   That's all I'm really going to accept, because there is no way of knowing if anything else is true or not.

Now, the OC portion of the marijuana industry is a big problem, and I see legalizing it as a way to inhibit it, just as getting rid of prohibition and cleaning up Las Vegas cut the legs from under the Mafia in the US.   My idea around legislation is that:

-   Marijuana, like cigarettes or alcohol, can only be purchased by vendors from certified producers.   You don't see bars selling hooch made in some shit still.   Nobody will want to go to a still illegal street dealer when they can walk into a cafe and get legal, certified quality marijuana over the counter.
-   Production is only permitted under license.   I guess some private licenses would be issued, but who owned them and who they sold it to would be monitored.
-   It is debatable, but I'd imagine that a certain amount should be permitted for growth for personal use.   As long as they're not stealing power and use a proper setup that won't burn the house down, I see no harm in it - sure, they might sell some to their friends, but that's the natural, unregulated blackmarket that will always exist; just like me selling stuff from my garden to my neighbour and not declaring the income.

The way I see it, if you regulate the vendors and the producers, you remove OC from the picture.   The domestic market will mostly move to the legitimate, legal source, leaving few illegal sources for OC to use.   This means there is less bad guys for our Law Enforcement resources to monitor, arrest, and convict.   As well, we can focus strictly on OC moving marijuana South and bringing hard stuff North, now that we don't have to concern ourselves with Joe Blow who wants to enjoy a joint after work.   Now, the United States may have something to say about our drug laws, but this is one instance where I will say "Screw You".   We are a sovereign nation and we can decide on our own what to do within Canada.   Make it clear that taking your marijuana into the States is illegal (just as moving you booze in the 20's was), but within Canada and it is up to us and not them.

The sale of marijuana, like the bootlegging of illegal alcohol during the prohibition, is a business activity.   There is a large market and lots of willing suppliers - the illegality of it makes it so that OC can step in.   Like ending Prohibition, I have no doubt that legalizing marijuana will largely take the OC component out of the domestic marijuana market.   You regulate the suppliers and give the market a legitimate and safe place to go to.   This marginalizes those who continue to function outside of the legitimate market and allows us to dedicate our slim resource base to fighting cross border narcotics-trade (which is the real problem).


----------



## 48Highlander

Caesar said:
			
		

> I prefer to think that despite the current attitude towards marijuana, it's use should be minimized, if not eradicated.



That's the main flaw in your argument.  It's use CAN NOT be eradicated, and at this point can't even be "minimized", since the number of users has been steadily increasing.  It's becoming part of our culture, and no laws are going to change that.  The real issue here is demand.  The only way to lower the number of users is to wage a succesfull propaganda campaign to change peoples attitudes towards weed.  Unfortiunately, the last example of such a campaign is a running joke to todays users - I know several individuals who like to get high and watch the movie "Reefer Madness" for it's comedic value.  Any such propaganda campaign would be highly unlikely to succeed amongst todays users.

So, how exactly would you go about minimizing or eradicating marijuana use?  I'm not seing a viable option here.



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> I do buy into the gateway drug theory, in a limited sense. I also know that a large amount of the HA's income comes from it. Of course, many will say "legalize it and take it away from the HA'. Well, sure, but most of the dope is not staying in Canada anyhow, and because the US is not about to legalize it, we'd actually be making the overall drug problem in Canada worse. We'd be left with no ability to legally shut down grow-ops whose product is destined for our friends to the south.



You have a bit of a point there, however, there are certainly ways to deal with that.  The extra tax revenue generated by taxing marijauana could be pumped into creating better enforcement at our borders.  Fines and prison terms for smuggling drugs could be increased massively.  Better enforcement at the border would result in more seizures of other drugs as well.  And, as has been pointed out, by releasing the police from having to worry about busting grow ops, we'd be able to focus more personnel and resources on busting those who sell "hard" drugs.



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> They sell marijuana to the US, and import other drugs (mainly coke) from the US. By legalizing marijuana, we make it easier for criminals like the HA to import the really deadly drugs, like coke. Decriminalization and especially legalization of marijuana would only strengthen the HA (and other criminal organizations), and allow them to further corrode our society in other ways (like coke dealing, prostitution, extortion, murder, etc), all on the profits of dope running to the US.



I don't see how you figgure that taking away $20+ billion dollars in revenue from the drug industry annualy is going to increase their ability to operate.  Yes, they'll be able to grow it more easily, however our current efforts at stopping growers only creates a small dent in their profit margins anyway.  They still have to get it over the border, which is still the biggest risk/obstacle.

As far as bringing more hard drugs into Canada is concerned, you're assuming an increase in demand as well.  Every market works according to the rules of supply and demand - currently the supply side in Canada isn't having much difficulty, you can buy cocaine, crack, or heroin without much difficulty in any major city.  Importing more hard drugs isn't going to do them much good unless they can generate more demand, and they can't very well go and advertise their product on national television.


----------



## Joe Blow

> we don't have to concern ourselves with Joe Blow who wants to enjoy a joint after work.



Umm.. just for the record Joe Blow doesn't do that.  ;D :blotto:


----------



## sigtech

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, I do think they should lower the age to 18 across Canada.   It seems ridiculous that in one province a guy is not considered mature enough to buy beer, while in the next province he is.   Where do we get the moral authority to say that?   Age limits are arbitrary, and they are really meaningless (especially after being in Europe lots and seeing none).   I think if we do have them and choose to enforce them, they should at least be uniform.
> 
> But that's not the point of the debate, so don't try and derail it.   I'm talking about consenting and (hopefully) responsible adults (wherever we want to set the age - 18, 19, 21) and your concept of the "push".   Do you honestly think that if we legalized marijuana and treated it like alcohol that Canada would see more pot use then we see now?   Judging from who I've seen use it, I can honestly say no.
> 
> I really believe we are fighting a losing battle by treating marijuana as an illicit narcotic.   The justice system is suffering because its widespread use means enforcement resources are wasted on it and Canadian citizens are increasingly seeing it as a farce - guys smoke pot in the streets and everybody turns a blind eye.   I'd rather see us stick to laws that are enforceable and are worth enforcing.



here here on the drinkign age a person can join the Army serve and die for our country but can't have a beer , but that is another point for another thread. 

The pot smoking is a losing battle , we are wasting more money chaseing the growers and sellers down that it is worth, take there power away by leglizing it and watching it carefuly. Tax it and take that tax money and give it to the military to rebuild it and make it strong ( ya like the goverment would do that)


----------



## KevinB

KevinB has a solution to add incentive to reducing growers...  >


----------



## 48Highlander

KevinB said:
			
		

> KevinB has a solution to add incentive to reducing growers...   >



Does it involve you in blue tights and a cape?


----------



## dutchie

KevinB said:
			
		

> KevinB has a solution to add incentive to reducing growers...   >


Let me guess, does it begin with 'double' and end with 'tap'?


----------



## Jungle

Caesar said:
			
		

> Let me guess, does it begin with 'double' and end with 'tap'?


Let me know if you need help...  
Have hardware, will travel !!!  8)


----------



## 1feral1

Humm, I was told that my life experience on this subject promoted nothing bias, so I am steeering clear of this thread, unless someone twists the knife.

You know where I stand. Say no to drugs, and say no to legalisation.

Full stop.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## The Bread Guy

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Military drug test watered down … literally*
CHRIS LAMBIE, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 24 Jan 07
Article Link

Soldiers training to go to Afghanistan who provided diluted urine samples in drug tests last fall were given a second chance to pee in a cup because the military had water bottles on hand during the screening procedure.

Thirty-eight of the 1,436 troops initially tested gave diluted samples, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act. Another 72 soldiers tested positive in September for illicit drugs, including marijuana, cocaine and codeine.

"While the initial intent had been to treat the diluted results (in accordance with) the same (administrative review) process as positive results, it has been determined that bottles of water were provided to members waiting for their testing, thus contributing to the number of diluted samples," Cmdr. Tony Crewe, the military’s director of careers administration, said in an Oct. 20 e-mail to a Defence Department policy adviser.

"To ensure that members who might otherwise have tested negative are not unduly restricted from deploying, it has been decided that these members will be retested. The probability of an illicit drug user testing negative on the second test and thus avoiding the (administrative review) process is seen as low compared to the probability of denying deployment to non-users who had diluted results."

Too much drinking water isn’t the only reason people provide diluted urine samples.

"A diluted result may indicate that an individual has ingested masking agents in an attempt to hide evidence of illicit drug use," say military documents.

"In most cases, these members will be retested."

The bulk of the soldiers heading to Afghanistan next month were tested Sept. 25 and 26 at New Brunswick’s CFB Gagetown.

Retesting those who gave diluted urine samples was scheduled for Oct. 18, more than three weeks later. If a person stopped using drugs, that would be enough time to flush any traces of marijuana, cocaine or codeine from their urine, said Harold Kalant, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto’s pharmacology department.

"The drugs would be out by then — long out," he said Tuesday.

If soldiers who had used drugs suspected they would be tested a second time, they might have been more cautious about using them again until they were safely over the second test, said Mr. Kalant, an international authority on alcohol and drug dependence.

Five admitted to using drugs after their first test results showed their urine was diluted, said Cmdr. Denise Laviolette, chief of public affairs at military personnel.

Four soldiers failed the second test and three provided diluted urine samples again, Cmdr. Laviolette said Tuesday.

Those 12 soldiers will not be heading to Afghanistan.

But the remaining 26 soldiers who gave diluted samples in September passed the second drug test in October.

"Conceivably, then, they were not dirty in the first place or, if they were, they were concerned enough to stay off the drugs until the tests were repeated," Mr. Kalant said.

The delay between the first and second tests was due to the large number of people going through the process, Cmdr. Laviolette said. The military also wanted to surprise soldiers with the second test, she said.

"Is it possible that somebody who was taking illicit drugs ended up being deployed? I can’t say no, because it is possible," Cmdr. Laviolette said. "But we do everything we can to prevent that from happening."

Soldiers could face "surprise testing" once they reach Afghanistan, she said.

"There’s nothing that says they can’t do it in theatre. It would be a little bit of an administrative or logistics nightmare but the commanding officer … has the authority to test folks."

Military documents show the head of the army had wanted soldiers who failed drug tests or provided diluted samples "released quickly to send a message to all that usage of illicit drugs will not be tolerated."

But military administrators advised him not to rush the process. "We have a long-standing practice of attempting to rehabilitate first-time users of soft drugs," Cmdr. Crewe wrote in his Oct. 20 e-mail.

The troops who were tested last fall are slated to be part of Canada’s task force in Afghanistan next month. About 1,160 are based in Atlantic Canada.

Of those who flunked the drug tests last fall, documents show 79 per cent tested positive for marijuana, 11 per cent had cocaine in their systems, five per cent tested positive for codeine, and five per cent had both marijuana and cocaine in their urine.

Of about 2,500 soldiers training to go to Afghanistan for the next six months, a total of 88 tested positive for illicit drug use.

Unless they had a legitimate prescription for codeine, those soldiers, as well as the five who admitted to taking drugs, won’t be making the trip to Afghanistan because they are undergoing an administrative review.

Disciplinary action can range from counselling and probation to release from the Forces.

( clambie@herald.ca)


----------



## Southern Boy

Codeine is found in certain over-the-counter medicines, which a prescription is not required for. In this situation, I would hardly deem the use of codeine as drug abuse. Not to mention, that medically speaking, it is barely worth the effort to get high off of codeine, it won't do much more than make you a little light headed at high doses and make you constipated. I would be more concerned of the ones with coke or oxycodone or in their system, both fairly addictive substances. As well, anyone who had diluted urine, likely has it for a reason: trying to cover something up, why else would you do it? The retests should have been done as soon as the results were back. Letting these pers wait for nearly a month is enough time to clean out the system, enabling a clean result next time.


----------



## niner domestic

Excuse me? Codeine not a problem? Give your head a shake.  It is a highly addictive substance as it is an opiate.  Detox is difficult as unlike drug addictions with just a physical addiction, codeine also has a psychological aspect.  Go google codeine addiction.


----------



## geo

Remember being given bottles and bottles of codein based cough / cold medicine while being a young Pte/Cpl..... You mean it was addictive?

Coulda fooled me!


----------



## Southern Boy

a) Codeine is metabolized into Morphine in vivo. Approx 200mg of Codeine = only 30mg of Morphine. Go ahead, take 200mg of Codeine and see how far you get. (Incidently, Codeine is not avail on its own. It is always mixed with another substance, by law. Therefore you will overdose on the other substance before the effects of the Codeine are realized or even hurt you, ie: Acetaminophen)
b) Codeiene has a 'ceiling effect'.  ie: you hit a certain plateau, no matter how much more you take, you don't get higher.
c) The majority of drugs have a phys & psych addiction, what's your point?
d) Codeine is avail in over the counter preparations, therefore, having it in your system does not mean you are a drug abuser, no more than having Ibuprofen in your system means your a drug addict.


----------



## geo

Whew!


----------



## KevinB

Keep in mind drug testing allows for trace amounts of things to be in your body, the "fail" occures when the %'s are higher than trace.


----------



## Staff Weenie

Good news - as I've been popping the Tylenol 3's for a couple of weeks now - NTF - sometimes it's worth it to pay somebody else to climb that damn ladder and paint......

I wonder if NIS is watching any of the folks who tested positive? I'd also have to wonder about how long somebody could use cocaine without their co-workers noticing something odd in their behaviour.......there's very very few people who can do it as a 'recreational' use without building an addiction.

Geo - don't worry - your liver has probably turned to stone by now. Just watch out for Mr Burns' brain tonic - it's been known to cause gigantism.......


----------



## GAP

> it's been known to cause gigantism.......


  
where?


----------



## Staff Weenie

Sadly, not where it'd matter - old Simpsons reference - Ken Griffey Jr and his massive cranium from Brain Tonic.....


----------



## Jamtorky

Maybe the CF should be asking more questions before the testing .. 

Have you taken any of the following since enrollment in the CF

"insert list of Drugs here"  ...list when and reason why

"insert list of masking agents here "  list when and reason why 


Drug testing is fair game IMHO.. when ever where ever...should happen for every deployment and randomly homeside. 

Don't make it a witch hunt but be proactive.... those doing their job in accordance to the rules have nothing to fear...

To hear it in the news is embarrassing...


----------



## Meridian

Question:

Whats the probability of any of these failures using the testing as a reason not to go?
I recognize that the vast majority of our soldiers are dedicated professionals who volunteer to serve and want to go, but the mind does crazy things when it is scared.

To this end, is there any other testing conducted other than on pre-deployment and enrollment? (I know it can be done, but is it frequently?)


----------



## Sig_Des

Meridian said:
			
		

> Whats the probability of any of these failures using the testing as a reason not to go?



I doubt the probability of that. The fact is that while drugs will get you off the tour, it will also potentially get you booted out of the Forces


----------



## Meridian

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> I doubt the probability of that. The fact is that while drugs will get you of the tour, it will also potentially get you booted out of the Forces



Noted. I would assume dishonourably too, no?


----------



## Sig_Des

Meridian said:
			
		

> Noted. I would assume dishonourably too, no?



Release as Item 1, Misconduct, most likely (b) as a service misconduct


----------



## Southern Boy

To hear it in the news is embarrassing... 

How true.

I have been in for 17 years and have yet to be tested. (Not that they would find anything except Motrin.) I have been on a few tours and was never tested before going overseas. I guess going to a country where the majortiy of the worlds Opium in produced is a little different though; may be a bit tempting for certain addicts. The fact is, you can't trust a drug addict. Watch Intervention on A&E for proof!


----------



## geo

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Release as Item 1, Misconduct, most likely (b) as a service misconduct



Could also be a 5F ... Unsuitable for Further Service. 
Applies to the release of an officer or non-commissioned member who, either wholly or chiefly because of factors within his control, develops personal weakness or behaviour or has domestic or other personal problems that seriously impair his usefulness to or impose an excessive administrative burden on the Canadian Forces.

Most of the things we do to deal with Alcohol & Drug problems are administrative in nature .... therefore not a service misconduct for which the individual has not gone before a service or civilian tribunal (court)

The fella gets caught,  he is placed on C&P, is caught a 2nd time, an Admin Review is done and ..... he's gone bye, bye.


----------



## 1175CMR

Here is my opinion.  Take it for what it is worth.  I have two points:

First, the CF has a zero tolerance drug policy, and always has.  In my 20 years experience I have bee tested twice: once about 12 years ago during a phase of random testing across the CF and just last month as part of Roto 3 testing.  In my opinion, anyone who tests positive, regardless of time in, rank, and experience should be given an automatic release - upon confirmation of a positive result with a second test.  We all know the rules and those who use non-prescription drugs must bear the consequences of their choices and actions.  

The only exception, in my opinion, would be a member who voluntarily came forth and admitted they had a drug problem and requested help.  However, the time to come forth and admit you have a problem is not immediately prior to a drug test or after the fact.  During the period of rehab the member would be suspended from duty until they are rehabilitated then the member can resume his normal duties without penalty.  

My second point is that the results of the drug test that were made public should not really come to surprise anyone.  For years the Canadian public has demanded that the CF be a reflection of our society.  Such reflections include upholding Canadian values, being demographically representative, the list goes on....However, reflections of society also has negative aspects to it as well.  Not too long ago, the former Liberal government was considering to de-criminalize marijuana use.  Our justice system does not lay down strict sentences for those found guilty of drug use.  It is legal in Canada to form a political party whose platform openly celebrates the use of marijuana - and that party gets thousands of votes.  I would suggest that the Canadian public has become more accepting towards drug use and if the CF is to be representative of our society then the results show the negative aspects of our society.  

I would even go further and suggest that because the CF has a zero tolerance policy that the results are lower than what a random sample of the Canadian public who would test positive.  My point here is that the Canadian public cannot demand the CF be held to higher standards than the standards to what the public holds itself to.  The public cannot have it both ways.  

Just my opinion.


----------



## The Bread Guy

1175CMR said:
			
		

> My point here is that the Canadian public cannot demand the CF be held to higher standards than the standards to what the public holds itself to.  The public cannot have it both ways.



If that's the case, do you think the same public would be willing to lower the standards it expects law enforcement officers to meet in this respect as well?  

In both cases (CF & LEOs), we have people with a mandate to protect society (at one level or another), using lethal force if necessary.  If this is the agreed-to general job description, can EITHER of these groups tolerate anything less than zero tolerance for impairment?  Would the public settle for less?


----------



## 1175CMR

Do LEO's get drug tested?  I do not know.  it would be interesting to know what results they come up with..

I agree with the zero tolerance policy and I would have no problems showing anyone of the troops under my command the door if they failed a drug test.  I agree with what you are saying about impairment, in any job.  Is it acceptable for a general labourer, plumber, accountant, city official, or a store clerk to be impaired on the job (or at home)?  Are they not part of society as well?  I know what you are saying about job description but should the public not hold everyone to the same standard?      

Would the public settle for less? The public never does.  However, maybe it is time for the public to look at the direction they are taking regarding drug use.


----------



## GUNS

The (two strike and your out rule) is appropriate for now as this drug testing is in its initial stages of progression.

In the future, when Drug Testing is the rule, then the (one strike and your out rule) should be enforced.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Now, the legal beagles seem worried - shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Forces switched gears on firing soldiers for failed drug tests*
CHRIS LAMBIE, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 25 Jan 07
Article Link

The military decided not to immediately can soldiers who failed drug tests, fearing the move could set them up for a legal battle the Canadian Forces stood to lose.

The head of the army was keen to rush soldiers out the door who either failed drug tests or provided diluted urine samples. Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie wanted to send a message to the troops that the military will not tolerate drug use, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.

"Releasing members without due process will place the (Canadian Forces) in a position of having to fight grievance and/or human rights challenges that we stand to lose," Cmdr. Tony Crewe, the military’s director of careers administration, said in an Oct. 20 e-mail to a Defence Department policy adviser.

"We would then face the possibility of having to reinstate these members at considerable loss of (Canadian Forces) credibility and possibly the ability for the (Canadian Forces) to conduct drug testing in the future."

Any soldiers who failed the drug testing must go through a full administrative review, Cmdr. Crewe stressed in his message, which was checked over by a military lawyer.

"While this may take time and be seen as less of a message to the remainder of the military, it avoids the negative repercussions of releasing members without due process," he said.

Not following the entire administrative review process wouldn’t be fair to individual soldiers, Cmdr. Crewe wrote.

"It will also make us extremely vulnerable to a challenge under the grievance process or before the courts."

That vulnerability stems from "a long-standing pattern of rehabilitation in the military for soft drugs and indeed some hard drugs at times," said defence lawyer David Bright, who regularly handles military cases.

"You can’t just throw somebody out," said Mr. Bright.

"You have to give them a chance to rehabilitate themselves. You have to accommodate them. And to simply turn around and say, ‘We’re throwing you out without due process,’ just isn’t appropriate."

He’s sure the military would lose a challenge if they threw someone out without first going through an administrative review.

"There’s no question about it in my mind," Mr. Bright said.

Losing such a challenge could force the military to hand over drug testing to a third party, the Dartmouth lawyer said. "Or if they screw it up so badly, the human rights tribunal might rule that it’s wrong — they can’t do it," Mr. Bright said. "There are all sorts of potential problems."

The military used to reserve "safety-sensitive drug testing" for people in certain jobs, such as pilots and military cops, said Lt.-Cmdr. Pierre Babinsky, a spokesman for the military’s justice system.

But in November 2005 it was made mandatory for all military personnel heading to dangerous spots like Afghanistan, where Canada is engaged in combat operations.

"We feel we’re well within our rights to protect our people and conduct these drug screenings," Lt.-Cmdr. Babinsky said.

The task force of about 2,500 soldiers heading to Afghanistan next month — 1,160 of which are based in Atlantic Canada — is the first rotation to undergo mandatory drug tests, according to military documents.

In most cases, soldiers who fail a drug test for the first time are allowed to stay in the service on counselling and probation, said Mel Hunt, a British Columbia defence lawyer who specializes in military cases.

"If you started tossing people simply on the basis of one drug test and no other evidence to indicate use, then of course that’s going to be challenged," said the retired colonel.

Mr. Hunt does not believe the military will ever get rid of the mandatory drug testing.

"But I think they were concerned about possibly a legal challenge on abusing it," he said ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

1175CMR said:
			
		

> Do LEO's get drug tested?  I do not know.  it would be interesting to know what results they come up with..


  

Good question.  IMHO, they should be, but couldn't tell you whether they are or not - probably depends on the individual police service.



			
				1175CMR said:
			
		

> I agree with the zero tolerance policy and I would have no problems showing anyone of the troops under my command the door if they failed a drug test.  I agree with what you are saying about impairment, in any job.  Is it acceptable for a general labourer, plumber, accountant, city official, or a store clerk to be impaired on the job (or at home)?  Are they not part of society as well?  I know what you are saying about job description but should the public not hold everyone to the same standard?


   

I think someone would be far less concerned, for the good of society as a whole, about a plumber or general labourer being impaired than a soldier, cop or even city official.  True, bad repairs/building cause problems too, but I think that in positions of general public trust, especially those mandated to use lethal force as a sanction, the bar should be higher.  Fair?  Maybe not, but those getting into these jobs have to know the score going in.  



			
				1175CMR said:
			
		

> maybe it is time for the public to look at the direction they are taking regarding drug use.



Just so I'm clear - are you saying that maybe the public should not be so flippant about legalizing more drugs, or that they should maybe cut the CF and other groups a touch more slack on these?   Thanks for clarifying that one.


----------



## geo

The public can cut us some slack.... but the boys & girls in the CF should not cut the druggie / drug dealers any slack.... though I would be willing to cut them a length of rope if they want to go out and hang themselves with it.

However, I have seen and know some young troopies who did something stupid while they were with friends who were not in the CF..... and they got caught.....  Have had some of em then come back to me & say "but I didn't inhale"........ 

Two strikes and you're out is a fair process.  Those who are on C&P are not deployable - as it should be.


----------



## Cote

I met a friggin shady character while traveling through europe who thought it would be good conversation to tell me how he beat the drug testing in a Moroccon prision. He said drink a bunch of water till you go piss, then after you piss drink 2 L of water and hold it in until you have to pee into a cup - thus giving a dilluted sample.




Edited by Vern to remove swearing. Please watch you language there are minors on this forum.


----------



## tannerthehammer

I'm surprised codeine would be on this list...You can buy Tylenol 1's over the counter if you ask for them and they contain codeine...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hey, one can get caffiene at Tim Hortons................but have too much in your system and one can kiss a gold medal goodbye.


----------



## Southern Boy

There is no real way to dilute a urine sample except to do the ole dip the cup it in the toilet water to mix with the urine. This will actually render the sample useless. Simply drinking lots of water before a test does not work, and in fact may even flush more of the drug into the urine, making it more noticable. I thing what they actually test for is morphine in the urine not codeine per se. Most opiates are metoabolized into morphine in the body, like heroin or codeine.


----------



## youravatar

How many of these soldiers were impaired while in training or on active duty? IMO, They should be put on C&P for soft drugs, but booted for hard.

Cocaine is a helluva drug.


----------



## Cote

Codine is synthasized in the brain to produce morphine. I don't know if it shows up in testing as morphine but Codine it self is not what numbs pain, its after its synthasized.


----------



## GUNS

youravatar said:
			
		

> How many of these soldiers were impaired while in training or on active duty? IMO, They should be put on C&P for soft drugs, but booted for hard.
> 
> Cocaine is a helluva drug.



I believe C&P has started but at a very slow pace. Regardless of what type of drug used, all those found to have tested positive will come under C&P(all tarred with the same brush) so to speak. If someone is found to be a supplier of drugs then that, I believe, falls under a different policy. Though I do not agree with drug use, period. I think that this will be a wake-up call to those who have tried or may have thought of trying drugs. Nothing but good will come from this and the CF will be better for it. Just don't ostracized those who tested positive from the military community just yet. Allow them time to gain back your respect. Every person deserves a second chance.


----------



## geo

Have an example of a young reservist
Enrolled as a reservist, qualified in his trade
graduated from Highschool and went to a grad party
some booze loosened him up when some of his fellow students started passing around a joint.  He wasn't at 100% and he caved... he had a couple of "tokes"... though he claims that it didn't do anything for him

Fun part is that then... 3 yrs later, he applies for a Component transfer

being honest & forthright, he admits to the recruiting officer that he did, 3 yrs before try out Marijuana... Officer being in a position of responsibility reports the claim to the Reservist's superiors who, in turn, follows policy & slaps a C&P on same said reservist.

Reservist does feel he is being penalized for being honest....

In the end, he was allowed to do the CT to the regs.  He starts off his career with the regs with a "strike" against him but, his poor jugement did not destroy his career aspirations.


----------



## Stoker

Personally I think the Forces should adopt mandatory periodic drug testing for all members. If you caught you get a chance to "get clean", get caught again you are out. Get caught trafficking your gone and criminal charges are filed. The amount of persons recently caught using is only the tip of the iceberg. Out West one of the ships had a pretty significant drug problem, with the Coxn getting caught among other members of the crew. Until mandatory testing is implemented, members are going to continue to use with impunity.


----------



## GUNS

Geo,

How easily a soldiers career can hit a pothole. One of the soldiers who tested positive in G'town, mirrors your story.

Going away party, plenty of friends, to much booze, some jerk produces a joint or two and the rest is history.

I spoke to him when he was RTU, he is so down on himself.

The only advice I could offer was to accept his C&P and soldier on.

He intends to complete his C&P and work his arse off to win back his creditability. 

I have all the confidence in the world he will do it, he is that type of soldier.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

1175CMR said:
			
		

> Do LEO's get drug tested?  I do not know.  it would be interesting to know what results they come up with..



I got a whole battery of tests when I got on, and then nothing since.  Depending on when I got tested, I might have trace cannabis or cocaine in my system.  Reason being, you go into a crack house, or deal with some clowns doing their best Cheech and Chong impression with a weeded up car, you are going to injest it.  
They should be testing the failures for concentrations, not just + or - .  Some over the counter or prescribed pharmacuticles are explainable, but there should be no reason for coke, heroin or cannabis to be turning up.  Albeit, if someone had been doing secret squirrel black ops stuff. Doubtful those guys are getting tested.  
Another avenue would be to put them through a polygraph exam.  If they have not consumed illicit drugs, they will pass the exam with no problems.  If they have been being druggies though, they will burn.  That is a test you can't beat.


----------



## battleaxe

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Now, the legal beagles seem worried - shared with the usual disclaimer....
> 
> *Forces switched gears on firing soldiers for failed drug tests*
> CHRIS LAMBIE, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 25 Jan 07
> Article Link
> 
> The military decided not to immediately can soldiers who failed drug tests, fearing the move could set them up for a legal battle the Canadian Forces stood to lose.
> 
> The head of the army was keen to rush soldiers out the door who either failed drug tests or provided diluted urine samples. Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie wanted to send a message to the troops that the military will not tolerate drug use, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.
> 
> "Releasing members without due process will place the (Canadian Forces) in a position of having to fight grievance and/or human rights challenges that we stand to lose," Cmdr. Tony Crewe, the military’s director of careers administration, said in an Oct. 20 e-mail to a Defence Department policy adviser.
> 
> "We would then face the possibility of having to reinstate these members at considerable loss of (Canadian Forces) credibility and possibly the ability for the (Canadian Forces) to conduct drug testing in the future."
> 
> Any soldiers who failed the drug testing must go through a full administrative review, Cmdr. Crewe stressed in his message, which was checked over by a military lawyer.
> 
> "While this may take time and be seen as less of a message to the remainder of the military, it avoids the negative repercussions of releasing members without due process," he said.
> 
> Not following the entire administrative review process wouldn’t be fair to individual soldiers, Cmdr. Crewe wrote.
> 
> "It will also make us extremely vulnerable to a challenge under the grievance process or before the courts."
> 
> That vulnerability stems from "a long-standing pattern of rehabilitation in the military for soft drugs and indeed some hard drugs at times," said defence lawyer David Bright, who regularly handles military cases.
> 
> "You can’t just throw somebody out," said Mr. Bright.
> 
> "You have to give them a chance to rehabilitate themselves. You have to accommodate them. And to simply turn around and say, ‘We’re throwing you out without due process,’ just isn’t appropriate."
> 
> He’s sure the military would lose a challenge if they threw someone out without first going through an administrative review.
> 
> "There’s no question about it in my mind," Mr. Bright said.
> 
> Losing such a challenge could force the military to hand over drug testing to a third party, the Dartmouth lawyer said. "Or if they screw it up so badly, the human rights tribunal might rule that it’s wrong — they can’t do it," Mr. Bright said. "There are all sorts of potential problems."
> 
> The military used to reserve "safety-sensitive drug testing" for people in certain jobs, such as pilots and military cops, said Lt.-Cmdr. Pierre Babinsky, a spokesman for the military’s justice system.
> 
> But in November 2005 it was made mandatory for all military personnel heading to dangerous spots like Afghanistan, where Canada is engaged in combat operations.
> 
> "We feel we’re well within our rights to protect our people and conduct these drug screenings," Lt.-Cmdr. Babinsky said.
> 
> The task force of about 2,500 soldiers heading to Afghanistan next month — 1,160 of which are based in Atlantic Canada — is the first rotation to undergo mandatory drug tests, according to military documents.
> 
> In most cases, soldiers who fail a drug test for the first time are allowed to stay in the service on counselling and probation, said Mel Hunt, a British Columbia defence lawyer who specializes in military cases.
> 
> "If you started tossing people simply on the basis of one drug test and no other evidence to indicate use, then of course that’s going to be challenged," said the retired colonel.
> 
> Mr. Hunt does not believe the military will ever get rid of the mandatory drug testing.
> 
> "But I think they were concerned about possibly a legal challenge on abusing it," he said ....



I haven't seen anyone mention this- the Canadian Human Rights policy on alcohol and drug testing- but it might give some insight as to why legal is so jumpy and cautious on this issue.  
Addiction is legally considered a disability...and is subject to the same consideration and due process as all other disabilities.

Link: http://www.caw.ca/whatwedo/substanceabuse/pdf/CHRCPolicyonAlcoholDrugTesting.pdf.


----------



## tannerthehammer

Stoker said:
			
		

> Personally I think the Forces should adopt mandatory periodic drug testing for all members. If you caught you get a chance to "get clean", get caught again you are out. Get caught trafficking your gone and criminal charges are filed. The amount of persons recently caught using is only the tip of the iceberg. Out West one of the ships had a pretty significant drug problem, with the Coxn getting caught among other members of the crew. Until mandatory testing is implemented, members are going to continue to use with impunity.



I agree with you 100%...There has to be mandatory random timing drug testing in both the reserves and reg force...People aren't getting the point...I don't want to serve with anyone who takes illicit drugs...


----------



## niner domestic

Battleaxe: That was discussed in the first drug testing thread. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52021.165.html

There is a very large demarcation between a section 15 charter right of disability and failing a piss test not to mention a very slippery slope for both parties in the parameters of the CF to argue whether one has a qualified addiction disability (thereby an admission of previous and continued drug use which contravenes the NDA and the other side of having to demonstrate a BFOQ or BFOR to be drug free or a safety sensitive requirement in order to deal with the discipline aspect of such use).   As the other thread demonstrates, one can surmise and ponder the ramifications of such a challenge in a CF context but until it plays out in a court, it is IMO, an exercise for law students or a good hypothetical question for a law exam.


----------



## battleaxe

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Battleaxe: That was discussed in the first drug testing thread. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52021.165.html
> 
> There is a very large demarcation between a section 15 charter right of disability and failing a piss test not to mention a very slippery slope for both parties in the parameters of the CF to argue whether one has a qualified addiction disability (thereby an admission of previous and continued drug use which contravenes the NDA and the other side of having to demonstrate a BFOQ or BFOR to be drug free or a safety sensitive requirement in order to deal with the discipline aspect of such use).   As the other thread demonstrates, one can surmise and ponder the ramifications of such a challenge in a CF context but until it plays out in a court, it is IMO, an exercise for law students or a good hypothetical question for a law exam.



Sorry about the repeat...I missed it.  Thanks for pointing it out and the link.  
I was just trying to give insight into why they are being careful with this one.


----------



## Echo9

Just to stir things up a bit, how much does it change if the drugs in question are steroids?  

Discuss.


----------



## Stoker

Echo9 said:
			
		

> Just to stir things up a bit, how much does it change if the drugs in question are steroids?
> 
> Discuss.



First get his head checked for using them and then charge him for "self inflicted wound".


----------



## niner domestic

Define steroids. Technically a women, (or man) using hormonal replacement therapy is using (sex) steroids.


----------



## armyvern

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Define steroids. Technically a women, (or man) using hormonal replacement therapy is using (sex) steroids.



In the CF context, those you've listed above would be prescribed by a medical authority and thus would not fall under the auspices of "misuse."

I think we all know what the poster below meant, and unprescribed items versus those that have been  prescribed has already been covered regardless of whether or not we are talking steroids, codeine, horomones etc. We can run this around in circles all day using examples like horomones. 

In short, not prescribed? Then you are at risk of falling within the "misuse" category.


----------



## Trooper Hale

Its the arse and its the arse fast if you fail. You fail your first test here and your gone. There might be chance you could say you were experimenting or were pressured but unless your a real young bloke and your story checks out then your out on your ear. Just because someone uses doesnt make them bad but it does spit on the rules that you serve under and it makes it tough to be trusted. I've seen the effects of cocaine or speed on people, they take it saturday and by Wednesday they'r a complete mess. It doesnt lead to safe and happy work environment.
I know Canada has a very high incidence of drug use (Vancouver anyone?) but the forces should be above that. People caught using need to get the arse and get discharged, not with some pissy misconduct but with a proper dishonourable discharge.

Hugs Not drugs man 8)


----------



## medicineman

Steroids by definition are hormones and there are various categories of them.  Oddly enough, there are steroids that you can buy over the counter that don't contravene the Controlled Drug and Substances Act  - simple 0.5% hydrocortisone, a corticosteroid, is an example, and, like any other medication, if used improperly can cause side effect issues.  Back on track though - unless the person has a prescription for their testosterone or DHEA (as examples), they and the person that sold it to them are in contravention of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act - plain and simple (Schedule IV substances for those who care).  As that is illegal in Canada, it is therefore illegal in the CF.  The other reason anabolic steroids (ie testosterone and it's relatives) are on the list of no go agents in the CF is because of the side effects that result from their improper use - roid rage can turn to abject psychosis and therefore harm  the member and or others around him/her and therefore we lose that person and potentially others; liver or kidney failure that can cause us to lose the soldier for a long time if not forever; depression which can lead to suicide or loss of use of the soldier; the list goes on.  Case in point - there was a guy in my recruit class in 1988 that got tossed during week 2 when the results of his medical came back - his kidneys were in bad shape simply because of all the juice he was using (I swear he had muscles on his piss he was that big).  The fact you can buy some of this stuff in alleged nutrition stores is beside the point - it's up to the drug enforcement guys to deal with that and they have their hands full as it is.  I don't want to get into the other stuff they sell which may or may not be what is claimed to be on the label (legislation is supposedly forthcoming in that regard).

Take home message is this - if you weren't prescribed it and something comes up on a drug screen, you'd better have your ducks in a row and hope that there are more of them than shells in the shotgun.  If you feel the need to take over the counter meds, go to the base pharmacy so it can be documented that you got it from them.  If you are involved in high calibre sports (CIAU, CISM, etc), get a hold of the go/no go lists from your particular organisation and learn all the generic names and the "natural" agents that have those or similar substances in them - and talk to a pharmacist with the list in hand.  And as a final note/opinion -for those that feel their rights are being infringed upon regarding CF drug policies, just remember, you weren't conscripted  .

Cheers.

MM


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Also bear in mind that being in possesion of a scheduled substance is a criminal offence, so that has obvious repercussions.


----------



## battleaxe

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Battleaxe: That was discussed in the first drug testing thread. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52021.165.html
> 
> There is a very large demarcation between a section 15 charter right of disability and failing a piss test not to mention a very slippery slope for both parties in the parameters of the CF to argue whether one has a qualified addiction disability (thereby an admission of previous and continued drug use which contravenes the NDA and the other side of having to demonstrate a BFOQ or BFOR to be drug free or a safety sensitive requirement in order to deal with the discipline aspect of such use).   As the other thread demonstrates, one can surmise and ponder the ramifications of such a challenge in a CF context but until it plays out in a court, it is IMO, an exercise for law students or a good hypothetical question for a law exam.



niner domestic,

Before I go further, please know that I am not advocating for accommodation of all people who fail drug tests-I think people should be held accountable for their actions much more often than they actually are in this society of ours-irregardless of the cause for those actions.

In responding to milnewstbay's comment that the legal beagles seem worried about this issue, I was simply attempting to establish why they have cause to be worried.  They have to be careful on this one, IMO.

The connection between employment equity/disability and failing a drug test has been established.  The challenge has been played out in court (albeit, so far as I can tell, and as you say,not yet in a CF context).

This case, however, http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=502&lg=_e&isruling=0- Milazzo vs. Autocar, has all the same aspects of a potential CF case:

The employers had a zero tolerance policy in place, there was a last chance clause in the employment contract (ie - employees signed a contract stating they knew they would be fired for positive drug tests/drug use), and the employee who claimed discrimination worked in a  safety sensitive position (bus driver).

Many of these points would be applied to a CF case.

The guy failed a pee test, Autocar fired him, he challenged it, and although he eventually was fired, the company got raked over the coals for being discriminatory and still had to implement changes to its testing policy and were told, basically, that a zero tolerance policy was unacceptable.

I'm no great legal mind, (you seem much more learned in these things), but that's how it reads to me.  Correct me, please, if I've gone astray.

The sticky point in this is whether or not the drug use is recreational (fire him) or an addiction/disability (accommodate him).  The guy in this case denied he had a drug problem- therefore he was fired.

What seems like a very black and white situation is not so clear cut anymore,  and it seems that HRC has made it hard for employers to implement quick and decisive disciplinary action-which is what one would expect in the military- and what many do expect, if some of the responses in this and other drug testing threads are anything to go by.

Can you help me in understanding this one?- this order http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-2002-420///en?page=1- does this make CF personnel eligible for the same employment equity consideration as all other Canadians?  ie could the ruling on the Milazzo case and others be used in defense of CF members caught using drugs? And is it cases like these that have the legal services in the CF hanging back, being careful, and claiming that we can't be so quick on making employment decisions on soldiers who test for drug use?


----------



## armyvern

My personal thoughts on the matter:

I was sworn in to serve in Her Majesty's Canadian Forces as a _volunteer_, first & foremost, and swore to lay down my life, if necessary, in the performance of that service and to obey during that service those Queens Regulations & Orders.

I volunteered to do that. I swore to that. 

So did everyone else who _chose_ to _disobey_ those very QR&Os they *voluntarily swore to obey*.

Any civilian companies out there require the same thing from their '_employees_?'

I can't seem to think of a single one. We are not a civilian company. These guys volunteered that oath, voluntarily broke that oath, and have now got caught. Sorry, I don't feel the least bit sorry for them.

They made their own bed...why would we try to make someone else guilty of making it? Let them lie there themselves. Personal accountability for one's actions...they have displayed none, which happens to be a critical factor in a successful leader in any military.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

battleaxe said:
			
		

> niner domestic,
> The sticky point in this is whether or not the drug use is recreational (fire him) or an addiction/disability (accommodate him).  The guy in this case denied he had a drug problem- therefore he was fired.



All drug addicts deny they have a problem.  Try to have a conversation with a crack head some time.  It is pathetic.  I have had addicts swear on their children's lives that they had no drugs on their person.  That generally proves it in my mind that they actually do.  Most times, they don't have children.  
People have to get past this idea that drug use is harmless until someone is a useless bag living on the street.  



			
				battleaxe said:
			
		

> What seems like a very black and white situation is not so clear cut anymore,  and it seems that HRC has made it hard for employers to implement quick and decisive disciplinary action-which is what one would expect in the military- and what many do expect, if some of the responses in this and other drug testing threads are anything to go by.



And that is what is wrong with this country.  It still is a black and white issue.  It's just the socialists decided that it needed to be complicated.  It would be one thing if all of a sudden a company changed its policy.  But if you sign a contract, that should be final.  This is the same sort of BS thinking that sees people who host a party getting sued for some jackass who gets lit up and then gets in a drunk driving accident.  Personal accountability is dead.



			
				battleaxe said:
			
		

> Can you help me in understanding this one?- this order http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-2002-420///en?page=1- does this make CF personnel eligible for the same employment equity consideration as all other Canadians?  ie could the ruling on the Milazzo case and others be used in defense of CF members caught using drugs? And is it cases like these that have the legal services in the CF hanging back, being careful, and claiming that we can't be so quick on making employment decisions on soldiers who test for drug use?



CF members are subject to an entirely different set of laws that others aren't.  Being in the CF means that you sign off some of your rights under the charter.


----------



## battleaxe

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> CF members are subject to an entirely different set of laws that others aren't.  Being in the CF means that you sign off some of your rights under the charter.



I'm with you on the personal accountability, zipperhead.  I think the legal waters are being muddied to the point that employers are often paralyzed into inaction for fear of being sued because these issues are over analyzed and abused.

People sign an agreement, they blow it, they get fired.  That works for me.  

If you look at the Milazzo case from the above post, and others, however, it seems that the validity of such agreements- oaths/contracts-are being called into question because people with disabilities cannot be held accountable (not my opinion) to fulfill those oaths or contracts.

And yes, the CF has many different standards that other employees don't have to meet, but I think employment equity has to be addressed in this instance.  I offered a link- http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cr/SOR-2002-420///en- to an order that states that the CF is to be considered a public sector employer for the purposes of Employment Equity.  If anyone has some clarification as to what the ramifications are on this order, I'd be glad to learn from them...but it seems to me that that it probably has something to do with the concerns about Human Rights cases that were mentioned in the article in post #21. I also fear I may be interpreting it wrong, but to me it means that one of the rights that CF personnel do not sign off on is employment equity.

I would embrace a return to clarity in the world- some of the laws and situations that arise today just don't seem to be based in common sense and fairness.  The fact remains, though, that the rules and legal precedents are there.  Realistically, and no matter how frustrating they seem, they will, IMO, need to be taken into consideration in discussions such as this, will play a big role in how CF drug testing will be handled in the future, and will determine how the cases of soldiers who fail drug tests will be handled in the here and now.

Just my thoughts, feel free to set me straight if you have a better legal grasp on this situation,

Bren


----------



## zipperhead_cop

battleaxe said:
			
		

> If you look at the Milazzo case from the above post, and others, however, it seems that the validity of such agreements- oaths/contracts-are being called into question because people with disabilities cannot be held accountable (not my opinion) to fulfill those oaths or contracts.



Addiction is not a disability.  It may be considered a medical condition, but it is a self inflicted one.  If this is going to be foisted on employers, don't be surprised when employers start requiring drug testing before making an offer of employment.  
Also bear in mind, if a persons drug use wasn't causing a problem in the work place then an employer would not know they were doing drugs.  
As for any extended knowledge of labour laws, I have none.  Hopefully some of the others who are well versed on this topic can help out.


----------



## tannerthehammer

It may not be a disability but alcoholism is a disease.  That is a medical fact.




			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Addiction is not a disability.  It may be considered a medical condition, but it is a self inflicted one.  If this is going to be foisted on employers, don't be surprised when employers start requiring drug testing before making an offer of employment.
> Also bear in mind, if a persons drug use wasn't causing a problem in the work place then an employer would not know they were doing drugs.
> As for any extended knowledge of labour laws, I have none.  Hopefully some of the others who are well versed on this topic can help out.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> It may not be a disability but alcoholism is a disease.  That is a medical fact.



That isn't in dispute.  Drug use is in question here, not alcohol usage.  But there will be people who will argue that drug addiction is also a disease, and that may be the case as well.  
But if you were to contract gonorrhea and didn't treat it, then didn't deploy because of your lack of seeking treatment, would there be any implications of failing to perform your job as a result of a self inflicted condition?  
Non-involved people need to stop making excuses for other peoples lack of self control.  If there is any walk of life where an individual would be expected to conduct themselves with self discipline and have a high degree of personal accountability, surely it would be the CF?  Plus, the way the cannabis activists would have you believe, it is harmless, non-addictive and better for you than alcohol.  
So what is it?  A harmless recreational substance and therefore should be easy to avoid and thus a person would be held to full accounting for using?  Or is it a debilitating, addictive substance that creates a medical condition that renders one helpless to resist, thus making a soldier unfit for duty?  
Can't have your IMP and eat it too.


----------



## tannerthehammer

Well in order to seek treatment for Gonorhrea you would have to know you have it.  Some people may not know that they have addictions and hence don't feel they need to seek treatment for it.  

Yes, we still need to hold people accountable for their actions but I think we should more so address the "why" they used the drugs instead of "you did drugs and now you will be punished".  If you look at the Canadian courts and law the goal is to rehabilitate not incarcerate.

Furthermore, there may be a psycological reason why they are using drugs and with some treatment they could get off the drugs.  There is no doubt in my mind that people in the CF in situations like this slip through the recruiting cracks.

After all we are a kinder and gentler army now  



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> That isn't in dispute.  Drug use is in question here, not alcohol usage.  But there will be people who will argue that drug addiction is also a disease, and that may be the case as well.
> But if you were to contract gonorrhea and didn't treat it, then didn't deploy because of your lack of seeking treatment, would there be any implications of failing to perform your job as a result of a self inflicted condition?
> Non-involved people need to stop making excuses for other peoples lack of self control.  If there is any walk of life where an individual would be expected to conduct themselves with self discipline and have a high degree of personal accountability, surely it would be the CF?  Plus, the way the cannabis activists would have you believe, it is harmless, non-addictive and better for you than alcohol.
> So what is it?  A harmless recreational substance and therefore should be easy to avoid and thus a person would be held to full accounting for using?  Or is it a debilitating, addictive substance that creates a medical condition that renders one helpless to resist, thus making a soldier unfit for duty?
> Can't have your IMP and eat it too.


----------



## aesop081

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> If you look at the Canadian courts and law the goal is to rehabilitate not incarcerate.



.....and how's that working out for us ?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> Well in order to seek treatment for Gonorhrea you would have to know you have it.



I think it tends to be one of those things that holds your attention.



			
				tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> Some people may not know that they have addictions and hence don't feel they need to seek treatment for it.



Are you under the impression that there are people who can roll joints and smoke drugs in their sleep?  It is a fairly deliberate act.  Besides, addiction isn't the issue here.  USAGE is what is unlawful.  



			
				tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> Yes, we still need to hold people accountable for their actions but I think we should more so address the "why" they used the drugs instead of "you did drugs and now you will be punished".



Why?  The simple answer is "why not?".  Since nobody has to answer for anything anymore, and nobody has to be held accountable for their actions, why not just do any GD thing you want and then blame it on something else?  If people had any concern for any valid punishment, then they would either choose not to jeopardize themselves, or they would fully expect the known penalty that comes from said violation.  



			
				tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> If you look at the Canadian courts and law the goal is to rehabilitate not incarcerate.



Yeah.  That is why the legal system is a pathetic donkey show which ENCOURAGES criminality.  



			
				tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> Furthermore, there may be a psycological reason why they are using drugs and with some treatment they could get off the drugs.  There is no doubt in my mind that people in the CF in situations like this slip through the recruiting cracks.



Why in Gods name would we want to be recruiting drug addicts?  I think everyone will be pretty okay with that being an untapped population base.  



			
				tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> After all we are a kinder and gentler army now



You say that like it is a good thing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Seems even the sandal-wearing, pee-masking set is wrestling with moral issues these days on this one  :

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Too high to fight?*
I usually offer to help soldiers fail drug tests - not pass them
MATT MERNAGH, Now Magazine, 15-21 Mar 07
Article link

I got some weird and crazy e-mail recently. Among the updates from war resisters groups and pot legalizers was a letter from the wife of a Canadian Forces soldier. The distraught woman was writing to ask my advice because her husband had failed his urine test and was being prevented from deploying to Afghanistan.

Talk about a moral dilemma. Oddly, just this month, writing for Cannabis Culture, I urged service personnel not wanting to wage war to get stoned and flunk the Department of National Defence's recently resumed pee test. If any CF soldier doesn't want to deploy, I'm offering to puff pot in their face all day or send them peace cookies. No reason to go AWOL.

So here I was being asked to help a soldier convince his superiors to retest him so he could deploy. I have no clout at DND, of course. However, it turns out that my anonymous soldier is one of 89 service personnel who popped positive out of the 2,276 tested before leaving for Afghanistan.

Two soldiers have been fired, three were able to show they had a narcotic prescription and five more were sent to counselling. There are 79 more administrative reviews to go.

According to Commander Denise Laviolette, the military has a very hard line on THC showing up in a soldier's urine. The thinking, she says, is that "You could've come for help before we caught you. There's personal responsibility. There's no second chance."

Odd, because I'd just read a DND directive emphasizing retention and rehabilitation for test flunkers, not dismissal. It reads, "A CF member shall normally be retained and placed on Counselling and Probation."

Laviolette bristles when I try to quote her the policy. That's until she looks up the directive herself and agrees that the criteria allow for grunts to defend themselves by arguing it's their first offence, the intake didn't happen on duty, it didn't impair operations and they're unlikely to reoffend.

Pee tests were reinstated in May, Laviolette says, because an increase in Taliban activity had General Rick Hillier wanting to ensure that everyone is shooting straight as an arrow. The decision, she says, "has nothing to do" with the kind of crops that fuel the Afghani economy. Or the report, carried on BBC a few months back of Canuck forces battling 10-foot-tall marijuana forest hiding insurgents.

When interviewed by the media, Hillier admitted at least one crew used cannabis to camouflage their vehicle. All efforts to down the indica thicket using white phosphorus and diesel fuel bombardment failed, he said. But when a small patch did ignite there were other problems: a section of soldiers downwind had "some ill effects.''

The United Nations Office of Drug Control estimates the Afghan cannabis crop at 30,000 acres, one-third of the world supply. The resinous strain packs that classic skunk smell and would be a terrible reefer toke, but it's pressed into hashish and transported to world markets. You can come across it in Toronto.

Are soldiers retested to make sure they're straight once they've settled into Kandahar? I can't help querying. "Where would they get the drugs from? In the mail?" Laviolette asks.

"The soldiers are in an enclosed environment. They're not even allowed to drink alcohol except for two beers on Christmas Day,'' minister of defence spokesperson Isabel Bouchard reassures. "The military always needs to be ready. This is Canada, we respect the Afghan way of life and are their invited guests," she says.

Interesting, because a little reefer recreation is great for treating post-traumatic stress trauma that can take place when the party hosts start shooting at the invited guests as an impolite way of asking them to leave now, please.
**


----------



## harry8422

i find the last paragraph humorous


----------



## Bartok5

Perhaps not in keeping with the direction that this particular thread has gone, but I thought that you might find it interesting that we are now (on my urging) also testing our designated Op Reserve pers.  Based on the rather disappointing results of the "D-1" tests for TF 1-07 which resulted in a couple of recently deployed folks coming home after a week in theatre, I thought it only prudent that those "in the hopper" also be tested so as to avoid another "deployed one day, back the next" debacle.  The fact of the matter is that those designated "Op Res" on 7 days notice to move need to be tested - whether they eventually deploy or not.  

D-1 testing is all well and good, and serves a purpose in catching those who figure "I've made it throught the testing, so let's have a final hurrah".  But when the contracted lab can't provide test results in less than two weeks?  Well, then we need to rethink the process.  Having people deploy into theatre, only to be RTU a week later with associated activation of the Op Reserve is much less than efficient.   Indeed, it causes serious gyrations at multiple levels. 

Just say'in.....


----------



## geo

TF 3/07 did their own testing in the last month....
As anyone would expect, a couple of hickups where you least expect it BUT, at least it was addressed some 7 months before deployment......


----------



## orange.paint

geo said:
			
		

> TF 3/07 did their own testing in the last month....
> As anyone would expect, a couple of hickups where you least expect it BUT, at least it was addressed some 7 months before deployment......



Thats a huge problem in my opinion as well.Soldiers use to know they would NEVER be tested,unless the SSM seen you smoking a joint on a friday.Now all soldiers know 1 month prior to work up training,stop using.Once they come home on HLTA,and home for good they can start up again.

Random drug testing isnt so random anymore.

Those that got caught,kind of makes me wonder if they wanted to get off tour.....easy quick way off for those garrision soldiers.......


----------



## GUNS

There may not be a need to send all urine samples to a lab for testing and wait two weeks in the process.

If to surf the net, there are plenty of companies that sell "THC Marijuana Cannabis Dip Strip Drug Urine Test Kits". ($4.00-$20.00US)

From the details of the various kits available it only takes two to ten minutes for a result.

If these kits are available and are considered reliable, why have they not been used.

If there results are not acceptable in a court of law then they can be used to determind what samples to send to the lab.


----------



## KevinB

Some companies also have mobile testing teams - that show up lock, stock and barrel and conduct testing on site.

I still think they shoudl test 10% of the CF radomly on a weekly basis.  Slack off a little in a few years when usage decreases.


----------



## geo

GUNS said:
			
		

> There may not be a need to send all urine samples to a lab for testing and wait two weeks in the process.
> 
> If to surf the net, there are plenty of companies that sell "THC Marijuana Cannabis Dip Strip Drug Urine Test Kits". ($4.00-$20.00US)
> 
> From the details of the various kits available it only takes two to ten minutes for a result.
> 
> If these kits are available and are considered reliable, why have they not been used.
> 
> If there results are not acceptable in a court of law then they can be used to determind what samples to send to the lab.


sending the tests out ensures that there is no apparent bias.


----------



## GUNS

"Bias" would be a moot point if the test strips were controlled in the same manner as TF-107.

The test strips would lessen the number of samples going to the lab, which would allow planning to continue, as to waiting for results.

Another point is, this is a mechanism that enables the CF to carry out random testing, anywhere, at anytime.

Imagine the effect these Test Strips would have on the CF as a whole. 

Think of this as " Preventive Medicine"


----------



## orange.paint

Here's a thought.I'm sitting here drinking dayquil loaded down with ephedrine.Now it was not prescribed my military doctors(as I refuse to go to them for anything) so If I pee'd in a cup would I fail for using a stimulant?As the army has no record of me being prescribed a substance for flu like symptoms?


Just a thought.

I remember someone telling me about getting tested in the early 90's and they had a portable truck which rolled around base to base.Who owned this truck?And why could the military not acquire the equipment necessary to complete all testing internally?Would it maybe be cheaper?


----------



## KevinB

EXRCAC -- unless your freebasing the Dayquill -- the amount of ephi in it wont be enough to fail -- you will have trace amounts.


----------



## TCBF

An interesting letter in the Ed J a few days back: A fellow (perhaps a Soldier?) wrote that since he had to PASS a urine test to keep his job to pay his taxes, could he not insist that his tax dollars be spent only on others who ALSO have to pass urine tests?

Makes ya think.


----------



## Sassy

TCBF said:
			
		

> An interesting letter in the Ed J a few days back: A fellow (perhaps a Soldier?) wrote that since he had to PASS a urine test to keep his job to pay his taxes, could he not insist that his tax dollars be spent only on others who ALSO have to pass urine tests?
> 
> Makes ya think.



He makes a valid point, we could start with Politicians and work our way down the Federal Civil Service chain.  It would clarify why some civil servants seem void of intellect. Opps did I say that out loud.


----------



## FrenchAffair

Personally I feel that the policy towards “soft” drugs is illogical. Now obviously nothing is going to change in the military as long as marijuana is still “de-criminalized” but illegal non the less by the Canadian government. How ever current trends and logic would indicate that soon marijuana will be legal for personal use in Canada. I hope that the military follows suit, it seems illogical that drugs such as Alcohol and Tobacco are tolerated by the military, these two substances combined cause more deaths than cancer and aids combined in Canada. Yet marijuana, who has never killed anyone (it is physically impossible) remains illegal. Obviously being “high” well on duty should be treated no different than being drunk, as it stands it (to me) does not make sense that personal and private use of marijuana be held on the same level as use of cocaine, heroin or other hard and addictive drugs. Considering the fact that marijuana has no addictive qualities, no lasting effects upon people and really no “negative” effects. Really Marijuana is far more healthy than alcohol and especially tobacco. 

 I think as it stands today the military should treat those caught with marijuana in their system much less severely than those with hard drugs (unless they are caught “high” on duty), and I think the military should be fully prepared to follow suit of the Canadian Government when they remove marijuana from the list of “illicit drugs”.


----------



## geo

Frenchtoast....
you get marijuana & hash cleared as a legal drug in Canada - then come and talk to us.
At present they and other drugs are illegal and the CF will continue to do what it has been doing up till now.

A guy who is drunk is falling down drunk or a loud drunk - we know who he is and we know we can't count on him. A guy who is on grass or hash (or others) may appear to be normal - but he isn't.... and I want to trust the people in whose hands I put the lives of my section (myself included).

BTW - KAF is dry - so no booze while in theatre.


----------



## FrenchAffair

geo said:
			
		

> Frenchtoast....
> you get marijuana & hash cleared as a legal drug in Canada - then come and talk to us.
> At present they and other drugs are illegal and the CF will continue to do what it has been doing up till now.



I believe that it should and will happen in Canada with in the next few years. Our nation has been heading in that direction for the last 20 years. Like I said, obviously there will be no changes in the military law in till civil law makes the first move. 

I, like the growing majority of Canadians believe that it should be legal for private use and given this is a democratic society it seems only a matter of time in till our government recognizes that change in social attitude.  





			
				geo said:
			
		

> A guy who is drunk is falling down drunk or a loud drunk - we know who he is and we know we can't count on him. A guy who is on grass or hash (or others) may appear to be normal - but he isn't.... and I want to trust the people in whose hands I put the lives of my section (myself included).
> 
> BTW - KAF is dry - so no booze while in theatre.



You are making the assumption that everyone who is intoxicated behaves in the same “stereotypical” drunk behavior. 

 Not all people react, or even act the same when they are drunk. There are a large amount of people who can be drunk, but in most aspects appear normal (Functional alcoholics….). Saying that every person who is drunk will be falling down or loud is completely false.     

 But that being said, if “appearing normal” is you’re only rational as to why marijuana should remain illegal I have to say that is about as illogical as it being illegal in the first place. Obviously being under the influence of any inhibiting substance should be illegal and treated the same in the military. But private use on their own time has absolutely no effect on their ability to do their job. It only stands to deprive us of our freedoms and rights, to maintain that personal use be punished.


----------



## geo

Until you can flesh out your profile a little bit, I have no idea about who you are and who I am talking to..............please do so before we go any further...

Thank you


----------



## FrenchAffair

Who I am really shouldn’t be at issue here. The issues we are speaking about are not subjective. But I’m a under 25 university student from eastern Ontario if demographics is something you wish to be informed about. 

 I truly suggest that you invest some time in reading, even briefly, some of the countless accredited medical and social studies done on the issue. You might be surprised to learn that most, if not all the common “accusations” pointed towards marijuana use are myths. 

 How ever, I feel this is not the place for such a debate, though I am always more willing to discuss this issue in a more appropriate time. 

 For the time being, for right or wrong, marijuana is illegal in both our civilian and military society, so really we will have to wait for that to change before the issues extending from it’s use are really practical to discuss in terms of this situation.


----------



## Pte_Martin

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I believe that it should and will happen in Canada with in the next few years. Our nation has been heading in that direction for the last 20 years. Like I said, obviously there will be no changes in the military law in till civil law makes the first move.
> 
> I, like the growing majority of Canadians believe that it should be legal for private use and given this is a democratic society it seems only a matter of time in till our government recognizes that change in social attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> You are making the assumption that everyone who is intoxicated behaves in the same “stereotypical” drunk behavior.
> 
> Not all people react, or even act the same when they are drunk. There are a large amount of people who can be drunk, but in most aspects appear normal (Functional alcoholics….). Saying that every person who is drunk will be falling down or loud is completely false.
> 
> But that being said, if “appearing normal” is you’re only rational as to why marijuana should remain illegal I have to say that is about as illogical as it being illegal in the first place. Obviously being under the influence of any inhibiting substance should be illegal and treated the same in the military. *But private use on their own time has absolutely no effect on their ability to do their job. It only stands to deprive us of our freedoms and rights, to maintain that personal use be punished. *



Until they get addicted to theses drugs and go overseas IE) A-Stan were there are easy acessable drugs and start doing them there. For me i want the guy fighting beside me clean and drug free even if it's legal or not


----------



## FrenchAffair

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> Until they get addicted to theses drugs and go overseas IE) A-Stan were there are easy acessable drugs and start doing them there. For me i want the guy fighting beside me clean and drug free even if it's legal or not



I agree completely, how ever there are no addictive qualities in marijuana.


----------



## TCBF

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I agree completely, how ever there are no addictive qualities in marijuana.



- You must have missed Margaret Trudeau blaming marijuana for her mental illness.  Only reason it didn't get much press is that most of our editors are still tokeheads.


----------



## FrenchAffair

TCBF said:
			
		

> - You must have missed Margaret Trudeau blaming marijuana for her mental illness.  Only reason it didn't get much press is that most of our editors are still tokeheads.



She never blamed it for her mental illness. She suffers from bipolar disorder, she has stated that heavy use of it made her sink deeper into depression. It is common for suffers of bipolar disorder to self medicate with alcohol and drugs and it is no secret that the use of these on people suffering from this pre-dating condition is not a good combination. 

 But what does this statement by Margaret Trudeau have to do with the fact that marijuana is not addictive.


----------



## orange.paint

Ok I'm proably going to pee in a bottle for saying this.However I can guarentee you I'll get 100% on that test.

In my OPINION marajuana isnt a harmful substance no more that beer/rum etc.However it is illegal.You are buying it from mafias,cartels,etc and funding illegal activity.

It is not addictive.But it's illegal.Everyone makes their own choices on weither they use or not.They weigh the risks to themselves and their families.Personally I will not do it because this job is too important to keeping my wife and kids under a roof and fed.I couldnt deal with the shame of going home to Newfoundland and facing everyone who will know I was kicked out of the army for drug use.Thats why I wouldnt use.Not the fact that I "may" get caught,but the fact of what It would do to myself and my family.Also losing the trust of my peers is not worth it.

It's your choice to use or not.Its the armys policy to punish those who are caught.YOU choose YOUR path.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I agree completely, how ever there are no addictive qualities in marijuana.



...yea, and tobacco wasn't addicting 35 years ago, remember it used to be GOOD for you.  You mean as far as we know, its not physically addicting, 10 years from now, who knows?


Of course as others have pointed out we have a bottom line and furthur discussion on the merits of 'is it or isn't it' is best left to websites who really care about that.


----------



## GUNS

Until the law is changed, cannabis is not accepted in the Canadian Military, period.

Putting the legal issue aside, one has to look at the harmful affects of alcohol,tobacco and drugs.

A study by leading British scientists have ranked herion,cocaine,barbiturates and street methadone as the most harmful drugs, closely followed by alcohol in fifth place.

Tobacco was assessed to be in ninth place. Cannabis was said to be the 11Th most harmful.

The classifications were based on individual drugs' so-call "harm score", the physical damage to the user; how likely the drug was to induce dependency; and the effect of its use on families,communities and society.

I agree with FrenchAffair when he stated that " falling down drunk" is not a suitable means to determind if one is under the influence.

I served with a  soldier that drank a flask of rum before morning roll-call and no one was the wiser. I am sure that there is not a soldier here that has not noticed character changes in their fellow soldiers after a "night" on the town.

I have no argument with the CF's Drug Policy. One minor flaw of the policy is that it is not "front and center". 

You are told of the policy upon joining, given literature and that's it. 

One way to keep the CF Drug Policy " front and center" is to open every training course with a lecture on drug useage.


----------



## geo

Guns....
If you reread my post, I did forget a comma 
"A guy who is drunk, is falling down drunk or a loud drunk"
I intended to describe the simple drunk, the loud drunk and the beligerent drunk.......the guys in the section and the platoon know exactly who they are.

WRT your "mate" with his tipple for breakfast.....
You were the wiser & you could tell by simply looking at him & listening to him .... a drunk is drunk - and you can't hide it...  

We don't need people with poor jugement to be in control of the C6, the 50 or something that can kill.... you!


----------



## GUNS

Geo,

100% agreement about people handling weapons while under the influence of anything.

As for my friend with the flask before roll-call, nobody in the regiment knew of this habit. We knew he lived at the mess after hours but he never missed roll-call or looked drunk.

Today on civy street, I still encounter this type of person, "permanent drunk". The only way to know if they are under the influence is through the Breathalyzer.

Its like the old saying" I never knew he drank, until I saw him sober one day"


----------



## FrenchAffair

geo said:
			
		

> We don't need people with poor jugement to be in control of the C6, the 50 or something that can kill.... you!



Poor judgment is far more often innate than induced by some kind of substance.


----------



## George Wallace

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Poor judgment is far more often innate than induced by some kind of substance.



Looks like time for a Clarica commercial.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

When did someone arbitrarily decide that marijuana is not addictive?  Hope you had your Listerine enema before you started talking out of your ass.  
I deal with CM addicts all the time (I can't stand typing out marijuana--CM is Cannabis Marijuana).  I see kids that steal from their parents for pot money.  Break into houses, steal electronics from stores for their habits.  And it is pretty obvious that CM MAKES YOU DUMB!  Yes.  It does.  No really.  It does.  (see, the actual pot heads are arguing with the screen right now).  
THC stores itself in your soluble fat, therefore it lasts in your system much longer than alcohol.  As well, TCH has a cumulative effect that alcohol does not.  And where is the highest concentration of fat in your body?  The brain.  THC acts like an off switch for synapse firing.  It doesn't kill brain cells, just more like it puts them to sleep, and there is no way to wake them at present.  
Granted, people act like bigger jackasses on booze than weed, but a pot head that is strung out and needing a joint is one pissy, angry little creep and that lasts longer than a hangover does.  But that isn't the point.  CM is a harmful drug, and all the addicts that are in a frenzy to legalize it in order to get cheaper product are only harming this country.  Just because the legal system is getting soft on it, doesn't mean that is a good thing.  Guess what?  The legal system is soft on everything.  Maybe I'll take up killing people with my car.  The law doesn't seem to have much in the way of penalties for that, either.


----------



## PMedMoe

+1, zipperhead_cop


----------



## medicineman

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Maybe I'll take up killing people with my car.  The law doesn't seem to have much in the way of penalties for that, either.



Might as well have a couple of joints prior as well... 

MM


----------



## FrenchAffair

There is absolutely no physical addiction from the use of marijuana. Certain individuals might develop an artificial mental dependence, but that is an issue with themselves, not with the substance itself. People can develop mental dependency on just about any substance, not because it is addictive but because it is part of their genetic makeup.  



> And it is pretty obvious that CM MAKES YOU DUMB



 Obviously that is your personal opinion, not an observation based on scientific fact. 



> As well, TCH has a cumulative effect that alcohol does not.



……… show me someone who has died or suffered serious injury from “marijuana abuse”

 Because there are tens of thousands of people each year that die from abuse of Alcohol…. And those people are not dieing from one massive binge drink, they are dieing from the *cumulative* effect of alcohol abuse. 



> THC acts like an off switch for synapse firing.  It doesn't kill brain cells, just more like it puts them to sleep, and there is no way to wake them at present.



 Buddy, you kill brain cells doing just about anything. Use of marijuana has absolutely no negative long term effects. All those “hippies” that smoked pot though out university aren’t brain dead deadbeats… they are the upper class of society making the 6 figures. 



> but a pot head that is strung out and needing a joint is one pissy, angry little creep and that lasts longer than a hangover does.



 Lol, where does this come from? Firstly, there is no “needing” a joint as it has already been established there is no physical dependency from marijuana. Secondly, you offer nothing but speculative conjecture… unless you can show us a scientific study that came to the same conclusion you have. 



> CM is a harmful drug



 What harm has it caused?


----------



## Sig_Des

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Lol, where does this come from? Firstly, there is no “needing” a joint as it has already been established there is no physical dependency from marijuana. Secondly, you offer nothing but speculative conjecture… unless you can show us a scientific study that came to the same conclusion you have.
> 
> What harm has it caused?



You know, you ask for a scientific study, withought offering the same. You can't ask someone else to put up without doing so yourself.

Second, I know for a fact that ZC is an LEO that has seen the effects of drugs, drug use, the drug trade, and the harm that it has caused. That's offering a professional POV and opinion.

Where are you coming from?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> What harm has it caused?



I'm not going to argue common sense with some junior pothead, armed with a stack of High Times magazines.  I simply don't care.  It is unlawful in Canada, and it is unlawful in the CF.  Pretty straight forward.

And hopefully, your drug addled head won't be wearing a CF head dress.  Ever.


----------



## FrenchAffair

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm not going to argue common sense with some junior pothead, armed with a stack of High Times magazines.  I simply don't care.  It is unlawful in Canada, and it is unlawful in the CF.  Pretty straight forward.
> 
> And hopefully, your drug addled head won't be wearing a CF head dress.  Ever.



Who said that I do or have ever done marijuana, let alone any drug. I know I have never said any such thing and I know you do not know me. 

 Don’t be presumptions, only makes you sound ignorant. 

Common sense would see us ban plenty of substance that are currently legal far before marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol being chief among those. 

 I ask you what harm is causes as there has never been someone die from an overdose of marijuana, it causes no long term effects, hundreds of thousands of people are not using up resources from our Medical system because of systematic marijuana use though out their life…. 

 If the harm is so evident and straightforward as you claim it should not be hard to type a few examples of this harm.


----------



## Rowshambow

Guns, yes when you get in you get a little literature and thats it, but what did it say, you had to sign it, it said "any drug use and you will be kicked out of the military" It's a no tolerance policy. Thats all the literature you need!! unless you are a pothead and forgot what you signed yesterday!
french Affair what harm does it cause?! here's a few like zipperhead cop pointed out theft, usually from ones family which is pretty low, death, I knew a guy in highschool that got high and drove his car into a bridge rail and died, or how about this, cancer isin't that what bob marley died from, and he said he only smoked weed! Now yes you can argue that cigarettes and booze also cause more death , but it's not illegal!!! as long as you are over 18 or 19 in some provinces!!
I don't want anyone using any illegal drugs working with me, especially if it's my driver!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

French Affair.......its time for you to keep quiet, I HAVE SEEN MORE THAN A FEW HUMAN BEINGS WHOM DID THIER 2 YEARS LESS A DAY AND HAVING A JOINT WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THEY HAD PLANNED, OVER THAT TIME, TO DO UPON RELEASE.........................but hey, don't listen to me, I only see it every work day. En plus, I used to be one of those who thought that 'recreational' drug use was better than steady *alcohol use, but after 18 years of seeing the whole spectrum of addition and consequences, well, if I must vice, then pour me a drink!! 

* not that there isn't serious consequences either, just my own comparison from my work*


...and on a MOD note this topic has only the length of my hockey tournament today to get back on the 'drug testing' topic or it gets locked down like all the others who get hijacked by someone who isn't even serving yet yet presumes to tell 'us' how it is/should be..


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11/11/4648263-cp.html
Military starts using drug dogs to search troops' bags in Afghanistan

By Steve Rennie, THE CANADIAN PRESS
    
OTTAWA - Canadian military police have started using drug dogs to search troops' bags at Kandahar Air Field after being tipped about soldiers suspected of using heroin, hash and pot, say newly released documents. 
Although there were no drug seizures reported, a briefing note says illegal drugs are readily available in Afghanistan and present a "temptation for Canadian troops in the form of personal use and in the form of importation for the purpose of trafficking."  
The documents, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, indicate there were at least five targeted and random searches of soldiers' belongings in June and July at Kandahar Air Field. 

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, an independent military police unit, used dogs trained to sniff out drugs to search about 90 soldiers and more than 100 barrack boxes. 
Military police took the names of soldiers in a convoy that was searched following a tip in July. 

The briefing note says that search didn't produce enough evidence to justify charges, but military police were to check their records "for any other indication of illicit drug use/trafficking" among those in the convoy. 
It's unclear why military police did the background checks because an e-mail outlining the incident was partly censored. 

Defence Department spokeswoman Capt. Julie Roberge said she wouldn't comment on specific searches. 
She said the military uses the dogs if it has a "reasonable doubt" there may be drugs at Kandahar Air Field or at one of the forward operating bases. 
"As soon as there's a doubt ... of course there's going to be a follow up," Roberge said. 

She said the dogs are a "NATO asset" shared among coalition forces. The Canadian military is field-testing its own drug-sniffing dogs in Canada with the intent of eventually using them in Afghanistan, she added. 
Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre, who travelled to Afghanistan last month on an unofficial fact-finding trip, said he saw no evidence of drugs nor did he witness any dog searches. 

The briefing note raised questions about whether the searches violated soldiers' Charter rights, particularly their expectation of privacy and the right to be secure against unreasonable searches. 
But it concludes that targeted and random searches of convoys are an "effective and efficient method" of deterring troops from using or trafficking drugs without negatively affecting operations. 

Word of the Kandahar searches follows charges laid last week against an Ottawa-based soldier for allegedly trafficking pot and hashish after an 11-month undercover sting operation by the military police unit. 
Master Cpl. Steven Pearson was charged with five counts related to the alleged trafficking and possession of marijuana and hashish dating back to January 2006. 

There have been several other high-profile incidents in recent years of alleged drug trafficking within the military. 
Four crew members of HMCS Saskatoon were charged this year after a military police unit launched an undercover sting operation targeting the small coastal patrol ship in early 2006. 

A court martial for one officer charged with trafficking cocaine and disgraceful behaviour under the National Defence Act has been adjourned until next year. 
Two other crew members pleaded guilty and were given suspended sentences and fines, while the third was cleared of one charge and had a second one stayed. 

Last year, five soldiers were charged at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, N.B., under the National Defence Act with trafficking in cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana. 


Yea, and those conditions surely don't exist back here in Canada.............. :


----------



## JBoyd

Perhaps someone in the CF can answer me this....  Does the CF utilize other forms of drug testing other then Urine tests? If no, Why not?

Urine drug testing has been around for a little while now, and people have figured out how to get past it, as many people have mentioned in this forum so far, there are many different products available online from fake urine to inhibiters, I have even seen a fake thingy with a bladder (saw it on MANswers). 

Hair testing has been highly accurate as there really is no way to counteract it. As your hair grows the drugs become encased in the shaft. Problem is that it can only go back so far, 3 -6 months I believe, However this is ample timeframe to show THC opposed to Urine. Hair Alcohol testing allows for a much longer window of testing due to FAEE's and EtG's being absored into that hair as it grows. I know that this is a much more costly approach, but do you really want people being able to fake a drug test?

There are a few others such as Sweat Testing and Oral/Saliva testing, however from what I have read on it, it can only detect immediate recent use.

I was a teenager, I went through my 'lets try it' phase, But I also grew up, Many potheads say that it isnt a gateway drug, but it is.. I have seen many friends I grew up with, the same ones I was smoking a joint with when I was 16 end up on east hastings trynig to score coke or crack or whatever wonder drug is in right now. Either way, ZC is right when he said it is 'Unlawful in Canada and Unlawful in the CF', CM is a drug, and until it is proven otherwise it is illegal, for those that want to whine... get over it, your complaints are not going to get you anywhere. Personally reading Bruce's last post made me smile, knowing that the CF is now cracking down on drug abusers, and looks like even drug trafficers within the CF, personally I would feel those to be the bad seeds that end up making the rest of the organization look bad. Hopefully they get hit with the full extent of the law, along with the inevitable boot from the CF. 

Take a look at Vietnam (not trying to start a big discussion and take the topic off-topic again), Among many factors, Drug abuse I feel was a primary factor in the US's loss of that war. Personally if I join the CF, Last thing i want is some drugged out soldier watching my back.


----------



## Donut

JBoyd said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone in the CF can answer me this....  Does the CF utilize other forms of drug testing other then Urine tests? If no, Why not?
> 
> Urine drug testing has been around for a little while now, and people have figured out how to get past it, as many people have mentioned in this forum so far, there are many different products available online from fake urine to inhibiters, I have even seen a fake thingy with a bladder (saw it on MANswers).
> 
> Hair testing has been highly accurate as there really is no way to counteract it. As your hair grows the drugs become encased in the shaft. Problem is that it can only go back so far, 3 -6 months I believe, However this is ample timeframe to show THC opposed to Urine. Hair Alcohol testing allows for a much longer window of testing due to FAEE's and EtG's being absored into that hair as it grows. I know that this is a much more costly approach, but do you really want people being able to fake a drug test?



The random nature of the testing, as well as the manner in which it's conducted, would make most of the means of faking it impractical.  Having been through three in the past 7 months, you don't know when it's happening, you show up for something, the RSM says into the classroom, and off you go.  While you know it's going to happen, you have no idea when or under what circumstances.  From what I know of the various masking agents, they've got a limited duration of action, and carrying around a fake bladder 24/7 during all sorts of other duties is pretty impractical.  As to hair testing, when the urine test is as frequent as it has been, I don't think there's enough benefit to justify the cost.


----------



## Franko

Bottom line.....do drugs and you will get caught. It's only a matter of time.

There were a few just before the 2RCR BG left and they thought they were "in the clear".

They are now flipping burgers.

Regards


----------



## PMedMoe

I find the biggest problem is the "no tolerance" policy.  IMHO, it doesn't exist.  We have people here who tested positive and are still serving, just not in Afghanistan.


----------



## GUNS

I find it somewhat confusing when new recruits are informed of the " *no tolerance*" policy on drug use within the CF.

Then they hear that, " We(CF) have a longstanding practice of attempting to rehabilitate first-time users of soft-drugs."


----------



## ixium

Considering the amount of money that the CF can put into a person, a first time offence for a minor drug shouldn't be a kick out the door.

If there are other things that happen besides just rehab, like charges and marks on their records, it would be a deterant for atleast some of the people.

So long as ofcourse, the person wasn't using drugs while in a situation that could harm themselves or others.


----------



## geo

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I find the biggest problem is the "no tolerance" policy.  IMHO, it doesn't exist.  We have people here who tested positive and are still serving, just not in Afghanistan.



People have always misinterpreted the term "zero tolerance".  All it means is that you do something and WE WILL do something.  No one in authority has ever stated that it will be "one strike and you are out".

The CF Drug policy is quite clear.  It places the individual on C&P and places conditions on you being able to stay in the CF... and that includes follow up drug testing.  If you are a regular drug user and you got caught.... you will slip up again and get caught again... at which point, it's bye, bye & sayonara!


----------



## c_canuk

I personally think that CM prohibition is working just as well as alcohol prohibition. it isn't and the doubling of user rates between 94 and 04 proves that.(Canadian Addiction survey 2004 - first link in google search)

I will not induldge because 

1) it is illegal though I would like to see that changed, not for personal reasons but for the betterment of society. 
2) for the same reason I don't smoke and don't binge drink or huff paint, card deck PT is challenging enough living healthily let alone engaging in substance abuse to basically try to prove darwin wrong.

Zipperhead cop says he runs into many users of CM who are the bottom third of society, I think this is more a case of his job dealing with the bottom third regardless due to it's nature and not so much that CM is a cause of it, but since they are willing to lie/cheat/steal toking up isn't much of a problem for them. These sorts of people are just as likely to steal the stereo out of your car for booze or cigarettes yet no one tries to say that alcohol use leads to theivery yet we know drunkeness does tend to make one more likely to be violent and/or do harm to others or themselves. How many domestic disturbance calls involved heavy use of CM and how does that compare to Alcohol?

In 2004 the Canadian Addiction Survey, consisting of 13,909 Canadians aged 15 and older, found that:

14% admitting to have used CM in 2003-2004
45% admitted to have used at some point in their life
70% of those that admitted to using  before they were 24 years old

so I call BS that CM causes illegal behavior as if that were the case 31.5% or over 1 in 4 people aged 15-24 are engaged in illegal activity to support their CM habit and that is just not the case. In fact as use rates of CM has doubled since 94 crime rates have slightly dropped which shows no corrolation let alone causation between CM use and crime.

I know of many civy friends who are frequent users who are holders of multiple university degrees and are holding stable home lives and jobs... most of them are starting to quit as it's not seen as a cool thing for them to be doing at their age anymore. I have yet to see the same result with frequent binge drinkers. I've seen friends spiral into the gutter from alcohol abuse but not a single one to CM. I have never had to talk a civy CM user down from a fight in public after abusing it, I have several times talked down an alcohol user from fighting. 

I feel that drug education needs the same approach as sex education. Abstiance programs and lies about the affects don't work, and prohibition is just making organized crime more powerful while criminalizing users of a substance less damaging than most legal recreational drugs who are otherwise decent contributing members of society.

The bottom line is that drugs are illegal and thus should be treated the same as when a member breaks any other law.

Drug testing should be done randomly and frequently, and the penalties should be laid out in no uncertain terms.


----------



## PMedMoe

geo said:
			
		

> People have always misinterpreted the term "zero tolerance".  All it means is that you do something and WE WILL do something.  No one in authority has ever stated that it will be "one strike and you are out".
> 
> The CF Drug policy is quite clear.  It places the individual on C&P and places conditions on you being able to stay in the CF... and that includes follow up drug testing.  If you are a regular drug user and you got caught.... you will slip up again and get caught again... at which point, it's bye, bye & sayonara!



I certainly understand that, and, if applied correctly, it's great.  On the other hand, we are kicking people out for trafficking on the first shot.  I guess it's hard to say what's worse, selling or using.


----------



## JBoyd

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I certainly understand that, and, if applied correctly, it's great.  On the other hand, we are kicking people out for trafficking on the first shot.  I guess it's hard to say what's worse, selling or using.



IMHO Traficking is worse, not to discredit the severity of drug use, but there is a high chance the trafficker(s) are drug users. Aside from that. trafickers are supplying the users (perhaps in the CF, perhaps not). But the old saying 'cut the snake off at the head' is a good adage in a situation such as drug traficking, not only in the CF but in all of society.


----------



## geo

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I certainly understand that, and, if applied correctly, it's great.  On the other hand, we are kicking people out for trafficking on the first shot.  I guess it's hard to say what's worse, selling or using.



Using.... apply DAODs C&P shot across the bow.  Individual is told to sparte up "or else"
Trafficking... Dealing, making a business out of the thing - encouraging others into using,..... a criminal offense of the lowest kind... I don't want to stand next to someone who is profiting from the addictions & stupidity of others... (where is the ditch when you need one)


----------



## c_canuk

because trafficing requires the person to deal with and become part of organized crime to some degree and I'd say that really is much worse than using.

EDIT: to make my meaning clearer


----------



## X-mo-1979

Trafficing.
I guess I "may have been" the bottom third of society.who traffics dope?people needing money and are desperate.USERS wanting to cut a gram and sell a .8. to support their habit.
Selling drugs is the easiest way to make money in the world.Sit in your house and wait for people to swing by.Problem being the people you have to deal with.Both the people coming looking for it,and they people YOU purchase from.And where does your money go?To criminal organisations.Something to thing about.

I have no problem with marajuana use in the civilian world.However until it is regulated and the cartels are not building criminal empires of "little billys dime bag" it is making our world a worse place to live.

Got problems with soldiers using?What is their source?The guy downtown!Follow suspected members gather info and bust their asses.Put enough heat on an area and it is dam hard to find dope to buy.Partly because everyone is scared YOUR the rat,others want to hold on to their dope for the "dry" spell,and higher organisations dont want to get involved in problem areas.

Bases are fairly rural in nature,there should be no problem brining it down with a dedicated police force.Cities however are another issue all together.

However I cleaned my life up over a decade ago and have been a clean productive member ever since.I have not seen or touched the stuff in years.

Put the heat on base area's.

Also police your community yourself.EVERYONE knows who the dealers are.If you live in the area you know the place that parties all weekend,has cars coming and going all night long....oh and that reek of smoke is kind of a getaway.

I know some areas have tip lines just for dope houses.

just a thought from a person who may or may not have been involved in the drug business.(not chemical dope)


----------



## ixium

Moving a pound is no where near the same as smoking a joint, PMedMoe.


----------



## JBoyd

keep in mind that Drug Distribution and Drug Trafficking are two seperate things


----------



## PMedMoe

ixium said:
			
		

> Moving a pound is no where near the same as smoking a joint, PMedMoe.



No it's not. I'm not here to get into a debate about which is worse (in general).  I guess maybe I should have made myself clearer.  What is considered worse to the _military_?  Consider that some of the military people testing positive, are not testing positive for marijuana but harder drugs, such as cocaine.


----------



## c_canuk

from a military view point how is a member using an illegal substance no matter what it is, worse than a member joining a criminal organization dedicated to smuggling, money laundering, and pushing an illegal substance to fellow military members. These organizations are also known for selling to minors and lacing their product with dangerous chemicals to quickly hook customers...

they may both be cancer but to the overall forces using is benign while pushing is malignant


----------



## Roy Harding

c_canuk said:
			
		

> from a military view point how is a member using an illegal substance no matter what it is, worse than a member joining a criminal organization dedicated to smuggling, money laundering, and pushing an illegal substance to fellow military members. These organizations are also known for selling to minors and lacing their product with dangerous chemicals to quickly hook customers...
> 
> they may both be cancer but to the overall forces _*using is benign*_ while pushing is malignant



Pardon me?  Remember that the next time your life depends on a drunk, a pot head, a crack head, or any abuser of ANY mind altering substance.

Roy


----------



## blacktriangle

There are people in the CF (read res. especially) that frequently abuse drugs.

Why the hell are they still in?


----------



## Roy Harding

popnfresh said:
			
		

> There are people in the CF (read res. especially) that frequently abuse drugs.
> 
> Why the hell are they still in?



You know this for a fact?  If so, have you reported it to the MPs or your C of C?  What makes you so sure that these people are in "res. especially"?


----------



## Lumber

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> You know this for a fact?  If so, have you reported it to the MPs or your C of C?  What makes you so sure that these people are in "res. especially"?



I can't say this with any credibility, but if I may. I went to school with a lot people who wound up joing the reserves. All of them except one that I can think of were smoked marijuana during highschool, and to the best of my knowledge, most of those that remain in the reserves continue to smoke marijuana to this day. 

Now like I said, this is not scietific nor citable evidence. I only offer it to back up what popnfresh said. At least that, as I would perceive it, many member of the reserves, at least those that I know, are active and or recently active marijuana smokers. I doubt that restricting the sample to those that I personally knew represents an accurate cross-section of the reserve forces in general. You have to take into account that these were all older teens and now young adults, and may I presume to say, more likely to me envolved in such activities? 

I will _*not*_ claim that this means that members are the reserves are more apt to being involved with drugs, minor or major. So please do not assume this is what I am saying. Simply, that whether popnfresh is correct or not, it is reasonable to assume that he may, given his own set of circumstances, be in a position where such a claim would seem both apparent and reasonable.


----------



## Roy Harding

Then I would say this to both you and Popnfresh, NCdt Lumber - it is a sloppy and inaccurate practice to make sweeping general statements about any group, whether that statement is based on one's own _limited_ experience with that group or not.  

Based on my OWN limited experience with the Reserves, and extensive experience with the Regular Force, it has been my impression that most soldiers are fine upstanding citizens, who do make the occasional mistake with mind altering substances (alcohol included).  Those who are caught _usually_ "straighten up and fly right".  Those who are incorrigible usually don't last long - either the drug/alcohol policy kicks in and they are shown the door, or they don't find the military to their liking, and release voluntarily.

And I would ask you the same question.  Have you reported _KNOWN_ drug use to your C of C and/or MPs?


----------



## armyvern

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Have you reported _KNOWN_ drug use to your C of C and/or MPs?



I'll add:

as CF policy requires you to do because _not_ doing so, in and of itself, constitues a service offense.


----------



## c_canuk

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Pardon me?  Remember that the next time your life depends on a drunk, a pot head, a crack head, or any abuser of ANY mind altering substance.
> 
> Roy



 :

My point was that both users and pushers are a cancer, and extending that metaphor pushers are more like a malignant tumor as they seek to actively spread their filth while users generally just pollute themselves. Because a pusher is most certainly a user your overly dramatic point is moot.


----------



## armyvern

c_canuk said:
			
		

> :
> 
> My point was that both users and pushers are a cancer, and extending that metaphor pushers are more like a malignant tumor as they seek to actively spread their filth while users generally just pollute themselves. Because a pusher is most certainly a user your overly dramatic point is moot.



From my actual experience ...

What you say makes sense ...

Until that user starts stealing his buddies kit and selling it on e-Bay, then breaking into houses to steal to support his habit ... eventually leading to court martial, jail and release.

No thanks. They affect me too ... right down to the damn paperwork that's got to be done to correct the problems they've now caused for those buddies they let down and stolen from. Right down to the guys who had to provide escort westwards (being taken away from their own families), right down to the cost borne by the taxpaying public.

Themsleves only?? My ass.


----------



## geo

popnfresh said:
			
		

> There are people in the CF (read res. especially) that frequently abuse drugs.
> 
> Why the hell are they still in?



Hey bud,  over here in LFQA I get to see the daily incidence report of drug, alcohol, violence, suicides & all other significant incidents happening in the area.  While I can testify that reserivsts are being caught & being dealt with in the same way as their reg force brothers (& sisters),  there are many, many reg force soldiers, sailors & airmen being caught, disciplined AND caught again...  after being put on C&P and caught again, it takes some time to make recommendations to HR Mil and get their blessing PRIOR to punting said individual.


----------



## Lumber

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Until that user starts stealing his buddies kit and selling it on e-Bay, then breaking into houses to steal to support his habit



I agree wholeheartedly with Roy Harding that most soldiers (CF members) are fine upstanding citizens, and am therefore shocked that we have members who's drug habits have become THIS bad. How often does this type of deplorable behaviour occur? Or is this just a extrapolation of how bad it could potentially become?


----------



## blacktriangle

geo said:
			
		

> Hey bud,  over here in LFQA I get to see the daily incidence report of drug, alcohol, violence, suicides & all other significant incidents happening in the area.  While I can testify that reserivsts are being caught & being dealt with in the same way as their reg force brothers (& sisters),  there are many, many reg force soldiers, sailors & airmen being caught, disciplined AND caught again...  after being put on C&P and caught again, it takes some time to make recommendations to HR Mil and get their blessing PRIOR to punting said individual.



Sir,

Thanks for that information. The people I speak of are well known their respective CoC and have been disciplined before, it just continues to be a problem and thats all I'm speaking of.


----------



## c_canuk

> Until that user starts stealing his buddies kit and selling it on e-Bay, then breaking into houses to steal to support his habit ... eventually leading to court martial, jail and release.
> 
> No thanks. They affect me too ... right down to the damn paperwork that's got to be done to correct the problems they've now caused for those buddies they let down and stolen from. Right down to the guys who had to provide escort westwards (being taken away from their own families), right down to the cost borne by the taxpaying public.
> 
> Themsleves only?? My ***.



That was not my point, obviously users affect those around them, but NOT to the extent that pushers do, when I said they only pollute themselves I was refering to the chemicals they pollute themselves with not the general bad karma they tend to rub off on everyone around them. 

Drug users are bad, and pushers are worse because while the drug user puts the chemicals into themself the pusher wants to put the chemicals into others and are members of organized crime bent on spreading it's filth among as many people as possible.

I don't think I can be any clearer... drugs are bad m'kay!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...and this topic is about as stupid as the hundreds of other pages we have on the subject.

Locked, with the usual restrictions.


----------



## navy-nesop

Good day to all,

I'm a new member here, and I must say I like it.  There is a lot of good advice on these posts.  For the new people coming in the Military, welcome and enjoy the ride.

I felt like talking about something a little more touchy.  If you think it's too much, feel free to delete this post or simply don't read it for those how will be offended.

The Military is now stuck with the problem of needing more troops in a very competitive world where many interesting jobs are available.  So lets face it, they ad to lower their recruiting standards.  This open the door to drug problems.  (Keep in mind that all that is written here is my own and personnel opinion.)  It seems the Forces don't know how to deal with this.  They are stuck between legal issues, moral issues and operation requirements (amount of people in the Forces).  They have problems keeping them from entering the Forces, and when they are identified, it takes a long time for Ottawa to kick them out.

So, I would like to start an open discussion to see if anyone else feels the same way I do and to see if we could do something about this.

this is navy-nesop, over.


----------



## Michael OLeary

So, are you in support of, or against, our current drug policies?

What would you like to see changed?

How do you consider that recent "lowering of standards" (please clarify that) has led to your perception that the CF has "open[ed] the door to drug problems"?

Are you aware that we have been charging soldiers for drug use for decades?  Drug use by a small percentage of soldiers who choose not to abide by the regulations is not new, and not necessarily related to any recent changes to recruiting standards.

How would you fix your perceived problem?


----------



## retiredgrunt45

Drugs in the military is nothing new, they've been around for "years", decades. I can remember when the bases in Germany were still open, it got so bad in Baden that the base Comdr phoned the local German polizie K-9 anti-drug squad in to go through the shacks every few months. We also had a few unlucky saps caught with drugs crossing borders back into Germany. 

Gagetown, we had raids, Petawawa we had raids... The list goes on.

In Chiliwack in 85, some young pte gets stoned, pissed of and attempts to burn down base HQ. I was one of the escorts at his court martial. 

 Nothing new. Drugs have been prevalent within any military since the days of the roman centurion and before. I don't think this has anything to do with the military lowering the standard, because the problem already exists.


----------



## 1feral1

Here is my 2 cents worth.

Zero tolerance to illegal drug use and trafficking.

Disicipline by example.

No exceptions.

The CF will never take a more relaxed policy to users, abusers and suppliers. Get caught, and your career is most likely fiinshed, you got a criminal record, maybe gaol time, and rightly so!

Drugs ruin lives.

Only losers and idiots use drugs, and I would not want any users in my organisation, in peace or at war. Would you? 

Navy-nesop, ATFQ if you like.

Cheers,

Wes

EDITed for spelling


----------



## navy-nesop

I'm glad to see some replies already,

I guest I was not clear  enough about my own position.  Let me clarify my position and talk about some real examples.

Of course I support the actual drug policies of the Canadian Forces.  Which for those who don't know is Zero tolerance.  This is not where the problem reside.  By lowering the standards, well only a person from recruiting could answer if it's actually true, what I' m talking about is this; I know a guy that bragged about doing some hardcore drugs in the past.  He is 22 years old, as 3 years in the Navy.  So logically joined when he was around 19.  So if you add up all of his stories, it means he was doing drugs just a few years before joining.  So I asked him if he told the recruiters that, and he said yes they know about everything and they did not care because I was not doing any anymore.  So I was under the impression that if you had done any type of hard drugs you where not considered for enrollment.  Mind you this is coming from a guy that tells more lies than anyone I ever met.  So maybe he never actually told the recruiting officer.

As for the charges for drugs, again this is not the problem.  I know that if they are cough, they will be charged.  The issue comes right after that point, these guys will end up staying around the training channel for months before they are release.  In fact they will be there longer than a person being trained.  The result of that, young guys and girls who are not using drugs are exposed to it.  Hell, my own roomate was a drug user, I never saw him using it, but knew anyway.  Reported that fact, and asked to be removed from that room so I could not be associated to any of this.  What happenned, nothing.  For some reason somebody tough it was not really a problem.  I  stayed there until I moved out with my family.  Thank god this guy is out of the Military anyway.

I know drugs have been and will be around forever.  Maybe it's just that the legal system superseed the military system, which makes things hard to implement at our level. 

Let just tell everyone that drugs are not cool and they will destroy their life.


all stations, this is navy-nesop, over


----------



## navy-nesop

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Here is my 2 cents worth.
> 
> Zero tolerance to illegal drug use and trafficking.
> 
> Disicipline by example.
> 
> No exceptions.
> 
> The CF will never take a more relaxed policy to users, abusers and suppliers. Get caught, and your career is most likely fiinshed, you got a criminal record, maybe gaol time, and rightly so!
> 
> Drugs ruin lives.
> 
> Only losers and idiots use drugs, and I would not want any users in my organisation, in peace or at war. Would you?
> 
> Navy-nesop, ATFQ if you like.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes
> 
> EDITed for spelling



I agree with him all the way.  Hell, wished he worked at the release center.  Did I sounded like I supported drugs?  Must be because English is not my first language.

navy-nesop


----------



## Greymatters

Drug use in the military is no more common or exceptional than it was 20 years ago.  Despite the soldier being hired nowadays being, in general, of higher education, they are just as likely as anyone else to puff the green stuff (or worse).  Those who get caught are and should be punted, not only for stupidity but for potentially endangering the lives of their fellow soldiers, as IMO there is no such thing as a 'responsible' drug-user.  

Of note, the CF has a long-waiting list of suitably educated personnel, and there is no need to 'drop standards'.  Also of note, you seem to equate drug use with lowered standards, which is a bit of a myth.  Drug users come in all shapes and sizes, educated and uneducated, rich and poor.


----------



## navy-nesop

All right,

Lets say that I'm wrong with the "lower standards" thing.  By the way I don't want to insult anyone, and I know for a fact that we probably have the best professionals in the world.  For the record, none of the guys that where cough for drugs in Esquimalt where geniuses.

I guest I was under the wrong assumption that the problem was at a larger scale then it is.  It seems to me that 10 years ago we would never hear about drugs.  There was maybe the odd incident once in a while.  Now, just when I was at Nellies, we add at least 3 guys in my allway that where doing it.  One girl told me she ad done it a few times, but it was not a big deal cause she did not do it anymore.  The issue was, in my opinion, that she did not see anything wrong with this because it was casual.  I then ask her about her friends, she then said that she was not going to say anything cause her friends would not do it on the ship, you know they are not stupid.

So I apologize if I made this sound maybe to general, maybe it's just worst in Esquimalt.  We add a meeting with the Admiral and we got to talk a bit about this issue.  They have the best intentions in the world, and they are really pushing with the "zero tolerance".  Then one Chief asked "how come we can't just kick them out when we catch them?".  Then the Admiral was kind of unease, he add no reassuring answer to this question.  Something to do with an office in Ottawa for release, they are over loaded with paperwork!  They presented us a drug sniffing dog and did a demonstration.  Maybe they tough it would scare the people doing it.  I guest the next week, when they told us that they can't really legally use the dog kind a put a dent into the whole dog thing!

I'm just concern, that's all.  The people that are doing it seem not effraid at all of the consequences.  You know what they say now these days between OS.  "Make sure your uniform is ready cause you will get in trouble big time.  And if they think it's not up to standard, tell them you add to go for a fix and then they leave you alone."

But like the other posts are saying, drug as been around forever, it's not worst here than anywhere else.  No offence to the other guys, I read some of your other post, you guys are all great.  I understand your points of view, I also agree with them.  Maybe I'm over reacting.  Let's just hope my life of yours will never depend on someone on drugs!

all stations, this is navy-nesop, out!


----------



## Greymatters

navy-nesop said:
			
		

> So I apologize if I made this sound maybe to general, maybe it's just worst in Esquimalt.  We add a meeting with the Admiral and we got to talk a bit about this issue.  They have the best intentions in the world, and they are really pushing with the "zero tolerance".  Then one Chief asked "how come we can't just kick them out when we catch them?".  Then the Admiral was kind of unease, he add no reassuring answer to this question.  Something to do with an office in Ottawa for release, they are over loaded with paperwork!  They presented us a drug sniffing dog and did a demonstration.  Maybe they tough it would scare the people doing it.  I guest the next week, when they told us that they can't really legally use the dog kind a put a dent into the whole dog thing!



If you are going to talk seriously about the subject, then you have made a couple of good points - its a bit silly to talk about 'zero-tolerance' if you dont have the backbone to carry it through, and its especially difficult if the law doesnt support your actions.  The rules of evidence still need to be followed to make charges stick, and there has to be a suitably large enough trained and experienced MP staff handy to conduct interviews and investigations.  

Of note, when you send too many MPs overseas, its hard to follow up on issues that arent as important as speeding checkpoints and handing out parking tickets (just a little poke there, I know they actually do more important work...).


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

And why would they not be able to legally use the dog? Is that some barrack room lawyer that's said that cause I've never heard of that before. they used a dog to sniff everyone's luggage when we were coming back from tour in 93 in Cyprus and we had a dog in Petawawa in the early nineties and a huge drug bust in one of the Regiment's barracks. We now have a dog in Halifax too. Why would we have a dog if he can't be used?
(The signs around a DND establishment state that anyone who is present on National Defence property is subject to search and seizure and states a portion of the NDA.)


----------



## Greymatters

There are some legal precedents for the use of canine sniffers, and if you dont apply them, you risk losing your case when it goes to court.  They are supposed to be applicable to all civilian workplaces, but someone may have figured out how it applied in a CF workplace.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Greymatters said:
			
		

> There are some legal precedents for the use of canine sniffers, and if you dont apply them, you risk losing your case when it goes to court.  They are supposed to be applicable to all civilian workplaces, but someone may have figured out how it applied in a CF workplace.



I see. Another case of the criminals having more rights than they deserve eh? I would think that civilians that work on Defence establishments are subject to the same rules as all of us. If you have secret documents, weapons, DND property or illegal substances hidden on your person or illegally present in your assigned quarters/work area or POMV then you are subject to the NDA. If we can't enforce that then it's no wonder we can't enforce discipline.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think they should expand K9 capabilities in the CF. many a time I have come back from sailing and we have had the dogs onboard from Customs. The way I see it, if you don't have anything to hide then you don't need to worry about having the drug dogs around.


----------



## TN2IC

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> We now have a dog in Halifax too.




That dog is used... also works hand and hand with local Mounties K9. Where ever they are needed, they go.


----------



## Greymatters

Unfortunately, being searched at the front gate, or being inspected by customs, is not the same thing as having your workplace or living quarters searched without 'reasonable grounds'. 

Now before you think me a proponent of protecting the criminals, Im all for sweeping suspected areas with a dog every month or when an incident is reported.   Caught with possession or use of drugs then kick their butts out.  However, our legal system is continually arguing over the legality of such things...


----------



## Ropeburn

Hello, this is my first post. I have been reading a lot of interesting info on these boards and actually have something to say for once. If the military can somehow figure out how to make anonymous and safety sensitive testing legal. How come they expierience so much difficulty with the legality of searching what amounts to DND property? I have been told my entire career that even the "Shirt off my back" belongs to the crown. 

Still fail to understand


----------



## Roy Harding

Ropeburn said:
			
		

> Hello, this is my first post. I have been reading a lot of interesting info on these boards and actually have something to say for once. If the military can somehow figure out how to make anonymous and safety sensitive testing legal. How come they expierience so much difficulty with the legality of searching what amounts to DND property? I have been told my entire career that even the "Shirt off my back" belongs to the crown.
> 
> Still fail to understand



Look at it this way.  I own my home (and did when I was still in).  If you want to search it, you either get my permission or obtain a search warrant - it's that simple.

People who reside in barracks are in their home.  Why shouldn't they have the same rights and protections as I do?

I don't fall hard on either side of this issue - I'm just attempting to make the situation clearer for you.


Roy


----------



## klacquement

I recently had the joy of filling a plastic bottle, along with all my shipmates.  We gave them our rank and age, no names.  Now they'll do a study on the samples, to determine if there's a problem in a select group, then go back for more testing.  Sounds to me like a waste of money.

Every time I've been posted, I've had to sign a document stating that I don't use drugs and will report anyone I see doing it.  Why can't they add a clause, something along the lines of "You may be tested at any time to ensure that these regulations are being followed."  Then we don't have to go through costly multi-stage testing procedures, where everyone gets tested multiple times before we can identify and attend to violators.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Okay, the resident owns everything behind the door to his room.  The RSM/BCWO/SCWO owns the building, and the hallways therein.  Walk Potsy the Wonder Pooch down the hallway.  Any door he stops and goes into withdrawal in front of, go get the appropriate paperwork and knock politely, then enter.  Nobody needs to know the dog was in the building 'til after the fact.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Todays army is not as bad as it was even 5 years ago when it comes to drugs.We have all heard off "grass" company and certain other units inparticular as well.Go look in a certain bumker in wainwright and you can see all the bongs sitting inside it. (Use to be anyway)

However I believe now with the random drug testing and sensitive testing as well,the "casual" pot smoker has for the most part stopped.It isnt worth his career.But lets face it the one's who enjoy this habit will find ways around it.

-smoke it on leave
-wait till right after testing
-wait till HLTA
-wait till a res posting

The list goes on.It isnt rocket science.Every time there is a drug test we all hear the rumour a couple week prior.I have been in for around 8 years and I was finally tested a couple weeks back.8 years and one test.
One thing I will say though is the use of harder drugs is more popular now than it ever was."Nose candy" seems to be the drug of choice.

All I care about is I know I test clean.

P.S urine test really only cover three days for LSD,pot,coke.The usual stuff.
So when the army tests you on a friday morning....seems like to me they are not trying to catch the weeken users they just want the hardcore guys using on a school night.If the army would wake up and do a little reasearch they may make a better net to catch these guys with.SO after the test the "party" kids could put blow up their noses and know by monday morning they would be clean again.

Or do they actually want real numbers??? I guess not.As a MO should be able to advise people of this,and I am but a mere good looking, uneducated combat arms Mcpl.

p.s sorry for spelling errors.Im on a pentium 133...dial up. :crybaby:



			
				lacqui said:
			
		

> I Now they'll do a study on the samples, to determine if there's a problem in a select group, then go back for more testing.  Sounds to me like a waste of money.



Its actually not that expensive,I being inquisitive looked into it once I was tested (my name was included in mine).It goes to a company in Ontario who are basically the RCMP's CSI team but a civilian company.Our Urine is put into a cheap stick type test first.If you pass that your sample is good.If it is "diluted"then they run the expensive test to see what etc.If it is inconclusive it goes to a medical officer for further study.Im currently not on my computer to put up the links...and this thing is so slow I dont think it could run pong.

p.s sorry for spelling errors.Im on a pentium 133...dial up. :crybaby:


----------



## Greymatters

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> People who reside in barracks are in their home.  Why shouldn't they have the same rights and protections as I do?



One of the legal isues being debated... DND property or private residence?  The legal setting about 10-20 years ago drifted towards a residence, regardless of ownership, being private property of the renter or whoever paid for lodging (covering PMQs and SQs).  However, some recent legal actions concerning 'grow ops' are pointing towards the owner of the property being reponsible for inspecting on a regular basis and reporting illegal activities.  Will this eventually affect CF members in their barracks?


----------



## X-mo-1979

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Okay, the resident owns everything behind the door to his room.  The RSM/BCWO/SCWO owns the building, and the hallways therein.  Walk Potsy the Wonder Pooch down the hallway.  Any door he stops and goes into withdrawal in front of, go get the appropriate paperwork and knock politely, then enter.  Nobody needs to know the dog was in the building 'til after the fact.



And thats what they do in Petawawa.


----------



## patt

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> And thats what they do in Petawawa.



from whats the boys tell me here in our barracks we have a Parade while this is going on they bring in the OPP drug unit with JAG lawers signing each search Warrant as they go door to door.


----------



## X-mo-1979

xfire.
Indeed that did happen.


----------



## 1feral1

Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> That dog is used... also works hand and hand with local Mounties K9. Where ever they are needed, they go.



Here every quarter, they round each SQN up, and call out names at random. Both drug tested and breathalized in a matter of minutes.

Australia has ZERO tolerance, and its a battle, but is worth fighting.

Personally I don't mind the random drug checks. The only ones that have to worry about anything is the ones that use, and that includes 'pisstanks' coming to work three sheets to the wind. They cop it also.


Cheers,


Wes


----------



## Greymatters

Xfire said:
			
		

> from whats the boys tell me here in our barracks we have a Parade while this is going on they bring in the OPP drug unit with JAG lawers signing each search Warrant as they go door to door.



And there's the second part - it took someone with a set of cohones to order it, do it and stand by their decision.  Not all commanders are willing to do that.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Greymatters said:
			
		

> And there's the second part - it took someone with a set of cohones to order it, do it and stand by their decision.  Not all commanders are willing to do that.


Absolutely.

However I can't wait to see who gets random tested.Random has meant in the past mcpl and below.Apparently once you get your 6A you don't do dope.And lets face it a Cpl isnt going to report a SSM for it.


----------



## bilton090

In Gagetown we were tested for roto 03/07, the ones that where pos. got 1 year C.M.P, Zero Tolerance my A@S. Went on crse. 
stayed in the same job's, some got better job's.

   Like I said ZERO TOLERANCE MY A@S !


----------



## Nemo888

I've known some soldiers who smoked some grass on weekends. I really don't think it ever affected their work. On the other hand I have dragged my ass in to work still pissed from the mess dinner the night before. I'm just glad I don't have to sit in judgement.


----------



## Greymatters

They might get away with it now, but continued drug use means they will get caught out eventually.  This does not bode well when you stand before the man and trry to explain why you felt free to continue to disobey laws and policies against drug use while a CF member.  It begs the question, what other laws and policies have they continued to disobey?

Regarding too much alcohol, there is a bit of forgiveness (fortunately  ;D), but continuously coming into work unable to perform is still a performance evaluation issue and can be dealt with by supervisors/officers if it's a significant problem.  If it becomes a make or break issue, Ive known several good soldiers who got punted because they couldn't keep a grip on their drinking, or it was used in combination with other factors as a reason to get rid of them.


----------



## Franko

bilton090 said:
			
		

> In Gagetown we were tested for roto 03/07, the ones that where pos. got 1 year C.M.P, Zero Tolerance my A@S. Went on crse.
> stayed in the same job's, some got better job's.
> 
> Like I said ZERO TOLERANCE MY A@S !



They had completed the first stage of the process. 

Get caught at the end of your career and they can punt them because of the C&P. No doubt there was also a note to file for that as well.

They are being given a second chance, same as someone who gets caught for DUI.

I've known one who was caught 10 years ago, placed on C&P and put on the spin dry course. Got caught during the same screening you speak of.

Married with 3 kids and now out without a job. 5F I believe he was awarded.



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I've known some soldiers who smoked some grass on weekends. I really don't think it ever affected their work. On the other hand I have dragged my *** in to work still pissed from the mess dinner the night before. I'm just glad I don't have to sit in judgement.



It will affect their work. They won't be able to deploy on operations and become a burden to the system to which everyone else will have to pick up the slack.

Same goes for DUI.

Regards


----------



## Sparkplugs

Just speaking from personal experience here, but I've been in Borden for 1.5 years now, and I'm living in the shacks.  I've seen way, way more drug usage than I ever thought I would in the military.  Not only usage, but people getting caught.  The punishments?  Weekend duties shoveling at the museum.  Seriously!  A carful of people caught with drugs, and they got 2 days of weekend duties.  I don't know about you guys, but zero tolerance to me should involve more serious consequences than that.  

I'd like to think that my barracks room is 'mine' because I pay to live there, but if they can't search my room for drugs, why can they come and inspect it when I'm not there?  Shouldn't it be the same thing?  I just don't see how checking to see if my bed is made or running a sniffer dog through my room would be any different?  I don't see the problem with having drug sweeps, but I could see how some people would.

Just my 2c.


----------



## 1feral1

Sparkplugs said:
			
		

> Just speaking from personal experience here, but I've been in Borden for 1.5 years now, and I'm living in the shacks.  I've seen way, way more drug usage than I ever thought I would in the military.  Not only usage, but people getting caught.  The punishments?  Weekend duties shoveling at the museum.  Seriously!  A carful of people caught with drugs, and they got 2 days of weekend duties.  I don't know about you guys, but zero tolerance to me should involve more serious consequences than that.
> 
> I'd like to think that my barracks room is 'mine' because I pay to live there, but if they can't search my room for drugs, why can they come and inspect it when I'm not there?  Shouldn't it be the same thing?  I just don't see how checking to see if my bed is made or running a sniffer dog through my room would be any different?  I don't see the problem with having drug sweeps, but I could see how some people would.
> 
> Just my 2c.



Hey Sparky, the only ones that would have a problem, are the one that have something to hide.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Franko

Sparkplugs said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that my barracks room is 'mine' because I pay to live there, but if they can't search my room for drugs, why can they come and inspect it when I'm not there?  Shouldn't it be the same thing?  I just don't see how checking to see if my bed is made or running a sniffer dog through my room would be any different?  I don't see the problem with having drug sweeps, but I could see how some people would.



Barracks on base can be inspected at any time, same goes for drug sweeps. With or without you being present. Whether you like it or not.

Regards


----------



## X-mo-1979

bilton090 said:
			
		

> In Gagetown we were tested for roto 03/07, the ones that where pos. got 1 year C.M.P, Zero Tolerance my A@S. Went on crse.
> stayed in the same job's, some got better job's.
> 
> Like I said ZERO TOLERANCE MY A@S !



Percisely.
Plus who knows,it may get you noticed as well,on a couple career courses then when everyone is deployed.And when you come home he's your boss and your deploying again.Any info on the 03-08 roto tests yet? >


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

not the official number but the latest I got from BDE 16 pos out of 1200 tested


----------



## Greymatters

Only 1.3% tested positive (if the numbers are correct), thats pretty darn good in anyone's books...


----------



## Franko

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> not the official number but the latest I got from BDE 16 pos out of 1200 tested



That's about the same numbers I heard as well. Most through admission, mind you that was the rumour mill at it's best.

Regards


----------



## garb811

Sparkplugs said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that my barracks room is 'mine' because I pay to live there, but if they can't search my room for drugs, why can they come and inspect it when I'm not there?  Shouldn't it be the same thing?  I just don't see how checking to see if my bed is made or running a sniffer dog through my room would be any different?  I don't see the problem with having drug sweeps, but I could see how some people would.


Here's why they can inspect:  Inspection and Search Defence Regulations.   

With regard to searches for evidence, a barracks room is considered to be a dwelling house for these purposes and a warrant must be obtained, and this would include running a dog through the actual rooms unless they were open dorm style without locking doors.  Having said that, if an inspection is being conducted IAW ISDRs and something is in plain sight during the inspection, it's fair game.


----------



## Greymatters

That covers entrance and exit searches, and control of restricted and classified areas, but doesnt cover 'personal' spaces like PMQs or SQs.


----------



## George Wallace

PMQ's perhaps.  SQ's (or ESQ's) are still (Enhanced) Single Quarters and fall under the same Regs as those living in the Shacks.


----------



## Franko

PMQs get searched as well. Seen it a few weeks ago.

Probably got snitched on.

Regards


----------



## X-mo-1979

A certain person on a east coast base decided he was going to inspect PMQ's.
"Have your family ready at 11h00,I will be inspecting your PMQ."

That assneck didnt make it too far.

As for the search of the PMQ's,thats a search warrant thing,same as civilian housing.Most likely a fall out of the recent urine sample failures.

Any dopehead who gets a bit of pressure put on them after getting caught tell's their secrets. 

Some people who failed the 03/08 know already.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Not entirely true, in Victoria the Base Fire Prevention officer conducts an annual inspection, he is accompanied by a Cpl/LS that works in the base chiefs office for the purpose of making sure the smoke detectors work, certain building and fire code regulations are complied with, ie no clothes around the furnace, breaker box unobstructed (nothing within 1 metre of it) that sort of thing. They only need a warrant if they are conducting a disciplinary investigation and it need only be signed by the mbr's CO not a judge, they still belong to the CF even if they're administered by CFHA. But I'll agree with you on inspecting MQ's just because "I can" it usually doesn't go very far, there needs to be a reason first.


----------



## Greymatters

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> But I'll agree with you on inspecting MQ's just because "I can" it usually doesn't go very far, there needs to be a reason first.



"Reasonable grounds"


----------



## X-mo-1979

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Not entirely true, in Victoria the Base Fire Prevention officer conducts an annual inspection, he is accompanied by a Cpl/LS that works in the base chiefs office for the purpose of making sure the smoke detectors work, certain building and fire code regulations are complied with, ie no clothes around the furnace, breaker box unobstructed (nothing within 1 metre of it) that sort of thing. They only need a warrant if they are conducting a disciplinary investigation and it need only be signed by the mbr's CO not a judge, they still belong to the CF even if they're administered by CFHA. But I'll agree with you on inspecting MQ's just because "I can" it usually doesn't go very far, there needs to be a reason first.



Uhh...What does fire prevention have to do with drugs?
I also live in the PMQ patch.They call weeks prior and some civilian shows up and checks your batteries...Kinda different than your SSM showing up with the OPP drug team don't ya think?

Oh and if someone wants to come inspect my house,feel free,but I aint putting pants on.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Kinda different than your SSM showing up with the OPP drug team don't ya think?


Thats where the CO's warrant comes in to play


----------



## garb811

Greymatters said:
			
		

> That covers entrance and exit searches, and control of restricted and classified areas, but doesnt cover 'personal' spaces like PMQs or SQs.



This section covers *Inspections* of personal spaces such as PMQs and SQs:



> PART I
> INSPECTION
> 
> 3. An officer or a non-commissioned member may conduct an inspection, including an inspection for the purpose of maintaining military standards of health, hygiene, safety, security, efficiency, dress and kit, of any other officer or non-commissioned member or any thing in, on or about
> 
> (a) any controlled area, or
> 
> (b) any quarters under the control of the Canadian Forces or the Department,
> 
> in accordance with the custom or practice of the service.



The terms "search" and "inspection" are being used a bit loosely and interchangeably in this thread so it's important to clarify what is being/can be conducted when and under which definition it falls.  

The RSM going through the shacks on Monday morning making sure there is no pizza rotting under someones bed is conducting an inspection, running a drug dog through the shacks is conducting a search.  There are limits to what is a reasonable invasion of privacy in the conduct of an Inspection and going beyond that voids any "evidence" found.  ie. If the RSM comes across a baggy sitting on a desk, a legal seizure could be made, if he found a baggy while randomly opening desk drawers it'd be very hard to have the "evidence" admitted into court and he might as well leave it where he found it as "seizing it" could lead to the ludicrous situation of the RSM being accused of theft as he had no legal right to "seize" the item.  A search is conducted for the purpose of finding evidence of a criminal offence and as such, is subject to a much higher threshhold with regard to the invasion of privacy which is allowed without a Warrant.  While it is legit to run the dog through public areas such as washrooms, hallways etc, the Barrack Warden shouldn't be going along unlocking doors to individual rooms unless Warrants are in hand.

Ref CO's search warrants, these aren't to be used in Canada under normal circumstances and doing so is grounds for a challenge on the legality of the warrant.  Under normal circumstances a JP is always close at hand and they're the ones to get the warrant from as, unlike COs, they issue them all the time and know what is needed to make the warrant valid.  Additionally, the Mbrs CO can NEVER sign a Warrant, it has to be the CO of another Unit.

EDIT:  Spelling


----------



## Greymatters

Good examples...


----------



## gwp

Latest update

SOURCETAG    	0808210760
PUBLICATION: 	The Edmonton Sun 
DATE:        	2008.08.21
EDITION:     	Final 
SECTION:     	News 
PAGE:        	29 
BYLINE:      	SUN MEDIA 
DATELINE:    	MONTREAL 
WORD COUNT:  	  267
________________________________________
Drug use in military 
________________________________________
A first round of drug-screening tests conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces has netted almost 440 drug users in its ranks. 
The Chief of Military Personnel sprung these surprise tests for the first time last December as part of an anti-drug program. 
Between the end of 2007 and March 2008, ministry officials performed checks in 11 random navy and army units. 
In all, urine tests from 6.5% of the 1,392 navy personnel and five per cent of the soldiers tested positive for controlled substances. Drug use was higher in the age group 27 and under. 
The Canadian Forces also discovered that drug use was more common "with master corporals and ranks lower than with senior non-commissioned officers and officers." 
"It's not that we're in the middle of a drug problem, but that we're trying to completely eradicate drugs and prevent use in any form," Lt.-Col. Lisa Noonan explained in June to The Maple Leaf magazine. 
The Armed Forces note that drug use is two times less common within its ranks  than it is in the general population. 
"We can readjust our programs and our policies, but the zero tolerance policy, that will not change," Noonan added. 
The 7,622 military personnel in high-risk positions, such as the 2,500 personnel from CFB Valcartier who were deployed in Afghanistan, were also tested. 
In the end, 269 people, or 3.7% of the total, tested positive or admitted to using drugs. 
The third and fifth rotations were also tested. In the first case, drug problems were identified in 4.3% of soldiers. 
In the fifth rotation, some of whose members are deployed in Afghanistan, only 1.8% of personnel was red-flagged for drug use. 
"If one person's test comes back positive, they are not authorized to participate in their mission. They cannot board the plane and their training is ended on the spot," said Noonan, 
Military personnel caught using controlled or illicit substances face possible disciplinary and administrative action. 
As a general rule they then come under the authority of the military health system for treatment and rehabilitation. 
In total, 10,667 military personnel were subject to this first round of drug tests. 
According to a 2002 Statistics Canada study, about 3.1 million people, or 12.6% of the population, said they had used illicit drugs in the previous year.


----------



## AlphaQup

Excuse my ignorance guys but what constitutes a drug? I understand that THC related products and other hard drugs, but do things such as ephedrine and caffeine pills fall under the Canadian Forces Drug Policy as banned substances?


----------



## Inspir

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-38.8/

It's all there


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Way to resurrect a necropost started almost 5 years old gwp :


----------



## Rodahn

recceguy said:
			
		

> Way to resurrect a necropost started almost 5 years old gwp :



Would you have rather that he started a new thread? He s at least shown the initiative and performed a search prior to doing so. Just because the thread is 4 years old does not mean that it's any less valid.

edited to correct a spelling error.


----------



## George Wallace

Nor the point that he highlighted: the CF has a 2% less problem than the General Population.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Would you have rather that he started a new thread? He s at least shown the initiative and performed a search prior to doing so. Just because the thread is 4 years old does not mean that it's any less valid.
> 
> edited to correct a spelling error.



Why don't you just lighten up and have some fun for a change. Look at almost any post that's resurrected, and you'll see the same sort of comment from lots of people around here.

Oh wait, I get it. Looking at your history, it must have been the DS tag under my name that set you off, even though I didn't sign my post as staff as is my habit when I do something official. Any chance you think you got eh?








You left your Fun Police cruiser unattended.


----------



## Jarnhamar




----------



## jeremy1995

Weed is not the magic plant, but it's not the devil plant. Decriminalise it will do nothing, the criminal organisations will still make a lot of money.  If it's legalize, the gouvernement will do a lot of money and it will be take off from the hands of our childrens and it will be good quality. Now, CF and weed. A member of the CF shouldn't smoke while being in uniform, smoke when he's on a mission, but only when he's home alone. Weed is like alchool, some will abuse it. Yeah there potheads, yeah there some people who will use cocaine after smoking weed for long time, but can we blame weed for it? Hell no. Those people are people who probably have problems in their lifes, people who are hanging out with bad people. The statistics show it, i think it's 3 or 4% of people who smoke weed that will finish to take cocaine. Some say that weed is bad because a lot of people smoke and drive, don't blame weed, blame those who are enought stupid to smoke and drive. Do we blame alchool for all those people who drink and drive?

Anyway, im just saying that it should be legal and it will probably will. But, a member of the CF has responsabilities, joints and uniforms are not good together, it's should be like alchool in my opinion. Sorry for my bad english, im a french who have a lot of progress to do! Please, fell free to debate about it with me, the more with debate, the more we learn!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jeremy1995 said:
			
		

> Weed is not the magic plant, but it's not the devil plant. Decriminalise it will do nothing, the criminal organisations will still make a lot of money.  If it's legalize, the gouvernement will do a lot of money and it will be take off from the hands of our childrens and it will be good quality. Now, CF and weed. A member of the CF shouldn't smoke while being in uniform, smoke when he's on a mission, but only when he's home alone. Weed is like alchool, some will abuse it. Yeah there potheads, yeah there some people who will use cocaine after smoking weed for long time, but can we blame weed for it? Hell no. Those people are people who probably have problems in their lifes, people who are hanging out with bad people. The statistics show it, i think it's 3 or 4% of people who smoke weed that will finish to take cocaine. Some say that weed is bad because a lot of people smoke and drive, don't blame weed, blame those who are enought stupid to smoke and drive. Do we blame alchool for all those people who drink and drive?
> 
> Anyway, im just saying that it should be legal and it will probably will. But, a member of the CF has responsabilities, joints and uniforms are not good together, it's should be like alchool in my opinion. Sorry for my bad english, im a french who have a lot of progress to do! Please, fell free to debate about it with me, the more with debate, the more we learn!


Thanks for the unsolicited opinion from a 'potential, future officer.'

Perhaps before passing judgment on when a member of the CAF, should be allowed the use of marijuana, you should actually spend some time in the CAF. Your perspective will probably change.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the* unsolicited opinion*



WTF?  Opinions can only be posted here if you ask for them?


----------



## PuckChaser

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> WTF?  Opinions can only be posted here if you ask for them?



According to some, yes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Drunk posting. Give me a break :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> According to some, yes.



I'm not sure what you mean by that remark. Was it personal or all inclusive? Mind explaining yourself?


----------



## McG

jeremy1995 said:
			
		

> ..., yeah there some people who will use cocaine after smoking weed for long time, but can we blame weed for it? Hell no. ... The statistics show ...


that there is the link you deny:



> *Marijuana use by teens linked with problems in young adulthood*
> Prevention or delay of cannabis use likely to have health and social benefits, researchers say
> 09 Sep 2014
> 
> Frequent pot use by teens is linked to a greater likelihood of incomplete education, suicide attempts and other harmful effects, say researchers in Australia and New Zealand, who suggest their findings should be considered as countries move to decriminalize or legalize cannabis.
> 
> Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug worldwide, and statistics suggest that adolescents in some countries are starting to use it at a younger age and more heavily.
> 
> In 2013, about 23 per cent of students surveyed in Ontario said they’d used cannabis at least once in the previous year, according to an annual report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
> 
> The prevalence of past-year cannabis use among Canadians aged 15 years and older was 10 per cent in 2012, the Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey suggested.
> 
> Cannabis use is more common among those with low educational attainment, but there’s a debate about whether marijuana use is a marker or a cause. A study published in the journal The Lancet Psychiatry helps to answer some questions.
> 
> Researchers analyzed data on up to 3,765 participants who used marijuana from three long-running studies in Australia and New Zealand. The studies compared those who had never used pot with those who had and their developmental outcomes, which were assessed for the participants up to 30 years of age.
> 
> "Study findings suggest that adolescent cannabis use is linked to difficulties in successfully completing the tasks that mark the transition to adulthood," study author Richard Mattick, a professor of drug and alcohol studies at the University of New South Wales and his co-authors concluded.
> 
> "Prevention or delay of cannabis use in adolescence is likely to have broad health and social benefits."
> 
> The findings are relevant given the move in some countries to decriminalize or legalize cannabis, which raises the possibility that the drug might become more accessible to young people, the researchers said.
> 
> In the study, those who used marijuana daily before age 17 were less likely to complete high school or earn a degree compared with those who’d never used it.
> 
> Cannabis use was associated with increased risk of suicide attempts and later cannabis dependence and use of other illicit drugs, said Merete Nordentoft, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen, in a journal commentary published with the study.
> 
> Nordentoft said the "convincing results" are valuable and appropriate given several U.S. states and countries in Latin America and Europe have decriminalized or legalized cannabis and allow unrestricted marketing of the drug.
> 
> Increasing evidence shows that brain development during adolescence can be harmed by frequent cannabis use and cognitive functions can be permanently reduced, she said.
> 
> Young people need to develop and mature and prepare themselves to meet demands in adult life.
> 
> "Cannabis use, especially frequent use, impairs this development and reduces the likelihood that a young person will be able to establish a satisfactory adult life," Nordentoft concluded.
> 
> The researchers acknowledged that the measurements were based on self-reported data, which could lead to over-reporting or under-reporting of cannabis use. They said rates of cannabis use by young people in their study are similar to those in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K., but the social and legislative context of cannabis varies between regions.
> 
> The study was funded by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/marijuana-use-by-teens-linked-with-problems-in-young-adulthood-1.2761059


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jeremy1995 said:
			
		

> Weed is not the magic plant, but it's not the devil plant. Decriminalise it will do nothing, the criminal organisations will still make a lot of money.  If it's legalize, the gouvernement will do a lot of money and it will be take off from the hands of our childrens and it will be good quality. Now, CF and weed. A member of the CF shouldn't smoke while being in uniform, smoke when he's on a mission, but only when he's home alone. Weed is like alchool, some will abuse it. Yeah there potheads, yeah there some people who will use cocaine after smoking weed for long time, but can we blame weed for it? Hell no. Those people are people who probably have problems in their lifes, people who are hanging out with bad people. The statistics show it, i think it's 3 or 4% of people who smoke weed that will finish to take cocaine. Some say that weed is bad because a lot of people smoke and drive, don't blame weed, blame those who are enought stupid to smoke and drive. Do we blame alchool for all those people who drink and drive?
> 
> Anyway, im just saying that it should be legal and it will probably will. But, a member of the CF has responsabilities, joints and uniforms are not good together, it's should be like alchool in my opinion. Sorry for my bad english, im a french who have a lot of progress to do! Please, fell free to debate about it with me, the more with debate, the more we learn!



Jeremy I will bite your question.  Presently, marijuana is an illegal drug and as such CF members shouldn't use it as doing so would not only break the law but would also be a direct contravention of our military values and ethics which you can read about at the following link 





> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/code-of-values-and-ethics.page



I tend to agree with the premise of your argument though that the government should legalize it, mostly because I view prohibition as a complete failure and would rather the government spend the money on improving social programs.  

I don't believe for a second that Marijuana is healthy for you but neither is a lot of other stuff we do or use in our everyday lives.  Money would be better spent on educating people about drugs and on social programs, at the end of the day I believe the average citizen should have the right to choose whether they indulge in marijuana and it's no better or worse than alcohol or cigarettes.  Besides, when do you ever hear about a guy who smoked a joint beating his wife or assaulting someone downtown?  The same can't be said for someone who has consumed too much alcohol.

I've actually never really understood the history behind the stigmatization and prohibition of marijuana, it may be something interesting to read up on. 

For the record, I don't smoke marijuana as that would be in direct contravention of the Code of Service Discipline and also incredibly unethical.  It would be completely wrong for me as an officer to do this than turn around and tell my soldiers they can't and potentially have to discipline them for doing so.  Anyone who does this sort of thing is a snake and should resign their commission immediately.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Besides, when do you ever hear about a guy who smoked a joint beating his wife or assaulting someone downtown?  The same can't be said for someone who has consumed too much alcohol.


In my job, all the time.

When was the last time a soldier in your unit used "I just didn't notice the time from all the cocaine I was freebasing" as a defense in an AWOL charge?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> In my job, all the time.
> 
> When was the last time a soldier in your unit used "I just didn't notice the time from all the cocaine I was freebasing" as a defense in an AWOL charge?



Which is why I am glad we have people like you Bruce that are willing to put up with that crap as I would never want to do your job.  Dealing with whacked out jerks all day must grow pretty tiring?

As for AWOL defense, never seen too much of that with relation to drugs but have seen it with alcohol.  Guys who get busted for drugs in the army usually get taken down pretty hard and really have no leg to stand on.  The last drug charges I witnessed, the guy got sent to club fed for almost a month but came back a far individual than when he left.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

You just explained why you [almost] never hear someone say 'I smoked a bag of weed and then I.............."

Unless you have nothing to lose of course you're going to say "Well, after I drank 15 beers........"
I get them already convicted, and of course 'wanting treatment', so telling me what really sets them off doesn't hurt them in court.

Trust me my friend, where I work right now is freakin' Disneyland compared to 'regular' jails.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Drunk posting. Give me a break :



Hmm - drunk at 1800, and making value judgements on weed.  Quite ironic.

Sometimes it is okay to admit that you are wrong and apologise, without the eye-rolling.


----------



## ballz

The thing I find funny about those are so vehemently against the use of marijuana is that most of them drink recreationally, but somehow believe that marijuana can't be used recreationally.

A good example provided by George Wallace here http://army.ca/forums/threads/116407/post-1328751.html#msg1328751 when he asks:



> Would you trust anyone who is on drugs, any drugs, to handle a loaded gun in your presence?
> 
> Would you lay your life on the line for a leader who was high on drugs?



Derp. Obviously it's a chargeable offence to show up to work drunk, it would obviously be a chargeable offence to show up to work high.

Alcohol ranked most harmful drug
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/alcohol-ranked-most-harmful-drug-1.919186



> Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin and crack cocaine, according to a new study.
> 
> British experts evaluated substances including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and marijuana, ranking them based on how destructive they are to the individual who takes them and to society as a whole.
> 
> Researchers analyzed how addictive a drug is and how it harms the human body, in addition to other criteria like environmental damage caused by the drug, its role in breaking up families and its economic costs, such as health care, social services and prison.
> 
> Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, or crystal meth, were the most harmful to individuals. When considering their wider social effects, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the worst.
> 
> P.O.V.:
> 
> What should be done to tackle alcohol abuse?
> Overall, alcohol outranked all other substances, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana, ecstasy and LSD scored far lower.
> 
> The study was published online Monday in the medical journal, Lancet.
> 
> Experts said alcohol scored so high because it is so widely used and has devastating consequences not only for drinkers but for those around them.
> 
> "Just think about what happens [with alcohol] at every football game," said Wim van den Brink, a professor of psychiatry and addiction at the University of Amsterdam. He was not linked to the study and co-wrote a commentary in the Lancet.
> 
> When drunk in excess, alcohol damages nearly all organ systems. It is also connected to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin.
> 
> Experts, however, said it would be impractical and incorrect to outlaw alcohol.
> 
> Target problem drinkers
> 
> "We cannot return to the days of prohibition," said Leslie King, an adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and one of the study's authors. "Alcohol is too embedded in our culture, and it won't go away."
> 
> King said countries should target problem drinkers, not the vast majority of people who indulge in a drink or two. He said governments should consider more education programs and raising the price of alcohol so it isn't as widely available.
> 
> Experts said the study should prompt countries to reconsider how they classify drugs. For example, last year in Britain, the government increased its penalties for the possession of marijuana. One of its senior advisers, David Nutt — the lead author on the Lancet study — was fired after he criticized the British decision.
> 
> "What governments decide is illegal is not always based on science," said van den Brink. He said considerations about revenue and taxation, like those garnered from the alcohol and tobacco industries, may influence decisions about which substances to regulate or outlaw.
> 
> "Drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit," he said.
> 
> In Canada, the federal government is considering random breathalyzer tests, a policy Australia is using.
> 
> Jacking up prices is another option Canadian researchers will discuss in a forum next month.
> 
> "Pricing has an enormous impact on consumption levels, and taxation levels, of course, influence pricing and therefore influence consumption," said Robert Mann of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.
> 
> The study was paid for by Britain's Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.



When you actually sit back and look at how many of our troops have dramatically decreased their quality of life, if not ruined it altogether, because of their inability to control their alcohol, it really should be no surprise.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hmm - drunk at 1800, and making value judgements on weed.  Quite ironic.



Another good example of the morally/ethically superior alcohol-user thought process. :nod:


----------



## ballz

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> For the record, I don't smoke marijuana as that would be in direct contravention of the Code of Service Discipline and also incredibly unethical.  It would be completely wrong for me as an officer to do this than turn around and tell my soldiers they can't and potentially have to discipline them for doing so.  Anyone who does this sort of thing is a snake and should resign their commission immediately.



Unfortunately, if you even suggest that marijuana use can be compatible with society, some old dinosaurs inevitably just write your off as a pothead. Pot-use not required.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I do not have a problem with pot use, per se (leaving aside the current status of the substance in the Criminal code).

My concerns about legalizing pot are more practical:

1) can we devise a road side sobriety test (like the breathalyzer) that can reliably detect those who have consumed too much pot to safely operate a motor vehicle?

2) my second concern relates to the first: what do we about people who work in safety sensitive places?  My understanding has always been that unlike alcohol (which is pretty much completely metabolized after 24 hrs), THC is stored in body fat and will flood back out into the blood stream up to 30 days later, particularly under times of stress.  If this is true, as a practical matter, how does the CF approach the use of pot if it becomes a legal substance?  I could still see us administratively banning its use for soldiers, sailors and airmen, just for safety reasons.

Thoughts?


----------



## ballz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 1) can we devise a road side sobriety test (like the breathalyzer) that can reliably detect those who have consumed too much pot to safely operate a motor vehicle?



I ponder the same thing. Something that certainly needs to be worked out.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 2) my second concern relates to the first: what do we about people who work in safety sensitive places?  My understanding has always been that unlike alcohol (which is pretty much completely metabolized after 24 hrs), THC is stored in body fat and will flood back out into the blood stream up to 30 days later, particularly under times of stress.  If this is true, as a practical matter, how does the CF approach the use of pot if it becomes a legal substance?  I could still see us administratively banning its use for soldiers, sailors and airmen, just for safety reasons.



If you smoke a joint, THC does get stored in fat. It does not, however, "flood back into the bloodstream up to 30 days later" causing you to suddenly be stoned again even though you haven't smoked a joint in 29 days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconceptions_about_drugs#.22Flashbacks.22_due_to_release_from_fat_cells
I don't see it being "administratively banned." I see something similar to how alcohol is handled. No smoking a joint 12 hours prior to a shift, etc.

What I would be more interested to know, personally, is if long-term recreational use will eventually have detrimental cognitive effects on the user an to what extent? So far, the scientific community seems to be leaning more towards "inconclusive" on this part. It's important to consider, but alcohol also has detrimental effects on cognition and health, and we accept this.


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 1) can we devise a road side sobriety test (like the breathalyzer) that can reliably detect those who have consumed too much pot to safely operate a motor vehicle?



Yes.  Tests have been developed.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1PRFC_enCA563CA563&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=testing%20for%20thc%20while%20driving



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 2) my second concern relates to the first: what do we about people who work in safety sensitive places?  My understanding has always been that unlike alcohol (which is pretty much completely metabolized after 24 hrs), THC is stored in body fat and will flood back out into the blood stream up to 30 days later, particularly under times of stress.  If this is true, as a practical matter, how does the CF approach the use of pot if it becomes a legal substance?  I could still see us administratively banning its use for soldiers, sailors and airmen, just for safety reasons.



Any drug that can be stored for long periods of time in the body tissues, and cause "Flashbacks" should be prohibited.  Drugs like LSD, etc. would therefore be threats to safety at critical times in military, policing, firefighting and any EMC situation where stress levels may be at their highest.  Clear minds are required in times of stress.  Someone in an alternate reality is a liability.  

Your point on alcohol is well taken.  Has anyone ever had a "Flashback" from alcohol?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ballz,

I hear what you are saying, but am going to have to take a Flight Surgeon's opinion about THC over Wikipedia- at least for now.

What I do agree that much more research into the long term effects of THC does need to occur, in order to inform policy makers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I too don't have any issue with consumption of pot, other than the fact that it is currently illegal.  At the end of the day, I like to relax with a scotch and a book.  Others (including my son) relax with some pot and a book.  Beyond the legal aspects, I don't see much of a difference between the two - and there is certainly no moral (vice legal) high ground to be found in that landscape.  

The CAF approach to the issue should pot be legalised will be interesting to watch unfold.  I think it unlikely that we will immediately embrace unconstrained use - like as not we would see administrative restriction on use while we watch the rest of society come to terms with it and develop its own best practices. 

I


----------



## GAP

Having seen it in widespread use in a combat zone, I would not recommend it.

I lowers the awareness of your surroundings, creates lassitude when awareness it is most needed.

what you do at home I couldn't care less, but not in the field/work..... :2c:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ballz said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, if you even suggest that marijuana use can be compatible with society, some old dinosaurs inevitably just write your off as a pothead. Pot-use not required.



I says pardon??   Listen lad, when I was serving I used to be the guy screaming that alcohol was way worse then pot [and LSD for that matter].............into my 26th year of actually seeing the damage real people have done to themselves has changed my view.  
If you are stupid enough to qualify 'experience' with being a 'dinosaur' then you're just an idiot and I have no time for you.

The problem with the 'No' side, IMO, is comparing FAIRLY the effects long-term when one of the substances is illegal and I'm pretty sure funding for a long term study is not exactly Government-money friendly........


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I must add however that I have also had my share of alcohol-damaged folks but a good percentage of those are from Alcohol-fetal syndrome.
Very, very bad stuff for anyone to have to deal with..............


----------



## ballz

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I says pardon??   Listen lad, when I was serving I used to be the guy screaming that alcohol was way worse then pot [and LSD for that matter].............into my 26th year of actually seeing the damage real people have done to themselves has changed my view.
> If you are stupid enough to qualify 'experience' with being a 'dinosaur' then you're just an idiot and I have no time for you.
> 
> The problem with the 'No' side, IMO, is comparing FAIRLY the effects long-term when one of the substances is illegal and I'm pretty sure funding for a long term study is not exactly Government-money friendly........




No, I do not equate experience with being a dinosaur. Inevitably, when this conversation comes up, some old crusty dinosaur(s) just dismisses everyone on the anti-prohibition side as a bunch of burnt out potheads, even if they are arguing with someone who has never smoked pot before but agrees it should be legal.

I never read anything of you calling me or RoyalDrew or anyone else burnt out pothead, so relax, 'cause I wasn't referring to you or anybody specifically for that matter.


----------



## medicineman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I do not have a problem with pot use, per se (leaving aside the current status of the substance in the Criminal code).
> 
> My concerns about legalizing pot are more practical:
> 
> 1) can we devise a road side sobriety test (like the breathalyzer) that can reliably detect those who have consumed too much pot to safely operate a motor vehicle?
> 
> 2) my second concern relates to the first: what do we about people who work in safety sensitive places?  My understanding has always been that unlike alcohol (which is pretty much completely metabolized after 24 hrs), THC is stored in body fat and will flood back out into the blood stream up to 30 days later, particularly under times of stress.  If this is true, as a practical matter, how does the CF approach the use of pot if it becomes a legal substance?  I could still see us administratively banning its use for soldiers, sailors and airmen, just for safety reasons.
> 
> Thoughts?



You can still pee positive for THC for many months after regular use, especially if you have high body fat content...it is why the drug loves your brain, the tissue is very fatty.  This is why I don't see it being legalized within the CAF, as the predictability of metabolism and excretion just isn't there.  We have bottle to throttle rules for a reason - metabolism and excretion of ethanol is quite predictable, almost down to the minute.  My opinion for any safety/security sensitive environment is nada...and the CAF is a safety/security sensitive environment.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Jungle

medicineman said:
			
		

> You can still pee positive for THC for many months after regular use, especially if you have high body fat content...it is why the drug loves your brain, the tissue is very fatty.  This is why I don't see it being legalized within the CAF, as the predictability of metabolism and excretion just isn't there.  We have bottle to throttle rules for a reason - metabolism and excretion of ethanol is quite predictable, almost down to the minute.  My opinion for any safety/security sensitive environment is nada...and the CAF is a safety/security sensitive environment.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> MM



That is the main reason the Dutch Armed Forces never legalized the use of cannabis for it's members, even with the widespread social acceptance of it, and the inevitable tolerance to some harder drugs.


----------



## Shamrock

Jungle said:
			
		

> ...and the inevitable tolerance to some harder drugs.



This mean tanker's chocolate is coming back?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jungle said:
			
		

> That is the main reason the Dutch Armed Forces never legalized the use of cannabis for it's members, even with the widespread social acceptance of it, and the inevitable tolerance to some harder drugs.



I was actually wondering what the Dutch policy was WRT marijuana, thanks for providing.  If that's the case and given what others in this thread have said, then I can't see a reason to allow its use in the forces.


----------



## Jungle

Shamrock said:
			
		

> This mean tanker's chocolate is coming back?



Well, considering the Dutch Army does not operate tanks anymore... no.


----------



## Shamrock

Jungle said:
			
		

> Well, considering the Dutch Army does not operate tanks anymore... no.



Then I guess I'll have to keep my production on the down-low.  A film crew has been following me around to do a documentary about my efforts.  The show is called _Breaking Track_.


----------



## McG

Jungle said:
			
		

> That is the main reason the Dutch Armed Forces never legalized the use of cannabis for it's members, even with the widespread social acceptance of it, and the inevitable tolerance to some harder drugs.


I would like to see stiffer penalties and stronger tools in the NDA even if things do not change civi side.  I am tired of the military justice system looking at when a civi would be charged and determining nothing should be done for soldiers who breaking the law.  I would like to see a charge for failing to provide a sample when ordered to do so under the drug control program (much as there is a CCC charge for refusing a road side alcohol test).  I would also like to see an NDA charge for using (which is not illegal under the CCC).  The penalties do not need to be anything that a delegated officer could not handle, just something more than is needed on civi street.


----------



## Occam

MCG said:
			
		

> I would like to see a charge for failing to provide a sample when ordered to do so under the drug control program (much as there is a CCC charge for refusing a road side alcohol test).



That would be insubordination, would it not?  

("Every person who disobeys a lawful command of a superior officer is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment")


----------



## McG

One could probably make that work, but I would like to see a specific charge for the sake of some nuances that I have run into during conversation with CF legal officers.

... It is much like how the CAF would be better with a specific charge for unauthorized firing of a weapon as opposed to using Sect 129 to catch it.


----------



## jeremy1995

.


----------



## Flavus101

jeremy1995 said:
			
		

> Im here to debate, im maybe wrong, but please use real arguments sir.



You should try reading the points that many members have stated as to why allowing soldiers (even when they are off duty) to use marijuana is a bad idea.


----------



## JesseWZ

When you are in the Regular Force (and certain Reserve Force service), you are subject to the Code of Service Discipline *regardless of your current location or whether you're on duty. * You can be off duty and still be charged with Drunkeness. Spend some time in the service (if you make it) prior to judging the standards by which we hold ourselves and our troops.


----------



## George Wallace

jeremy1995 said:
			
		

> Yeah potential futur officer, i don't know what the life in the CF is. My point is why can't a member of the CF can smoke a joint when he's OUT DUTY, at his HOME, NOT WORKING. That's not the CF, it's your home. How many people some time drink a glass of whisky at home off duty, do we call them alcoolic? Why can't a soldier can smoke a joint during a night when he's out duty with his friends? Im not saying 420 blaze it everyday. I just say than like alcool, it's should be legal so some people can enjoy it with friends when they're OFF DUTY, like alcool.
> 
> After, it's funny because a moderator just closed my other threat. He sais would you trust someone who's high to lead you? Hell no. Would you give a gun to someone who's high? Hell no. But would you trust someone to lead when he's drunk and give him a gun? Hell no! Legalizing it and letting soldiers using it during week end some time don't mean they will come to job high.
> 
> So yeah, im a potential officer, i don't know what is the life in the CF but there something you don't understand, im not talking about using it while your work, but when you're home, off duty. So look, if you want to debate about it and use arguments, go for it. Also, im not passing jugement on the members of the CF.
> 
> Im here to debate, im maybe wrong, but please use real arguments sir.



Just a few things here jeremy1995:

1.  If you really want to be an officer you will have to learn the following:

     a.  Proper use of the English language in the written form;

     b.  Pay attention to detail (ie. THC remains in your blood for a long period of time (weeks), whereas alcohol will dissipate within 24 hours - as pointed out in previous posts.); and
    
     c.  Marijuana is currently illegal, whereas alcohol is not.

2.  If you have short-term or long-term memory loss, you may not pass the CAF enrollment medical.


----------



## jeremy1995

.


----------



## Scott

Nice ninja edits. Stand by what you post (unless you edit before someone replies, of course) or stop posting. Credibility, zero. 

To all those replying: best quote the lad. 

Staff


----------



## KevinB

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0751-e.htm#dcanadian



> Under the Criminal Code (“the Code”),(39) someone can be tested to establish whether he or she is impaired by alcohol or drugs while operating a motor vehicle, railway equipment, a vessel or an aircraft.  Section 253 of the Code states:
> 
> 253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
> 
> while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
> having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.
> Provisions are also made in the Code to allow a peace officer who reasonably suspects that a person has alcohol in his or her body while operating, assisting in the operation of, or having the care and control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, to request that this person undergo a breathalyzer test or provide a blood sample for testing.  It is an offence to refuse to comply with such a demand, without a reasonable excuse.  Peace officers are also authorized to obtain a warrant for the taking of a blood sample where the person is unable to consent “by reason of any physical or mental condition of the person that resulted from the consumption of alcohol or a drug, the accident or any other occurrence related to or resulting from the accident.”



Relevant to the CF.


> Pursuant to the National Defence Drug Testing Policy announced in 1990, regulations respecting the Canadian Forces Drug Control Program were approved on 21 May 1992 by the Governor in Council as Chapter 20 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.  Under this program, mandatory drug testing with random elements would be introduced, primarily for all military personnel in safety-sensitive positions.  The program would apply only to uniformed personnel and not to the civilian staff of the Department of National Defence; however, given that all uniformed positions are considered to be safety-sensitive, the military drug-testing policy was considered to be fairly inclusive.  Most military drug testing would be done through the random selection of units comprising 5 to 500 individuals.  Testing would also take place for cause, for those who were undergoing rehabilitation for drug use, for post-accident investigations and for certain “super-sensitive” positions that were not covered by the random testing of military units.  All testing would be conducted by means of urinalysis and any positive drug screen would be subject to a confirmatory analysis.  Failure to comply with a request to submit to a drug test *could* result in disciplinary action.




You can be charged for failure to provide a sample -

 It would be interesting to see if one could push for a CC offence based on Sec.253 for refusal.


This is one of the reasons I love the USA...


----------



## brihard

KevinB said:
			
		

> You can be charged for failure to provide a sample -
> 
> It would be interesting to see if one could push for a CC offence based on Sec.253 for refusal.



Nope, not a chance. Refusal is S.254(5). That makes it an offence to refuse or fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a demand under any of the subsections of S.254. Those are the 'approved screening device' (roadside breathalyzer),  physical coordination tests, breath samples (at the station), blood samples, or a drug impairment evaluation. We are empowered to make those demands only in the context of impaired driving offences or the reasonable suspicion thereof. The wording of S.254 precludes its application to refusal fo samples requested for any other purpose because of how specifically it references S.253 and/or the combination of alcohol or drugs and the operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft.

As we're talking specific to the military context,t he NDA is the appropriate legislation if we were to look at instituting a breath demand /drug recognition expert evaluation for the purpose of keeping the military clean.

Frankly I don't think the military's existing powers are lacking. The CF just needs to have more spine about using the safety sensitive testing and enforcing consequences. MAke the troops piss more often, and fire those who fail pour encouragez les autres.


----------



## KevinB

Thanks.

 Down here it's pretty easy to get a sample or convict them for refusal -- either civy side, or Mil side.

Plus most refusals get sprayed or tased due to belligerent behaviours.


----------



## McG

Twenty years of studies confirm, the stuff is bad for your body and mind.  It does not matter what civi side does, we do not need this allowed within the CAF.


> 20 years of marijuana research shows ill effects of chronic use: review
> Josh Elliott, CTVNews.ca
> Published Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:57PM EDT
> 
> A 20-year medical review shows regular marijuana use won’t kill you, but it will increase your chances of developing psychotic symptoms or addiction to the drug – especially if you start smoking at a young age.
> A review published Monday in the scientific journal Addiction seeks to summarize all that doctors have learned about marijuana in the last 20 years. According to the latest research, marijuana use can impair people’s ability to drive and produce a number of adverse effects in regular users, including addiction and various psychological disorders.
> 
> Regular smokers who start using the drug in their teenage years are even more at risk of developing these adverse effects, according to review author Wayne Hall.
> 
> Hall, a World Health Organization expert advisor on addiction, reviewed cannabis research since 1993 for his article titled “What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?” Hall’s article defines a regular cannabis user as someone who smokes marijuana nearly every day.
> 
> According to the studies Hall reviewed, regular cannabis users face a one-in-10 chance of developing a dependency on the drug. However, that number goes up to one-in-six for users who started smoking regularly in their teenage years.
> 
> Hall says cannabis has become more potent over the years as people have turned to cannabis plants with higher levels of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Addiction cases have also gone up over that time. “The number of cannabis users seeking help to quit or control their cannabis use has increased during the past two decades,” Hall says in the article.Regular marijuana users increase their chances of developing psychotic symptoms and disorders like schizophrenia, particularly if they have a family history of mental illness, Hall found. Users who start smoking in their adolescence are twice as likely to develop a disorder, he said.
> 
> For people already at risk of developing psychosis, marijuana can bring those symptoms on sooner, Hall found. The drug essentially makes it easier for psychosis to come to the surface in people who show a tendency toward it.
> 
> Hall’s review also found teenagers who use marijuana regularly are more likely to develop an intellectual impairment. Hall says according to a number of studies, regular teenaged marijuana users fare worse in school than their non-using peers. “Studies showed that the earlier the age of first cannabis use, the lower the chances of completing school and undertaking post-secondary training,” Hall’s review said.
> 
> Hall also concludes that regular cannabis use causes a person’s IQ to drop over time. “The decline in IQ was largest in those who began using cannabis in adolescence and continued near-daily use through adulthood,” he said
> 
> Hall says there is almost no chance of someone dying from a marijuana overdose, since even a very heavy user cannot take in enough THC to reach lethal levels.
> 
> However, marijuana can still be deadly if a user gets behind the wheel of a car.
> 
> Hall says marijuana impairs reaction time, hand-eye coordination and cognitive abilities, making it difficult for a driver to judge and react to situations quickly. “Cannabis users who drive while intoxicated approximately double their risk of a car crash,” Hall said.
> 
> That risk is even higher when marijuana is combined with alcohol.
> 
> Babies whose mothers smoked marijuana while pregnant showed a number of adverse effects, according to the studies in Hall’s review.
> 
> Hall says babies born to pot-smoking mothers often have a slightly below-normal birth weight, and tend to be more easily startled. Their eyesight develops slower than it does for other babies, and later in life, they are more likely to show “delinquency and problem behaviour,” he said.
> 
> By grade school, children of marijuana-smoking mothers often fare poorly in reading and spelling tests, Hall’s review found
> 
> Hall’s review of cannabis research turned up a number of other long-term health issues linked to the drug, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and increased risk of heart attack. “The cardiovascular risks of cannabis smoking are probably highest in older adults, but younger adults with undiagnosed cardiovascular disease may also be at risk,” Hall said.
> 
> However, Hall says it’s tougher to link marijuana to lung cancer because many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, which is known to cause lung cancer.
> 
> Hall says marijuana is the third-most common drug addiction in Canada, behind only alcohol and tobacco. He estimates between one and two per cent of adults per year will be affected by marijuana addiction, and up to eight per cent of adults will deal with marijuana dependency in their lifetime.



http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/20-years-of-marijuana-research-shows-ill-effects-of-chronic-use-review-1.2043868


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Brihard said:
			
		

> MAke the troops piss more often, and fire those who fail pour encouragez les autres.


If that actually happened the CAF would be in the hurt locker. Anecdotal evidence only mind you.


----------



## cryco

I'm just curious, is pot smoking a problem in the CAF? Has it caused issues with behavior or performance? 
Is there an anonymous movement trying to get the CAF to OK pot smoking?
I couldn't care less if pot was legalized or not, but I sure hope it would never be permitted within the CAF or any other group that drives heavy machinery/vehicles and handles weapons on a regular basis.


----------



## brihard

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> If that actually happened the CAF would be in the hurt locker. Anecdotal evidence only mind you.



Would it be embarrassing? Absolutely. But in the long term it would be to our benefit to increase the deterrence of drug use, as well as to 'catch' more guys and get them into treatment before their drug use becomes worse. If hitting more guys with piss tests has a down-the-road impact on reducing CF members who catch criminal charges for substance related idiocy like driving high or getting coked up and committing an assault, I'm all for it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'd love to see drug dogs down the hallways of the shacks and in suspicious PMQ's, however I think if every member convicted of a drug charge were released we'd have a skeleton crew on many bases.


----------



## Edward Campbell

We don't need to release for drug use ... we need to _reform_, as in the 1970s, we began to _reform_ people who abused alcohol. I'm not sure we ever took the _reform_ far enough, but I can guarantee you, with 100% certainly, that the _reform_ programme included medically supervised treatments and release was one possible outcome, and it was used, at least once.

We do need to punish drug trafficking severely. Punishments for trafficking or for possession in amounts that indicate an intent to traffic must be exemplary: 60 days in the Service  Prison followed by months or years in civilian prison and release during that process.

There are several _lifestyle choices_ which the CF should treat as problems: alcohol and drug use are amongst them. How much is too much? I have no idea, but I have read some good ideas and some disturbing data here. The fact is, however, that we you CF members are not like everyone else and they can and should be treated differently ... to meet the needs of the service.


----------



## The_Falcon

Brihard said:
			
		

> Would it be embarrassing? Absolutely. But in the long term it would be to our benefit to increase the deterrence of drug use, as well as to 'catch' more guys and get them into treatment before their drug use becomes worse. If hitting more guys with piss tests has a down-the-road impact on reducing CF members who catch criminal charges for substance related idiocy like driving high or getting coked up and committing an assault, I'm all for it.



A good place to start is early, ie in the recruiting/basic training phase.  Why we don't piss test applicants is beyond me.  I mean most assume we do already, it's actually more of a surprise to them when they find out we don't.


----------



## DAA

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> A good place to start is early, ie in the recruiting/basic training phase.  Why we don't piss test applicants is beyond me.  I mean most assume we do already, it's actually more of a surprise to them when they find out we don't.



Just a guess but I do believe it has something to do with the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms".  

Urinalysis at the enrolment level only serves to validate what the applicant has voluntarily disclosed during the recruiting process, so given the odds, it really isn't worth the cost.

If you know or suspect someone, the easiest and most simple solution.......CFTPO Tasking to a deployed OP, will resolve it pretty quickly.  Not what the system is designed for but then again, some of us, can become very creative when we need to be.

PS - and the dead give aways when they do get called in for whatever the reason..........

1.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I was at a party/concert this past weekend and there were people around me smoking up.  I didn't but I probably inhaled some second hand smoke.....      :facepalm:
2.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I eat ALOT of poppy sead bagels from Tim Hortons and I heard that this can result in a false positive result and I don't want that on my records....    :facepalm:
3.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I've been taking medication X and I heard that this can result in a false positive result......    :facepalm:

If prior to providing the sample, they start coming up with reasons why it could be a "positive", then the writing is on the wall.


----------



## Tibbson

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I'd love to see drug dogs down the hallways of the shacks and in suspicious PMQ's, however I think if every member convicted of a drug charge were released we'd have a skeleton crew on many bases.



Unfortunately there are well established legal principles and case law decisions that prohibit the use of dogs in such a manor without a warrant.  In order to get that warrant there has to be sufficient information to have one granted.  Long gone are the days when you could take a dog through the halls and common areas of barracks, or even workplaces, and have it be usable in any fashion....legally or even administratively.

Combine that with the fact the CAF will not fund any sort of working dog program.  Its just not in the budget.  Ranks, buttons and bows are more important I guess.


----------



## KevinB

Run dog training in the Shacks for training.
  Dog get a hit - then you have PC for a Warrant.
You can run hygiene inspections in the barracks, why not dog's. 

The CF owns the barracks - they can do whatever the fuck they want to in them --if someone wants to cry - then make a condition of living on base...

  I highly doubt the CoR&F was designed to allow druggies a safe haven in government service (well actually on reflection PET was a bit of a pot head...)
   
We piss test all our employees - we also invite the local LE, SO, and State Troopers to use our facility for K9 practice (we are a DOD facility so we can search as well without warrant).


----------



## ModlrMike

DAA said:
			
		

> PS - and the dead give aways when they do get called in for whatever the reason..........
> 
> 1.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I was at a party/concert this past weekend and there were people around me smoking up.  I didn't but I probably inhaled some second hand smoke.....      :facepalm:
> 2.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I eat ALOT of poppy sead bagels from Tim Hortons and I heard that this can result in a false positive result and I don't want that on my records....    :facepalm:
> 3.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I've been taking medication X and I heard that this can result in a false positive result......    :facepalm:
> 
> If prior to providing the sample, they start coming up with reasons why it could be a "positive", then the writing is on the wall.



I agree with your last point, and a great deal of skepticism needs to be used when dealing with those making excuses. Just for information sake, here's some reality applied to those excuses:

1. A well discounted claim - you would have to sit in an environment so thick with smoke you couldn't see. Added to which, the elimination half life of THC is 5-8 days detectability in urine for single use; 15-30 days for chronic use.

2. While according to this [1] study it is theoretically possible it is highly improbable given how well the seeds are cleaned; retest provisions apply. Morphine, Codeine, heroin, and opiate analogues are detectable for 2-4 days after single use.

3. Easy enough to verify by having the member report to the BSurg.

If a member stepped forward and said they were going to fail for either number 2 or 3, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and deal with them under the existing regulations regarding admission of use. If they claimed second hand smoke my response would be markedly less than charitable.

[1] Urinary Concentrations of Morphine and Codeine After Consumption of Poppy Seeds 

I agree with Edward that eduction and rehabilitation for users is the appropriate first step, with an escalating response for treatment failures. Trafficking on the other hand needs to be vigorously and ruthlessly punished so as to serve as an example to others.


----------



## Rifleman62

Question. Around 1978 or so, a RCMP drug dog was shot in the RCHA Officers Quarters in Shilo. The officer got off the charge. True or not?


----------



## DAA

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Trafficking on the other hand needs to be vigorously and ruthlessly punished so as to serve as an example to others.



False positives do come up from time to time and it generally results in the requirement for another test.  But on to your comment above and it's a rather humourous story........

Back then, there was a book, I called it the "Red Book", which provided CO's with guidance on how to deal with drug related charges.  The Red Book, even went to far as to "spell out" exactly what the punishment would be, based on the crime (ie; Use, Possession, Trafficking, etc, etc).  It ranged from 30, 60, 90 days in DB if found guilty.

Mid 80's, 4 guys are sitting in the shacks smoking up.  Duh!!!  Someone reported it to the MP's who responded and caught them redhanded.  Off they go, they get separated and questioned.  None of them had any idea just where the MJ came from or who provided it.....it was just magically there.  Guy 1, 2 and 3 stick with the story "It was mine, I picked it up, took a toke and put it back down in the ashtray.  I never passed it to anyone and I didn't see anyone else smoke it."  That was all they would say or admit to.  But guy # 4 decides he's smarter and is going to beat the charge so he says "Yup, I was there obviously.  Buddy was smoking the stuff and passed it over to me.  I don't smoke that crap, so I just passed it on to the guy beside me.  But I never used it."

Guy 1, 2 and 3, guilty as charged.  Red Book punishment table for "use" was 30 days DB.  Guy # 4, guilty as charged.  Red Book punishment for "trafficking" was either 60 or 90 days DB.     :rofl:


----------



## TCM621

KevinB said:
			
		

> Run dog training in the Shacks for training.
> Dog get a hit - then you have PC for a Warrant.
> You can run hygiene inspections in the barracks, why not dog's.
> 
> The CF owns the barracks - they can do whatever the frig they want to in them --if someone wants to cry - then make a condition of living on base...
> 
> I highly doubt the CoR&F was designed to allow druggies a safe haven in government service (well actually on reflection PET was a bit of a pot head...)
> 
> We piss test all our employees - we also invite the local LE, SO, and State Troopers to use our facility for K9 practice (we are a DOD facility so we can search as well without warrant).


Everyone entering a military base consents to search and seizure. Surely, that applies to CF members as well. 

My biggest concern would be if pot was legalized but stayed illegal in the forces.  Could you be charged if you spouse had pot in your PMQ? It would be shitty if you could but if not, then people could just claim those plants are my wife's. 

If pot becomes legal, I think the only way to handle it would be based on impairment. And there should be some mechanism which would empower the CoC to march a suspected user straight to the pee test if they believe they smoked up before work.

Now in the interests of full disclosure, I have gone to work still drunk from the night before, so that is a little hypocritical.


----------



## Brasidas

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Everyone entering a military base consents to search and seizure. Surely, that applies to CF members as well.
> 
> My biggest concern would be if pot was legalized but stayed illegal in the forces.  Could you be charged if you spouse had pot in your PMQ? It would be shitty if you could but if not, then people could just claim those plants are my wife's.
> 
> If pot becomes legal, I think the only way to handle it would be based on impairment. And there should be some mechanism which would empower the CoC to march a suspected user straight to the pee test if they believe they smoked up before work.
> 
> Now in the interests of full disclosure, I have gone to work still drunk from the night before, so that is a little hypocritical.



I know chronic users who never smoke up before work. They do it every evening, as part of their social routine, and leave it at that. They would fail a pee test, as THC is always in their system.

To the best of my knowledge, such a person may drive and operate machinery safely and without impairment. Screening will show them as positive for THC. To be certain that its not impairing them, you'd need to forbid the use of MJ regardless of whether it is legal for most of the population.

Did I make any mistakes in there?


----------



## The_Falcon

Brasidas said:
			
		

> *I know chronic users who never smoke up before work. They do it every evening, as part of their social routine, and leave it at that. They would fail a pee test, as THC is always in their system.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, such a person may drive and operate machinery safely and without impairment.* Screening will show them as positive for THC. To be certain that its not impairing them, you'd need to forbid the use of MJ regardless of whether it is legal for most of the population.
> 
> Did I make any mistakes in there?



Really.....so of course you would have zero issue letting them drive you (or your kids if you have any) around?


----------



## Brasidas

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Really.....so of course you would have zero issue letting them drive you (or your kids if you have any) around?



No issue whatsoever.

There's a difference between a pot user who wakes up and smokes and a pot user who will do so in the company of their friends in a relaxed setting.


----------



## ModlrMike

Brasidas said:
			
		

> No issue whatsoever.
> 
> There's a difference between a pot user who wakes up and smokes and a pot user who will do so in the company of their friends in a relaxed setting.



No, there's not. Long term marijuana use is associated with increased short term memory loss, decreased ability to form new memories, and increased risk taking, in addition to other detriments. The time of day consumption occurs has nothing to do with the performance degradation. If you want I can post the studies so that you can read them yourself.

Not the type of person I want driving my kids, let alone my AFV or anything else for that mater.


----------



## TCM621

Brasidas said:
			
		

> No issue whatsoever.
> 
> There's a difference between a pot user who wakes up and smokes and a pot user who will do so in the company of their friends in a relaxed setting.


True. But if that user shows signs of impairment, then the drug test would only be a confirmation. And I know a hell of a lot of people who will smoke a joint in situations where they would never, ever drink. Like before work, while driving, etc. Among a growing population, pot is seen as perfectly fine to use at anytime.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Among a growing population, pot is seen as perfectly fine to use at anytime.



Among a growing population beheading journalists on video is fine anytime.   See what I did there?


----------



## TCM621

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Among a growing population beheading journalists on video is fine anytime.   See what I did there?


Clever. Not relevant but clever.


----------



## Franko

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Clever. Not relevant but clever.



Nor is your anecdote. It's illegal and will be for the foreseeable future within the CAF, regardless what you or others believe.

17 pages wasted bandwidth on a banned substance in the Forces.    :


----------



## TCM621

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Nor is your anecdote. It's illegal and will be for the foreseeable future within the CAF, regardless what you or others believe.
> 
> 17 pages wasted bandwidth on a banned substance in the Forces.    :


And you know this how? This is a discussion forum, where topics are discussed.  I really could give a shit if pot is made legal or not. And I (like many, in not most CF members) work in a dangerous environment everyday. If anyone was working high beside me, I would kick the living shit out of them for putting my life in danger. 

However, it is a fact that Marijuana use is on the rise both in the population at whole and the CF in particular (legal or not). Public opinion is swaying towards legalization and this will affect the CF. the smart move is to have a plan in place to deal with issues that may arise. The point of the conversation is to discuss what that plan may be. And comparing pot use to beheading is intellectually dishonest at best and not useful to the coversation except as a joke.


----------



## JesseWZ

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> And I (like many, in not most CF members) work in a dangerous environment everyday. If anyone was working high beside me, I would kick the living crap out of them for putting my life in danger.



So you advocate assaulting another member over their drug use? What about assaulting a subordinate for drug use? Does that sound ok? How about just reporting the use to the proper authorities and let the system sort the person out. This isn't gangland Chicago...


----------



## Franko

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> And you know this how? This is a discussion forum, where topics are discussed.  I really could give a shit if pot is made legal or not. And I (like many, in not most CF members) work in a dangerous environment everyday. If anyone was working high beside me, I would kick the living shit out of them for putting my life in danger.
> 
> However, it is a fact that Marijuana use is on the rise both in the population at whole and the CF in particular (legal or not). Public opinion is swaying towards legalization and this will affect the CF. the smart move is to have a plan in place to deal with issues that may arise. The point of the conversation is to discuss what that plan may be. And comparing pot use to beheading is intellectually dishonest at best and not useful to the coversation except as a joke.



Really? Seems the CF already has the issue well in hand for quite some time and has already laid down the law. If it's on the rise as you say in the CAF, there will be a corresponding rise in C&P along with releases. I've been in for 26 years and I haven't seen a correlation that backs up your statement.

Seeing that you're a 2Lt you should be well aware of the QR&Os along with the CANFORGENS and other directives WRT pot. If not, best get in the books pronto before you're a AO for a ST.

The issue is moot at best, regardless of what the public has to say. Case in point, the Dutch military. Legal in their society, illegal in their military.

As for you, apparently an Officer, saying that you'll "kick the living shit" out of someone that's high makes me wonder if you really are.


----------



## Journeyman

Maybe he's having difficulties with "increased short term memory loss, decreased ability to form new memories, and increased risk taking,"  you know..... "in addition to other detriments"    ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

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 and abstract thinking. 

Cannabis Use in the military
•The Canadian Forces has a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding the use of cannabis and other illegal drugs.


----------



## TCM621

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe he's having difficulties with "increased short term memory loss, decreased ability to form new memories, and increased risk taking,"  you know..... "in addition to other detriments"    ;D


I stopped smoking pot in Jr.  High. Personally I can't stand the shit.

Do I advocate assault? No. Would I do it? Probably and would take the charge for it. I deal with explosives, it is not ok to do that high. That is my feeling on the issue, how I would feel if someone had such little disregard for my life that he would be high at work. 

On the other hand,  if someone wants to smoke pot on a Friday night, they are grown adults and it's not my place to say anything or judge them.

Nerf herder, I am well aware of the rules and regs wrt drug use. I am also aware of an increase in drug use in the CF as in the general population. As recently as last spring, 17 roaches were found outside the CFSATE barracks in Borden.  That illustrates how young people view pot use, even though they know it is illegal they think nothing of throwing roaches on the ground near where they live. In 08, CFFS esquimalt had 17% of the school pissed hot during a surprise drug test with pot being one of the drugs of choice. More teens smoke pot now than smoke cigarettes. In BC, it is common to see people smoking joints as they walk down the street.

This attitude is being introduced into the CF and will only increase if pot is legal.


----------



## mba2011

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> This attitude is being introduced into the CF and will only increase if pot is legal.



Unfortunately, regardless of whether the attitude is changing in Canadian society, it is still illegal, both in the CAF and society.


----------



## Franko

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> On the other hand,  if someone wants to smoke pot on a Friday night, they are grown adults and _*it's not my place to say anything or judge them*_.



Actually, it is your place to judge them and act accordingly if you know of cases. If there's ever an investigation and if someone ever finds out you knew about it, I'd hate to be in your shoes.

Through a thorough DI, it will come out in the investigation. It always does. Last one I did WRT drugs was quite an eye opener.



> Nerf herder, I am well aware of the rules and regs wrt drug use.



Apparently not, see your above statement.



> I am also aware of an increase in drug use in the CF as in the general population. As recently as last spring, 17 roaches were found outside the CFSATE barracks in Borden.  That illustrates how young people view pot use, even though they know it is illegal they think nothing of throwing roaches on the ground near where they live.



So what was done about it? Someone actually do their duty and let the powers that are on that base know? Anyone at all? Did you do the right thing and report it?

Last time I heard even a rumour of drugs on base in Pet, the dogs were called in and 7 persons were sorted out. Same in Gagetown.



> In 08, CFFS esquimalt had 17% of the school pissed hot during a surprise drug test with pot being one of the drugs of choice.



Awesome. 17% of the school has a C&P on their conduct sheet. Wait until the next piss test. Buh bye.



> This attitude is being introduced into the CF and will only increase if pot is legal.



And it's *your* job to stop it, full stop. Seems you're making all kinds of excuses for the behaviour when you know full well it's illegal.

I honestly don't care what the civilian population attitude is, we have standards and laws. It's our job to uphold them, regardless of what some armchair pothead general thinks is right.

Regards


----------



## Brasidas

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> No, there's not. Long term marijuana use is associated with increased short term memory loss, decreased ability to form new memories, and increased risk taking, in addition to other detriments. The time of day consumption occurs has nothing to do with the performance degradation. If you want I can post the studies so that you can read them yourself.
> 
> Not the type of person I want driving my kids, let alone my AFV or anything else for that mater.



Sure, post them.

The majority of users that I work with (particularly ones that I socialize with) are in their 30s, have things mostly together, and are generally responsible. They are never impaired outside of safe circumstances.

Impairment from long-term exposure, beyond short-term memory, I have not observed. I'll read what you post.

CF smokers that I've worked with have generally been younger and less responsible, but that's been a relatively small sample. Who's dumb enough to bring pot on course? Somebody pretty reckless. The only one I've seen caught decided to bring enough to last all PLQ, and found his vehicle searched by MPs due to unrelated stupidity.

By and large, I don't have a problem with legalization. Long-term exposure effects, if they have an impact on operational effectiveness, can and should keep it restricted from the CF. I have no qualms, absent substantial research results, having friends or family members be occasional pot users, any more than I would if they drank. That's different from my relief operator handling a 9-liner.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I stopped smoking pot in Jr.  High. Personally I can't stand the shit.
> 
> Do I advocate assault? No. Would I do it? Probably and would take the charge for it. I deal with explosives, it is not ok to do that high. That is my feeling on the issue, how I would feel if someone had such little disregard for my life that he would be high at work.
> 
> On the other hand,  if someone wants to smoke pot on a Friday night, they are grown adults and it's not my place to say anything or judge them.
> 
> Nerf herder, I am well aware of the rules and regs wrt drug use. I am also aware of an increase in drug use in the CF as in the general population. As recently as last spring, 17 roaches were found outside the CFSATE barracks in Borden.  That illustrates how young people view pot use, even though they know it is illegal they think nothing of throwing roaches on the ground near where they live. In 08, CFFS esquimalt had 17% of the school pissed hot during a surprise drug test with pot being one of the drugs of choice. More teens smoke pot now than smoke cigarettes. In BC, it is common to see people smoking joints as they walk down the street.
> 
> This attitude is being introduced into the CF and will only increase if pot is legal.



So you quit smoking pot, after how long? Now, you 'hate the shit'. That begs the question, as a previous pothead, what converted you? Also, if you now 'hate the shit', what aspect of it now turns you off that you would tolerate it in others around you that you depend your life on? Do you not think, that if the toils and pressures of combat were on them and they had weed available they wouldn't be using it whenever they could? Does the enemy only attack at dawn, after you've had your THC sleep and are now ready for a coffee and combat?

I think that you should forget championing your fellow potheads, quit trying to come across as a tough guy, oblivious to the consequences of physically abusing a subordinate and re-read your Commissioning Scroll.

That's just my :2c: after years of getting like minded Officers fired. There is no lower calling for a human being, than to physically or mentally abuse a subordinate. Count yourself lucky that I'm now retired and we never crossed paths.


----------



## ModlrMike

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Sure, post them.



Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: a brief review Read the section about half way through that talks about driving and piloting skills. There is a direct application to many military tasks.

Psychiatric effects of cannabis† I'm particularly struck by these conclusions: 


> Cannabis use may lead to a chronic psychosis, which persists after abstinence.
> 
> Long-term cannabis use may lead to an organic psychosis which only partially remits after abstinence, leaving a residual deficit state, sometimes called an amotivational syndrome, which is thought to be analogous to the chronic organic brain syndrome seen after prolonged misuse of alcohol.
> 
> Cannabis use may be a risk-factor for serious mental illness such as schizophrenia.



Cognitive consequences of cannabis use: comparison with abuse of stimulants and heroin with regard to attention, memory and executive functions. 



> Cannabis induces loss of internal control and cognitive impairment, especially of attention and memory, for the duration of intoxication. Heavy cannabis use is associated with reduced function of the attentional/executive system, as exhibited by decreased mental flexibility, increased perserveration, and reduced learning, to shift and/or sustain attention.



That's just three of many, I'm sure you can do further research on your own. I didn't even look at the respiratory consequences.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: a brief review Read the section about half way through that talks about driving and piloting skills. There is a direct application to many military tasks.
> 
> Psychiatric effects of cannabis† I'm particularly struck by these conclusions:
> Cognitive consequences of cannabis use: comparison with abuse of stimulants and heroin with regard to attention, memory and executive functions.
> 
> That's just three of many, I'm sure you can do further research on your own. I didn't even look at the respiratory consequences.




Thanks for that. We, all of us, ordinary citizens and soldiers (who are also citizens) alike need to understand what is being proposed by some _'leaders'_.

(I'm _inclined_, at this moment, to see marijuana as being _something like_ alcohol: it is a dangerous substance but one which is in high demand. I don't exactly recall ~ even I'm not _*that*_ old! ~ but I understand the serious ill-effects of the prohibition movement in the USA in the 1920s and '30s and I _suspect_ that some of those _social_ costs are being paid here because of our marijuana laws. In other words, I'm willing to consider "decriminalizing" personal marijuana use if, and it's a *Big IF*, that will help deny profits to criminals. I am completely unsure about how "decriminalization" might be made to work and I am unwilling to vote "Yes," to it without a detailed plan for legal control and sales _*to adults*_.)

My sense remains as I said earlier: treat simple possession the way we (used to) treat alcohol abuse ~ counselling and clinics first, and disciplinary action as necessary; treat trafficing and posession of large quantities swiftly and harshly, in an exemplary manner: long stays in cells and release - officers and NCMs alike.


----------



## TCM621

recceguy said:
			
		

> So you quit smoking pot, after how long? Now, you 'hate the crap'. That begs the question, as a previous pothead, what converted you? Also, if you now 'hate the crap', what aspect of it now turns you off that you would tolerate it in others around you that you depend your life on? Do you not think, that if the toils and pressures of combat were on them and they had weed available they wouldn't be using it whenever they could? Does the enemy only attack at dawn, after you've had your THC sleep and are now ready for a coffee and combat?
> 
> I think that you should forget championing your fellow potheads, quit trying to come across as a tough guy, oblivious to the consequences of physically abusing a subordinate and re-read your Commissioning Scroll.
> 
> That's just my :2c: after years of getting like minded Officers fired. There is no lower calling for a human being, than to physically or mentally abuse a subordinate. Count yourself lucky that I'm now retired and we never crossed paths.


I don't know where you get this idea I am championing pot use. It is the exact opposite.  I am anti pot but I fundamentally believe that grown adults can make their own choices as to what they put in their bodies. The military is different, we don't get that choice because of the job we do. Increased drug use in the military is a fact, particularly pot and legalization will affect that. The military needs to prepare itself.

Yes I smoked pot in Jr high 20 years ago. You know what changed? I grew up. The amount of adults who smoke pot like teenagers is sad in my opinion but, again, they are adults and free to make their own choices. Also, I was even a "pothead" 20 years ago. If you think someone who smoked pot as a teenager is a "fellow pothead" to people who smoke regularly now, you're an idiot. 

You also have jumped on this idea that I will strike a subordinate.  Never have, never will but I have been in fights, and maybe again one day. A peer who threatens my life by working high, is a good reason in my book.

Oh, and those 17% who pissed hot got off Scott free because the school was unable to do anything, according to those rules and regs we spoke of.

I'm done arguing with people over shit they think they know about me. Bottom line. Pot use is only going to increase and the military needs a solid plan to deal with the fall out of legalization. Current policy isn't sufficient.


----------



## The_Falcon

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I don't know where you get this idea I am championing pot use. It is the exact opposite.  I am anti pot but I fundamentally believe that grown adults can make their own choices as to what they put in their bodies. The military is different, we don't get that choice because of the job we do. Increased drug use in the military is a fact, particularly pot and legalization will affect that. The military needs to prepare itself.



And the first step, is if you see something you SAY something.  If you aren't saying something, you are complicit, and might as well be championing it.



> You also have jumped on this idea that I will strike a subordinate.  Never have, never will but I have been in fights, and maybe again one day. A peer who threatens my life by working high, is a good reason in my book.



No one has jumped on anything, or made assumptions, because YOU KEEP SAYING YOU WILL DO IT, in fact your sentence contradicts itself.  Never is an absolute, so if you are going to say you would never strike a subordinate or peer, it means precisely that NEVER.  However YOU keep inserting a reason why you would, thus negating the NEVER. 




> I'm done arguing with people over crap they think they know about me. Bottom line. Pot use is only going to increase and the military needs a solid plan to deal with the fall out of legalization. Current policy isn't sufficient.



The military does not need a solid plan and the current policies are sufficient, the military already regulates (and provides punishment for those regulations) many aspects of soldiers lives, that would not be regulated/punished in the civilian world.  What NEEDS to happen is for people to actually ENFORCE those policies and regulations on a more regular and consistent basis.


----------



## medicineman

ModlMike said:
			
		

> That's just three of many, I'm sure you can do further research on your own. I didn't even look at the respiratory consequences.



I seem to recall from university Pharm and Tox a stat of a 50% increased risk of lung cancer in regular users compared to cigarette smokers...with usual inherent risk of COPD, asthma, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, etc.

MM


----------



## ModlrMike

medicineman said:
			
		

> I seem to recall from university Pharm and Tox a stat of a 50% increased risk of lung cancer in regular users compared to cigarette smokers...with usual inherent risk of COPD, asthma, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, etc.
> 
> MM



That's in keeping with my recollection. I also seem to recall that MJ smoke deposits 80% more tar in the lungs than tobacco, probably because of the unfiltered nature of the smoke.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That's in keeping with my recollection. I also seem to recall that MJ smoke deposits 80% more tar in the lungs than tobacco, probably because of the unfiltered nature of the smoke.



Yea, but surely that is countered by all the cancer it cures,....no??
 :sarcasm:   [just in case]


----------



## McG

> Marijuana still preferred drug in Canadian army, while cocaine gains ground
> Report gathered results for 11 controlled substances at 26 Armed Forces units
> CBC News
> Alison Auld, Canadian Press
> 21 Dec 2014
> 
> 
> Marijuana remains the drug of choice for members of the Canadian army, based on the Force's latest blind drug testing report that also found cocaine is gaining popularity among some members.
> 
> 
> The report, done between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2013, found the overall drug consumption rate has been relatively stable since 2010 but suggested young, non-commissioned members were more prone to do drugs.
> 
> 
> The findings, contained in a 42-page report obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, included testing for 11 controlled substances at 26 Armed Forces units across the country. There were 4,198 participants from most ranks and age groups.
> 
> 
> The testing found that 279 urine specimens — or 6.6 per cent — tested positive for at least one drug, with pot detected in 5.3 per cent of all of the samples. That's up from the 4.2 per cent in 2012 and 4.8 per cent the year before that.
> 
> 
> Positive test results for marijuana came from 19 units, with the bulk from 3 Royal Canadian Regiment and 2 Service Battalion in Petawawa, Ont.
> 
> 
> The report says nine units had cocaine-positive samples, with the most again from members in 3 Royal Canadian Regiment in Petawawa. Results showed 44 samples overall had traces of cocaine, up from the 29 positive samples the previous year, making it one of the higher rates since the testing started in 2007.
> 
> 
> While the numbers were considered low, members of the psychosocial health dynamics team who wrote the report said there was a higher likelihood that members tested positive for cocaine in 2013 than in 2009.
> 
> 
> "There was a significant difference for the proportion of cocaine-positive samples, such that 2013 blind drug testing participants were significantly more likely to test positive for cocaine than those tested in 2009," the report states.
> 
> The results found that drug use is significantly more likely to occur among junior non-commissioned members aged 27 years or younger.
> 
> 
> The document offers no reasons for the perceived increase, but cautions that the most recent samples were more likely than those in 2009, 2011 and 2012 to be rejected because of a flaw. It said eight units had samples that tested negative for drugs, but were found to be diluted.
> 
> 
> The Canadian Forces has a zero-tolerance policy for illicit drugs and conducts testing to gather data to guide its Drug Control Program. No one from the Defence Department was available for an interview on the report, but a spokeswoman said in an email that "the results are not used for disciplinary purposes as no urine sample can be attributed to a specific member."
> 
> 
> The findings might provide insight into where drug use is occurring, what types of drugs are being taken and what population is most involved.
> 
> 
> "The units identified in the present analysis as having the highest proportion of positive tests may provide the army with locations to target drug intervention efforts," the report states.
> 
> "Because younger and low-ranking members had higher drug use rates, it might also be beneficial to focus those interventions on these populations."
> 
> 
> Traces of morphine, methamphetamine, and the amphetamines MDMA and MDA were also found at low rates.
> 
> 
> The anonymous samples were sent to an independent lab contracted by the military, with the results provided last March.
> 
> 
> The units in the study were chosen by the Chief of Land Staff or by the unit's commanders or commanding officers, and did not include the Royal Canadian Navy or Royal Canadian Air Force.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana-still-preferred-drug-in-canadian-army-while-cocaine-gains-ground-1.2880624


The report: https://www.scribd.com/doc/250591904/Pot-still-drug-of-choice-in-army-report


----------



## Michael OLeary

> The report says nine units had cocaine-positive samples, with the most again from members in 3 Royal Canadian Regiment in Petawawa.



Well, Happy Birthday.


----------



## Infanteer

Well, there's a statement of the obvious....


----------



## MJP

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, there's a statement of the obvious....



And the Bday celebration went all night!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Anyone know if these kind of studies take into account prescriptions?  Would probably be insignificant to the results, but marijuana, morphine and MDMA all have legitimate uses in medicine.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart




----------



## medicineman

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Anyone know if these kind of studies take into account prescriptions?  Would probably be insignificant to the results, but marijuana, morphine and MDMA all have legitimate uses in medicine.



These were blind tests - they weren't taking into account the tests for cause, which use named sources vice "Officer/NCO/NCM from unit XYZ" that go to the units' CO's.  If someone were tested for cause at that point and pissed positive, they'd be asked for proof of prescription as part of the investigation, unless they test positive for metabolites of substances unlikely to be prescribed.  As for cannabis being a legitimate medical drug, for the most part, I've only ever seen synthetic cannabinoids like Nabilone prescribed in the CF...and even then, only after yelling, screaming and knashing of teeth.  The ones that end up testing positive in blind tests are generally doing it without prescription, since they rarely hit up the JPSU's, as a fair number of folks in them are on some sort of controlled substance.  BTW, I'd have to check this year's "Pearls of Wisdom" from D Med Policy, but I'm willing to bet that someone who is actually prescribed medical cannabis for whatever ails them, especially smoking it, would likely be on a permanent category that includes "Unfit Military Operational Settings" and therefore wouldn't be in the service much longer, due to both the illness it's being used for AND the effects of the stuff.  Much like folks who require amphetamines/stimulants for narcolepsy, some forms of ADHD, etc - they're often put on a category with a G/O restriction due to (a) the severity of the condition itself and (b) having to have access to their meds if they're lost.  Folks on long term narcotics are the same - they're on categories for whatever ails them, as well as the medications they're on to manage that problem.

When I was a Clinic Warrant, I'd go to Base Chief's conferences in Esquimalt and hear this stuff all the time about the blind unit tests, who fared the worst, etc...and I'd get at least 5-7 emails a week from Unit Chiefs (CFFSE being the worst offenders) to get time set aside for fit for confinement medicals for Baby sailors (and sometimes older ones) getting caught doing dope - in fact more frequently than drunk/disorderly.  I've personally been involved with releasing members who've been caught using and even dealing to support their habits.

My personal belief is that all service members should be randomly tested, and not blindly - if they piss positive with no good reason, well, there is a zero tolerance policy for illicit drug use in the CAF.  Strike One - medical category, off to rehab.  Once back, there is no Strike Two - if you piss positive again, see you later.  I find it funny that many companies in Canada have the same zero tolerance levels - but seem to have NO ISSUE about routinely screening folks, as it's a condition of employment, much like it is for the CAF.  What bugs me is the CAF won't do what it needs to enforce it's own mandatory compliances, instead it wusses out and does these blind tests instead of live ones.  My GUESS is they're either too cheap, or as mentioned above, too wussy to do what's mandated because of perceived potential fallouts.

My rant for the day I guess.

MM


----------



## McG

QR&O provide a mechanism for random testing, but the CDS is required to authorize this and such authorization has never been given.

In Afghanistan, the US was doing monthly random tests of their deployed pers.  As a start, we could introduce random testing on deployed operations (on top of pre-deployment safety sensitive testing), and wider use of safety sensitive testing in Canada.


----------



## SupersonicMax

It is actually illegal to conduct non-anonymous drug testing in Canada (there are some provisions for bus and truck drivers, http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/padt_pdda_eng_2.pdf pp 6-7).  It is possible to request the authority to conduct them for safety-sensitive positions but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find justification for all CAF members.


----------



## Infanteer

There is actually a list defining every position defined as Safety Sensitive.  If your position number/unit is not on that list, you cannot be safety sensitive tested.  There have been two attempts to list "anyone handling a weapon" or "Army leadership" as safety sensitive, but it went no where.


----------



## reccecrewman

medicineman said:
			
		

> What bugs me is the CAF won't do what it needs to enforce it's own mandatory compliances, instead it wusses out and does these blind tests instead of live ones.  My GUESS is they're either too cheap, or as mentioned above, too wussy to do what's mandated because of perceived potential fallouts.



I agree.  I also believe, from personal experience, that lids get slammed shut on some cases when names start getting called out.  An individual tests positive for a controlled substance, then starts singing like a canary about others higher up the C-o-C.  Now a Unit has the possibility of the embarrassment of a group of NCOs or Officers being accused of drug use.  Considering the amount of money that's been invested in a Sergeant or Warrant Officers career up to that point, not to mention the sheer embarrassment of having your Leadership called into ethical question, a lot of this gets swept under the rug without consequence.  I realise I may get some backlash on my comment, but it's the proverbial elephant in the room within many combat arms units, and I stand by my statement with plenty of concrete proof to support it over the course of my career.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Reccecrewman,

It is illegal to individually test for drugs in Canada (other than for very specific circumstances).  The CAF tried in the past to waive this for its members but it didn't work.  While there may be issues within you CoC with drugs, there is no conspiracy in this case...


----------



## reccecrewman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Reccecrewman,
> 
> It is illegal to individually test for drugs in Canada (other than for very specific circumstances).  The CAF tried in the past to waive this for its members but it didn't work.  While there may be issues within you CoC with drugs, there is no conspiracy in this case...



I never said anything about the legality of individually testing for drugs.  I am stating that I have seen individuals test positive for drugs on two separate occasions, and then have absolutely no consequence come to them when it was brought to light some NCO's and Officers could be implicated.


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It is actually illegal to conduct non-anonymous drug testing in Canada (there are some provisions for bus and truck drivers, http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/padt_pdda_eng_2.pdf pp 6-7).  It is possible to request the authority to conduct them for safety-sensitive positions but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find justification for all CAF members.



The Human Rights Commission does not set law or regulation.  And on page 4 they mention an Alberta court ruling that stated "recreational users of
drugs were not entitled to protection under human rights legislation".

The referenced document is just their policy; it has no standing in law.


----------



## Kat Stevens

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Reccecrewman,
> 
> It is illegal to individually test for drugs in Canada (other than for very specific circumstances).  The CAF tried in the past to waive this for its members but it didn't work.  While there may be issues within you CoC with drugs, there is no conspiracy in this case...



I had to go to Rabbit Lake uranium mine in (way) northern Saskatchewan to install a water treatment plant.  They would not even book me a flight until I had a piss test done and the results faxed to them, and I was going to be nowhere near the mining operation.  There are half a dozen labs in Edmonton that do this work, and every one of them takes names and shares the results with potential employers.


----------



## medicineman

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> I agree.  I also believe, from personal experience, that lids get slammed shut on some cases when names start getting called out.  An individual tests positive for a controlled substance, then starts singing like a canary about others higher up the C-o-C.  Now a Unit has the possibility of the embarrassment of a group of NCOs or Officers being accused of drug use.  Considering the amount of money that's been invested in a Sergeant or Warrant Officers career up to that point, not to mention the sheer embarrassment of having your Leadership called into ethical question, a lot of this gets swept under the rug without consequence.  I realise I may get some backlash on my comment, but it's the proverbial elephant in the room within many combat arms units, and I stand by my statement with plenty of concrete proof to support it over the course of my career.



I remember sitting in a Base Chief's conference on day and it was noted that on one of the blind tests done, a fairly high percentage of folks testing positive were in fact SNCO's/Chief's.

Max, as has been noted by Kat, and having worked in the civilian world doing pre-employment medicals, there are a lot of companies that make it a condition of employment to be regularly drug and alcohol tested - if you choose not to have the testing done, you're looking for work elsewhere, simple as that.  Frankly, I see no difference with the CAF, since you signed a contract, part of which states you'll be having some change in your civil rights and have to abide by rules, regulations and laws set out, including not using drugs or abusing alcohol.  If you elect to disregard those rules, regulations and laws, you are in fact in breach of contract (not to mention various military and civilian criminal laws).  The employer - ie the Crown and Her designate, the CAF, have to have the right (and necessity) to maintain a safe and orderly work environment, especially since in combat, things are inherently unsafe and disorderly.  If people are running around stoned or drunk with firearms, diving equipment, tanks, planes and ships, etc, and by virtue of that, people's lives at risk, they're making that environment even less controlled and unsafe than it was to start with.

The fact that there is in fact a lawful zero tolerance policy in place, should, in my black and white mind anyway, pave the way for lawful, unannounced, and named compliance testing. I honestly don't care for the safety sensitive part - there are safety issues, sure, but some people also have access to large sums of money and/or privy to sensitive information that can either be stolen or leaked by loosened lips or by blackmail.  Case in point - friend of a friend was a Log (Fin) O and was caught frequently doing cocaine.  By virtue of their position, they had (in those days) ready access to literally thousands of dollars in cash, not to mention information about people, unit movements, etc.  Do you think they were let off easily - nope.  They were cashiered (excuse the pun), even after giving up suppliers and other folks they used with to the SIU (this was back in the 80's).  That's what should happen FULL STOP.

 :2c:, again from my black and white mind.

Edit for posting oopie.

MM


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson,

There are legal precedents in drug testing indicating that the Supreme Court of Canada agrees that drug testing goes against the right and liberties of employees.  Google the cases of Suncor (2014) and Irving (2013). In both cases the Court suggested that if the Union and the Employer negociated random drug testing as part of their collective agreement then it would be acceptable.

The wording in the rulings is pretty much the same as in the policy I quotes earlier.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Very good guide.  Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Alcohol and Drug Testing, 2009.


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> dapaterson,
> 
> There are legal precedents in drug testing indicating that the Supreme Court of Canada agrees that drug testing goes against the right and liberties of employees.  Google the cases of Suncor (2014) and Irving (2013). In both cases the Court suggested that if the Union and the Employer negociated random drug testing as part of their collective agreement then it would be acceptable.
> 
> The wording in the rulings is pretty much the same as in the policy I quotes earlier.



Suncor is not a SCC case; rather, it's an Alberta arbitration board decision (with a very strong dissent) that cites Irving.  In fact, the Irving decision suggests that if there is strong evidence of substance abuse then individual testing may be justified, and not require negotiation with unions.


I suspect (though I am not a lawyer) that the CAF maintains its ability to conduct sensitive testing by not trying to overreach.  However, if a unit came back with high levels of positive tests I think there might be sufficient evidence to do 100% testing (non-anonymous) of that unit, as the anonymous test demonstrated a problem; the non-anonymous testing is then used to solve that problem.


----------



## Eaglelord17

We had a briefing this year on what the military is able to do with its drug policy. Frankly I was extremely disappointed and surprised at how weak it is. 
There are 4 ways they can do a drug test in the military.
1. Random testing, as mentioned above it has to be authorized by the CDS (apparently it was used once many years ago for a brief period of time)
2. Testing based on position/deployment. For example they can test Submariners at any point in time due to the nature of there job, they also are able to test people deploying/deployed on a overseas tour.
3. Testing based on evidence. The COC has evidence to believe that the member in question was using drugs and is testing them to verify usage.
4. Blind testing to see what the situation is within the unit. These tests cannot be used to charge anyone, they also cannot be used to do testing based on evidence (that part was made very clear in the presentation). So even if your unit turns up 100% positive they cannot use the results of that test to do a evidence based test.

This was how it was explained to us in our brief. It is worded in my own words and might be simplified a bit but it gives the general idea of how it works. 

Personally I feel the drug policy the CF has is a joke, especially considering the first time you are caught you go to rehab instead of being kicked out immediately. The fact is you made a commitment and agreed not to use drugs as member of the CF, it is as simple as that.


----------



## ModlrMike

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Anyone know if these kind of studies take into account prescriptions?  Would probably be insignificant to the results, but marijuana, morphine and MDMA all have legitimate uses in medicine.



There is no peer reviewed evidence that marijuana has a bone fide medical use, nor are you likely to find a military member with a prescription allowing such use.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There is no peer reviewed evidence that marijuana has a bone fide medical use, nor are you likely to find a military member with a prescription allowing such use.



You are completely wrong on both counts.  The only part you are slightly correct is Spectrum of Care does not allow for members to get a MMPR prescription, from their doctors, and therefore not cover it either.  

Please note, this descision is ripe with a constitutional challenge, which is why MM is allowed, and paid for by te Federal Government. i.e VAC.

dileas

tess


----------



## reccecrewman

It should be mentioned however, that there are medications that many serving military members could be using as per their MO's orders that can test positive for THC.  Pantoloc, Ketaprofen, Naproxin and Promethazine are a few that I can think of that will test positive for THC in a drug screening.  There is certainly the chance that a percentage of the positive test results that this sample took that may well be false positives from some of these medications.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> We had a briefing this year on what the military is able to do with its drug policy. Frankly I was extremely disappointed and surprised at how weak it is.
> There are 4 ways they can do a drug test in the military.
> 1. Random testing, as mentioned above it has to be authorized by the CDS (apparently it was used once many years ago for a brief period of time)
> 2. Testing based on position/deployment. For example they can test Submariners at any point in time due to the nature of there job, they also are able to test people deploying/deployed on a overseas tour.
> 3. Testing based on evidence. The COC has evidence to believe that the member in question was using drugs and is testing them to verify usage.
> 4. Blind testing to see what the situation is within the unit. These tests cannot be used to charge anyone, they also cannot be used to do testing based on evidence (that part was made very clear in the presentation). So even if your unit turns up 100% positive they cannot use the results of that test to do a evidence based test.
> 
> This was how it was explained to us in our brief. It is worded in my own words and might be simplified a bit but it gives the general idea of how it works.
> 
> Personally I feel the drug policy the CF has is a joke, especially considering the first time you are caught you go to rehab instead of being kicked out immediately. The fact is you made a commitment and agreed not to use drugs as member of the CF, it is as simple as that.



You're pretty much spot on with the drug policy. 

Where I disagree is kicking someone out for a first offence. The cost of training and retaining solidrs makes it worthwhile to put someone in rehab vice tossing them out.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> You're pretty much spot on with the drug policy.
> 
> Where I disagree is kicking someone out for a first offence. The cost of training and retaining solidrs makes it worthwhile to put someone in rehab vice tossing them out.



The only issue I find with the rehab situation is it is like giving one freebee. If the punishment was harsher from the get go then maybe less people would do it. I do understand the whole training costs part and the retention issues associated with it but the question you do need to ask yourself is are these the type of people we want representing our country?


----------



## OldSolduer

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> The only issue I find with the rehab situation is it is like giving one freebee. If the punishment was harsher from the get go then maybe less people would do it. I do understand the whole training costs part and the retention issues associated with it but the question you do need to ask yourself is are these the type of people we want representing our country?



The CAF is made up of people from Canadian society. I think you'd be hard pressed to make up the entire military strength of Canada with tee totallers and those that do not use substances of some sort.

Harsher punishment doesn't always equate to less smoking pot or committing murder for that matter.


----------



## McG

There are six types of tests that are authorized:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/toc-20.page


----------



## thehare

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> If the punishment was harsher from the get go then maybe less people would do it.





			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Harsher punishment doesn't always equate to less smoking pot or committing murder for that matter.



What Jim said. 

Current research into the area of Criminology (the study of why individuals commit crime) seems to suggest that the severity of the punishment for a crime has limited impact on an individuals' decision to continue committing said crime. What seems to affect these individuals is the certainty of punishment, which in this context would be individuals knowing they would be facing the consequences of their drug use instead of it continually being swept under the rug like some posters have suggested. Harsher punishments would likely have little to no influence on these individuals' behaviour.

This was a nice short read expanding on the topic:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf


----------



## reccecrewman

thehare said:
			
		

> individuals knowing they would be facing the consequences of their drug use instead of it continually being swept under the rug like some posters have suggested. Harsher punishments would likely have little to no influence on these individuals' behaviour.
> 
> http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf



I'm one of the people who mentioned it being swept under the rug, but I also want to clarify by no means do I believe it to be epidemic. I mentioned I know of two isolated incidents with two different Units I served with, but over the course of my career I saw plenty of individuals charged with drug related offences.  I felt I needed to clarify this as I believe the vast majority of NCO's and Officers I ever had the honour of serving under conducted themselves in a fashion expected of such a position.  I was only pointing out that sometimes, the system doesn't exactly work out as it is supposed to, and as much as we'd like to believe in the integrity and honour of our leadership, sometimes a few slip through the cracks.  I don't want people thinking I believe the CAF's (Or even my own Regiments) leadership to be corrupted through and through when my beliefs are very much the opposite.  I believe the NCO's to be the backbone of a Regiment, providing a living example to young soldiers on what they should aspire to be in uniform, and that is how I view(ed) the majority of my NCO's.

I digress and will steer this back to the topic at hand, like I mentioned, I had to clarify that.


----------



## Armymedic

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Anyone know if these kind of studies take into account prescriptions?  Would probably be insignificant to the results, but marijuana, morphine and MDMA all have legitimate uses in medicine.



I am unsure if this study took that info into account. But with other types of testing, a positive result prompts a review of the medical file and an interview of the offender with the MO to determine if there was an "alternate cause" to the positive result.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> I am unsure if this study took that info into account. But with other types of testing, a positive result prompts a review of the medical file and an interview of the offender with the MO to determine if there was an "alternate cause" to the positive result.



I was just curious, I doubted there was, and if it would even be significant.  Morphine was the obvious one, but with marijuana now being allowed to be prescribed to CAF members as per the CANFORGEN from a few years ago with certain (generally pretty serious) illnesses, and MDMA being investigated as part of the treatment with therapy for PTSD, there could be some 'noise' in the results.  It would come out easily enough for a normal test, but I think they normally would screen people anyway to identify expected positive results.

Given how widely available and easy drugs are to get, not sure why this is a surprise, and it's still at a much lower rate then the Canadian population.

One question I would have if they had found any correlation between the rates at the army regiments being higher then other untis, which would kind of be expected with all the Afghanistan deployments.


----------



## TCBF

- Drug addicts are liars. first, they lie to themselves. Then, they lie to everyone else.

- Experience has taught us that suspected and known drug users - especially those who used in civilian life before joining the military - have a much higher rate of stress injuries and failure to adapt. Do to our permissive mental health community, their inevitable VAC claims for PTSD/OSI paint the military as the bogeyman, not their previous inadequate existence before joining.

- You want the truth? DNA.

- I am retired from the Army. The civ company I work for pays for a seventy minute medical/physical exam before hiring. Drug and alcohol testing (with immediate interim results), eye, ear, mobility, strength, and flexibility tests follow. Push ups, scrunches, proper lifting technique demo (by you, not her). It is a very efficient seventy minutes. Fail? You don't get an interview - you get a "No thanks".


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=TCBF]
- I am retired from the Army. The civ company I work for pays for a seventy minute medical/physical exam before hiring. Drug and alcohol testing (with immediate interim results), eye, ear, mobility, strength, and flexibility tests follow. Push ups, scrunches, proper lifting technique demo (by you, not her). It is a very efficient seventy minutes. Fail? You don't get an interview - you get a "No thanks".
[/quote]

This would save the Canadian Forces millions of dollars.


----------



## mariomike

TCBF said:
			
		

> The civ company I work for pays for a seventy minute medical/physical exam before hiring. Drug and alcohol testing (with immediate interim results), eye, ear, mobility, strength, and flexibility tests follow. Push ups, scrunches, proper lifting technique demo (by you, not her). It is a very efficient seventy minutes. Fail? You don't get an interview - you get a "No thanks".



After the medical, and prior to challenging the Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT), the department I retired from sends candidates to this place:
http://www.awci.ca/index.php



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> Do to our permissive mental health community, their inevitable VAC claims for PTSD/OSI paint the military as the bogeyman, not their previous inadequate existence before joining.



In my opinion, individuals straight out of high school or college were more moldable than older individuals with "life experience" to the subcultures of the military and emergency services ( many of whom were ex-military when I hired on ).  

Background checks are obviously less complicated if the military, or service, is the individual's first career.


----------



## TCBF

mariomike said:
			
		

> After the medical, and prior to challenging the Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT), the department I retired from sends candidates to this place:
> http://www.awci.ca/index.php
> 
> In my opinion, individuals straight out of high school or college were more moldable than older individuals with "life experience" to the subcultures of the military and emergency services ( many of whom were ex-military when I hired on ).
> 
> Background checks are obviously less complicated if the military, or service, is the individual's first career.



- The average age of my squads in Cornwallis was 19, we had far less injuries and admin complications than my older platoons in St-Jean ten years later.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The average age of my squads in Cornwallis was 19, we had far less injuries and admin complications than my older platoons in St-Jean ten years later.



Maybe, but then again from my experience with new Ptes coming in, the older guys are definitely more mature and more reliable. Not a hard and fast rule but definitely a trend.


----------



## OldSolduer

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The average age of my squads in Cornwallis was 19, we had far less injuries and admin complications than my older platoons in St-Jean ten years later.



18 and 19 year olds are more of a challenge, however they have less to "unlearn" than an older recruit.

They are easier to mould and change their thinking. Not so much with older recruits.


----------



## DovoNewb

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> This would save the Canadian Forces millions of dollars.



People where I am constantly ask our leadership why doesn't the CF do named drug tests, as opposed to the blind testing that they do to get "statistics?" We get told about human rights, and that it is against the law. My unit in particular seems to have a lot of disciplinary investigation and actions in relation to drug use which is obviously against CF policy. 

Aren't there private companies in Canada that subject their staff to drug testing at least at the time that they are hired?


----------



## mariomike

DovoNewb said:
			
		

> Aren't there private companies in Canada that subject their staff to drug testing at least at the time that they are hired?



They do where I used to work: "The candidate will be required to attend a medical examination by a physician appointed by the City to undergo and pass a pre-placement medical examination and a drug test."


----------



## stealthylizard

I'm drug tested annually.  I am also subject to a drug test following a recordable incident, for reasonable suspicion, or upon a client's request.  It's pretty standard now in the oilfield to have a pre-employment test, and regular or random testing.  Last time I worked for a oil-sector company without a drug test was in 1998.  The biggest change has been that most companies no longer do "in house testing".  They send you to a independent testing facility.


----------



## concernedcivilian

Hello everyone,
I have a family member who started BMQ a couple months ago, and while she was home over the Christmas break our family noted some drastic changes in her behaviour since leaving for St. Jean. Perhaps I'm being too sensitive, and I knew she would change somewhat when joining the forces, but these changes seemed extreme. Basically I'm just looking for advice on how to handle it (if at all possible) or just reassurance that this is normal. 

Before leaving she was in a long-term relationship. At least four years. While at BMQ she decided they were going to break up and proceeded to sleep with a fellow recruit before actually breaking up with him. As soon as she came home they did break up, however. 

Our family immediately noted she was exceptionally rude and mean. Bragged about being military but more in a way of saying, "I'm better than you are" and looked down on all of us. 

We also learned she didn't miss home or her family at all while she was away and couldn't wait to get back home to her "boys". 

During her Christmas break she took to Tinder to hook up with as many guys as possible as well as resorting to cocaine use. Also managed to drink herself so stupid that she wound up in hospital requiring stitches and claims to have no memory of how or why. 

Now that she's back at CFLRS she's obviously very happy and has already been sleeping with a fellow recruit. 

I'm not just speculating about all of this because she has come right out and bragged about all of this, right down to being a self-proclaimed SL--T like its something to be proud of. 

Now I'm sure there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop her self-destructive behaviour but none of this seems normal for a person who was once extremely family-oriented and had a good head on her shoulders. Can BMQ really change a person that much?


----------



## McG

If she is into drugs, you can help her by contacting military police.  She will not like it, but help will be forced.


----------



## marinemech

/\ + 1 needs help now before it gets way worse, recommend calling Garrison MPs highly likely that she will be pissed being called in to the office to explain to staff and MPs and possible drug testing and removal from platoon


----------



## JesseWZ

I would imagine the drug use may also be a contributing factor in the behaviour change. Nevertheless, the Forces does not condone drug use and a call to St Jean MP Detachment is in order. 1-450-358-7011 is the number for St Jean Garrison MP Det.


----------



## chrisf

On the subject of cocaine, is this something you personally witnessed or just heard rumors about?

This this stage, it could be a sudden career killer. Take that into consideration.


----------



## Good2Golf

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> On the subject of cocaine, is this something you personally witnessed or just heard rumors about?
> 
> This this stage, it could be a sudden career killer. Take that into consideration.



So the MPs will investigate and if there are grounds for further action, so be it.  Should it not be a career killer?  ???

Regards,
G2G


----------



## McG

The career may be killed, but before that happens there will be mandatory medical referrals where help is offered.  More likely, she would be given a second chance during which she will be monitored and counseled toward drug free behavior.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Sounds to me like someone who was seeking male attention, and suddenly found all kinds of it.  The military doesn't make her a sl*t, being a sl*t makes her a sl*t.  Think of it like the meek mouse who comes home completely different after a year at university away from controlling interests.  The drug thing is not on, at all, call the cops.  The arrogance and chesty-ness is not uncommon in new troops who have a grossly exaggerated opinion of their own value to the big machine.


----------



## garb811

Or maybe (and probably more likely then her having been a closet coke head slut all these years with the four year relationship with a guy only being cover for the lack of male attention :facepalm, something traumatic has happened to her and this "acting out" is her way of trying to deal with it.  Not like we never see this with folks who have had otherwise "by the book" careers and suddenly they go off the rails for no apparent reason until they finally are ready to seek the help they need...


----------



## marinemech

BMQ is a rough time for some people, I had the unfortunate experience of being in the garrison when a young recruit (week 3 or 4), jumped or fell from the 8th floor landing on the roof of the 3rd floor. Luckily the platoon on the 4th floor was able to get to him and preform basic first aid while waiting for emergency personnel from the civvie side and the base. Luckily for him and for all who witnessed the incident he survived


----------



## Poacher434

Calling the MP's is a viable solution, also contacting the course staff can be something to do as well.

From teaching on many courses I can attest to the fact that instructors do notice changes in recruits from day one of course throughout, so your call can shed some further light on a curious instructor.

Also since she is enlisted you can also contact 1-800-268-7708 The Canadian Armed Forces Member Assistance Program.
 I swear by this and have pushed it more times than I care to remember, It is completely free and can be utilized by her or yourself, the program is confidential and the operators are very friendly and knowledgeable as to where the best help can be obtained.

They can even listen to a situation over the phone and reccomend the best places to seek assistance (they have also been known to cover some initial psychiatric treatments/screenings)

If you don't want to call the military police (although it is highly recomended to) at least call the CAF members assistance. They can probably give you better advice than anyone here (unless some counselors want to chime in)

Bear in mind I am not qualified, nor am I telling you the best solution, this is strictly my reccomendation as an experienced instructor, mental health instructor, and suicide/mental fitness supervisor.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

To the OP:  many, many people have gone thru BMQ and changed but not like that.  The best thing you can do is help to get her the help she needs, whether she wants it or not.  She is heading down a bad road that has no good end.

The MP number for that area is a great place to start.  Whatever she does and however hard it is to witness, remember she is an adult now and responsible for her actions.

There is also the option of contacting CFLRS to express your concerns;  I would suggest her Course Warrant Officer or Course Officer would be the place to start there.  If you know her platoon/course number, they would be able to point you in the right direction.


----------



## Jarnhamar

concernedcivilian said:
			
		

> Hello everyone,
> I have a family member who
> 
> -proceeded to sleep with a fellow recruit
> -was exceptionally rude and mean.
> -Bragged about being military
> -looked down on all of us.
> -she didn't miss home
> -couldn't wait to get back home to her "boys".
> -took to Tinder to hook up with as many guys as possible
> -resorting to cocaine use.
> -managed to drink herself so stupid that she wound up in hospital requiring stitches
> - has already been sleeping with a fellow recruit.
> -being a self-proclaimed SL--T like its something to be proud of.


To me this sounds more like a character assassination from an angry ex boyfriend than a concerned family member.

Saying theres nothing you can do to stop her self-destructive behavior sure doesn't sound like your heart is into "helping her"


----------



## Strike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> To me this sounds more like a character assassination from an angry ex boyfriend than a concerned family member.
> 
> Saying theres nothing you can do to stop her self-destructive behavior sure doesn't sound like your heart is into "helping her"



I have to admit, this didn't even cross my mind until you mentioned it.  Looking at the original post even deeper -- what is the general age range to use Tinder?  An older relative would likely refer to what she is doing as 'hooking up with people online.' This does seem a tad specific.  And a concerned family member using terms like slut?  Even if she did use those terms herself, most people who care would try and tone it down by using a term like promiscuous or loose.

I also noticed the OP hasn't come back.  No thoughts on what everyone is saying?  No more questions?


----------



## Remius

Sister?  Brother? Cousin?

Who knows.


----------



## Gunshark

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> To me this sounds more like a character assassination...



Interesting point, but it's still anonymous, so no assassination yet.


----------



## George Wallace

Gunshark said:
			
		

> Interesting point, but it's still anonymous, so no assassination yet.



Yes; but someone may have just made an ass of themselves.   [


----------



## concernedcivilian

First of all, I want to thank everyone who took the time to reply. I genuinely appreciate the advice you have offered so far. 

I want to make it clear that I am not asking about this because I wish to destroy my family members' career, so I am glad to hear that there are options available that will help her should it come down to that. 

I know it's easy to assume the worst of a person but I really do have good intentions. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I have no other family in the military, nor any friends in the armed forces, so I really didn't know who or where to ask. I am grateful for this forum and the ability to ask about something of this nature while keeping myself and my family members' identity private (because I do not wish to destroy her career before it has even begun). 

While at home and the first couple of days after returning to BMQ she bragged a lot about everything I listed above. I chose not to tone down anything because I wanted to demonstrate the severity of her behavioural changes. None of this was here say. If it was, I would have just shrugged it off as a rumour and not thought much else about it. 

I am hoping that she used her Christmas break to just blow off steam but if I do hear her bragging about the drug use again I have the contacts you have kindly provided. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she was partying really really hard. Which is why I haven't acted and don't wish to unless I feel I need to. 

I also wish to apologize for not replying sooner, for those wondering. Also, I don't have to be in my 20's to know what Tinder is... Not because I use it myself but because the Internet makes a mockery of the app. 

If I was the ex, I would've gone out of my way to ruin her military career by now. 

If there was a better place for me to ask for help or resources besides here please let me know. I didn't want to start or cause any drama. I just really didn't know what to do and I am quite frankly still in shock over what happened over the holidays. 

Once again, thank you so much for the help you've been so kind to provide.


----------



## Strike

To the OP - No worries.  We tend to take many things here (especially posts by family members, friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc.) with a grain of salt here.  Please don't take any of our skepticism personally.  I would much rather play devil's advocate and get the full story than take everything at face value and get bladed because of it.


----------



## concernedcivilian

Strike said:
			
		

> To the OP - No worries.  We tend to take many things here (especially posts by family members, friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc.) with a grain of salt here.  Please don't take any of our skepticism personally.  I would much rather play devil's advocate and get the full story than take everything at face value and get bladed because of it.



I had a feeling that would be the case. And it's ok. I was expecting it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

concernedcivilian said:
			
		

> Hello everyone,
> I have a family member who started BMQ a couple months ago, and while she was home over the Christmas break our family noted some drastic changes in her behaviour since leaving for St. Jean. Perhaps I'm being too sensitive, and I knew she would change somewhat when joining the forces, but these changes seemed extreme. Basically I'm just looking for advice on how to handle it (if at all possible) or just reassurance that this is normal.
> 
> Before leaving she was in a long-term relationship. At least four years. While at BMQ she decided they were going to break up and proceeded to sleep with a fellow recruit before actually breaking up with him. As soon as she came home they did break up, however.
> 
> Our family immediately noted she was exceptionally rude and mean. Bragged about being military but more in a way of saying, "I'm better than you are" and looked down on all of us.
> 
> We also learned she didn't miss home or her family at all while she was away and couldn't wait to get back home to her "boys".
> 
> During her Christmas break she took to Tinder to hook up with as many guys as possible as well as resorting to cocaine use. Also managed to drink herself so stupid that she wound up in hospital requiring stitches and claims to have no memory of how or why.
> 
> Now that she's back at CFLRS she's obviously very happy and has already been sleeping with a fellow recruit.
> 
> I'm not just speculating about all of this because she has come right out and bragged about all of this, right down to being a self-proclaimed SL--T like its something to be proud of.
> 
> Now I'm sure there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop her self-destructive behaviour but none of this seems normal for a person who was once extremely family-oriented and had a good head on her shoulders. Can BMQ really change a person that much?



Hey maybe I'm wrong. I apologize if I'm coming across as insensitive.

I just noticed that you seemed _more concerned with her sexual behavior than cocaine use._  You referenced sex twice before even mentioning cocaine.  To me shoving cocaine up your nose seems a bit more significant than cheating on a BF. I'd probably list cocaine use as my 1st concern and not the 7th.



> or just reassurance that this is normal.


Do you really need to ask if taking cocaine is normal?  

No it's not.




> If I was the ex, I would've gone out of my way to ruin her military career by now.


That's an interesting thing to say.



> Now that she's back at CFLRS she's obviously very happy and has already been sleeping with a fellow recruit.



That seems like a weird thing for a family member to care about, or even know about..

Good luck.


----------



## quadrapiper

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Hey maybe I'm wrong. I apologize if I'm coming across as insensitive.
> 
> I just noticed that you seemed _more concerned with her sexual behavior than cocaine use._  You referenced sex twice before even mentioning cocaine.  To me shoving cocaine up your nose seems a bit more significant than cheating on a BF. I'd probably list cocaine use as my 1st concern and not the 7th.
> Do you really need to ask if taking cocaine is normal?
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> That's an interesting thing to say.
> 
> Good luck helping your family member.


The (alleged) cocaine use is very worrisome.

The rest... "young troop drinks way too much, shags all interested parties, gets cocky, develops close bonds with fellow trainees" is not exactly unheard of. Phase 2 involves purchasing a (too powerful) motorcycle and getting regrettable tattoos.


----------



## mariomike

concernedcivilian said:
			
		

> if I do hear her bragging about the drug use again I have the contacts you have kindly provided.



This may help,

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

DAOD 5019-3, Canadian Forces Drug Control Program
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-3.page

Alcohol
Enabling in the Canadian Armed Forces
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-health-services-wellness-addiction/alcohol-use.page

CAF
Other Drugs - Drug Use in the Military 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-health-services-wellness-addiction/other-drug-use.page


----------



## DAA

concernedcivilian said:
			
		

> Hello everyone,
> I have a family member who started BMQ a couple months ago, and while she was home over the Christmas break our family noted some drastic changes in her behaviour since leaving for St. Jean. Perhaps I'm being too sensitive, and I knew she would change somewhat when joining the forces, but these changes seemed extreme. Basically I'm just looking for advice on how to handle it (if at all possible) or just reassurance that this is normal.
> 
> Can BMQ really change a person that much?



Your post should have STOPPED at what I quoted above and gone no further.



			
				concernedcivilian said:
			
		

> I want to make it clear that I am not asking about this because I wish to destroy my family members' career, so I am glad to hear that there are options available that will help her should it come down to that.
> 
> I know it's easy to assume the worst of a person but I really do have good intentions.
> If I was the ex, I would've gone out of my way to ruin her military career by now.
> If there was a better place for me to ask for help or resources besides here please let me know.



By going even further, you're not accomplishing much here, which makes me wonder about the yellow above.  If it is as you say it is, let it be, the problem will sort itself out.  BMQ has a tendancy to do that.  If it doesn't, the problem will quickly land right back in your hands.


----------



## runormal

concernedcivilian said:
			
		

> If I was the ex, I would've gone out of my way to ruin her military career by now.



Why? Why do you say this? When I broke up with my Ex the last thing I wanted to do was talk to her... much less tell her anything that was happening regarding girls/partying. If someone has changed/moved on they have moved on. How does the ex even know all of this? 



			
				concernedcivilian said:
			
		

> Hello everyone,
> I have a family member who started BMQ a couple months ago, and while she was home over the Christmas break our family noted some drastic changes in her behaviour since leaving for St. Jean. Perhaps I'm being too sensitive, and I knew she would change somewhat when joining the forces, but these changes seemed extreme. Basically I'm just looking for advice on how to handle it (if at all possible) or just reassurance that this is normal.
> 
> Before leaving she was in a long-term relationship. At least four years. While at BMQ she decided they were going to break up and proceeded to sleep with a fellow recruit before actually breaking up with him. As soon as she came home they did break up, however.
> 
> Our family immediately noted she was exceptionally rude and mean. Bragged about being military but more in a way of saying, "I'm better than you are" and looked down on all of us.
> 
> We also learned she didn't miss home or her family at all while she was away and couldn't wait to get back home to her "boys".
> 
> During her Christmas break she took to Tinder to hook up with as many guys as possible as well as resorting to cocaine use. Also managed to drink herself so stupid that she wound up in hospital requiring stitches and claims to have no memory of how or why.
> 
> Now that she's  back at CFLRS she's obviously very happy and has already been sleeping with a fellow recruit.
> 
> I'm not just speculating about all of this because she has come right out and bragged about all of this, right down to being a self-proclaimed SL--T like its something to be proud of.
> 
> Now I'm sure there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop her self-destructive behaviour but none of this seems normal for a person who was once extremely family-oriented and had a good head on her shoulders. Can BMQ really change a person that much?



Re-reading the original post, why do you reference the person question as "she" instead of my daughter, my sister, my cousin, my whatever; everything seems too generic to be real. Not once do you reveal your relation to the "person in question". When say "Our Family" that sounds like a mom post, but then you never say anything about a daughter... You also have a fairly deep insight into the sexual life of a person in question which I find a tad strange for a parent of a girl. Like others have said this is a very strongly worded post for a person who wants to give someone the "benefit of a doubt". 

As per heavy partying on leave/break. Whenever I'm home for Christmas I'm at home for like 15% of the time I get to go home once or twice a year as much as I love/miss my family I also miss my old high school friends and I only get to see them at Christmas as most people have moved away from the area. I try to make the most of my time with both my friends/family but usually I'm never home. I also typically can't wait to get back to my friends/school/work whenever I go home. Other than drinking heavily there isn't a whole lot do where I am from. I really don't miss my home and talk bi-weekly with my mom and fairly often with my family members through FaceBook,E-Mail, Text.

If this is true going away from home for the first time away from home can really change someone (I'm speaking of more of University/College insight). Other than the cocaine use this doesn't all the different from some girls/guys I went to High school went. Lots of people cheat on their girlfriend/boyfriend during school and then break up with them when they come home for the first time. Usually this happens during Thanksgiving, Hell some bars/clubs even have a "Turkey Dump" party the week following thanksgiving...

And as for being aggressive/rude it does usually take some time do get-out of "Course Mode" especially for a course like Basic or BMQ-L/SQ


----------



## Kat Stevens

She- pronoun, singular nominative she, possessive her or hers, objective her; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them.
     1.the female person or animal being discussed or last mentioned; that female.

Looks like a pretty reasonable pronoun to use when describing a female bipedal humanoid.  Why does everyone have their detective hat on over this?  At the end of the day, someone is expressing some concern over self destructive behavior.  I stick by my assertion that this is nothing more than "Girls Gone Wild; The BMQ Years".  Someone has slipped the chain and gone mental. It happens.  The coke is a problem.


----------



## runormal

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> She- pronoun, singular nominative she, possessive her or hers, objective her; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them.
> 1.the female person or animal being discussed or last mentioned; that female.
> 
> Looks like a pretty reasonable pronoun to use when describing a female bipedal humanoid.  Why does everyone have their detective hat on over this?  At the end of the day, someone is expressing some concern over self destructive behavior.  I stick by my assertion that this is nothing more than "Girls Gone Wild; The BMQ Years".  Someone has slipped the chain and gone mental. It happens.  The coke is a problem.



It definitely isn't incorrect, I just found it odd. Might be just me but I personally at some point would of said at one point, my sister/my daughter. 

I also agree that coke is a major problem but I'm just surpised that sex was mentioned twice before coke and numerous times after. Personally as a family member I'd be more worried about hard drug use over cheating on a boyfriend and sleeping around.


----------



## JoeDos

Honestly reading this post I could care less about "the family member being promiscuous", the thing that really caught my eye is the usage of cocaine. This person obviously is on a self destructive path, and honestly a call to the MP's should be made. Even after BMQ the usage of the drug is still probably going to happen, just because you don't want to ruin this persons career, doesn't mean you shouldn't call the MP's. Your family member is going to be found out eventually anyways, by not telling anyone you could potentially be putting other recruits at risk, or other members of the military that your family member could be posted with. 

Do Canada and our military a favor and report it.


----------



## Poacher434

Devils advocate is not a bad approach to take, I didn't even consider the character assassination till it was mentioned but it is definately a possibility. Though we still hold the implied responsibility to do what we can for direction, and I think the most we can do is provide contact information for services that are available (legal or otherwise).

Let it all come out in the wash, these things usually do, especially when they are so visible at such an early stage.

At the end of the day it is not a career killer, in this job it could very well be so extreme to say that by reporting it, and possibly having her career killed, you could be saving somebody's life down the road.

Just saying.


----------



## OldSolduer

There are three sides to every story:

Your side

My side


The Truth


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Four sides: You forgot the version Hollywood thinks will bring the most bums into theatre seats.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I stick by my assertion that this is nothing more than "Girls Gone Wild; The BMQ Years".  Someone has slipped the chain and gone mental. It happens.



Completely concur.  Kids go wild when they escape the bonds - I know I did.  One could argue I turned out okay in the end.


----------



## Good2Golf

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Completely concur.  Kids go wild when they escape the bonds - I know I did.  One could argue I turned out okay in the end.



But you chose Harleys, instead of cocaine...  :nod:


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> But you chose Harleys, instead of cocaine...  :nod:



Never a Harley.  I refuse to dress up like a gay pirate just to ride to Tim Horton's and hang out with accountant "badboys" polishing their masturbatory chrome.....

Now a he-man dual-sport (ie not a BMW, which has to stop at every Starbucks and never sees gravel, let alone dirt) is another story.

 :biker:


----------



## Good2Golf

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Never a Harley.  I refuse to dress up like a gay pirate just to ride to Tim Horton's and hang out with accountant "badboys" polishing their masturbatory chrome.....
> 
> Now a he-man dual-sport (ie not a BMW, which has to stop at every Starbucks and never sees gravel, let alone dirt) is another story.
> 
> :biker:



[still 'slightly' tangential]

The R1200GS Gods will strike you down for that, PG.

[/back to the thread]


----------



## Journeyman

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Never a Harley.  I refuse to dress up like a gay pirate just to ride to Tim Horton's and hang out with accountant "badboys" polishing their masturbatory chrome.....



Hello!  I'm right here.   


...and the closest I got to polishing a Harley was trying to scrape melted rain-suit off of an exhaust pipe. I prefer riding.  _Bi-atch._

 :chopper:


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I still get told to watch my mouth when I visit my mother.

The military changes people. Depending on the age of the person thre might be many "oh look, new things!".

Coke, drug use? Not a good thing. Whether or not they are in a uniform you need to start getting them help. Think about the fact that during this course she will be handling weapons, coke plus weapons is a bad mix and it needs to stop before that.


----------



## tomgoetz

marinemech said:
			
		

> BMQ is a rough time for some people, I had the unfortunate experience of being in the garrison when a young recruit (week 3 or 4), jumped or fell from the 8th floor landing on the roof of the 3rd floor. Luckily the platoon on the 4th floor was able to get to him and preform basic first aid while waiting for emergency personnel from the civvie side and the base. Luckily for him and for all who witnessed the incident he survived


I was there for that, he was my FTP. Glad he survived!


----------



## OldCrow937

I had seen this type of behavior back in 2008 with some members on PAR , blue sector 10th floor pod 6... yep that was home for me and 2 floors above us was the PAR platoon... people who for some reason were in limbo to leave the CF and these folks were real winners...

I recall a group of girls had been drinking can's of colt 45 malt and had purposeful left the remains near our floor on a Friday ( they had come out and admitted it Sat night @ the bistro ) of course our entire platoon got a nice fun day of PT Sat morning from 0545 until we couldn't move... sometime around 1100

Anyways long story short there were a few females ( and males ) on PAR that acted like it was a party zone and they really mistreated CLFRS its sad to see but report that type behavior its disrespectful to the staff and the heritage of that training facility!


----------



## AbdullahD

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> But you chose Harleys, instead of cocaine...  :nod:



Was that really the better choice?


----------



## Kyle1223

Hello all I need some advice. I'm in the process of Joining the C.A.F. During the drug test I omitted my history of cocaine usage. I haven't done coke in seven years I didn't think it was a big thing. Now they are asking for my medical history and I'm worried. If my kidney specialist says I'm a known cocaine user it won't correspond with my drug test. My question is should I just come forward and admit to lying on my drug test ? It was seven years ago (my last line) or am I worrying about nothing ? Please help I panicked and it may destroy my career


----------



## mariomike

Kyle1223 said:
			
		

> My question is should I just come forward and admit to lying on my drug test ?



In addition to the advice in these 29 pages, you may find this discussion of interest,

Previous drug use question 2002 - 2018 [Merged]
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/12779/post-1554867.html
51 pages.
LOCKED.

"Unofficial site, not associated with DND or the Canadian Armed Forces."


----------

