Dear Parents: Your Son Was a Drug Addict Before He Joined The CF, Not Just After

[OldSolduer]

No.  The CF is complying with the Law.  You cannot check someone for drugs, unless you have a Warrant to do so, or are a LEO and have just cause. 

If it's part of the terms of employment, you certainly can require employees to under-go drug testing.

In much the same fashion, an "inspection" of quarters isn't considered an "unwarranted search".

The CMP ordered our unit to undergo blind drug testing. As far as I know, the CMP isn't a law enforcement officer.
I know over 600 soldiers who were drug tested prior to deploying to Afghanistan.
Short answer...yes you can require individuals to undergo drug testing without warrant.

 

[George Wallace]

If it's part of the terms of employment, you certainly can require employees to under-go drug testing.

In much the same fashion, an "inspection" of quarters isn't considered an "unwarranted search".

Have you seen this as part of our terms of employment?  I haven't.  I have seen the use of "Blind Drug Testing" whereby no link back to an individual is used, other than Rank and Unit. 

Were you refering to an "inspection of quarters as an "unwarranted search" or not as an "unwarranted search"?  In any case, that could still fall under the Health Inspection or Fire Inspection legislation; not necessarily under the Legal System.  Many ways around that one.

OldSoldier

Not being a Legal Beagle, I'll leave the real authority with the JAG.  They sometimes have quite opposite views as us laymen.

 

[OldSolduer]

George I agree with you.

The reason for the blind drug test is that it statistically tells the authorities where to look and conduct further testing.
For instance (and I don't know the age groups etc): If the blind tests show that 25% of the 17-24 year old males are dirty, but no one from the 50-60 year old males are, then authorities can focus their efforts. As for actuallly grabbing someone and testing randomly...I don't know.

 

[leroi]

TCBF, I see this as a failure of some in the Canadian Press because they are always finding ways to beat-up the Canadian military. ALL institutions and organizations have internal problems with drugs gambling, theft, etc. The larger the bureaucracy, the more complexity and the more problems. A while back, one of the Toronto papers did a piece on STD's in the CF. It was very biased and designed to do only one thing besmirch the CF in public. When I know for a fact, that STD's are a much huger problem on Canadian campuses! Yet, we don't hear about that.

But the Canadian Press and moreso the Toronto papers are merciless in their pursuit of tearing at the throat of our military.

Why? IMO, because the Canadian military is in the business of defending Canadian freedoms and values; they are not in the business of defending themselves. Therefore, some journalists and newspaper editors drag out their favorite punching bag on a slow news day: the Canadian Forces. Easy pickins.

I have told them this too.

Don't worry TCBF, Canadians are beginning to clue in. Increasingly, we are turning to news forums like this one and blogs. We're beginning to realize the print media is no longer reliable.

Thank goodness for Ruxted, Mark Collins, Tony Pudori, Christie Blatchford, Terry Glavin and others.

I got so upset at one point at the G&M coverage of the Afghanistan mission, that I wrote to the Kabul Centre for Strategic Studies to show them the lies being written in Canadian newspapers. :rage:

They were appalled. BTW, the man who emailed me back had nothing but good things to say about CF work in Afghanistan--a country that he loves.

Disclaimer: I'm speaking in general terms and I'm not inferring that all journalists are failing or that all newpapers are failing. Small local community papers especially seem to be doing a good job with local news.

​

Edit: Toned down a tad to be more polite.

 

[Jammer]

Let's be clear about this.
The vast majority of  reporters, national or local are fair and objective. We cannot put ourselves too high on the pedestal. More often than not, those reporters are echoing what the soldiers are thinking but can't say it for obvious reasons.
It might interest you to know that reporters for small papers are often the most ignorant of what we are doing.
They ride on the Queen's dime to get a hometown story from one or two guys and then strut around complaining that it's too hot and the food is not up to their liking.
That said, in my experience with the media, they have been nothing less than gracious and willing to do anything from taking pics especially to send to our loved ones on the side, to being out in the boonies with us expecting nothing from us but honesty.

 

[chrisf]

Have you seen this as part of our terms of employment?  I haven't.  I have seen the use of "Blind Drug Testing" whereby no link back to an individual is used, other than Rank and Unit. 

In a sense, it is in your terms of employment, as a member of the Canadian forces, your terms of employment include a legal requirement to follow all legal orders. If you're ordered to take a drug test, you take a drug test. That simple. If you refuse, you'll likely be explaining why you refused at a later date, possibly without a beret.

I also can tell you from experience, that SOP in the oil patch with civillian employers, IMMEDIATELY upon any accident happening, is to remove all persons involved, and drug test them. You have the option of either terminating your employment, or taking the test (a positive result will likely also result in the termination of your employment).

Were you refering to an "inspection of quarters as an "unwarranted search" or not as an "unwarranted search"?  In any case, that could still fall under the Health Inspection or Fire Inspection legislation; not necessarily under the Legal System.  Many ways around that one.

Technically, a member living in can be subject to inspection of quarters, which can be up to an including a rather invasive search if the chain of command deems in required, no "warrants" required, no need for ways around. If somthing is found during this inspection of quarters which would incriminate this member, the member being guilty or not is up to the presiding officer at a later date.

The best advice that can be given to anyone is the same advice my father (A retired sergeant) gave me on enrolling "Don't do anything stupid, and stay the heck away from the meat heads"

 

[leroi]

Jammer.

I cannot see it from a CF member's point of view because I'm not one. I can only say, as a civilian Canadian, that if I relied on the Toronto papers coverage of the Afghan mission in particular--which has since improved by the way--I would have had a very poor impression indeed.

As far as local media, I'm speaking about how they cover local, community issues. That is more their job and they do it well--IMO. Their coverage of CF issues must vary across communities depending on constituents interests.  So I don't disagree with you there.

If Canadian Press is good to CF members then that reaffirms them in my eyes.

But I respectfully must disagree with you in general about particular papers coverage of CF issues. I have seen them far too often give front page coverage to issues that do not deserve that prominence--stirring up the pot and misleading the public with regard to STDs, poor treatment of women, secret agendas, alleged Geneva Convention violations and so on and so forth.

 

[Jammer]

Try not to let it jade you too much.
A great majority of those types of allegations are made by others with a political axe to grind, or are so far removed from the reality of what they are "reporting" on.