Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)

[McG]

Marijuana still preferred drug in Canadian army, while cocaine gains ground
Report gathered results for 11 controlled substances at 26 Armed Forces units
CBC News
Alison Auld, Canadian Press
21 Dec 2014


Marijuana remains the drug of choice for members of the Canadian army, based on the Force's latest blind drug testing report that also found cocaine is gaining popularity among some members.


The report, done between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2013, found the overall drug consumption rate has been relatively stable since 2010 but suggested young, non-commissioned members were more prone to do drugs.


The findings, contained in a 42-page report obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, included testing for 11 controlled substances at 26 Armed Forces units across the country. There were 4,198 participants from most ranks and age groups.


The testing found that 279 urine specimens — or 6.6 per cent — tested positive for at least one drug, with pot detected in 5.3 per cent of all of the samples. That's up from the 4.2 per cent in 2012 and 4.8 per cent the year before that.


Positive test results for marijuana came from 19 units, with the bulk from 3 Royal Canadian Regiment and 2 Service Battalion in Petawawa, Ont.


The report says nine units had cocaine-positive samples, with the most again from members in 3 Royal Canadian Regiment in Petawawa. Results showed 44 samples overall had traces of cocaine, up from the 29 positive samples the previous year, making it one of the higher rates since the testing started in 2007.


While the numbers were considered low, members of the psychosocial health dynamics team who wrote the report said there was a higher likelihood that members tested positive for cocaine in 2013 than in 2009.


"There was a significant difference for the proportion of cocaine-positive samples, such that 2013 blind drug testing participants were significantly more likely to test positive for cocaine than those tested in 2009," the report states.

The results found that drug use is significantly more likely to occur among junior non-commissioned members aged 27 years or younger.


The document offers no reasons for the perceived increase, but cautions that the most recent samples were more likely than those in 2009, 2011 and 2012 to be rejected because of a flaw. It said eight units had samples that tested negative for drugs, but were found to be diluted.


The Canadian Forces has a zero-tolerance policy for illicit drugs and conducts testing to gather data to guide its Drug Control Program. No one from the Defence Department was available for an interview on the report, but a spokeswoman said in an email that "the results are not used for disciplinary purposes as no urine sample can be attributed to a specific member."


The findings might provide insight into where drug use is occurring, what types of drugs are being taken and what population is most involved.


"The units identified in the present analysis as having the highest proportion of positive tests may provide the army with locations to target drug intervention efforts," the report states.

"Because younger and low-ranking members had higher drug use rates, it might also be beneficial to focus those interventions on these populations."


Traces of morphine, methamphetamine, and the amphetamines MDMA and MDA were also found at low rates.


The anonymous samples were sent to an independent lab contracted by the military, with the results provided last March.


The units in the study were chosen by the Chief of Land Staff or by the unit's commanders or commanding officers, and did not include the Royal Canadian Navy or Royal Canadian Air Force.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana-still-preferred-drug-in-canadian-army-while-cocaine-gains-ground-1.2880624


The report: https://www.scribd.com/doc/250591904/Pot-still-drug-of-choice-in-army-report

 

[Michael OLeary]

The report says nine units had cocaine-positive samples, with the most again from members in 3 Royal Canadian Regiment in Petawawa.

Well, Happy Birthday.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, there's a statement of the obvious....

 

[MJP]

Well, there's a statement of the obvious....

And the Bday celebration went all night!

 

[Navy_Pete]

Anyone know if these kind of studies take into account prescriptions?  Would probably be insignificant to the results, but marijuana, morphine and MDMA all have legitimate uses in medicine.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

 

[medicineman]

Anyone know if these kind of studies take into account prescriptions?  Would probably be insignificant to the results, but marijuana, morphine and MDMA all have legitimate uses in medicine.

These were blind tests - they weren't taking into account the tests for cause, which use named sources vice "Officer/NCO/NCM from unit XYZ" that go to the units' CO's.  If someone were tested for cause at that point and pissed positive, they'd be asked for proof of prescription as part of the investigation, unless they test positive for metabolites of substances unlikely to be prescribed.  As for cannabis being a legitimate medical drug, for the most part, I've only ever seen synthetic cannabinoids like Nabilone prescribed in the CF...and even then, only after yelling, screaming and knashing of teeth.  The ones that end up testing positive in blind tests are generally doing it without prescription, since they rarely hit up the JPSU's, as a fair number of folks in them are on some sort of controlled substance.  BTW, I'd have to check this year's "Pearls of Wisdom" from D Med Policy, but I'm willing to bet that someone who is actually prescribed medical cannabis for whatever ails them, especially smoking it, would likely be on a permanent category that includes "Unfit Military Operational Settings" and therefore wouldn't be in the service much longer, due to both the illness it's being used for AND the effects of the stuff.  Much like folks who require amphetamines/stimulants for narcolepsy, some forms of ADHD, etc - they're often put on a category with a G/O restriction due to (a) the severity of the condition itself and (b) having to have access to their meds if they're lost.  Folks on long term narcotics are the same - they're on categories for whatever ails them, as well as the medications they're on to manage that problem.

When I was a Clinic Warrant, I'd go to Base Chief's conferences in Esquimalt and hear this stuff all the time about the blind unit tests, who fared the worst, etc...and I'd get at least 5-7 emails a week from Unit Chiefs (CFFSE being the worst offenders) to get time set aside for fit for confinement medicals for Baby sailors (and sometimes older ones) getting caught doing dope - in fact more frequently than drunk/disorderly.  I've personally been involved with releasing members who've been caught using and even dealing to support their habits.

My personal belief is that all service members should be randomly tested, and not blindly - if they piss positive with no good reason, well, there is a zero tolerance policy for illicit drug use in the CAF.  Strike One - medical category, off to rehab.  Once back, there is no Strike Two - if you piss positive again, see you later.  I find it funny that many companies in Canada have the same zero tolerance levels - but seem to have NO ISSUE about routinely screening folks, as it's a condition of employment, much like it is for the CAF.  What bugs me is the CAF won't do what it needs to enforce it's own mandatory compliances, instead it wusses out and does these blind tests instead of live ones.  My GUESS is they're either too cheap, or as mentioned above, too wussy to do what's mandated because of perceived potential fallouts.

My rant for the day I guess.

MM

 

[McG]

QR&O provide a mechanism for random testing, but the CDS is required to authorize this and such authorization has never been given.

In Afghanistan, the US was doing monthly random tests of their deployed pers.  As a start, we could introduce random testing on deployed operations (on top of pre-deployment safety sensitive testing), and wider use of safety sensitive testing in Canada.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It is actually illegal to conduct non-anonymous drug testing in Canada (there are some provisions for bus and truck drivers, http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/padt_pdda_eng_2.pdf pp 6-7).  It is possible to request the authority to conduct them for safety-sensitive positions but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find justification for all CAF members.

 

[Infanteer]

There is actually a list defining every position defined as Safety Sensitive.  If your position number/unit is not on that list, you cannot be safety sensitive tested.  There have been two attempts to list "anyone handling a weapon" or "Army leadership" as safety sensitive, but it went no where.

 

[reccecrewman]

What bugs me is the CAF won't do what it needs to enforce it's own mandatory compliances, instead it wusses out and does these blind tests instead of live ones.  My GUESS is they're either too cheap, or as mentioned above, too wussy to do what's mandated because of perceived potential fallouts.

I agree.  I also believe, from personal experience, that lids get slammed shut on some cases when names start getting called out.  An individual tests positive for a controlled substance, then starts singing like a canary about others higher up the C-o-C.  Now a Unit has the possibility of the embarrassment of a group of NCOs or Officers being accused of drug use.  Considering the amount of money that's been invested in a Sergeant or Warrant Officers career up to that point, not to mention the sheer embarrassment of having your Leadership called into ethical question, a lot of this gets swept under the rug without consequence.  I realise I may get some backlash on my comment, but it's the proverbial elephant in the room within many combat arms units, and I stand by my statement with plenty of concrete proof to support it over the course of my career.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Reccecrewman,

It is illegal to individually test for drugs in Canada (other than for very specific circumstances).  The CAF tried in the past to waive this for its members but it didn't work.  While there may be issues within you CoC with drugs, there is no conspiracy in this case...

 

[reccecrewman]

Reccecrewman,

It is illegal to individually test for drugs in Canada (other than for very specific circumstances).  The CAF tried in the past to waive this for its members but it didn't work.  While there may be issues within you CoC with drugs, there is no conspiracy in this case...

I never said anything about the legality of individually testing for drugs.  I am stating that I have seen individuals test positive for drugs on two separate occasions, and then have absolutely no consequence come to them when it was brought to light some NCO's and Officers could be implicated.

 

[dapaterson]

It is actually illegal to conduct non-anonymous drug testing in Canada (there are some provisions for bus and truck drivers, http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/padt_pdda_eng_2.pdf pp 6-7).  It is possible to request the authority to conduct them for safety-sensitive positions but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find justification for all CAF members.

The Human Rights Commission does not set law or regulation.  And on page 4 they mention an Alberta court ruling that stated "recreational users of
drugs were not entitled to protection under human rights legislation".

The referenced document is just their policy; it has no standing in law.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Reccecrewman,

It is illegal to individually test for drugs in Canada (other than for very specific circumstances).  The CAF tried in the past to waive this for its members but it didn't work.  While there may be issues within you CoC with drugs, there is no conspiracy in this case...

I had to go to Rabbit Lake uranium mine in (way) northern Saskatchewan to install a water treatment plant.  They would not even book me a flight until I had a piss test done and the results faxed to them, and I was going to be nowhere near the mining operation.  There are half a dozen labs in Edmonton that do this work, and every one of them takes names and shares the results with potential employers.

 

[medicineman]

I agree.  I also believe, from personal experience, that lids get slammed shut on some cases when names start getting called out.  An individual tests positive for a controlled substance, then starts singing like a canary about others higher up the C-o-C.  Now a Unit has the possibility of the embarrassment of a group of NCOs or Officers being accused of drug use.  Considering the amount of money that's been invested in a Sergeant or Warrant Officers career up to that point, not to mention the sheer embarrassment of having your Leadership called into ethical question, a lot of this gets swept under the rug without consequence.  I realise I may get some backlash on my comment, but it's the proverbial elephant in the room within many combat arms units, and I stand by my statement with plenty of concrete proof to support it over the course of my career.

I remember sitting in a Base Chief's conference on day and it was noted that on one of the blind tests done, a fairly high percentage of folks testing positive were in fact SNCO's/Chief's.

Max, as has been noted by Kat, and having worked in the civilian world doing pre-employment medicals, there are a lot of companies that make it a condition of employment to be regularly drug and alcohol tested - if you choose not to have the testing done, you're looking for work elsewhere, simple as that.  Frankly, I see no difference with the CAF, since you signed a contract, part of which states you'll be having some change in your civil rights and have to abide by rules, regulations and laws set out, including not using drugs or abusing alcohol.  If you elect to disregard those rules, regulations and laws, you are in fact in breach of contract (not to mention various military and civilian criminal laws).  The employer - ie the Crown and Her designate, the CAF, have to have the right (and necessity) to maintain a safe and orderly work environment, especially since in combat, things are inherently unsafe and disorderly.  If people are running around stoned or drunk with firearms, diving equipment, tanks, planes and ships, etc, and by virtue of that, people's lives at risk, they're making that environment even less controlled and unsafe than it was to start with.

The fact that there is in fact a lawful zero tolerance policy in place, should, in my black and white mind anyway, pave the way for lawful, unannounced, and named compliance testing. I honestly don't care for the safety sensitive part - there are safety issues, sure, but some people also have access to large sums of money and/or privy to sensitive information that can either be stolen or leaked by loosened lips or by blackmail.  Case in point - friend of a friend was a Log (Fin) O and was caught frequently doing cocaine.  By virtue of their position, they had (in those days) ready access to literally thousands of dollars in cash, not to mention information about people, unit movements, etc.  Do you think they were let off easily - nope.  They were cashiered (excuse the pun), even after giving up suppliers and other folks they used with to the SIU (this was back in the 80's).  That's what should happen FULL STOP.

:2c:, again from my black and white mind.

Edit for posting oopie.

MM

 

[SupersonicMax]

dapaterson,

There are legal precedents in drug testing indicating that the Supreme Court of Canada agrees that drug testing goes against the right and liberties of employees.  Google the cases of Suncor (2014) and Irving (2013). In both cases the Court suggested that if the Union and the Employer negociated random drug testing as part of their collective agreement then it would be acceptable.

The wording in the rulings is pretty much the same as in the policy I quotes earlier.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Very good guide.  Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Alcohol and Drug Testing, 2009.

 

[dapaterson]

dapaterson,

There are legal precedents in drug testing indicating that the Supreme Court of Canada agrees that drug testing goes against the right and liberties of employees.  Google the cases of Suncor (2014) and Irving (2013). In both cases the Court suggested that if the Union and the Employer negociated random drug testing as part of their collective agreement then it would be acceptable.

The wording in the rulings is pretty much the same as in the policy I quotes earlier.

Suncor is not a SCC case; rather, it's an Alberta arbitration board decision (with a very strong dissent) that cites Irving.  In fact, the Irving decision suggests that if there is strong evidence of substance abuse then individual testing may be justified, and not require negotiation with unions.


I suspect (though I am not a lawyer) that the CAF maintains its ability to conduct sensitive testing by not trying to overreach.  However, if a unit came back with high levels of positive tests I think there might be sufficient evidence to do 100% testing (non-anonymous) of that unit, as the anonymous test demonstrated a problem; the non-anonymous testing is then used to solve that problem.

 

[Eaglelord17]

We had a briefing this year on what the military is able to do with its drug policy. Frankly I was extremely disappointed and surprised at how weak it is.
There are 4 ways they can do a drug test in the military.
1. Random testing, as mentioned above it has to be authorized by the CDS (apparently it was used once many years ago for a brief period of time)
2. Testing based on position/deployment. For example they can test Submariners at any point in time due to the nature of there job, they also are able to test people deploying/deployed on a overseas tour.
3. Testing based on evidence. The COC has evidence to believe that the member in question was using drugs and is testing them to verify usage.
4. Blind testing to see what the situation is within the unit. These tests cannot be used to charge anyone, they also cannot be used to do testing based on evidence (that part was made very clear in the presentation). So even if your unit turns up 100% positive they cannot use the results of that test to do a evidence based test.

This was how it was explained to us in our brief. It is worded in my own words and might be simplified a bit but it gives the general idea of how it works.

Personally I feel the drug policy the CF has is a joke, especially considering the first time you are caught you go to rehab instead of being kicked out immediately. The fact is you made a commitment and agreed not to use drugs as member of the CF, it is as simple as that.