Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)

[CivU]

"We can not and must not tolerate drug use or even think of legalize it."

What are alcohol and tobacco, if not dangerous drugs?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This thread is going nowhere just like I thought it would when I locked it yesterday, but rescinded.
This kife can be argued on some other means that caters to this stuff.
I'm sure I can find every post here almost word for word in all the other drug threads.
This is worse than the movie, "He Said, She Said".....find something else that has some relevance to this forum.
There is a fact here children, drug use is not tolerated in the CF, if you are serving, or wish to,and want to do illegal drugs, you had better start sending your posts to a higher authourity than anyone at this website has.
Bruce

 

[Armymedic]

Guess what is stopping Pot laws...

Fear of US Political Backlash

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126462140009_149/?hub=Canada

Pot bill shelved until after next election
CTV.ca News Staff

The Liberal government's controversial bill to decriminalize marijuana will be shelved until after the next election, CTV News has learned.

The contentious cannabis bill has been sitting in legislative limbo for more than two years.

While the Conservatives oppose the proposed marijuana legislation, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois support decriminalization but they want major amendments, including an amnesty.

"It's been estimated about 600,000 Canadians have a criminal record as a result of personal possession," said NDP MP Libby Davies.

The minority government now concedes the bill will likely be put off until after the next federal election.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has pledged he will call the next election about a month after Justice John Gomery releases his final report on the sponsorship scandal, which is due to be submitted before the end of the year. That would mean a mid-winter or early spring election.

"The problem is that it's an abbreviated parliamentary session. It's a minority government situation. Parliament is a master of its own procedure," Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said.

The bill would impose fines rather than criminal charges for simple possession and heavier penalties for grow-ops.

But some police officers want even tougher penalties and marijuana activists say the bill would only encourage them to lay more charges for simple possession.

"This bill, I'm just as happy to see it die. It doesn't please anybody," said Mike Foster of the National Organization for Marijuana Reform.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is threatening major border delays if the marijuana bill ever passed.

"The United States is opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana," said U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins.

Critics say this reason is significant enough to let the bill die.

"So it's not surprising at all that they are now trying to backpedal and get away from dealing with this issue because they are afraid of the reaction," Davies says.

With so much opposition to the bill, officials say the Liberals are content to leave marijuana reform on the backburner, which could mean it will be many more years before there is another attempt to decriminalize marijuana.

With a report from CTV's Robert Fife



So don't light up just yet...

 

[Glorified Ape]

"We can not and must not tolerate drug use or even think of legalize it."

What are alcohol and tobacco, if not dangerous drugs?

Thank you. I don't think there's a great mystery as to which ones kill the most people, either. From my experience, stoned people are generally less violent, belligerent, destructive, etc. than drunk people. If I had to choose between weed and booze, which drug to outlaw, it would be booze - especially when you look at the chemical dependency issue. That would make me sad, of course, since I drink but don't smoke (weed, anyway).

MCG - 100%


48th Truth hurts - suck it up.

Fact is despite what the media and other long hair dope smoking tree hugging type want your to think - Org crime runs the business - just like peeler bars etc.

Sure it does, just as it did when prohibition was going - then the booze became legal and a major source of income was removed from organized crime's roster. Right now we don't make squat from weed, it just costs the government money prosecuting penny-ante cases. If it were legal it could be taxed, generating government income.

 

[Hunter]

If pot was legalized, how do people think this would impact CF policy on marijuana?  If something was legal in Canadian society, would the CF be forced to change it's policy?  Just wondering what people's opinions are.

 

[Armymedic]

read this from the start, and see in the recruiting threads..its all there in overly torid detail.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If pot was legalized, how do people think this would impact CF policy on marijuana?   If something was legal in Canadian society, would the CF be forced to change it's policy?   Just wondering what people's opinions are.

There's 17 pages on this thread alone, plus others if you "search". I know for a fact, that the discussion of your question has already taken place.

 

[1feral1]

Thank you. I don't think there's a great mystery as to which ones kill the most people, either. From my experience, stoned people are generally less violent, belligerent, destructive, etc. than drunk people. If I had to choose between weed and booze, which drug to outlaw, it would be booze - especially when you look at the chemical dependency issue. That would make me sad, of course, since I drink but don't smoke (weed, anyway).

I disagree completly with the above quote! So you would approve of drugs within the CF? Not slinging shyte at ya GA, but thats pure and UTTER nonsense! Time to take a bite out the reality choc chip cooke, and not laced with hash either!

Hummm, stoned people less violent? PCP, crack, and other nasty things like heroin. Many will mug you, some will even KILL to finance their fix. Most don't have jobs (many prostitute themselves [men-women and sadly and most sickening, boys and girls]), are a burden on society and the system, and would gladly break into your house, steal your property, snoop thru your personal things, vandalise your house and VIOLATE your privacy, and if you or your wife/kids are there, many say so what.

Soft drugs in many cases are a stepping stone to the worse ones, where in booze you can only go from beer-wine to whiskey (and yes there is also violence involving this too). At the end of the day, its called being responsible for one's actions. You only get issued ONE life, so be careful with it.  

In your experience, you're 24yrs old (according to your profile)! If this is the case of the new quality jr leadefship in the CF, they must be handing out commissions like speeding tickets at the Indy 500!

The CF and any other professional army should maintain a ZERO tollerance on drugs. You know where I stand.

 

[48Highlander]

Hummm, stoned people less violent? PCP, crack, and other nasty things like heroin.

We weren't talking about any of those drugs, so don't confuse the subject.  The discussion is about mariyuana.  If you don't understand the difference, perhaps you should do a bit of reading before you post?

Soft drugs in many cases are a stepping stone to the worse ones

Want to provide some evidence for this?  The link has never been proven, nor has there been even semi-conclusive evidence for it.  If you're so confident of this, you should have no problem providing some statistics to back up your claim.

At the end of the day, its called being responsible for one's actions. You only get issued ONE life, so be careful with it.  

Yep.  When the government forbids you from doing something that MAY affect the way you behave, they're assuming that you're not going to be responsible.  Personaly, I don't like being presumed guilty and told I can't do something just because someone thinks I might use it irresponsibly.  The same reasoning was behind the prohibition.

The CF and any other professional army should maintain a ZERO tollerance on drugs. You know where I stand.

In that case, why not a zero drinking policy?

 

[1feral1]

EDITed with link - hopefully it works (it still is not)

48, I am NO idiot, so don't talk to me like one. Besides, what do you know, you can't even spell it correctly, there is no 'y' in it. We are both seasoned posters, so no reason to have an attitude or to get stroppy over my post.

Over the past 30yrs, have seen my fare share of the after effects on drug abuse, which evolved from soft drugs to much harder ones, and sadly invloved the cold blooded MURDER of my couisn and her husband in Vernon BC in the late 90's, and the murder of a school friend in Regina in 1977 (over grass). I have also heard the same from seasoned members of the police in three countries (Canada, USA, and Australia). So I do know the difference, and although I am no expert on the matter, I think life experience helps out in this case, so I know exactly what I am talking about to some degree anyways.

Firstly, GA's quote said STONED people, not stoned people on grass.

ZERO tolerance on drinking in the CF and ADF   - Isn't there already the case in many instances within Defence? Some examples, in uniform, on EX, on duty 9in civvies or not), a time period before operating a DND veh, etc. Its pretty much the same here in Australia, and no booze in the field means NO booze. However at ENDEX, at the COs discretion, its a different story, but I have seen dry Ex's from begining to end without ONE drop of booze. Besides at the end of the day we are training for war, not to drink ourselves into a stuper, and become a safety hazard and a risk to our fellow soldats.

As for my mentioning about soft drug use leading to other harder drugs, give this a try.... www.newscientist.com/channel/beinghuman/drugs-alcohol/dn3921 , (EDIT- This aint working, I'll try to rectify this) and if anyone can find another, post it please. In furtherance to this, there has been some good specialist documentries and programs recently here in Australia on the topic, plus lastly, speaking from personal experience of friends and family, and thats better than any graphs and studies.

Seems many sites that disagree with the gateway theory are for the pro-use of this drug, and other leftist type sites. I am not saying that this is in all cases, as I know many who have stayed at the soft drug level, and still are doing it (after 30yrs), others grew out of it, while others yet again graduated to the worst kind, and are now ruined because of this.

Others claim teen use (undermatured brains in youth) promotes permanent brain damage, and a host of other problems in older people.

In most asian countries, it can be a DEATH penalty for even to be inpossession of grass alone. Look at Indonesia, and Singapore for example. Its not just in our culture that drugs are considered bad, and to top it all off look at those Mounties who were killed, all because of grass.


Wes

 

[Fishbone Jones]

             

 

[ArmyRick]

Yes alcohol has its problems, but if taken responsible, it has no negative effects. Please note the big R word.

Soft drugs and hard drugs? I have watched one of my cousins destroy his life on nothing but marijuana (SP?) and I have seen another person I know from High school end up in the slammer for stupid things while stoned out of his mind. Everybody I know who is only a "Casual" user or whatever lame term I have heard that smokes up, I have watched how they slowly destroy their lives.

Pretending that marijuana has no real negative effects is living with your head in the ground...

 

[Glorified Ape]

I disagree completly with the above quote! So you would approve of drugs within the CF? Not slinging shyte at ya GA, but thats pure and UTTER nonsense! Time to take a bite out the reality choc chip cooke, and not laced with hash either!

No offense taken. I'd say the same thing to me if I thought that was what I was saying. I worded it incorrectly, my apologies.

Hummm, stoned people less violent? PCP, crack, and other nasty things like heroin. Many will mug you, some will even KILL to finance their fix. Most don't have jobs (many prostitute themselves [men-women and sadly and most sickening, boys and girls]), are a burden on society and the system, and would gladly break into your house, steal your property, snoop thru your personal things, vandalise your house and VIOLATE your privacy, and if you or your wife/kids are there, many say so what.[/quote]

I agree with you completely if we're discussing heroin, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, or PCP. I think I phrased it badly, by "stoned" I meant people high on weed, not on anything else. My best friend for years was a "recovering" heroin and crack addict but, low and behold, when he had his "relapses" things would go missing, his behaviour became unpleasant (to say the least) and he'd engage in criminal enterprise (other than stealing from my family) to support the habit though the worst part was for my sister since he was her boyfriend. I wrote him off some time ago, as did she. 

Soft drugs in many cases are a stepping stone to the worse ones, where in booze you can only go from beer-wine to whiskey (and yes there is also violence involving this too). At the end of the day, its called being responsible for one's actions. You only get issued ONE life, so be careful with it.

I agree with the last two points. As for the "gateway" theory, I'm not sure I agree really. I smoked weed for about 4 years between junior high and highschool, then quit 'cause I just didn't enjoy it anymore - paranoia wasn't fun. It never caused me to go on to crack, coke, heroin, meth, pcp, etc. Nor did it for my friends, many of which still smoke - one's in his final year of law school, another is a firefighter, another's a financial analyst, and the list goes on.   

In your experience, you're 24yrs old (according to your profile)! If this is the case of the new quality jr leadefship in the CF, they must be handing out commissions like speeding tickets at the Indy 500!

Yes, lets cast aspersions on my professional potential because we disagree on drug policy. :
I don't smoke weed, wouldn't advocate anyone else do it, wouldn't tolerate it being done by subordinates, and have no desire or intention to smoke, snort, inject, or ingest any drug, legal or otherwise.

Yes, I'm 24 years old but judging from your apparent inability to distinguish the difference between crack/heroin and weed, I'd wager your experience in the subject isn't anymore extensive than mine. It's like equating alcohol with ecstacy - they're both drugs but their effects, both long and short term are severely disproportionate.

The CF and any other professional army should maintain a ZERO tollerance on drugs. You know where I stand.

I agree. Illegal drugs should have a zero tolerance policy attached - weed included as long as it's against the law. As I said, I wouldn't tolerate pot smoking in my subordinates (or superiors for that matter, but my ability to affect change there would likely be more difficult). My belief that it should be legalized doesn't conflict with my belief that CF policy is CF policy and must be enforced, lest an inch become a mile. I'm not in disagreement with the policy - how on earth could the military function if it wasn't compliant with the laws it's there to protect?

I don't consider alcohol and weed to be all that different in their severity. Yes, there have been people whose lives have been destroyed by weed just as there are those whose lives have been destroyed by alcohol. Both my father and grandfather were alcoholics (successful ones, but boozers nonetheless) and while it didn't destroy their lives, it certainly didn't help them. I don't believe them to be evidence in support of prohibition, only examples of what can happen when a relatively benign substance is used irresponsibly.

 

[48Highlander]

Wes, we're obviously not making much progress here, but I'll try one more time.

48, I am NO idiot, so don't talk to me like one. Besides, what do you know, you can't even spell it correctly, there is no 'y' in it. We are both seasoned posters, so no reason to have an attitude or to get stroppy over my post.

Didn't intend to insult you, and reading back I can see some of my comments were a bit...inappropriate.  I apologise.

Over the past 30yrs, have seen my fare share of the after effects on drug abuse, which evolved from soft drugs to much harder ones, and sadly invloved the cold blooded MURDER of my couisn and her husband in Vernon BC in the late 90's, and the murder of a school friend in Regina in 1977 (over grass). I have also heard the same from seasoned members of the police in three countries (Canada, USA, and Australia). So I do know the difference, and although I am no expert on the matter, I think life experience helps out in this case, so I know exactly what I am talking about to some degree anyways.

Life experience makes you biased, not educated.  If you have a family member get shot, you might advocate banning all weapons, or you may swing the other way and advocate concealed carry laws.  All that negative experience does is make you a firm beleiver, it doesn't neccesarily make you any more right.

Firstly, GA's quote said STONED people, not stoned people on grass.

You knew what he meant.  Or should have.  His comment was in the marijuana thread, and he was advocating leaglizing marijuana.

ZERO tolerance on drinking in the CF and ADF   - Isn't there already the case in many instances within Defence? Some examples, in uniform, on EX, on duty 9in civvies or not), a time period before operating a DND veh, etc. Its pretty much the same here in Australia, and no booze in the field means NO booze. However at ENDEX, at the COs discretion, its a different story, but I have seen dry Ex's from begining to end without ONE drop of booze. Besides at the end of the day we are training for war, not to drink ourselves into a stuper, and become a safety hazard and a risk to our fellow soldats.

And a notional drug policy (assuming drugs became legal) could/would be the same.  Ofcourse you're not going to be getting stoned on duty.  No booze in the field, no weed in the field.  What you do when you're at home is up to you, as long as it doesn't impact your performance in uniform.

Seems many sites that disagree with the gateway theory are for the pro-use of this drug, and other leftist type sites. I am not saying that this is in all cases, as I know many who have stayed at the soft drug level, and still are doing it (after 30yrs), others grew out of it, while others yet again graduated to the worst kind, and are now ruined because of this.

In other words because SOME of the people who did weed went on to do harder drugs, it MUST be a gateway drug?  Come on wes  :  you know full well that that's faulty logic.  Those who want to do harder drugs are going to do them wether or not they try weed first.  You may as well argue that alcohol is a gateway drug - while growing up me and my closest friends tried booze long before we touched our first joint.  In fact, one of them eventualy stopped smoking weed and became a full blown alcoholic instead.

Others claim teen use (undermatured brains in youth) promotes permanent brain damage, and a host of other problems in older people.

Ditto for booze

In most asian countries, it can be a DEATH penalty for even to be inpossession of grass alone. Look at Indonesia, and Singapore for example. Its not just in our culture that drugs are considered bad, and to top it all off look at those Mounties who were killed, all because of grass.

So because a bunch of aseans do it, it's good enough for us.  I don't know wess, I've never found the "look, they do it too!" line of reasoning very compelling.  No matter how many people shoot themselves in the foot, I won't be inclined to follow.

As for the Mounties, they wouldn't have been killed if "grass" weren't illegal, so you're really arguing to legalize it.  After all, when's the last time you heardf of a caop getting killed by rum-runners?

 

[ArmyRick]

NO DRUGS ! Thats my stand and I know alot of Canadians do support it! I also asked my cousin (who is a metro cop) and he said we are going to open a huge bag of problems if legalize or decriminalize soft drugs.

 

[48Highlander]

You know, I REALLY hate the "I asked my uncle Fred, and he said..." argument.  Who cares?  There's also plenty of cops who beleive the exact opposite.  Relating the opinions of people who, for all I know, may or may not actualy exist, isn't very useful in these types of discussions.

Ditto with "a lot of Canadians do support it!".  So what?  A lot of Canadians also oppose it.  In fact, public opinion within Canada on wether or not it should be legalized is pretty much split down the middle.  And even if it wasn't, what does public perception have to do with what's right?  The majority of Canadians think of us only as peacekeepewrs when they think of us at all.  Does that mean we should change the CF to suit public perception?  Mob rule is no way to run any organization, let alone a country.

 

[dutchie]

I have heard some comelling arguments on how legalizing marijuana wouldn't be 'that bad', but I've NEVER heard an even remotely compeling argument on how legalizing marijuana would actually improve society in some way.

Marijuana provides no benefit to society. Neither does alchohol, but it's not illegal, and it's widely accepted as a socially acceptable drug. The same can't be said for marijuana.

Keep arseholes like Emery on the fringe (or in a US jail) where they belong.

 

[48Highlander]

Sure it would.  For one thing, 1 acre of hemp field can be used to make as much paper as 4 acres of forest.  The environmental impact alone would be worth it.

As far as recreational use:

The crime rate in Amsterdam is lower than many major U.S. cities. Mario Lap, a key drug policy advisor in the Netherlands national government says "We've had a realistic drug policy for 30 years in the Netherlands, and we know what works. We distinguish between soft and hard drugs, between traffickers and users. We try not to make people into criminals" (Houston Chronicle). In 1989 the LAncet report states "The Dutch have shown that there is nothing inevitable about the drugs ladder in which soft drugs lead to heard drugs. The ladder does not exist in Holland because the dealers have been separated."

Amsterdam's legalization of marijuana removed the criminal element from the industry, thereby providing many positive changes in their society such as:

1)  Making it safer for users to obtain their product
2)  Reducing the ability of your average highschool kid to turn into a criminal by becoming a "dealer"
3)  Reducing the ammount of money being exchanged through criminal means, and instead generating extra tax revenue which can be used for social programs, policing, military spending, or any number of programs which would be beneficial to society.

While there are no positive aspects to people USING marijauana, there are certainly positive changes which would occur through it's legalization.  In other words, people doing it isn't neccesarily good for society, but our over-reaction to it's use is infinitely more harmful.

 

[Britney Spears]

Alcohol provides NO benefit to society?!

You argument will go really far with that kind of assumption. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

Amsterdam's legalization of marijuana removed the criminal element from the industry, thereby providing many positive changes in their society such as:

I presume that the real underlying debate here is whether soldiers should be permitted to partake, even if marijuana was decriminalized. All too often the decriminalization of marijuana on the streets of Amsterdam is tossed out as the fait accompli for success in a western society for pot usage.

So, would your extensive pro-legalization research include the specifics of the Royal Netherlands Army's regulations of drug use? How has this open-minded society reconciled availability and use on the steet with the demands and responsibilities of military service?

Perhaps this helps define that what works on the streets of Amsterdam is not necessarily acceptable for the country's armed forces:

Core Values, the Development of an Ethical Decision-Making Model and the Call for an Ethical Standards Committee in the Royal Netherlands Army
http://atlas.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE99/Heijster99.html

CODE OF CONDUCT OF THE ROYAL NETHERLANDS ARMY

As a serviceman/woman or civilian employee I make an important contribution to the defense of our country and to peace and safety in the world. In doing so, I adhere to the following code of conduct:

1. I try to do my best and am prepared to learn from my mistakes.

2. Both my attitude and my behaviour show that I am proud to work for the Royal Netherlands Army.

3. As a member of a team, I need my colleagues and they need me. For this reason I also feel responsible for their well-being and, if necessary, I call them to account for their actions.

4. I am responsible for the correct use of the equipment and funds entrusted to me and of the services offered to me.

5. In all my actions I consider the safety of myself and my surroundings. For this reason, I avoid drugs and limit my alcohol intake.

6. I respect human rights and adhere to the rules laid down in the law of war. I treat everyone equally and with respect, and wherever possible offer aid to fellow humans in need.

7. I carry out my assigned tasks professionally, even in difficult circumstances or in the event of danger to my own life.

8. I never abuse the power entrusted to me. I shall use force if ordered to, but never more than is necessary for completing my tasks. Anyone, certainly my opponent, may be sure that I am resolute and persistent.