• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)

1175CMR said:
Do LEO's get drug tested?  I do not know.  it would be interesting to know what results they come up with..
 

Good question.  IMHO, they should be, but couldn't tell you whether they are or not - probably depends on the individual police service.

1175CMR said:
I agree with the zero tolerance policy and I would have no problems showing anyone of the troops under my command the door if they failed a drug test.  I agree with what you are saying about impairment, in any job.  Is it acceptable for a general labourer, plumber, accountant, city official, or a store clerk to be impaired on the job (or at home)?  Are they not part of society as well?  I know what you are saying about job description but should the public not hold everyone to the same standard?
 

I think someone would be far less concerned, for the good of society as a whole, about a plumber or general labourer being impaired than a soldier, cop or even city official.  True, bad repairs/building cause problems too, but I think that in positions of general public trust, especially those mandated to use lethal force as a sanction, the bar should be higher.  Fair?  Maybe not, but those getting into these jobs have to know the score going in. 

1175CMR said:
maybe it is time for the public to look at the direction they are taking regarding drug use.

Just so I'm clear - are you saying that maybe the public should not be so flippant about legalizing more drugs, or that they should maybe cut the CF and other groups a touch more slack on these?  Thanks for clarifying that one.
 
The public can cut us some slack.... but the boys & girls in the CF should not cut the druggie / drug dealers any slack.... though I would be willing to cut them a length of rope if they want to go out and hang themselves with it.

However, I have seen and know some young troopies who did something stupid while they were with friends who were not in the CF..... and they got caught.....  Have had some of em then come back to me & say "but I didn't inhale"........

Two strikes and you're out is a fair process.  Those who are on C&P are not deployable - as it should be.
 
I met a friggin shady character while traveling through europe who thought it would be good conversation to tell me how he beat the drug testing in a Moroccon prision. He said drink a bunch of water till you go piss, then after you piss drink 2 L of water and hold it in until you have to pee into a cup - thus giving a dilluted sample.




Edited by Vern to remove swearing. Please watch you language there are minors on this forum.
 
I'm surprised codeine would be on this list...You can buy Tylenol 1's over the counter if you ask for them and they contain codeine...
 
Hey, one can get caffiene at Tim Hortons................but have too much in your system and one can kiss a gold medal goodbye.
 
There is no real way to dilute a urine sample except to do the ole dip the cup it in the toilet water to mix with the urine. This will actually render the sample useless. Simply drinking lots of water before a test does not work, and in fact may even flush more of the drug into the urine, making it more noticable. I thing what they actually test for is morphine in the urine not codeine per se. Most opiates are metoabolized into morphine in the body, like heroin or codeine.
 
How many of these soldiers were impaired while in training or on active duty? IMO, They should be put on C&P for soft drugs, but booted for hard.

Cocaine is a helluva drug.
 
Codine is synthasized in the brain to produce morphine. I don't know if it shows up in testing as morphine but Codine it self is not what numbs pain, its after its synthasized.
 
youravatar said:
How many of these soldiers were impaired while in training or on active duty? IMO, They should be put on C&P for soft drugs, but booted for hard.

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

I believe C&P has started but at a very slow pace. Regardless of what type of drug used, all those found to have tested positive will come under C&P(all tarred with the same brush) so to speak. If someone is found to be a supplier of drugs then that, I believe, falls under a different policy. Though I do not agree with drug use, period. I think that this will be a wake-up call to those who have tried or may have thought of trying drugs. Nothing but good will come from this and the CF will be better for it. Just don't ostracized those who tested positive from the military community just yet. Allow them time to gain back your respect. Every person deserves a second chance.
 
Have an example of a young reservist
Enrolled as a reservist, qualified in his trade
graduated from Highschool and went to a grad party
some booze loosened him up when some of his fellow students started passing around a joint.  He wasn't at 100% and he caved... he had a couple of "tokes"... though he claims that it didn't do anything for him

Fun part is that then... 3 yrs later, he applies for a Component transfer

being honest & forthright, he admits to the recruiting officer that he did, 3 yrs before try out Marijuana... Officer being in a position of responsibility reports the claim to the Reservist's superiors who, in turn, follows policy & slaps a C&P on same said reservist.

Reservist does feel he is being penalized for being honest....

In the end, he was allowed to do the CT to the regs.  He starts off his career with the regs with a "strike" against him but, his poor jugement did not destroy his career aspirations.
 
Personally I think the Forces should adopt mandatory periodic drug testing for all members. If you caught you get a chance to "get clean", get caught again you are out. Get caught trafficking your gone and criminal charges are filed. The amount of persons recently caught using is only the tip of the iceberg. Out West one of the ships had a pretty significant drug problem, with the Coxn getting caught among other members of the crew. Until mandatory testing is implemented, members are going to continue to use with impunity.
 
Geo,

How easily a soldiers career can hit a pothole. One of the soldiers who tested positive in G'town, mirrors your story.

Going away party, plenty of friends, to much booze, some jerk produces a joint or two and the rest is history.

I spoke to him when he was RTU, he is so down on himself.

The only advice I could offer was to accept his C&P and soldier on.

He intends to complete his C&P and work his arse off to win back his creditability.

I have all the confidence in the world he will do it, he is that type of soldier.
 
1175CMR said:
Do LEO's get drug tested?  I do not know.  it would be interesting to know what results they come up with..

I got a whole battery of tests when I got on, and then nothing since.  Depending on when I got tested, I might have trace cannabis or cocaine in my system.  Reason being, you go into a crack house, or deal with some clowns doing their best Cheech and Chong impression with a weeded up car, you are going to injest it. 
They should be testing the failures for concentrations, not just + or - .  Some over the counter or prescribed pharmacuticles are explainable, but there should be no reason for coke, heroin or cannabis to be turning up.  Albeit, if someone had been doing secret squirrel black ops stuff. Doubtful those guys are getting tested. 
Another avenue would be to put them through a polygraph exam.  If they have not consumed illicit drugs, they will pass the exam with no problems.  If they have been being druggies though, they will burn.  That is a test you can't beat. 
 
milnewstbay said:
Now, the legal beagles seem worried - shared with the usual disclaimer....

Forces switched gears on firing soldiers for failed drug tests
CHRIS LAMBIE, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 25 Jan 07
Article Link

The military decided not to immediately can soldiers who failed drug tests, fearing the move could set them up for a legal battle the Canadian Forces stood to lose.

The head of the army was keen to rush soldiers out the door who either failed drug tests or provided diluted urine samples. Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie wanted to send a message to the troops that the military will not tolerate drug use, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.

"Releasing members without due process will place the (Canadian Forces) in a position of having to fight grievance and/or human rights challenges that we stand to lose," Cmdr. Tony Crewe, the military’s director of careers administration, said in an Oct. 20 e-mail to a Defence Department policy adviser.

"We would then face the possibility of having to reinstate these members at considerable loss of (Canadian Forces) credibility and possibly the ability for the (Canadian Forces) to conduct drug testing in the future."

Any soldiers who failed the drug testing must go through a full administrative review, Cmdr. Crewe stressed in his message, which was checked over by a military lawyer.

"While this may take time and be seen as less of a message to the remainder of the military, it avoids the negative repercussions of releasing members without due process," he said.

Not following the entire administrative review process wouldn’t be fair to individual soldiers, Cmdr. Crewe wrote.

"It will also make us extremely vulnerable to a challenge under the grievance process or before the courts."

That vulnerability stems from "a long-standing pattern of rehabilitation in the military for soft drugs and indeed some hard drugs at times," said defence lawyer David Bright, who regularly handles military cases.

"You can’t just throw somebody out," said Mr. Bright.

"You have to give them a chance to rehabilitate themselves. You have to accommodate them. And to simply turn around and say, ‘We’re throwing you out without due process,’ just isn’t appropriate."

He’s sure the military would lose a challenge if they threw someone out without first going through an administrative review.

"There’s no question about it in my mind," Mr. Bright said.

Losing such a challenge could force the military to hand over drug testing to a third party, the Dartmouth lawyer said. "Or if they screw it up so badly, the human rights tribunal might rule that it’s wrong — they can’t do it," Mr. Bright said. "There are all sorts of potential problems."

The military used to reserve "safety-sensitive drug testing" for people in certain jobs, such as pilots and military cops, said Lt.-Cmdr. Pierre Babinsky, a spokesman for the military’s justice system.

But in November 2005 it was made mandatory for all military personnel heading to dangerous spots like Afghanistan, where Canada is engaged in combat operations.

"We feel we’re well within our rights to protect our people and conduct these drug screenings," Lt.-Cmdr. Babinsky said.

The task force of about 2,500 soldiers heading to Afghanistan next month — 1,160 of which are based in Atlantic Canada — is the first rotation to undergo mandatory drug tests, according to military documents.

In most cases, soldiers who fail a drug test for the first time are allowed to stay in the service on counselling and probation, said Mel Hunt, a British Columbia defence lawyer who specializes in military cases.

"If you started tossing people simply on the basis of one drug test and no other evidence to indicate use, then of course that’s going to be challenged," said the retired colonel.

Mr. Hunt does not believe the military will ever get rid of the mandatory drug testing.

"But I think they were concerned about possibly a legal challenge on abusing it," he said ....

I haven't seen anyone mention this- the Canadian Human Rights policy on alcohol and drug testing- but it might give some insight as to why legal is so jumpy and cautious on this issue. 
Addiction is legally considered a disability...and is subject to the same consideration and due process as all other disabilities.

Link: http://www.caw.ca/whatwedo/substanceabuse/pdf/CHRCPolicyonAlcoholDrugTesting.pdf. 
 
Stoker said:
Personally I think the Forces should adopt mandatory periodic drug testing for all members. If you caught you get a chance to "get clean", get caught again you are out. Get caught trafficking your gone and criminal charges are filed. The amount of persons recently caught using is only the tip of the iceberg. Out West one of the ships had a pretty significant drug problem, with the Coxn getting caught among other members of the crew. Until mandatory testing is implemented, members are going to continue to use with impunity.

I agree with you 100%...There has to be mandatory random timing drug testing in both the reserves and reg force...People aren't getting the point...I don't want to serve with anyone who takes illicit drugs...
 
Battleaxe: That was discussed in the first drug testing thread. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52021.165.html

There is a very large demarcation between a section 15 charter right of disability and failing a piss test not to mention a very slippery slope for both parties in the parameters of the CF to argue whether one has a qualified addiction disability (thereby an admission of previous and continued drug use which contravenes the NDA and the other side of having to demonstrate a BFOQ or BFOR to be drug free or a safety sensitive requirement in order to deal with the discipline aspect of such use).   As the other thread demonstrates, one can surmise and ponder the ramifications of such a challenge in a CF context but until it plays out in a court, it is IMO, an exercise for law students or a good hypothetical question for a law exam.  
 
niner domestic said:
Battleaxe: That was discussed in the first drug testing thread. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52021.165.html

There is a very large demarcation between a section 15 charter right of disability and failing a piss test not to mention a very slippery slope for both parties in the parameters of the CF to argue whether one has a qualified addiction disability (thereby an admission of previous and continued drug use which contravenes the NDA and the other side of having to demonstrate a BFOQ or BFOR to be drug free or a safety sensitive requirement in order to deal with the discipline aspect of such use).  As the other thread demonstrates, one can surmise and ponder the ramifications of such a challenge in a CF context but until it plays out in a court, it is IMO, an exercise for law students or a good hypothetical question for a law exam. 

Sorry about the repeat...I missed it.  Thanks for pointing it out and the link. 
I was just trying to give insight into why they are being careful with this one.
 
Just to stir things up a bit, how much does it change if the drugs in question are steroids? 

Discuss.
 
Echo9 said:
Just to stir things up a bit, how much does it change if the drugs in question are steroids? 

Discuss.

First get his head checked for using them and then charge him for "self inflicted wound".
 
Define steroids. Technically a women, (or man) using hormonal replacement therapy is using (sex) steroids. 
 
Back
Top