drug testing

[Meridian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'm mostly talking for at home.

Max

 

[seaforth93]

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]

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