# drug testing



## tomlinsk (18 Oct 2006)

Right up front, I am not in the military -- I am a reporter for CTV.  
I registered on the site so I could ask anyone who wants to give their opinion -- one way or the other -- anonymously or not -- on the "safety senstive drug testing" that's now being done on all CF members who are getting ready to be deployed to Afghanistan in February.  Totally open ended -- I'm looking to find out what CF members think of this, and what, if any, their experience has been.
Any and all info is much appreciated.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2006)

I think it should be mandatory CF wide - and not just for deployments.
  * I am no longer in the CF


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I think it should be mandatory CF wide - and not just for deployments.



+1


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Oct 2006)

Agreed....those that hold sensitive positions or have Top Secret or above security clearances should have it more frequently as well.


----------



## civyinstructor (18 Oct 2006)

I agee that all CF Members should be Drug Tested periodically, however its hard to test for all the Drugs that are out there.Also remember the cost that would be associated with the tests.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2006)

civyinstructor said:
			
		

> Also remember the cost that would be associated with the tests.



Cost of doing business as a professional force


----------



## PhilB (18 Oct 2006)

I agree, as professional soldiers we should have nothing to worry about from these tests. Those that are worried well.. maybe they have a reason. If they continually screen professional athletes why not professional soldiers


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Oct 2006)

Tomlinsk,
Welcome to army.ca and thank you for being up-front with your profession. You may find there are members who are not media-friendly but many have been burned before and are still wary of the press.
Bruce


----------



## Slim (19 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Tomlinsk,
> Welcome to army.ca and thank you for being up-front with your profession. You may find there are members who are not media-friendly but many have been burned before and are still wary of the press.
> Bruce



I will add my welcome to that of Bruce's.

Being up front about who and what you are has bought you some credability. Its a good way to do business here and will, for the most part, get you the results you're looking for. Please remember that not all may wish to speak to you...So if you get a less than polite comment let the mods know instead of dealing with it on your own, and try to understand that not everyone in your profession has respected our collective (and in some cases singular) rights to date. 

Again welcome to the forum.

Slim
STAFF


----------



## 043 (19 Oct 2006)

Welcome!

Drug testing needs to be done...........it needs to be done without letting people know that it is coming. You can't test one part of a Battle Group and then test another group 2 months later. You will have remarkably clean results on the second.

My 2 cents!


----------



## Trooper Hale (19 Oct 2006)

Dead right, i know our Army has an absolute zero tolerance of drug use, but then Australia is a different country to Canada and drugs are harder to come by. I hope he doesn't mind me para-phrasing him but the best line I've ever heard on the subject is that of CWO Levesque saying (Again, not his exact words) 'If your job is that bad that you have to resort to using drugs then you need to get out of here and i can do that'. Those who use are letting down not only themselves but their workmates and so i completely agree with random drug tests to weed out those that do it.
Those that get caught must be punished though, its no good giving someone testing positive to cocaine 12 extras or something ridiculous like that, they need to get the arse and get a new job.
I know over here a couple of months ago a group of men were discharged after testing positive for dope in a random drug test.
We need to enforce the rules and need to get those who dont deserve to do this job out of there.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Oct 2006)

civyinstructor said:
			
		

> I agee that all CF Members should be Drug Tested periodically, however its hard to test for all the Drugs that are out there.Also remember the cost that would be associated with the tests.



As a former member of the CF, now serving with the Australian Army, my beliefs are simple. 

No drugs period. Zero tollerance period. Discipline by example, and random trug testing (all ranks) without warning.

Weed out the weak. No excuses, no exceptions.


Cheers from Baghdad,

Wes


----------



## Sig_Des (19 Oct 2006)

Wesley 'Over There' (formerly Down Under) said:
			
		

> As a former member of the CF, now serving with the Australian Army, my beliefs are simple.
> 
> No drugs period. Zero tolerance period. Discipline by example, and random trug testing (all ranks) without warning.
> 
> Weed out the weak. No excuses, no exceptions.



I agree completely with Wes. And most certainly with Ex-Dragoon. People in sensitive positions or requiring high level security clearances should be randomly tested, at frequent intervals.

I know that as a Sig Op, losing my sec clearance would make me unsuitable for employment, and that's a hell of a motivation to stay away from the reality-killers.

Drugs are a problem that are rampant in our society, and sadly, milder drug use is becoming much more and more expected. It disturbs me if I'm at a party, and people start to smoke up. I'll leave. But if I see or hear of CF members using it, that truly disgusts me.

Zero tolerance.


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2006)

tomlinsk said:
			
		

> to give their opinion -- one way or the other -- anonymously or not -- on the "safety sensitive drug testing" that's now being done on all CF members who are getting ready to be deployed to Afghanistan in February.  Totally open ended -- I'm looking to find out what CF members think of this, and what, if any, their experience has been.



Why test them before they go over...it's much more expensive to transport it over to there. 10 ft high marijuana plants and fields of poppys. A druggie's dreamworld. Test them incountry.


----------



## niner domestic (19 Oct 2006)

Tomlinsk:

While I can appreciate your curiousity as to what current and former CF members think about "safety sensitive drug testing" (and you should include alcohol in that phrase)the whole matter of whether it's right has been established in a legal framework by the Supreme Court of Canada in _Meiorin_, the Ontario C of A in _Entrop_ and the CHRC in 2002, as an acceptable means to ensure safety and fitness for duty (with appropriate provisions to ensure that there are no systemic or inherent biases that would set a particular group aside.)  In other words, this particular subject is a done deal and been done to the level of the SCC ( and I'm a firm believer that if the SCC says it's so, then it's so) and there is little if any, room now for debate on whether it should be done or not.  I'm not sure how interested your readership is going to be in the subject unless you are looking for objectionable stances from CF members as was seen in earlier years with respect to immunization for Anthrax etc.  Perhaps you'd like to share what perspective you are going to take on your article/report/sound byte.  

Now to be fair, this legal framework only speaks to one area of employer focused drug and alcohol testing, there are some minor exceptions such as cross border trucking and the framework does not give a carte blanc for employer to conduct random substance abuse testing without a BFOR, nor have the courts have to deal with the legal question of reasonable cause or post incident drug and alcohol testing. So the question then becomes, as many on this board have already indicated they would support, whether there should be mandatory drug and alcohol testing across the board in the CF.   That is an area that has yet to be tread by the courts and HR Commissions.


----------



## tomlinsk (19 Oct 2006)

Thank you all for your responses so far.  To answer the last question -- I am simply doing some research after learning that the group of approx. 2000 CF members who are now slated for overseas deployment in February are currently all being tested.  I'm told this was Gen. Hillier's initiative (from November, 2005) and this is the first time the new testing protocol is being implemented ("safety sensitive drug testing").  
I'm also interested in what the results of those test might be.
I don't know if and when we would do a story, I'm just trying to educate myself on the issue for if and when we do.
Again, any of your thoughts -- on testing, results, and/or implications (good or bad) are very much appreciated.


----------



## Canadian Sig (19 Oct 2006)

100% support for testing and I also think it should be random and widespread. In trades like mine that req level 3 clearances or have access to sensitive info/ kit should be tested at any time not just in prep for a roto. Follow the rules and have no fear.


----------



## Boxkicker (19 Oct 2006)

Bring on the testing it should be mandatory for all.


----------



## Gunner (19 Oct 2006)

Count me with those supporting mandatory drug testing.  It has been a very long time coming and should have been instituted back in the 80s when it was first looked at.  Weapons, Heavy Machinery and drugs do not work well together.


----------



## ERIK2RCR (19 Oct 2006)

That was the first test in the CF i was 100% sure i passed, however, it seems some people must have misplaced their question bank prior to studying.  :-X


----------



## Rodahn (19 Oct 2006)

I concur with the idea that testing is mandatory, but it should be conducted on a random basis with no warning to the members. This I believe was the original plan when the testing was first implemented in the 80's. As far as I know "recreational pharmacuticals" with a few exceptions are still illegal. Where I still in, I would not want to be on an operational deployment with another member whose head is full of dandelion fluff.......


----------



## brihard (19 Oct 2006)

FWIW, as a reservist with 2 and a half years in, I've not once been drug tested, nor do I know of any reservists who's ever mentioned being tested either.

That's all I'll say, as anything else I may wish to add could be misconstrued or taken out of context.


----------



## armyvern (19 Oct 2006)

I've been tested. I agree with it and have no problems with it. Zero tolerance...it's in the rules...follow the rules and you don't need to worry.


----------



## TN2IC (19 Oct 2006)

I believe in the testing. But I am not commenting on the Task Force issue. Meh...


----------



## patrick666 (19 Oct 2006)

"Zero tolerance" says it all and rightly so. We're not playing with water guns here, people's lives depend on you to be sober, clear minded and drug-free. I agree with mandatory, randomized testing.


----------



## Sig_Des (19 Oct 2006)

If I remember correctly from the briefings in BMQ, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's 3 types of testing that the military conducts.

Blanket testing, where EVERYONE in a targeted group is testing, such as all members of the TF being tested.

Randomized testing, where random individuals are tested, or a certain percentage of a unit are tested. If a large percentage of the tests return as positive, blanket testing can ensue.

and last, targeted testing. Where the chain of command has reason to believe that specific individuals may be abusing narcotics, and they are tested.

Course, this is all from memory, and knowing me, it could be flawed.


----------



## Armymedic (19 Oct 2006)

There are human rights issues to drug testing. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to drum up the references. If I recall correctly, the only time someone can be ordered to undergo drug testing is:
a. due cause, as in caught in possession, or in the vicinity of drug activity (i.e in a car when someone else caught for possesion)
b. as part of C&P and post program counselling.

As far as I remember, unless regs have changed, blanket testing is not permitted.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2006)

St. Micheal's Medical Team said:
			
		

> There are human rights issues to drug testing. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to drum up the references. If I recall correctly, the only time someone can be ordered to undergo drug testing is:
> a. due cause, as in caught in possession, or in the vicinity of drug activity (i.e in a car when someone else caught for possesion)
> b. as part of C&P and post program counselling.
> 
> As far as I remember, unless regs have changed, blanket testing is not permitted.



Its a crutch used by the CF not to do it -- the civilian sector does it, and the SCoC has affirmed testing IS not a human right issue.


----------



## Torlyn (19 Oct 2006)

St. Micheal's Medical Team said:
			
		

> As far as I remember, unless regs have changed, blanket testing is not permitted.



QR&O chapter 20 (and DAOD 5019-3) details when / why / how a CO can order a drug test.  It's fairly straightforward.  It's also a chargable offence to refuse to provide a sample.  Regardless, like the others so far, I agree.  There's a reason we all swore to not do drugs.  As for testing, we gave up some rights when we joined the military, and rightly so.  I have no problem with this being one of the civil rights that are impunged upon.  IMO, of course.

T


----------



## TCBF (19 Oct 2006)

Just a word of caution to anyone in the CF who actually knows the results - or even the approximate results - of the testing:  

STFU.

If it the results are to be released to the public, it better not happen here first.


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Oct 2006)

I think we should have regular and random testing - draw a number from 0 to 9 once a week (or month, whatever interval is chosen) and if the last digit of your service number matches you report for testing. 

Regular testing would discourage people from taking up the habit in the first place...


----------



## Jacqueline (20 Oct 2006)

I agree with the zero tolerance rule. Is there a blood alcohol test?


----------



## armyvern (20 Oct 2006)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> I agree with the zero tolerance rule. Is there a blood alcohol test?


Sure there is. But let's put the alcohol issue into context here. It's usage IS legal. It's usage in the CF is also governed by regulation for certain circumstances such as in-theatre restrictions/X number of hours non-drinking prior to duty etc.

Two totally different apples and oranges here.

One is illegal and it's use is prohibited by well known regulations at all times by members of the CF, as it should be; the other

Is legal and it's consumption by CF members is governed by well-known regulations at certain times, as it should be.


----------



## Jacqueline (20 Oct 2006)

Thanks. The alcohol rule had me thinking. It makes sense now.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Oct 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Just a word of caution to anyone in the CF who actually knows the results - or even the approximate results - of the testing:
> 
> STFU.
> 
> If it the results are to be released to the public, it better not happen here first.



MODERATOR NOTE: IF THIS DOES HAPPEN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM WE WOULD USE ANY MEANS POSSIBLE TO BRING YOU UP TO YOUR COC..


----------



## McG (20 Oct 2006)

tomlinsk said:
			
		

> I registered on the site so I could ask anyone who wants to give their opinion -- one way or the other -- anonymously or not -- on the "safety senstive drug testing" that's now being done on all CF members who are getting ready to be deployed to Afghanistan in February.


Testing is good.  We don't want people that will become a liability when lives depend on them.



			
				tomlinsk said:
			
		

> I'm also interested in what the results of those test might be.


Take that question to official channels.  *It will not be answered here.*


----------



## keaner (20 Oct 2006)

Out of curiosity, are there civilian occupations that are subject to the same testing? Are police officers, airline pilots, doctors, etc. expected to submit?


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2006)

Doesn't the NHL and other professional sports leagues test?  As I understand it, Ricky Williams runs for the Argonauts because he was suspended in the US for a year (or two?)


----------



## niner domestic (20 Oct 2006)

A study out of UVic, indicates approx 10% of workplaces in Canada use drug testing.  http://www.carbc.uvic.ca/Cdn_Workplace_Health.pdf#search='drug%20testing%20programs'


----------



## Bigmac (20 Oct 2006)

> Section 3 – Testing
> Section 3 – Vérification
> 
> 20.06 – MANDATORY URINE TESTING
> ...



      Above is a quotation from QR&Os. If you are in the CF and are using drugs you will get caught eventually. I say kudos to the new drug policy which can be found on DAOD 5019-3.  I agree with the CDS wanting to test all soldiers prior to deploying on operations.
     As to our esteemed friend from the media I say find another source to get your info as I am sure your true goal is to get a scoop on the numbers/percentage of CF members using drugs. You will not get what you want from this forum.


----------



## Meridian (20 Oct 2006)

IIRC, the issue isn't so much (now) whether the test should be done, but what exactly can be done as a result of the test results themselves.

An example, civvy world, is that your employer tests for drugs. You are already employed. There are significant responsibilities now placed on the employer to support the employee through drug rehabilitation and counselling, etc. 

Many employers prefer a don't ask/don't check/don't tell, because it can get very sticky as to how you -react- to a positive result.

I haven't read the SCC decision, Ill see if I can find it on lexum, Im assume its there.  Does anyone know if it addresses permitted reactions/actions taken to a positive result, or does it just allow for the tests in the first place?


----------



## niner domestic (20 Oct 2006)

SCC case can be found at: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs3-3/1999rcs3-3.html

British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3


----------



## paracowboy (20 Oct 2006)

tomlinsk said:
			
		

> Right up front, I am not in the military -- I am a reporter for CTV.


kudos on your honesty. Isn't that against the rules in your trade, though? Won't you get in trouble?



> I registered on the site so I could ask anyone who wants to give their opinion -- one way or the other -- anonymously or not -- on the "safety senstive drug testing" that's now being done on all CF members who are getting ready to be deployed to Afghanistan in February.


  all for it! Test everyone at random and hang the guilty! Hang 'em! No, flog 'em and then hang 'em! Then flog 'em some more!



> I'm also interested in what the results of those test might be.


prob'ly the same results as any other test: pass or fail.


----------



## zanshin (20 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Cost of doing business as a professional force



Agreed, roll it right into the budget.  For the first year or so (or whatever time period...) make the testing random, frequent and ubiquitous across the forces.  Once that first big push has started to produce significantly diminshed positive hits, then scale the testing back to something less frequent.  However, it must remain a constant thing.  As the years go by it will become accepted as "the norm" that in the CF, you're randomly tested all the time.


----------



## KevinB (21 Oct 2006)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> I think we should have regular and random testing - draw a number from 0 to 9 once a week (or month, whatever interval is chosen) and if the last digit of your service number matches you report for testing.
> 
> Regular testing would discourage people from taking up the habit in the first place...



+1   I think as well publishing the results of failures in a CANFORGEN would get the point across...

The CF currently places failures on C&P and enrolls them in a treatment system (like the old ARC "Spin Dry" for booze issues-- ask me how I know :cheers:  ) with a year long follow up (that they do regular testing -- I had a few troops in my section doing those tests...)  
  So its not exactly a zero tolereance platform (I beleive that a FAIL = 2S Dishonourable turn in your kit) 
  
Meridian -- the cost in terms of not dealing with the issues far outweight the cost benifits of ignorance.  The US military was almsot killed by rampant drug usage -- they now do testing - and their enforcement issues are a lot less "fuzzy" than the CF's.


FWIW - ANY person wanting to get into the PMC side had best be ready for testing...


----------



## GO!!! (21 Oct 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> If it the results are to be released to the public, it better not happen here first.



I don't know the results, or even a ballpark number.

But maybe we need to look at this issue in a different light. 

For years now, we have tried, as a military, to do away with an insular society of soldiers and their families, encouraging members to live off base, recruiting from under-represented minorities, women etc, and taking all possible steps to stamp out any last vestiges of elitism. All of this was done so that we could be "integrated" and "representative" of the country we serve.

Perhaps, we have succeeded. Drugs are a fact of life in the civilian world, and, it appears, that they are here in the military too, if our leadership is willing to spend large sums on seeing if soldiers are using.

I don't agree with it, I don't want to deploy with men who have drug problems, and I think drug testing should be done regularly, and the results made public, but this is the obverse of being "representative of Canadian society" - it comes, warts and all.


----------



## Gunner (21 Oct 2006)

Go!!!, the only problem with your post is you are insinuating the introduction of ethnic minorities and woman are the cause for drug probolems in the military.  This is completely wrong as anyone who was in the CF in the 70s/80s will tell you.  Our "insular society of soldiers and their families" had all of the problems of greater Canadian society.  If anything, it may have been worse.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2006)

Gunner is 100% correct,...myself being a product of the late 70's and most of the 80's, drugs were dispensed like candies.

I would put my next paycheque on it being a lot worse back then than today.........


----------



## darmil (21 Oct 2006)

> A study out of UVic, indicates approx 10% of workplaces in Canada use drug testing.


The trades for example are big on testing. Here in Alberta most companies that work out of Ft mac have drug testing you get tested as part of the hire.The shop I work at tests if there was a accident/incident or a new hire. For example there was this guy at work he did a very very dump thing long story short he broke his jaw. A few days later after his operation to fix his jaw he was tested and failed the test. I guess he smokes pot, not sure if he will be canned or not.I don't think its the drugs that make people have accidents its just stupid people that don't think things through.


----------



## GO!!! (21 Oct 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Go!!!, the only problem with your post is *you are insinuating the introduction of ethnic minorities and woman are the cause for drug probolems * in the military.  This is completely wrong as anyone who was in the CF in the 70s/80s will tell you.  Our "insular society of soldiers and their families" had all of the problems of greater Canadian society.  If anything, it may have been worse.



Poor wording on my part. It was not my intent to insinuate this. 

As I was learning to ride a bike in the 80s, and only have anecdotal evidence from relatives, I tend to agree with you that the CF family had a set of it's own problems in the "good ol days" that our NCOs love to wax poetic about, the point I was trying to make is that maybe we swapped out one set of problems for a new set. 

Also, to reiterate, we still have a very low proportion of vis-min and women in the parts of the army that I work with, so they would not likely be driving any radical shifts in drug use trends, their numbers are just too small, in the pointy end jobs at least.

Finally, I agree with the posts of many here that we need to do regular drug testing for all ranks, and make both the fact that a person has been tested public, and the results. Just like PT, one standard for all.

My unit does something similar with PT testing, (all scores above a certain level posted) it is quite revealing to see who "walks the walk". If you have nothing to hide, it should not be a big deal for a Bde Comd to be tested, for PT, drugs or anything else.


----------



## Patrolman (21 Oct 2006)

During the late 70's Golf Coy 2RCR was known as Grass Coy so I guess it is far from being a new problem. The difference now is we are deploying on ops where clarity of thought are of the upmost imprtance. Who wants to sitting on a hilltop in A-Stan with a fire team partner who's only thoughts are of rolling a big doobie in the marajuana field in the valley below.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Oct 2006)

Patrolman said:
			
		

> During the late 70's Golf Coy 2RCR was known as Grass Coy so I guess it is far from being a new problem. The difference now is we are deploying on ops where clarity of thought are of the upmost imprtance. Who wants to sitting on a hilltop in A-Stan with a fire team partner who's only thoughts are of rolling a big doobie in the marajuana field in the valley below.


Well, I guess Ricky, Julian and Bubbles wouldn't make very good fire team partners then 

All kidding aside, you make a good point.   Your head has to be in the game, because it's not a game, it's life or death.


----------



## seaforth93 (22 Oct 2006)

You agree to abide by a certain contract when you enroll in the CF which stipulates a ban on recreational drug use. You are subject to a variety of checks to ensure your compliance with your contractual obligations. A drug test should be no more irksome to a CF member than a PT test.  I was in the CF from 1993-2002 and found the incidents of recreational drug abuse that I encountered were low to none. That being said, alcohol was mentioned earlier and though it is legal and the CF does have quite severe penalties within its internal regulations, the consumption of alcohol, in my opinion, is much more problematic. 

This is my experience, others opinions may differ.


----------



## Scott (23 Oct 2006)

Bill Barilko said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, are there civilian occupations that are subject to the same testing? Are police officers, airline pilots, doctors, etc. expected to submit?



Some, not enough, IMO.

I work for an Industrial (Oilfield) Safety and Firefighting outfit and we *demand* a clean pre employment drug test. We will also test under the usual circumstances (Accident/incident, suspect behavior, etc.) and, IIRC, if someone is caught we still have to offer them counselling, not just a one way ticket to the unemployment line.

IIRC, it is still a touchy subject WRT Human Rights...The pre employment testing, at least.

I am all for it.

A few years back I worked with an alcoholic, this guy could be found passed out under the back wheels of the fire truck, not good if the driver forgets his walk around (and guess who'd get hung?) After many incidents they suspended him but had to offer him counselling first. He took it, went to AADAC for a two week stint and returned to the bottle upon release. Another *couple of months* gathering enough cause to fire the guy before he was finally gone! Management's hands were tied...

I went to a few fires with the guy when he was pissed and it was never a fun experience.


----------



## Patrolman (23 Oct 2006)

Right on Chilly! I am in the same bout as you. I don't have any Buddies civy or military who smoke pot. Family maybe but,I can't choose them. As for smoking pot and being an outstanding soldier it is not possible. An outstanding soldier does not disobey CF regulations .


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Oct 2006)

Here is my opinion.  I don't think that someone smoking a joint once in a while is worst than someone with alcoholism problems.  Both have serious impact on one's way of thinking/judgment.  The only difference is that one is a criminal act while the other is legal. 

Max


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Here is my opinion.  I don't think that someone smoking a joint once in a while is worst than someone with alcoholism problems.  Both have serious impact on one's way of thinking/judgment.  The only difference is that one is a criminal act while the other is legal.
> 
> Max



You all forget that neither is permitted in Theatre, Legal or Not.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Oct 2006)

I'm mostly talking for at home. 

Max


----------



## seaforth93 (23 Oct 2006)

Sorry to pick nits here, but the use of the term illegal when used to describe marijuana consumption is inaccurate. Consumption of marijuana is not a criminal code offence in Canada, the distribution and/ or possession is an offence. Within the code of service discipline  it is deemed a breach and penalized as such. Back to the original question, should CF members be tested for drugs, yes, in my opinion they should be tested at random intervals, when promoted and prior to operations. I believe it should be as routine as any other screening or testing to ensure that the member is complying with their contractual obligations, just as it's the members right to make pay and benefits enquiries to ensure the CF is fulfilling their obligations.l


----------



## Infanteer (23 Oct 2006)

Keep this thread on topic - it concerns testing and not your personal opinions on drug use.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Keep this thread on topic - it concerns testing and not your personal opinions on drug use.



Then, if we have to discuss only drug use (and not our opinion), drug use is bad.  Should we close the topic now??

Max


----------



## paracowboy (27 Oct 2006)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Then, if we have to discuss only drug use (and not our opinion), drug use is bad.  Should we close the topic now??
> 
> Max


you didn't pay much attention in your haste to be a smart-ass. Infanteer said 





> Keep this thread on topic - it concerns testing and not your personal opinions on drug use.





> testing


 not 





> drug use


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Oct 2006)

Well, isn't that our opinion then?  What do you want to know if you don,t want our opinon?  I'm confused  ???

Max


----------



## paracowboy (27 Oct 2006)

Infanteer made it pretty clear: discuss testing, pros, cons, legalities, costs in dollars, costs in lives, procedures, etc. Just about anything under the sun dealing with, or pertaining to, drug *testing*.

Not drug use.

Save the "Drugs are bad, mmmkay." stuff for another thread.


----------



## Slim (28 Oct 2006)

> As to our esteemed friend from the media I say find another source to get your info as I am sure your true goal is to get a scoop on the numbers/percentage of CF members using drugs. You will not get what you want from this forum.



Hostility is not the way we do business here. Be professional. Whether you are correct or not we do not stoop to that level, regardless of whether its warrented or not.

Consider this your freebee!

Slim
STAFF


----------



## orange.paint (28 Oct 2006)

I personally have no civilian friends other than in Newfoundland where I grew up.However one friend who works on a oil field doing non destructive testing (x ray welding on pipes) gets tested regularly.It part of his job.Like he told me if he is inebriated at work and fails to perform his job to a high standard people can be hurt,and the business loses money from down time repairing his shotty job.Therefore the company does a series of random drug test during the year costing the company a lot of money,however this is where risk management comes into play.I am uncertain as to how much the tests cost but in comparrasion to the law suits from injured workers from poor craftsmanship/accidents and in extreme cases, destruction of the pipe line its a type of company "insurance".

For the army the cost in my opinion is even greater.Its life's of our friends and families.It's scary to even think that   if    these people did fail the drug testing that these hard drugs are here in our military community.As patrolman stated I also have no friends who do that sort of stuff,but as a father it scares me that as a teenager experimenting my child could be exposed to heroin,cocaine and other deadly addictive drugs in this area.

The drug testing being not a zero tolerance policy is not a new thing.Once a member is rehabilitated the army See's them as "fixed" and can return to duty.With the lack of drug testing this is where senior NCO's officers must be looking for signs that maybe members are under the effects (or after effects) of narcotics.Soldiers going overseas must be able to also look at their peers with confidence,if you cannot there is a problem.This is not only a social "Canadian issue" it's a personnel management issue that maybe senior NCO's need education in.Not saying they have no idea of what's happening, but as myself who grew up in Newfoundland I have never seen heroin/cocaine/crystal meth.Maybe educating supervisors on this may help on this topic.

As for you senior guys (20yrs plus ago) I have always heard rumors of the "testing truck" that would drive around base to base with a portable lab.Did this ever happen?If so who owned/ran this facility?Why did it stop? It personally sounds like a urban myth to me but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion.Maybe even an idea for the future if it is false (attach to MP's on base?).


Let's also make sure random drug testing is not the random PTE/CPL but random across the board.

This is a sensitive subject but those who don't use have absolutely nothing to worry about.Lets hope the media has it wrong and the numbers reported doesnt show the actual numbers.I just can't picture that many people.

But I know I'm clean,so are my friends. I'll pee in a cup everymorning if I keep getting paid. ;D


----------



## TN2IC (29 Oct 2006)

Well here is what DAOD states; I just look around it.

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/DAOD/5019/3_e.asp

On other note, what I have heard in the pass, a personal has fail the test while taking supplements from a legal store. ie GNC I am not sure what it was, but the store sold it in the open.

Is there a list where military personal can check to see if their supplements are okay or not?

Cheers,
TN2IC


----------



## gnplummer421 (29 Oct 2006)

Tomlinsk, I will echo other posters comments, that being honest about who you are makes a huge difference in the replies you receive. I believe drug testing is a must for deploying troops. Follow up testing while in-country should also be conducted. Testing everyone in the Forces is a very expensive venture, the Lab analysis are probably very costly.

I can tell you that I am an ex-soldier, and when I was a Private in 1983, I got caught smoking a joint of weed. I spent 30 days in jail, received 6 months counseling and probation, and waited six months longer than all my buddies to get promoted to Corporal, not to mention the respect that took me years to earn back.  It definitely opened my eyes. It was not worth it.

Gnplummer421


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2006)

Drug testing..............
1. There should be continual posession testing.  Each base should have it's own or have access to drug sniffing K9 dogs supported by the MPs or the RCMP or the Provincial Police.

2.  Drug use.  Any incident requires an immediate notification to DMCARM, 12 months of C&P (including continual Pee tests along the way).  I think that, once that year of C&P is done, there should be another 24 months of sporadic follow-up tests to make sure you have kept clean.


----------



## orange.paint (29 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> 2.  Drug use.  Any incident requires an immediate notification to DMCARM, 12 months of C&P (including continual Pee tests along the way).  I think that, once that year of C&P is done, there should be another 24 months of sporadic follow-up tests to make sure you have kept clean.



That's basically what happens now.IIRC 4 random urine test during the 1 year on C&P.

In my opinion after they are rehabilitated they should be released or put on a career stop for at least five years.Hurt their career bad.Demotions etc.Let clean soldiers who take their job seriously take their positions.



			
				gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> Tomlinsk, I will echo other posters comments, that being honest about who you are makes a huge difference in the replies you receive. I believe drug testing is a must for deploying troops. Follow up testing while in-country should also be conducted. Testing everyone in the Forces is a very expensive venture, the Lab analysis are probably very costly.
> 
> I can tell you that I am an ex-soldier, and when I was a Private in 1983, I got caught smoking a joint of weed. I spent 30 days in jail, received 6 months counseling and probation, and waited six months longer than all my buddies to get promoted to Corporal, not to mention the respect that took me years to earn back.  It definitely opened my eyes. It was not worth it.
> 
> Gnplummer421



Cost should not be an issue.Soldiers life's are being protected by new vehicles etc.They should look at this as another way to save life's. It's quite interesting to note you spent 30 days in jail.I however have seen cokeheads avoid any jail time.Must be a change in the possession laws since 1983.The army should be locking these guys up.

Our biggest mistake is we are not making examples of these people.Fire them.Then maybe others will rethink losing their income over a few puffs or snorts of dirt.


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2006)

.... the 1 yr of C&P & Testing is currently being applied
the 2 yrs of additional "spot checks" is what I think is needed.


----------



## Cote (29 Oct 2006)

So drug testing before deployment is new? I thought it was appart of your workup medical or something?


----------



## orange.paint (29 Oct 2006)

Don't have to spot check ex military members .But yes If retained they should be viewed as high risk people to re offend and red flagged the rest of their career in my opinion.People fall back into things like this years after the addiction.


----------



## medicineman (29 Oct 2006)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Is there a list where military personal can check to see if their supplements are okay or not?



Dietary supplements aren't a regulated industry in Canada the way pharmaceuticals are - just because it says something on the container, doesn't necessarily mean that it's in the powder or capsule.  Just like if you buy some dope off the street, these things can be cut with more or less of the additives they say are in them or something completely different.  In a nutshell "BUYER BEWARE".

There is a booklet published by NDHQ on dietary supps - I think you can get it through the PSP Health Promotion folks.

MM


----------



## TN2IC (29 Oct 2006)

Ah thank you Medicineman for sheding some light on the issue.


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Oct 2006)

I have drug testing in my workplace. I'm writing the policy    We had it at my last workplace, and the one before. Most companies that I know of have drug testing in some way, shape, or form. Our company policy:

Pre-employment
Reasonable Suspicion
Random
Post-Injury (includes breath alcohol as well)

Costs me about 30 bucks to drug-test an employee at the company doc's


----------



## youravatar (30 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Drug testing..............
> 1. There should be continual posession testing.  Each base should have it's own or have access to drug sniffing K9 dogs supported by the MPs or the RCMP or the Provincial Police.
> 
> 2.  Drug use.  Any incident requires an immediate notification to DMCARM, 12 months of C&P (including continual Pee tests along the way).  I think that, once that year of C&P is done, there should be another 24 months of sporadic follow-up tests to make sure you have kept clean.



I hear that geo. Just because someone tested positive doesn't mke them a bad soldier. Maybe they just got caught in a moment of weakness.


----------



## GUNS (30 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Drug testing..............
> 1. There should be continual possession testing.  Each base should have it's own or have access to drug sniffing K9 dogs supported by the MPs or the RCMP or the Provincial Police.
> 
> 2.  Drug use.  Any incident requires an immediate notification to DMCARM, 12 months of C&P (including continual Pee tests along the way).  I think that, once that year of C&P is done, there should be another 24 months of sporadic follow-up tests to make sure you have kept clean.



Geo, I agree 100%. DND should make drug testing a regular occurrence. Anyone in uniform, from the CDS down should have at least one random drug test a year.


----------



## orange.paint (30 Oct 2006)

youravatar said:
			
		

> I hear that geo. Just because someone tested positive doesn't mke them a bad soldier. Maybe they just got caught in a moment of weakness.



Moment of weakness is eating a big bag of chips and not going to the gym cause your too lazy.Shooting heroin isn't.Yes in my opinion it does make them a piss poor soldier.Lets not cuddle these idiots as the Canadian public pays us a lot of money to uphold norms above the civilian population.

While yes i believe serving members with no previous record of drugs should be tested annually I don't agree with retaining drug users.Call me a stick in the mud.


----------



## geo (30 Oct 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Geo, I agree 100%. DND should make drug testing a regular occurrence. Anyone in uniform, from the CDS down should have at least one random drug test a year.


Testing everyone every year is extremely time consuming and cost ineffective... Based on Service numbers, I would have a random selection that everyone would be subject to - anytime, anyplace, anyone.....


----------



## GUNS (30 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> Moment of weakness is eating a big bag of chips and not going to the gym cause your too lazy.Shooting heroin isn't.Yes in my opinion it does make them a piss poor soldier.Lets not cuddle these idiots as the Canadian public pays us a lot of money to uphold norms above the civilian population.
> 
> While yes i believe serving members with no previous record of drugs should be tested annually I don't agree with retaining drug users.Call me a stick in the mud.



099, kind of agree with you.

Drugs have no place in the military or any other place.

I do not agree with releasing people who have tested positive for the first time. A persons character is not based on one mistake.

" He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Everyone has done something in the past that they wish they could have done differently.

Allow these people to prove themselves and if DND in their judgement, deems that these soldiers deserve a chance. I am all for it.


----------



## geo (30 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> Moment of weakness is eating a big bag of chips and not going to the gym cause your too lazy.Shooting heroin isn't.Yes in my opinion it does make them a piss poor soldier.Lets not cuddle these idiots as the Canadian public pays us a lot of money to uphold norms above the civilian population.
> While yes i believe serving members with no previous record of drugs should be tested annually I don't agree with retaining drug users.Call me a stick in the mud.


Doing Heroin, crack, opium, chemicals & the like are definitely personal choices
being with a group of friends where all of a sudden a Joint is going round.... a moment of stupidity / temporary insanity is so easily found.... not saying it's right, but I can fathom


----------



## youravatar (30 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Doing Heroin, crack, opium, chemicals & the like are definitely personal choices.
> Being with a group of friends where all of a sudden a joint is going round.... a moment of stupidity / temporary insanity is so easily found.... not saying it's right, but I can fathom it.



Thats more along the lines of what i was getting at.


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

One of the problems now in Gagetown with the drug testing is some of the people are testing positive, but are not doing drugs, they are testing positive because of prescription drugs, on the shelf drugs, IE- Ibuprofen,Acetaminophen,Neocitran and T3's (which have Codeine).
 They are being black marked and have to provide proof, even when they are getting the prescription drugs from the MIR on base, I understand the need to have the tests, but we have to be careful with it !.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2006)

If it's the case that codeine, for example, shows up in your blood, I'm fairly certain that the fact that if prescribed, it would be duly noted.  I, for example, was prescribed some medicine that included codeine some time back following minor surgery.  Had I had to pee in a bottle I am certain that (a) I would tell whomever that I was prescribed said medicine prior to the test and (b) upon positive showing up in my urine, they (the powers that be) would verify my statement.


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> If it's the case that codeine, for example, shows up in your blood, I'm fairly certain that the fact that if prescribed, it would be duly noted.  I, for example, was prescribed some medicine that included codeine some time back following minor surgery.  Had I had to pee in a bottle I am certain that (a) I would tell whomever that I was prescribed said medicine prior to the test and (b) upon positive showing up in my urine, they (the powers that be) would verify my statement.


 Yes you are right, but some people are having this problem !.  But whould you say to them I had a headack lastnight and took 2 Ex  Advil, now you just tested pos. for pot.
                                                     Sorry spell check not working for me !


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2006)

I doubt that Advil tm would make one test positive for pot, but I'm no chemist, so...


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> I doubt that Advil tm would make one test positive for pot, but I'm no chemist, so...


  Yes Advil within 48 Hrs. & Acetaminophen will test pos. for pot !.
             Neocitran for Heroin !
             Sorry about that, not Neocitran but Nyquil !


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (30 Oct 2006)

did they have to "roll" the Advil?   

If so...go back to Shoppers...they gave you the wrong Advil.


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> did they have to "roll" the Advil?
> 
> If so...go back to Shoppers...they gave you the wrong Advil.


  It's not the Advil, it"s the Ibuprofen, in it.


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Oct 2006)

Well, I can't speak for Canadian chemists, but here, all of those "false positive" stories are myths. NeoCitran doesn't equal heroin, poppy seeds don't result in positives, etc. I attended a pretty extensive seminar on employee drug testing that reviewed in a lot of detail all of those issues. When you take a test here, you list on the form any medication that you are currently taken. All test results are reviewed by a physician, and positive results are re-tested before declared positive.


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

OK, you are right ! you tell that to the people going throught the crap here in Gagetown,
  I'am not trying to start a bun fight, but saying whats going on in Gagetown.


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Oct 2006)

"Here" to me, is Arizona. As I inferred, I can't speak for what is happening in CFBG.


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Well, I can't speak for Canadian chemists, but here, all of those "false positive" stories are myths. NeoCitran doesn't equal heroin, poppy seeds don't result in positives, etc. I attended a pretty extensive seminar on employee drug testing that reviewed in a lot of detail all of those issues. When you take a test here, you list on the form any medication that you are currently taken. All test results are reviewed by a physician, and positive results are re-tested before declared positive.


  Yes , thats the way it should be ! But I was in MIR here and a person came in to get copy's of there doc's, to show all the Medications they were thanking for the last 2 years for the CSM.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (30 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Save the "Drugs are bad, mmmkay." stuff for another thread.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.

That cracked me up Paracowboy.  I even heard the voice in my head... ;D


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Well, I can't speak for Canadian chemists, but here, all of those "false positive" stories are myths. NeoCitran doesn't equal heroin, poppy seeds don't result in positives, etc. I attended a pretty extensive seminar on employee drug testing that reviewed in a lot of detail all of those issues. When you take a test here, you list on the form any medication that you are currently taken. All test results are reviewed by a physician, and positive results are re-tested before declared positive.


  
     




   
Drug Policy:
The ACLU Drug Law Reform Project is a division of the national ACLU. Our goal is to end punitive drug policies that cause the widespread violation of constitutional and human rights, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration.


   


   






  
 Home : Drug Policy : Drug Testing 

Drug Testing: An Overview (10/21/2002)

The growth of a drug pseudo-science has opened up a new search frontier for those seeking to expose drug users. As "scientific" rumors of an American work force and an American youth population withered with drug use abound, authorities ranging from employers to school boards have rushed to join in the war on drugs. Their weapon: drug testing. 


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

Drug Testing Programs are Ineffective and Inaccurate:

Because urine testing is based on an analysis of metabolites associated with the drug in question, and because alcohol and cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine all pass through the body within 24-48 hours, leaving no metabolites, marijuana is the only substance that is easily detected with urinalysis. Drugs that have a more significant impact on employment or work performance, such as alcohol and other illegal drugs, are not effectively tested for with urinalysis.    
Source: "Drug Testing: A Bad Investment," ACLU pamphlet on drug testing in the workforce (hereafter, "Drug Testing," pg. 13, et. al., link provided below. 

Moreover, drug tests such as urinalysis can give false positive results, because they test for drug metabolites - inactive drug by-products that the body produces as it processes drugs for excretion - rather than for the presence of the drugs themselves. Poppy seeds notoriously can result in positives tests for morphine. Immunoassay, the less expensive common form of drug testing, often cannot distinguish between illegal drug metabolites and those generated by the consumption of over-the-counter decongestants and antihistamines. And even the more sophisticated, expensive GC/MS urinalysis test can turn up positive test results in response to legal prescription medications like codeine and marinol.    
Source: "Drug Testing," pg. 18, link provided below. 

At every step of the process, human error can add to the inaccuracies of drug testing programs.    


For more information about the psuedo-science of drug testing, and especially about its effects in the workplace, read "Drug Testing: A Bad Investment". 

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

Drug Testing in the Workforce:

Research results indicate that drug use does not pose significant productivity or safety problems in the work force. In 1994, the National Academy of Sciences published results from a three year research effort compiling research resulting from all major studies of drug testing program effectiveness. The report concluded, "the data . . . do not provide clear evidence of the deleterious effects of drugs other than alcohol on safety and other job performance indicators."    
Source: "Drug Testing," from 1994 NAS study "Under the Influence: Drugs and the American Work Force," (hereafter, NAS study) available at above site.

Though frequently inaccurate and ineffective, drug testing is extremely expensive. Texas Intruments reports that their drug testing program costs $100 per employee. Drug testing products and services are a multi-billion dollar industry. But the incidence of drug use in the workforce is very low. The federal government reported in 1990 that only 0.5% of tested employees tested positive. The same year, the government spent $11.7 million on its drug testing program. That works out to $77,000 per identified drug user.    
Source: "Drug Testing," pgs. 4, 14. 

The NAS looked for and was unable to find evidence of drug testing programs' deterrent effects. Studies which appear to show a decrease in positive test rates since the implementation of drug testing programs usually don't adjust for the expansion of such programs' testing groups to include not only for-cause drug tests but also suspicionless drug tests. That is, as drug-testing programs have expanded, they have tested more and more people who aren't suspected of drug use, improving their numbers and subjecting thousands of non-users to invasive testing procedures.    
Source: "Drug Testing," pg. 15 from NAS study. 

Perhaps the greatest cost of invasive employee drug testing programs is the consequent loss of worker morale. 

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

Drug Testing in Schools:

Studies of college students have shown that there is little or no difference in the grade point average, career aspiration, or participation in extracurricular activities between students who use marijuana and those who don't.    
Source: "Drug Testing," pg. 12. 

Nonetheless, another area where the traditional standard for searches has been relaxed is in the drug testing of school children. In part because of the guardian-like role schools play in the lives of children, the Supreme court has lowered the requirements for searching students (or drug testing them) to reasonable suspicion.    
Source: Case history of this is summarized in Scalia, Vernonia decision, 1995, link provided below. 

In 1995, in Vernonia v. Acton, the Supreme Court upheld suspicionless school drug testing of athletes, on the grounds that athletes frequently engage in dangerous activity, and are thus more likely to injure themselves if playing while under the influence of drugs. The Court also stated that as school athletes routinely face mandatory physicals and other similar invasions of privacy, they have lower expectations of privacy than the average student. The Court specified that its decision should not be seen as a justification for further expansion of drug testing programs.    
Source: Scalia, Vernonia v. Acton, 1995, link provided above. 

Nonetheless, schools have used this decision to institute broader and broader drug testing policies, some introducing student consent to random drug testing as a requirement for involvement in extra-curricular activities. Some of these policies have since been upheld by lower courts.    


In 1999, a school in Lockney, Texas became the first to implement a universal testing policy of all students, grades six through twelve, regardless of particular suspicion or extra-curricular involvement. This testing policy was later struck down by a federal court.    


The ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project (DPLP) believes such drug testing policies to be both invasive and counter-productive. Involvement in extra-curricular activities has been shown to be one of the most sure-fire ways to keep kids out of trouble. The project has been involved in two school drug testing cases, in Lockney, Texas, and Tecumseh, Oklahoma.  To find out more about this issue, and to see what the Project is doing to protect students' rights, visit A Test You Can't Study For. 


The Drug Policy Alliance has put together an action pack for parents and educators who are opposed to student drug testing. To learn more, please visit www.drugtestingfails.org. 



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

Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients:

According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are not statistically significant. There is little justification for singling out a population group that does not display significantly higher drug abuse than the general population.    
Source: National Institutes of Health Press Release, Oct. 24, 1996 (available at above link). 

While other states have chosen to test applicants for cash assistance for substance abuse, only Michigan has chosen urinalysis for its method of testing. Other states have specifically rejected urinalysis, finding the test too invasive and also finding that the testing angers the applicant and recipient populations and actually interferes with the ability of the state to work with this population in a beneficial way. By distancing the target population, states are less likely to be able to create effective treatment programs aimed at reducing substance abuse that interferes with employment. If benefits are cut off simultaneously, this population will be severely hurt.    


DPLP has challenged Michigan's drug testing policy on behalf of a group of welfare recipients, arguing that it violates their Fourth Amendment rights to protection from unreasonable searches. To find out more about this case, see Marchwinski v. Michigan.  
The majority of the population has not voted in favor of Fourth Amendment protections since the amendment was added as a requirement for ratifying the Constitution in the 1780s. As Ira Glasser points out in "American Drug Laws: the New Jim Crow," one major reason for this is that a majority of Americans have not felt their Fourth Amendment protected rights threatened since British troops ransacked homes in search of paper after the passing of the Stamp Act before the Revolutionary War. Until recently, the only common (indeed, all too common) victims of unreasonable searches were minorities and criminals. But with the recent serge to the spotlight of drug testing issues, in the work place and in schools, average Americans are at last beginning to feel the bite of invasive search policies. 



  



IN THIS SECTION 
General
Asset Forfeiture
Collateral Damage
Decriminalization
Drug Testing
Harm Reduction
Medical Marijuana
Racial Justice
Raves
Religious Freedom
Sentencing
Youth
  
RELATED INFORMATION 
Publications 
Legal Documents 
Legislative Documents 
Resources 
Fact Sheets 
Supreme Court Cases 



© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU. 


User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs


   Criminal Justice   Death Penalty   Disability Rights   Drug Policy   Free Speech   HIV/AIDS   Immigrants' Rights   Human Rights   Lesbian & Gay Rights   National Security   Police Practices   Prisoners' Rights   Privacy & Technology   Racial Justice   Religion and Belief   Reproductive Freedom   Rights of the Poor   Safe and Free   StandUp/Youth   Voting Rights   Women's RightsAla. to Calif.Colo. to Ga.Hawaii to IowaKan. to Md.Mass. to Mo.Mont. to N.J.N.M. to OhioOkla. to S.C.S.D. to Vt.Va. to Wyo.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2006)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> Yes , thats the way it should be ! But I was in MIR here and a person came in to get copy's of there doc's, to show all the Medications they were thanking for the last 2 years for the CSM.


The CSM has no right to look at any person's medical records.  As far as I know, if a test is done for banned substance, it is done by medical pers.  The results are given to the food chain, er...chain of command.  IF member 'x' has a positive result, and if member 'x' has this result due to the use of prescribed medication, I believe someone else on here said that the docs etc would be reviewed.  THEN the results would be released to the CO (I believe).  For example:
Soldier 'x' tested negative for banned drug use
or
Soldier 'y' tested postive for banned drug use, specifically, 'a' 'b' and a bit of 'c'.


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

Here's one more :
                              Pass a drug test. FDA approved drug test detoxification programs for passing serious drug tests. Pass Your Test offers the most used permanent and same day cleansers with reliable overnight shipping. Call a drug test expert 1-866-588-4927.  
  


   

Medications & Substances Causing False Positives
False positive drug test results is a major problem. According to a report by the Los Angeles Times New Service, a study of 161 prescription and over the counter medications showed that 65 of them produced false positive results in the most widely administered urine test. Inaccurate urine drug testing which can report false positive drug test results has been called an "epidemic" by Ronald Siegel, a psychopharmacologist at UCLA. He has said that 'The widespread testing and reliance on tell-tale traces of drugs in the urine is simply a panic reaction invoked because the normal techniques for controlling drug use haven't worked very well. The next epidemic will be testing abuse." 

Passyourtest.com coaches thousands of victims a month through the steps to fighting a false positive drug test and keeping your job. If you are a victim of a False Positive drug test order our False Postive Test Kit. Any Questions at all ? Call 1-866-588-4927

This contains -

A letter for your employer stating that facts about false positives, a request for a re-test and a spot to provide your testimony. 
A Permentant Body Cleansing Kit to flush all toxin traces from your body 
2 Day Supply (Herbal Cleansing Pills) 
4oz Bottle (Herbal Cleansing Tonic) 
Program Instructions 
Manditory Diet Menu 
Personal Customer Coach 
100% Money Back Guarantee! 
2 Self Test Kits to know for sure you will test negative 
False Positive Drug Test Kit
For more information about False Positives in the Workplace and your rights click here

$89.00 -  




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

Substances that cause False Positive Drug Test Results

THC - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives

Dronabinol (Marinol) 
Ibuprofen; (Advil, Nuprin, Motrin, Excedrin IB etc) 
Ketoprofen (Orudis KT) 
Kidney infection (Kidney disease, diabetes) Liver Disease 
Naproxen (Aleve) 
Promethazine (Phenergan, Promethegan) 
Riboflavin (B2, Hempseed Oil) 
Amphetamines - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives 

Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, propylephedrine, phenylephrine, or desoxyephedrine 
(Nyquil, Contact, Sudafed, Allerest, Tavist-D, Dimetapp, etc) 
Phenegan-D, Robitussin Cold and Flu, Vicks Nyquil 
Over-the-counter diet aids with phenylpropanolamine 
(Dexatrim, Accutrim) 
Over-the-counter nasal sprays 
(Vicks inhaler, Afrin) 
Asthma medications 
(Marax, Bronkaid tablets, Primatine Tablets) 
Prescription medications 
(Amfepramone, Cathne, Etafediabe, Morazone, phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine,dexdenfluramine,Redux, mephentermine, Mesocarb, methoxyphenamine, phentermine,amineptine, Pholedrine, hydroymethamphetamine, Dexedrine, amifepramone, clobenzorex,fenproyorex, mefenorex, fenelylline, Didrex, dextroamphetamine, methphenidate, Ritalin,pemoline, Cylert, selegiline, Deprenyl, Eldepryl, Famprofazone) 
Kidney infection 
kidney disease 
Liver disease 
diabetes 
Opiates - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives

Poppy Seeds 
Tylenol with codeine 
Most prescription pain medications 
Cough suppressants with Dextromethorphan (DXM) 
Nyquil 
Kidney infection, Kidney Disease 
Diabetes, Liver Disease 
Ecstacy - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives

Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, propylephedrine, phenylephrine, or desoxyephedrine 
(Nyquil, Contact, Sudafed, Allerest, Tavist-D, Dimetapp, etc) 
Phenegan-D, Robitussin Cold and Flu, Vicks Nyquil 
Over-the-counter diet aids with phenylpropanolamine 
(Dexatrim, Accutrim) 
Over-the-counter nasal sprays 
(Vicks inhaler, Afrin) 
Asthma medications 
(Marax, Bronkaid tablets, Primatine Tablets) 
Prescription medications 
(Amfepramone, Cathne, Etafediabe, Morazone,phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, dexdenfluramine,Redux, mephentermine, Mesocarb, methoxyphenamine, phentermine, amineptine, Pholedrine, hydroymethamphetamine, Dexedrine, amifepramone, clobenzorex, fenproyorex, mefenorex, fenelylline, Didrex, dextroamphetamine, methphenidate, Ritalin, pemoline, Cylert, selegiline, Deprenyl, Eldepryl, Famprofazone) 
Kidney infection 
kidney disease 
Liver disease 
diabetes 
Cocaine - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives

Kidney infection (kidney disease) 
Liver infection (liver disease) 
Diabetes 
Amoxicillin, tonic water 


For more information about False Positives in the Workplace and your rights click here



Browse Products 



  Cleansing Products 
   » Same Day Cleansers 
   » Permanent Cleansers 
   » Complete Body Cleansers 
   » Nicotine Body Cleansers 
   » Hair Test Shampoos 
   » Urine Drug Tests 
   » Blood Drug Tests 
   » Saliva Drug Tests 
   » Nail & Cuticle Tests 

  Home Testing Kits 
   » Alcohol Testing 
   » Amphetamines 
   » Barbiturates 
   » Cocaine 
   » THC Marijuana 
   » Methamphetamines 
   » Nicotine Testing 
   » Opiates Testing 
   » 2 Panel Drug Screens 
   » 5 Panel Drug Screens 
   » 9 Panel Drug Screens 

  Drug Information Center 
   » Frequent Questions 
   » How to Passing Test 
   » False Positive Results 
   » Drug Use Time Table 
   » Drug Test Glossary 
   » Drug Type Glossary 





 Home | About Us | Products | Testimonials | Shipping | Ordering | Contact Us

  
© 2003 Veritas, LLC.- All rights reserved.
Please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

PYT is a website for adults 18 or older. We do not condone, nor encourage the use of illegal substances or anything relating to the use of any illegal substances. These products are for personal use only.These products are designed to be used by individuals who would like to make a life change and cleanse their body of ALL toxins. Our mission is to allow safe and natural options for those who are making individual lifestyle decisions or are preparing for a new job, new family and new life.


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> The CSM has no right to look at any person's medical records.  As far as I know, if a test is done for banned substance, it is done by medical pers.  The results are given to the food chain, er...chain of command.  IF member 'x' has a positive result, and if member 'x' has this result due to the use of prescribed medication, I believe someone else on here said that the docs etc would be reviewed.  THEN the results would be released to the CO (I believe).  For example:
> Soldier 'x' tested negative for banned drug use
> or
> Soldier 'y' tested postive for banned drug use, specifically, 'a' 'b' and a bit of 'c'.
> ...


----------



## bilton090 (30 Oct 2006)

I said it before the drug testing is good, but lets not go over board on the witch hunts.


----------



## orange.paint (30 Oct 2006)

If no ones a witch no one gets hurt! 

Unlike witches test done to disprove someone was casting spells in the 1700's, our drug test is pretty basic.No one gets dunked in the water or burned at the stake.You pee in a cup.

Geo I can't see what your saying about the sitting around at a party personally.I was told upon enrolment that I was a symbol of the CF.Everywhere I went I repersented them.Having a few puff's at a party could destroy our image of our whole CF if civilians view this.A lot of people like to say what you do on your own time is your own business but they are wrong.

Sort of like if you seen a RCMP officer snorting coke.Personally if I ever did I would view that department very differntly.And act differntly to other members of that force.

Public image is key.(As they do pay us)

Where we need to also put our attention is at the recruit schools.After their first weekend off(where they go party like mad) monday moring instead of PT give them a piss test.Nip the problem in the butt at entry level.

I believe withthe introduction of random testing many of these low grade users will not take the risk, as many have this job as their main income.And starting soldiers off in a zero tolerance policy, which is enforced from day one will set a presedence.


As for casting stones,I believe any clean soldier has the right to throw one.Right up side of some cokeheads brain box.

(sorry for any spelling mistakes/it doesnt want to work)


----------



## Slim (30 Oct 2006)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> I said it before the drug testing is good, but lets not go over board on the witch hunts.



Drugs + Army = BAD!!!

There is no overboard.


----------



## Sig_Des (30 Oct 2006)

I remember this question:

"Is the candidate capable of operating heavy machinery, firearms, and explosives _without_ the benefit of prescription medication?"

I can imagine they're worried about that. I wouldn't want anyone, I don't care if it's a party puff, or habitual coke use, doing any of the above around me, especially in theater.

Drugs...Test for 'em, for minor stupidity, give'em ONE chance to rehabilitate, and if not, 5F all the way. Do not pass go, do not collect, here's your black mark, and thanks for coming out.


----------



## Torlyn (30 Oct 2006)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> Drug Policy:
> The ACLU Drug Law Reform Project is a division of the national ACLU. Our goal is to end punitive drug policies that cause the widespread violation of constitutional and human rights, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration.



Quoting a drug friendly organization who's goals are more to thwart the US's War on Drugs probably isn't the best reference.  They are using the statistical anomolies as "proof".  Take a look at the science behind a few of their "conclusive" tests, you'll see what I mean.  I did some extensive research in to the ACLU when I was doing my Crim degree.  Their methods are pretty awful.

T


----------



## geo (30 Oct 2006)

American Civil Liberties Union...... 
Who'se avowed goal is to thwart the govenment's hegemony over the masses.
Anything published by them must be read with a sceptical eye........

I know that in my shop they distributed a document that detailed some research that you won't get a positive THC test from 2nd hand smoke - being at a party where others consumed some weed......


----------



## Klc (30 Oct 2006)

Not only that... but the last part was obviosuly copy-and-pasted from a website *that sells a product they claim defeats testing!*

*Personally* I tend to not trust any information from a company that is trying to sell you something.


----------



## spud (30 Oct 2006)

That screeching sound is the rails slowly coming off what is was a good thread. Too bad, very interesting reading for a while. 


potato


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (30 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Testing everyone every year is extremely time consuming and cost ineffective... Based on Service numbers, I would have a random selection that everyone would be subject to - anytime, anyplace, anyone.....



...and to try to get this back on track...I agree with Geo's post here.  Maybe...add to it ALL will be tested prior to a "high risk" environment if that makes people feel better.

Its like a spot-check on a weekend night by the RCMP for DUI.  Why would you worry unless you had a reason to?

Everyone that gets in the CF knows the score.  You do the crime, you do the time.  Simple.

Going to the sandbox with someone who is a drug user?

Heck.  I don't even want to drive in a panel with someone behind the wheel who does that crap.


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2006)

All in favor, say "aye"

-  Aye!


----------



## GUNS (31 Oct 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> Drugs + Army = BAD!!!
> 
> There is no overboard.



So  " Alcohol + Army = Good

Before we have all those who tested positive for drugs " drawn and quartered" less first look at the whole picture.

There are two types of drugs that people tested positive for, a) hard drugs and b) soft drugs.

For those who were found with "hard drugs " in their system, I think they may be long time users and beyond help and may deserve a 5F. 
But should be given a chance to "kick the habit".

Those who were caught with " soft drugs" should still be punished but be allowed to prove to DND that they deserve a second chance. They already face six months of urine test if they decide to continue with their military life.  

I have been told that no decision has been made as to how DND will handle this situation, its still work in progress. I am sure whatever DND decides to do will be for the best interest of the military and those who have this problem.


----------



## Teflon (31 Oct 2006)

> So  " Alcohol + Army = Good


  :

Alcohol + Army = BAD

Those that drink at work outside a approved social function, YES, those that time and time again drink so much that when they wake up and come to work are still impaired or too hung over to do their job safely or properly, Yes


----------



## orange.paint (31 Oct 2006)

In the relatively short time I've been in the army (7 yrs) I can honestly say In my line of work drinking and driving and alcoholic's are slowly becoming a thing of the past.Mainly due to strict enforcement by local police and very strict procedures for serving members.Having seen this and what happens when a member is given a example of another member getting booted for drinking and driving,it sure makes people take cabs and not risk it.

You tell soldiers that they cannot do something,make examples of people and the usage will go down.Maybe even without random drug test.If someone is blatantly caught kick them out.I can guarantee many people would be rethinking their choices with that in the back of their heads.



			
				Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Maybe...add to it ALL will be tested prior to a "high risk" environment if that makes people feel better.
> 
> Its like a spot-check on a weekend night by the RCMP for DUI.  Why would you worry unless you had a reason to?
> 
> ...



Problem being is the cocaine is out of the system pretty quick.A couple of days IIRC?So basically a Fridaynight cokehead can test clean on Monday morning.Something that I have seen though,you catch one cokehead you can guarantee he will squeal on at least 10 others.

cokeheads=crime,theft.
I freaking hate cokeheads. Zero tolerance for them clean now or not.


----------



## spud (31 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> Having seen this and what happens when a member is given a example of another member getting booted for drinking and driving,it sure makes people take cabs and not risk it.
> 
> cokeheads=crime,theft.



So we now kick people out because they have an impaired charge, when did that change? In my time I saw more thieves who had money problems or morality problems, not coke problems. 

potato


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> So  " Alcohol + Army = Good
> 
> Those who were caught with " soft drugs" should still be punished but be allowed to prove to DND that they deserve a second chance. They already face six months of urine test if they decide to continue with their military life.
> 
> I have been told that no decision has been made as to how DND will handle this situation, its still work in progress. I am sure whatever DND decides to do will be for the best interest of the military and those who have this problem.


With respect to alcohol.... drinking & posession of booze is legal... that`s the law - the CF takes a dim view of DUI & deals with that issue on an ongoing basis.

WRT drugs,... it's a 12 mths of C&P & 12 mths of testing


----------



## Sig_Des (31 Oct 2006)

spud said:
			
		

> So we now kick people out because they have an impaired charge, when did that change?



I know that with my old Regiment, we took a hard-line with DUI. If you had a conviction, you lost your sec clearance and 404s were suspended, therefore making you unsuitable for further service.


----------



## orange.paint (31 Oct 2006)

spud said:
			
		

> So we now kick people out because they have an impaired charge, when did that change? In my time I saw more thieves who had money problems or morality problems, not coke problems.
> 
> potato



When their only PCF is a driver and they are no longer employable.


----------



## GO!!! (19 Nov 2006)

So we can all agree that drugs are bad, and those who use them should be punished, somehow.

What about the publication of the names of perpetrators, and what they tested positive for?

I for one would like to see the names and ranks of everyone random tested, and their results, pass or fail. It would go a long way in promomoting a credible "zero tolerance policy" if we all got an e-mail every month stating who had been tested, from the CDS on down.

Rumours (which I will not spread) are swirling about the drug testing that has been done - I think that the CF would do well to release the results to the public.


----------



## gnplummer421 (19 Nov 2006)

I don't know about releasing names to the public unless they are sex offenders. Granted drugs and the Military don't mix. One has to wonder about a guy hacking his way through a pot field in Afghanistan and goes "swoosh" this buds for me.  

Although I am against drugs in the Army, I am a firm believer in personal rights and freedoms, and what a person does on his or her own time away from the job and nowheres near anywhere they could hurt someone....well you see my point. 

I know I'll propbably get hammered for the above statement, but I was given a second chance whilst in the Army, and I think I turned out allright. Everybody makes mistakes, I've never met a perfect person yet. 

In my days, booze was the drug of choice, and I've certainly felt unsafe on occasion being on duty with someone who is badly hung over. In my eyes the only difference between a drunk and a pothead is the latter is illegal.

Hopefully we don't have too many of either on the front lines. 

Gnplummer421


----------



## GUNS (19 Nov 2006)

421, totally agree with you. Everyone makes a stupid mistake once in their life. If its your first infraction then the 12 months of C&P and testing is sufficient punishment. There is no need to publish names unless there is a second infraction. DND should allow those that test positive the opportunity to prove themselves.


----------



## McG (19 Nov 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> What about the publication of the names of perpetrators, and what they tested positive for?


If a member tests positive & goes on C&P, the process includes mandated testing.  Fail one of those tests & get charged.  Results of trials are published.

This gives guys a chance.


----------



## jonstarks (19 Nov 2006)

How big a deal is this drug testing? I have numerous friends in the navy reserves and every exercise or course they go on all I hear about is them partying and getting high, not smoking weed but experimenting with harder drugs.  I have heard this every summer for years.  Are the reserves just very relaxed because I have never heard of anyone getting tested before and I know a dozen NCM naval reservists that all share the same stories?

In my opinion this is a digrace to the uniform.  As a CF member one should be held to a higher standard.  I personally find it offensive when I have someone comes up to me and tell me all the CF does nothing except get high!

How can so many people have the same stories and the people in charge have no clue what is happening on their courses?


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Nov 2006)

jonstarks said:
			
		

> How big a deal is this drug testing? I have numerous friends in the navy reserves and every exercise or course they go on all I hear about is them partying and getting high, not smoking weed but experimenting with harder drugs.  I have heard this every summer for years.  Are the reserves just very relaxed because I have never heard of anyone getting tested before and I know a couple dozen NCM naval reservists that all share the same stories?
> 
> In my opinion this is a digrace to the uniform.  As a CF member one should be held to a higher standard.  I personally find it offensive when I have someone comes up to me and tell me all the CF does nothing except get high!
> 
> How can so many people have the same stories and the people in charge have no clue what is happening on their courses?



And you, as a service member, and feeling that this is a disgrace, have reported exactly how many of these incidents to the Military Police?


----------



## jonstarks (19 Nov 2006)

How do you report your buddies to the MP's when you grew up your whole life with them?

I have shared my viewpoints and disgush with them, but honestly how would I report them to the MP's?
I am an Ocdt in the ROTP what place to do I have reporting people.

(this is meant to be said in a frustrating and disappointing tone, not trying to be a smart a##)


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Nov 2006)

And yet you come here expecting us to take you at your word and, perhaps, to offer advice.  To put it as simply as I can, perhaps it is time to man up or shut up.  If you don't do something about this what are you expecting from us by sharing this information here?


----------



## paracowboy (19 Nov 2006)

jonstarks said:
			
		

> I have numerous friends in the navy reserves and every exercise or course they go on all I hear about is them partying and getting high, not smoking weed but experimenting with harder drugs.


then these human wastes of skin shouldn't be your friends. 



> Are the reserves just very relaxed because I have never heard of anyone getting tested before and I know a couple dozen NCM naval reservists that all share the same stories?


how many of them have you reported to the Military Police?



> In my opinion this is a digrace to the uniform.


  mine too



> As a CF member one should be held to a higher standard.


  yes, they should. To include those who are made aware of events like this. Which is why I ask how many times you have reported these stories and individuals to the MPs.



> I personally find it offensive when I have someone comes up to me and tell me all the CF does nothing except get high!


as do I. And I have made no bones about it. Anyone who works with me is very much aware that I will arrest anyone I catch using drugs.



> How can so many people have the same stories and the people in charge have no clue what is happening on their courses?


I dunno. Maybe because nobody reports it?



			
				jonstarks said:
			
		

> How do you report your buddies to the MP's when you grew up your whole life with them?


you say, "Excuse me Sergeant, I want to report a crime". They'll help you from that point.

These scumbags should not be considered your friends. If you consider them your friends, you consider them your equals.

My friends are men who hold my respect. I have no respect for dopers.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (19 Nov 2006)

I can't believe that an aspiring officer would countenance the possiblity of having command over soldiers, yet be willing to jeopardize those same soldiers by looking the other way at drug use.  This person should go and read the text of the Queen's Commission scroll.  Should he or she still hope to earn one with his or her name on it, best take it to heart and then do the right thing.  Leadership, command and responsibility are not selective priveleges.


----------



## McG (19 Nov 2006)

jonstarks said:
			
		

> I am an Ocdt in the ROTP what place to do I have reporting people.


Are you asking us if an officer should be excused from doing his part to uphold order & discipline?


----------



## jonstarks (19 Nov 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> To put it as simply as I can, perhaps it is time to man up or shut up.




point noted.

I guess this is my first test as a future officer.  I failed.  I have repeatedly expressed my opinion to them, but unfortunately on this issue I have to take the walk of shame. I cannot report my friends to the MP's, which leads my to option 2.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Nov 2006)

jonstarks said:
			
		

> point noted.
> 
> I guess this is my first test as a future officer.  I failed.  I have repeatedly expressed my opinion to them, but unfortunately on this issue I have to take the walk of shame. I cannot report my friends to the MP's, which leads my to option 2.



May I suggest that what you need to do is spend some time contemplating the responsibilities you have already chosen to accept as a career choice, and the qualities you want in those you choose to have as your friends.  Then you have to find the path that will let you face yourself in the mirror each morning.


----------



## Torlyn (20 Nov 2006)

jonstarks said:
			
		

> I guess this is my first test as a future officer.  I failed.  I have repeatedly expressed my opinion to them, but unfortunately on this issue I have to take the walk of shame. I cannot report my friends to the MP's, which leads my to option 2.



Shutting up is your idea of a viable option?  If you are unwilling to execute the responsibilities that go with that stripe you have on your shoulder, turn it in before you do any further damage.  You are trying to become an officer.  For god's sake, ACT like it!  You are doing almost as much damage by allowing it to continue unreported, tacitly condoning this behaviour.  You come on a PUBLIC board and discuss these things.  How much respect do you think you are earning for all of us junior officers from the folks who frequent this site?

We do not have the luxury of only enforcing SOME aspects of the NDA.  That baby is our bible, and we must adhere to ALL of it.  If you won't follow it, why the hell should anyone who works for you?  You are not taking drugs, certainly.  But you are aware of other officer candidates who are, and yet you do nothing.  I will grant you that it is NOT an easy thing to do, but part of being an officer is taking the responsibility and MAKING those decisions.  Option 2 for you is not shutting up.  Option 2 for you is talking to your CO, and telling him you are unwilling to execute your responsibilities as an officer, and turning in your kit.  If you can't make that decision, if you are unwilling to lose your "friends" over this, perhaps the military is not the best place for you.  IMO, of course.

T


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2006)

Ease up Torlyn, he knows what the 'right' answer is, he's also dealing with the knowledge that it is the difficult choice personally.  Yes, it's one of many he will have to make in his career, but that doesn't make it easier.  It is very easy for us to debate the issue and tell him what he should do, but we're not dealing with the decision, nor are we facing its various outcomes at a personal level.

jonstarks, tough decisions are never easy, perhaps they're not meant to be.  When our core principles are challenged it makes us examine ourselves as much as it does the world around us.  Only you can make this choice between your old friends' poor choices and your own moral position.  Perhaps it may help if you ask yourself "what are the possible outcomes if their behaviour continues, would you feel responsible for any resultant deaths or injury?"  They obviously don't care, and even by expressing your concerns here, you obviously do.


----------



## pete peeters (20 Nov 2006)

should be mandatory...do you want your a** saved by some guy who just smoked a phatty?


----------



## aesop081 (20 Nov 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> jonstarks, tough decisions are never easy,



I seem to recal words spoken on my JLC/JNCO...something about leadership and "doing the right thing even if it is unpopular"


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (20 Nov 2006)

I thought that if one knows, having seen or has more than very good reason to believe, that someone in the CF is using a controlled substance one has a duty to report it.  If you are in the CF and you do not report another CF member who is doing drugs you are guilty of an offence. (Unless if my understanding of the regulations is wrong - very likely, this point was only explained to me three times in painfull detail) You might have to make a formal statement saying that you believe the information you are giving is true and unless there are good reasons that person identified will have a drug test and then things proceed from there.

I think a while ago in the dust bowl our soldiers came across a field of pot... and destroyed it. (Big fire)  I think anyone in that area has a free ride for pot in their system for a year or so.  But once again,  they have tests that can tell with some certainty when was the last time you took drugs.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Nov 2006)

pete peeters said:
			
		

> should be mandatory...do you want your a** saved by some guy who just smoked a phatty?



If the option is NOT having my a** saved by some guy who just smoked a phatty, I'll take it....


----------



## mysteriousmind (20 Nov 2006)

I also think that derug testing should be mandatory.

and done on random occasion. 

And rules should be even harder toward people who used drugs. It is unacceptable.


----------



## GO!!! (20 Nov 2006)

Before we hammer Mr. Starks too hard here, I think it is worthwhile to point out that COs have had broad powers to test individuals for drugs for years. They also had the option of not testing at all, which many of them took.

I believe that the COs of many units, like starks, chose a "see no evil" approach, unless they were presented with evidence by an outside authority (soldier busted for posession by civvie cops/MPs) that made a test mandatory.

It's pretty hard to hammer an OCdt for not turning his friends in when his CoC is either not aware of (but should be) or not willing to ferret out the offenders with widely available and common testing.

Why are'nt sailors blanket tested before they go to sea, the same way the army is before we go to Afghanistan?


----------



## jonstarks (20 Nov 2006)

The reason why I started this topic was to gather some insight in why I hear so much about the zero tolerance in the CF, and on the other side I hear so much about drug use.
I guess my question was partially answered.  Yes it is because of people like myself who do not report this type of behaviour.
I think there is a big difference between a couple guys you train with, or you find out some of your subordinates are engaging in this type of behaviour, then having a couple of your ncm buddies that you run into twice a year talk about what they were doing while training this year.
Am I doing whats right? No.  Although what am I suppose to do. I have not idea who their CO's were, who their staff was, I wasn't training with them, I never saw them get high.  So yes I could find out which base they were stationed at call their CO's and report that some of the ncm's training at their base were using drugs with no evidence to support it. If you could make that call and report them, then I guess you make a better officer then myself.
Should I give up my stripe for not reporting? In my opinion no, not for something like this.


----------



## mysteriousmind (20 Nov 2006)

In my opinion...from what i know which is very little...

I think that they are not severe enough.  they should use the power they have to really use the zero tolerance rules.


----------



## steve29 (20 Nov 2006)

My buddy here at Gagetown test came back inconclusive. He went up in front of the man told he was being placed on C&P and being removed from tour. He said  I don't do drugs and I want a lawyer. Called military lawyer, went to MIR to get another drug test done. When the medic seen him he said he wanted to see an MO, the medic replied you need an appointment to see an MO. He said if you don't get an MO in here I'M going in the waiting room and going to start swinging. 2 minutes later The MO was in there with him.

The MO wanted to know who was explaining these tests to them. Asked him if he took Tylenol or Ibuprofen (spelling) that would make the test come back inconclusive. The MO said he would give him a blood test in which it came back neg. Brought it back and they told him because it was not done at the same facility they were not accepting it.

Anyway the lawyer has gotten it cleared up and he has been reinstated by Gen Leslie.

The CSM told his brother while getting on the bus going to Wainright "Can you get a hold of your brother, and tell him to clear back in the COY, I don't have time. He has been re-en stated."


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (20 Nov 2006)

Gents, 

GO!!! has pointed out that 





> it is worthwhile to point out that COs have had broad powers to test individuals for drugs for years. They also had the option of not testing at all, which many of them took


.

Unfortunately, many COs wish that were the case.  Their hands are tied in most instances of drug use; the system strongly favours the alleged drug user over the chain of command.  The burden of proof that COs must satisfy to even order a test for cause, much less lay charges under the NDA, mean that drug users either must be caught "in flagrante delecto" by an authority figure or MPs during an investigation or idenfitied by a reliable witness with full detail including exact place, time, substance, eyewitnessed not hearsay.   

Usually, any misstep by the chain of command results in the 'case' being dismissed and no action being taken.  While COs have the option to remove drug users from deployments or positions of responsibility on suspicion until resolved by testing, the decision to place a soldier on C&P rests in Ottawa at DMCARM after a thorough, objective review of evidence and test results, including MO input and re-evaluation by further testing if test results are questionable.  The process takes time and career action for drug use is not taken lightly.  Drug testing for cause is also the responsibility of the unit chain of command, not the medical system - ask a medic - this is a command issue not a H Svcs Gp one.  For example, in Petawawa, UMSs will not take the lead in executing urine tests for drugs - this is done, in most units, by the duty staff or RPs.

Steve29, I am not sure you are getting the whole story in full detail.  Perhaps it has been enhanced to provide more smoking area street credibility.  In any case a test for cause cannot be ordered unless there are some pretty clear, legally accepted indicators of drug use to prove that a test for cause is required.

A public domain google search of "DAOD Drug Use" will direct you to the following: http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/DAOD/5019/3_e.asp which is an unclassified doc for all to see wrt CF Drug Control Policy.  

With regards to drug use, members are innocent until proven guilty and a concerted effort must be made by the chain of command to take action against drug users both in terms of career action and under the Code of Service Discipline.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms covers military personnel and admissibility of bodily fluids.  Google search on urine sample admissibility brings up several Supreme Court and other documents identifying the whys, wherefores  and legalities of ordering a urine sample without sufficient grounds.

As media releases have stated, long-overdue policy changes are coming to test deploying personnel.  

Hope this clears up some misconceptions.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2006)

Drug testing is good.
Catching dummies before going on tour is good too. By dummies I mean guys who can't wait 2 days until they get home on HLTA and get caught in camp.

Like Steves example, I can see a lot of people getting caught up in the witch hunt and screwed around which is goin to be a shame.


----------



## sigtech (20 Nov 2006)

Food for thought

You decided to do drugs while in the military fail a drug test before going to Afghanistan..... Your replacement go over and gets killed that is your falt that person is dead.

in my opinion the person that failed his drug test just added in one of his buddies getting killed. All members should stay clean for the love of God it is your choice to join and serve so follow the rules or get the hell out.


----------



## mysteriousmind (20 Nov 2006)

AMEN

But even more if you are tasked in Canada and do a mistake that injures a colleague is no more acceptable.


----------



## x-zipperhead (20 Nov 2006)

jonstarks, I sympathize with the ethical dilemma you are faced with.  There is no doubt this is very difficult and I am glad I do not find myself in a situation like yours.   However, I find this comment troubling if I understand it correctly;



			
				jonstarks said:
			
		

> I think there is a big difference between a couple guys you train with, or you find out some of your subordinates are engaging in this type of behaviour, then having a couple of your ncm buddies that you run into twice a year talk about what they were doing while training this year.



Are you suggesting that it is okay to show more leniency, in executing your duty, towards your " buddies " than to you peers or subordinates because your"buddies" are NCMS and you don't see them very often?  If so, I think you should perhaps re-think that idea. There should be no difference.   Even if they are not directly in your CoC they still pose a threat to whoever does have the misfortune to be working beside them. They are committing an *offence* and it is your *duty* to report them. 

Good Luck


----------



## poko (20 Nov 2006)

Anybody know how much it cost to test a soldier? 
They must use an outside agency!?

Drugs are bad ummmOK.


----------



## sigtech (20 Nov 2006)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> AMEN
> 
> But even more if you are tasked in Canada and do a mistake that injures a colleague is no more acceptable.


True 

Is Drug testing needed in the military , looks like but it shouldn't be. 

Let's put it like this you join don't use........ if you have a problem with drugs get help there is help out there 
I was just a little floored when I heard how many people got dinged from Gagetown....
I hope that at least some of them were false positives

btw fyi poppy seeds and alot of over the counter drugs can cause false positives
below are a few links regarding this:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp
http://www.collegegrad.com/jobsearch/24-2.shtml


----------



## steve29 (20 Nov 2006)

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> Gents,
> 
> GO!!! has pointed out that .
> 
> ...




No I always believe there are 3 sides to every story(his,theirs, and the truth )But I know this guy went through hell for 3 weeks. He was removed off of my DP3A a career course. Only missed a couple of days before he returned. After he was cleared he was called by mental health and told that the unit wanted him examined for an addictive personality. He had to get the DSM of the school to call to tell them he wouldn't be going he was found innocent before they would drop the whole thing.

Oh I am all for drug  testing by the way but you have to have people that know what they are doing looking after these things or peoples lives let alone their careers get messed up. Put his family through hell. I say do it but let the MO's handle it. My 2 cents


----------



## poko (20 Nov 2006)

I found the a site that list the price for testing
http://www.calgarylabservices.com/LabTests/Toxicology/Pricing.htm


----------



## geo (20 Nov 2006)

..... and before rumours get started, the drug test has to be conclusive

Gawd - there was so much speculation about the gagetown "bust" that it made my head spin.


----------



## steve29 (21 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> ..... and before rumours get started, the drug test has to be conclusive
> 
> Gawd - there was so much speculation about the gagetown "bust" that it made my head spin.





Well that is what I thought also, but you would be surprised.


----------



## GO!!! (21 Nov 2006)

I'd hardly call that unreasonable. Civilian courts require similar information to get a conviction, the CF should not be held to a lower standard.




> Usually, any misstep by the chain of command results in the 'case' being dismissed and no action being taken.


We pay the CoC alot of money and give them alot of training to ensure that these "missteps" do not happen. Are you stating that the CF legal system is too complicated for military leaders? These are just checks and balances, and in any event, there is an entire legal trade devoted to helping the CoC avoid any of the pitfalls associated with them. There is also the possibility, which you neglect to mention, that the accused may be innocent, a provision few military leaders seem to want to acknowledge, once an accusation is made in any CF legal proceedings.



> While COs have the option to remove drug users from deployments or positions of responsibility on suspicion until resolved by testing, the decision to place a soldier on C&P rests in Ottawa at DMCARM after a thorough, objective review of evidence and test results, including MO input and re-evaluation by further testing if test results are questionable.


How is this undesireable? How would you like to be wrongly accused and be dragged through the mud by an overzealous CoC eager to make an example of you? Is'nt the power to make a soldier utterly unemployable in the time while his guilt or innocence is ascetained enough?



> The process takes time and career action for drug use is not taken lightly.  Drug testing for cause is also the responsibility of the unit chain of command, not the medical system - ask a medic - this is a command issue not a H Svcs Gp one.  For example, in Petawawa, UMSs will not take the lead in executing urine tests for drugs - this is done, in most units, by the duty staff or RPs.


So, as I said, COs have broad powers to test individuals on suspicion of drug use. I fail to see how the fact that the UMS will not do the testing for you is even an issue. If you want a test, you must order your subordinates to collect it.

Many of your statements here are not related to the powers the CoC has in dealing with suspected and confirmed users, they are related to the ease of which they are investigated and punished. I personally don't think it should be easy to ruin soldier's careers and lives without due cause, and if the Adj has to do a bit more paperwork, and the Duty Sgt has to watch me pee in a cup, that's discipline in the 21st century. My job is'nt easy either.

Also, unless I am mistaken, while disciplinary action may not be taken in many cases, administrative action can be. This can be up to and including a release from the CF - so I really have a tough time wih your ascertation that COs powers are insufficient.

A CO may order a drug test; on suspicion of use, someone with a previous documented case of use, an individual on C&P, or blanket testing. Those individuals may be grounded (and all trade related equivalencies), removed from positions of authority, pulled off courses, deployments and career training while their guilt or innocence is ascertained, and once a medical professional has reviewed the results, the CO may take administrative action to kick someone out of the military. 

How much more power does a CO require? What improvements to this system would you make?


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Nov 2006)

So, if a troop is accused, tested, career restricted, folded, spindled, and mutilated by the system, for 6 months to a year and then exonerated does he have access to any kind of recourse?  Or does he just get a "sorry old bean, nothing personal, ruck up and drive on"?  I know it would leave a (even more than usual) bitter taste in my mouth.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Nov 2006)

105,

<Sigh>

Something I need to work on is my overly confrontational tone - I was'nt fending off a percieved attack - just a bad habit I have. Don't read too much into my tone!

I agree with the gist of what you are saying - I also agree with drug testing for all levels of the CF, especially prior to deployments. 

Although I realise that DMCARM has the final say in most matters of at the higher end of the disciplinary/administrative action spectrum, I am now a bit confused as to your take on it - I believe that COs powers in the area of drug testing are sufficient, and that the ocean of paperwork associated with it provides a "check and balance" in and of itself. Is this your position as well?

Finally, I read the QR+O reference on authority to test for drugs, and it corresponds with your ascertation that blanket testing is unconstitutional (my interpretation). 

I was tested along with the rest of the unit and supporting elements for an upcoming deployment - *a policy I agree with*. But how is testing the whole deploying group constitutional, while testing a formed unit is not?


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2006)

Its not unconstitutional -- the SCoC has ruled on that -- Its an AJAG who would  :-\ probably fail the piss test who had that part of the QR&O inserted...


----------



## Loachman (25 Nov 2006)

So how much of a drug problem is there, really, that would warrant random general testing?

Are people showing up to work on Monday morning unfit for duty? How many? How often?

Are people deploying overseas unfit for duty? How many? How often?

Are there instances that people here have witnessed where a hazard existed because of somebody's drug use? How many? How often?

I fail to see a need for this unless there is a real "threat" - an imagined one does not justify the effort, expense, negative aspects of false accusations, negative media reaction when there are negative or questionable results, and possible violations of rights. And - Torlyn (I believe you were the one that mentioned this) - what specific Charter-guaranteed rights and freedoms do we sign away on enrolment? None come to my mind, and none were listed on my enrolment documents.

We have a guaranteed freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. If a search warrant is required to search my house and seize property as evidence, and an information must be sworn before a judge or JP to secure that warrant in order to justify it, why should a seizure of my bodily fluids require any less justification? That, after all, is at least as invasive, and more so to some (but clearly not all here).

If military property on any given base is discovered missing, should all CF members living within the geographic area be expected to throw open their houses to the MPs to prove that they "have nothing to hide"?

For those that state such things as "if you are not using, then you have nothing to fear", would you be willing to open your house at random times with no notice for police inspections just because you have no stolen goods or grow ops located therein?

Rights are protected, and need to be protected, for good and valid reasons. If society keeps on diluting them in the cause of expediency (technology allows us to test for drug use, so we shall, technology allows us to monitor e-mail and telephone conversations, so we shall. technology allows us to place listening devices into all homes to detect spousal abuse and automatically alert the authorities, so we shall, technology allows us to implant monitoring devices in all citizens to track their whereabouts to see if they were near a crime scene, so we shall) then we will be entrapped within an Orwellian society in a few more years. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and vigorously defended. Random drug testing crosses that line. What follows next?

I have become exceedingly rights-conscious over the past couple of decades in my part of the fight against successive rounds of "gun control" legislation. One of the major irritants of that is the expectation of the government that law-abiding citizens should constantly have to prove their "law-abidingness", or are otherwise to be considered criminals.

I am in a safety-oriented business: flying. I have no interest in being anywhere near anybody not fit for flying or flying support duties because of any level of impairment, chemical or otherwise (fatigue, illness, stress, distraction, etcetera), and neither does anybody else that I know. And chemical for us includes legal prescription and over-the-counter medication not approved by a flight surgeon, as flying-related factors (supplemental oxygen, reduced air pressure, acceleration forces, unusual motions etcetera) may amplify or cause unexpected side-effects. I have never seen the need for random testing within my work environment, however, and still don't. Despite bazillions of "intensive" parties in the past, I've never seen anything but alcohol used, and everybody was particularly careful to insure that they were fit by the next working day. Chances are, somewhere, sometime, an aircrew member has been busted for drug use, but I am not aware of a single one over the course of my 26 years of flying-related experience.

Testing when there is reason for suspicion, and as part of an accident, is another issue. My observer and I gave blood and urine samples following an accident several years ago and neither of us had any objection to that. It was always an understanding that such was automatic as part of a flight safety investigation. It's not purely for drugs and alcohol, either, but also for a wide variety of potential cause factors such as hypoglycaemia and carbon monoxide etcetera. Likewise, we have annual aircrew medical exams during which blood and urine samples are freely given. To the best of my knowledge, these are not tested for drug use, but I would not object to that.

I am definitely NOT in favour of random, pre-deployment, or general testing. To me, it is an indication of lack of trust and a cop-out. Leaders are supposed to know their subordinates. If a leader does not perceive that subordinates have a drug (or other) problem, then it's because the leader is not doing his/her job, or there is no problem (and use does not equal impairment).

My commissioning scrolls both state that Her Majesty trusts me. If my Sovereign does, then my superiors should, too, unless I give them cause not to. I, in turn, trust my peers and subordinates until they give me reason not to (and none so far have).

Not trusting others dehumanizes and demeans them. Such an untrusting environment is not one that I would care to live and operate in.

And that is fundamental to me: an order to submit to a random or pre-deployment drug test is a clear statement by the person who orders it that he/she does not trust me, whether that is the specific intent or not.


----------



## Jay4th (25 Nov 2006)

I am with you on the erosion of rights with regard to firearms law.  You are right out of it however on pre-deployment testing.   We are doing it to PREVENT an accident.  Use may not equal impairment but it does equal flagrant violation of Canadian and military law.  Its screening plain and simple, just like a 13km BFT or a polygraph test to join the police.  Trust has nothing to do with it.  Often we do not have sufficient time with our soldiers due to re-org and orbat changes to just know when someone is using.  Test everyone. Test often.


----------



## Loachman (26 Nov 2006)

And you can randomly search members' houses to detect and deter theft of military property as well. If one is going to search bodies and seize fluids, why not do that, too? Theft is also against Canadian and military law. Random house searches could also be called screening - in fact the Firearms Act tries to justify unreasonable search and seizure by linking it to "safety" and referring to it as "inspection" and "taking of samples" in a feeble attempt to disguise it from what it is.

Provide me with specific examples of incidents where drug use contributed to accidents or other incidents on duty. How many training injuries and deaths and how much property damage can be linked to illicit drug use? How many incidents have occurred in Afghanistan that can be linked to illicit drug use? Prove to me that there is a real problem, beyond the purely legal aspect (and which should be dealt with exactly the way that any other crime would be). Show me how implying that everybody is a druggie is beneficial. Show me how many accidents can be prevented by drug testing. Justify unreasonable search and seizure.

Demonstrating fitness, as in a BFT, is one thing, but a positive drug test does not prove unfitness. It only indicates a likelihood of past exposure. It cannot provide any indication of impairment or unfitness, which is what you are claiming as justification.

I am not sure if any court has considered the reverse-onus aspect of this, in that all are accused and must prove innocence by passing a drug test.

And that is on top of the lack of proof that testing provides any real benefit. Polygraphs are not accurate enough to constitute admissible evidence in court, and that is one of the reasons that I disagree with their use for any other purpose. Trust is the other, and, as far as I am concerned, the greater.

There are numerous methods that one could use to ensure that people never do wrong, like universal constant video surveillance, e-mail and telephone monitoring, implanted transponders, and, in the future, others I am sure. The courts have already balked at universal fingerprinting and DNA sampling as invasions of privacy.

What other spurious and invasive measures are you willing to accept? Should there be cameras in quarters to catch illegal/unsafe activities? Just in the halls and common areas, or sleeping areas as well? Should every man's DNA be on file to prove that they are not rapists? After all, if it prevents or solves just one rape, it's worth it (to paraphrase the Lieberals' attempt to justify the Firearms Act, also claimed to be about safety).


----------



## paracowboy (26 Nov 2006)

go buy more tinfoil.  :


----------



## KevinB (26 Nov 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Demonstrating fitness, as in a BFT, is one thing, but a positive drug test does not prove unfitness. It only indicates a likelihood of past exposure. It cannot provide any indication of impairment or unfitness, which is what you are claiming as justification.



Umh -- so what about a Breath-a-lyser?  I guess that does mean impairment either...  :


----------



## Loachman (27 Nov 2006)

The police cannot legally administer a breathalyzer test without reasonable suspicion of impairment. That is why they first ask if you've been drinking - while they lean in as close as possible. They're looking for slurred speech, glazed eyes, lack of fine co-ordination, alcohol smell on breath etcetera.


----------



## Torlyn (27 Nov 2006)

Perchance, invading the personal, privately owned space that is your personal motor vehicle?  Aren't they infringing upon our rights there?  

T


----------



## medicineman (27 Nov 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Perchance, invading the personal, privately owned space that is your personal motor vehicle?  Aren't they infringing upon our rights there?
> 
> T



I think that may be trumped by you and your car being on the publically owned and used roads in your potentially impaired state  .

MM


----------



## KevinB (27 Nov 2006)

Loach -- your argument was that a POSITIVE drug result does not show impairment 
  My comment was then if you thought a Breathalyzer failure showed impairment.


----------



## Torlyn (27 Nov 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I think that may be trumped by you and your car being on the publically owned and used roads in your potentially impaired state  .



Ah, but then given that we're sailors/soldiers/aircrew, aren't we sorta assets of the state?  Ergo, if we're publically owned...  

T


----------



## Loachman (27 Nov 2006)

Your vehicle cannot be searched unless you give permission, they have a warrant, or reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress. If, for example, they see a weapon on a seat in plain sight they would generally have grounds to search, but if they lift up something covering said weapon, that evidence would most likely not be admissible.

There was a recent case in Brampton where police responded to gun call at a bar and a description was given of either or both the suspects and their vehicle. The police stopped all vehicles leaving and found the suspects and at least one firearm. Because the vehicle did not fit the erroneous description, the judge ruled that they had no right to stop it and the case was tossed.

Sorry, I6, I miss understood. As far as I know, there is not a drug test yet that can measure impairment. It is up to a policeman/woman's judgement to make an arrest if there are signs, and a court to decide if the arrest was legitimate. I do not believe that a roadside (handheld) breathalyzer is sufficient to obtain a conviction, the only (older) ones with which I have any familiarity were not accurate enough. Generally, one of three results would follow such a test: release, twelve-hour suspension (and anybody that fought one of those would be an idiot as, embarassment, cost of cab, towing, and overnight storage aside, they're freebies with no record; an argument would result in the next step), or transport, usually in cuffs, to wherever the main machine and specialist operator are. The results of that would be what went to court if the blood-alcohol level was over the limit. And there are two possible convictions - over 0.08 and impaired, which does not have to be over that limit. Somebody could be over 0.08 and not actually be impaired, although that is a level that society has deemed to be the maximum acceptable and upheld in court as a reasonable level. Court cases have no doubt hinged upon whether or not somebody is actually impaired while over the limit - lawyers get rich on such things. Essentially, though, a breathalyzer can give a reasonable indication of actual impairment.

And no, we're not publically owned. The Charter still applies to us.


----------



## Torlyn (27 Nov 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And no, we're not publically owned. The Charter still applies to us.



Unless such restrictions can be demostrably justified in a free and democratic society.  We've got pages and pages of arguments here, and the vast majority believe that testing prior to deployment is a good thing.  Granted, this isn't exactly a representative cross-section of Canada, but if it were, would you acquiece to the majority (as per a democracy)?  Or, do you believe that our rights need to be protected regardless of what the populous wants?  If our citizens decide that certain restrictions on rights are desirable, then so be it.

If one of those restrictions is me peeing in a bottle, or giving a blood test before I sail, then so be it.  There is something to be said for the restrictions of rights for CF members in order to improve the optics for the general public.  The more the public believe in, and support us, the easier it is in the long run to do our jobs.

Your example regarding the gun seizure...  This is something you are happy with?  I'm curious how you feel about something like that...  Let's say that the suspects were released, and went and committed a crime with that firearm...  It's possible that because the police infringed upon their rights and seized the firearm, they may have prevented a more serious crime.  How would you justify that to the families of potential victims?

If my tone's a bit abrasive, it isn't meant to be.  You've stated what / why you believe, and I'm trying to understand how your thought process is working, in order to further a meaningful discussion.  

T


----------



## KevinB (28 Nov 2006)

I have a license to buy a gun (and a permit to move it around to ranges)
  The SCoC has said that since guns are "inherently dangerous"  : some charter protections do not apply.

I have been deployed with a troop on drugs - and I have seen it in the barracks, and elswhere.  I have seen the CoC and the NIS burying their head in the sand like a fucking ostrich -- I am 100% behind Gen Hilliers desire to test ALL MEMBERS.

  Live by the code and you pissed in a bottle with no worries and all it did was waste 30 sec of you day which the crown owns anyway...


----------



## Loachman (28 Nov 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Unless such restrictions can be demostrably justified in a free and democratic society.  We've got pages and pages of arguments here, and the vast majority believe that testing prior to deployment is a good thing.  Granted, this isn't exactly a representative cross-section of Canada, but if it were, would you acquiece to the majority (as per a democracy)?  Or, do you believe that our rights need to be protected regardless of what the populous wants?  If our citizens decide that certain restrictions on rights are desirable, then so be it.
> 
> If one of those restrictions is me peeing in a bottle, or giving a blood test before I sail, then so be it.  There is something to be said for the restrictions of rights for CF members in order to improve the optics for the general public.  The more the public believe in, and support us, the easier it is in the long run to do our jobs.
> 
> ...



No requirement for drug testing has been demonstrably justified. Because impairment cannot be proven by drug testing, there is no real benefit. Because false positives are very possible, there is a likely detriment to non-drugusers. If you can provide one example of a drug conviction based upon a drug test, please share it. Alcohol is a different matter because levels can be measured and linked to impairment, and there have been thousands of convictions as a result.

Until reliable drug tests can be developed, and they are able to measure impairment rather than simple exposure, they are meaningless.

And what the populace wants is not necessarily fair, correct, or ultimately desireable. Democracy unchecked is simply a polite term for a mob. That is why countries have constitutions capable of overriding democratically-decided laws that do not meet constitutional standards. What the majority believes to be a good thing may not necessarily be, regardless of how strong that belief may be. I'll bring up the Firearms Act again as a perfect illustration.

That is why I asked for proof that a problem exists. Not just casual use, but cases of impairment causing death, injury, or property damage. There may or may not be - I simply do not know. I have seen no such indication in my particular environment, so I'm asking. Presuming that there is a problem, it must then be proven that a given counter is effective or likely to be effective and is proportional.

I do not see that society will view us any better if we submit to drug tests. In fact, it may well view us in a more negative light if reports are publicised that X number or percent test positive, because they will not see the context or understand that many results may be false and that, in any case, no impairment or job performance can be linked to those numbers. Most people do not read beyond the first or second sentence, even if they get past the headline, and we will merely be presumed to be druggies.

I do not agree with the judge who dismissed that case. I do not know if it was appealed, but I would hope so. There is a difference between an illegal search and stopping cars leaving a parking lot under the circumstances. As I understand, there was nothing illegal about the search itself. The judge's objection was simply that only the vehicle described should have been stopped.

As far as our rights are concerned, they are no different than any other citizen's. Rights apply to all, equally, or they are meaningless. The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. The Charter is part of that. All other laws and their attendant regulations must conform to that or be struck down by the courts.

One Charter-protected right is to be treated equally under the law. If an argument is going to be made that drug testing can be linked to safety, and I believe that to be false, then that safety requirement should be applied also to all operators of the deadliest machine in the country: the private automobile.

To some/many, this is trivial and not worth worrying about. I could not have cared less many years ago either; successive waves of legislative attacks on law-abiding citizens who happened to own firearms and like shooting changed that. The current Firearms Act attacks numerous Charter-guaranteed rights, among numerous other flaws. The awareness that this has awakened within me also causes me to disagree with the terrorism act and agree with gay rights - and any others' rights for that matter.

I don't see anything abrasive in your tone, so don't worry about that.


----------



## Loachman (28 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I have a license to buy a gun (and a permit to move it around to ranges)
> The SCoC has said that since guns are "inherently dangerous"  : some charter protections do not apply.
> 
> I have been deployed with a troop on drugs - and I have seen it in the barracks, and elswhere.  I have seen the CoC and the NIS burying their head in the sand like a ******* ostrich -- I am 100% behind Gen Hilliers desire to test ALL MEMBERS.
> ...



I have the same licence.

The Supreme Court has made two rulings on the Firearms Act. One concerned the legal ability of the Federal Government to enact the law in the first place, as regulatory law is Provincial jurisdiction. This is why it falls into the Criminal Code. That case was poorly argued and, of the total of eight judges that heard it at each step up to and including the Supremes, four sided with the government and four did not. The other case involved the validity of searches under certain circumstances, and that part of the act was struck down. Both cases were very narrow in focus, and haven't decided anything of significance. A much broader case is currently winding its way slowly through the system, and I am helping to fund that. The same Charter protections do apply. The draughters of the legislation clearly knew that, which is why they use weaselly words to try and disguise what they were doing. It was one of those protections that the second case upheld. The others have not yet been tested.

As for the individuals to whom you refer, were any ever thus impaired while on duty? If so, then a case can be made from the safety point of view but I would still say that the case would be weak; the problem was already known (to their peers, at least, and I'm presuming that it was reported), so what further benefit would random or blanket drug testing have achieved? If there was no impairment, then this falls back into the criminal sphere and normal investigations need to take place just as for any other crime.

I get the impression, if I understand what you are saying, that the problem is not so much the original detection, as specific incidences of drug use by specific individuals have been observed, but actually having that drug use taken seriously and dealt with. Was the chain of command informed? Were the MPs informed? Perhaps treating those who do not report drug use, or those to whom it is reported but do not act, as accessories and charging them might achieve the desired result. The only benefit that I can see of the TF 1-07 testing is that the wilfully-blind may open their eyes, however I still do not believe that safety will be improved.

At least then the focus is on those who misbehave rather than thousands of innocents who are, in effect, being accused of drug use until they prove themselves innocent.

It's not the time, it's the principle - the insult and the implied accusation of untrustworthiness and criminal activity.

If we are not trustworthy, then of what value is our oath/solemn affirmation of allegiance? Of what value are the Commissioning Scrolls of those who hold them, and the fancy words contained thereon?


----------



## TCBF (29 Nov 2006)

' It's possible that because the police infringed upon their rights and seized the firearm, they may have prevented a more serious crime.  How would you justify that to the families of potential victims?'

- The same way the Police, the Courts, and the Parole system does when an ex-con murders again; "We are not responsible for factors beyond our control."  We can't seize stuff because a crime 'might' happen, otherwise every drug dealer in town would be shook down every day.  Can't have that, right?  Criminals are one of the three pillars of the Justice Industry.  If we don't keep recycling our criminals onto the streets, we can't keep the Lawyers and Judges in hookers and SUVs.

- Besides, we need the test failures to be drivers for OCTs on Maple Guardian Exercises, so they can (deleted on edit).

- No, we just love the human trash druggies coming on Ex, so we can waste time babysitting other peoples mental defectives.


----------

