Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)

[Pte Lickers]

Wow this is it my first post what a great issue to. For my whol school year i was in the background unbale to register due to lab cpus but here i am.

Anyways to decriminalize pot would be fine by me as long as it remains controlled and regulated as alcohol and tobacco. I didnt really read throug h carefully in my eagerness to reply, but in my opnion the resulting and related criminal acts surrounding drug selling would drop considerably. To start with your average pusher drug dealer could in no way compete with a corporation when selling marijuana to the public he would not have the education or resources to survive a competitive market against a large companies. People would end up going to an industry to purchase pot since it would higher grade and possibly cheaper.

However use by the canadian forces is something i havent really thought about. I would ahve to say no due to its effects which unlike alcohol have more dire effects.
You can operate a vehicle when hungover but not when you have the stupids from a massive blunt you smoked last night.

and i cant remember who said it in the post but you basically stated that the rights of the community suberceed the rights of the individual wow....... thats all i have to say about that

 

[combat_medic]

Dire: my father has been a policeman for about 3 decades, and can name you a dozen incidents that he has personally witnessed in which someone died because of pot.

Also, yes, pot is a gateway drug. People who do coke, speed, acid, heroin or other hard drugs almost ALWAYS started out with pot. Also, the pot smokers usually started out with nicotine.

No, just because you some pot doesn‘t mean you‘ll start shooting heroin, but someone who does pot is over 5 times more likely to do hard drugs than someone who has never smoked up. That‘s a hard fact for you.

Everyone tries to say that pot is a harmless drug. You know, I‘ve seen enough e-tards at raves in Vancouver who say that extasy is harmless too. This is right before they dance themselves off a f%cking building. Pot is as intoxicating as alcohol, is phsychologically addictive (even if it isn‘t chemically addictive), stays in the system much longer, delays motor reaction, dulls the senses, kills brian cells, and can even damage an unborn child if taken during pregnancy.

So, needless to say, the last person I want watching my back is a guy who can‘t "just say no".

 

[Dire]

Combat Medic:

Have you ever smoked pot? More then once? If not, then you cannot say **** about it because frankly you just dont know.

When I was writing my MCSE tests (Microsoft Certified System Engineer tests) I smoked pot during that time sometimes while I studied and I aced each test but 1 (which I still gotta write, but since there 200 bucks a pop I cannot afford it right now) but thats beside the point.

Each Indivdual is differnt. People say POT is a gateway drug because its the lowest drug on the scale. Most people know pot isnt that big of a deal so they try it or do it regularly, and then there are the people who like the better high (or so they say) who then move onto more ‘hardcore‘ drugs it wasnt that pot lead them to do it. It just so happens they feel that pot would be the first drug they try because they know it isnt that bad.

People have brains, some use it, some dont. Myself, like I said in my other reply would never do any other drugs, I don‘t even smoke Cigs except for once in awhile Cuban Cigar.

Combat Medic, I‘d also like to know where you got the fact saying pot is addictive? I quit cold turkey when I made the decision to join the CF and I havent thought about it really ever since besides the political part of it.

It all comes down to if you‘ve smoked it before, because if you have you then have first hand experiance. Not some political fact because frankly their all bullsh!t

over and out..

 

[combat_medic]

I never said that pot is CHEMICALLY addictive, I said it‘s PSYCHOLOGICALLY addictive. Alcohol isn‘t chemically addictive either, but there are a ton of alcoholics out there. People get addicted to the sensations of pot, the high they get from it, the relaxation, the carefree attitude and such that pot can produce.

And to say that no one can understand about pot until they‘ve smoked it is just ignorant. I don‘t need to shoot heroin to know that it‘s bad, nor do I need to smoke a cigarette to know that it‘s unhealthy.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Have you ever smoked pot? More then once? If not, then you cannot say **** about it because frankly you just dont know.

Well i‘ve never shot myself in the head but im pretty sure it‘s a good idea not to after seeing what it does to people who have.

I aced each test but 1 (which I still gotta write, but since there 200 bucks a pop I cannot afford it right now) but thats beside the point.

Someone might argue that the money you could have saved by not buying pot would have ment you could afford that test right now.
I always say that to my friends who dont have money for rent or food but they find enough money to hit the bars or buy clothes to go out partying.

 

[rolandstrong]

"People have been educated that Marijuana is so bad that you shouldnt smoke it, but then again Alchohol is 10x worse but it‘s legal and government taxed."


Where do you get the information that alcohol is 10x worse that marijuana? I live in one of the dope groing capitals in Canada, and the majority of pot smokers here have a tendancy to take on cigarette smoking aswell, meaning that they are taking on a secondary addictive habit with well known health affects. Personally I don‘t buy the 10x worse claim.

 

[RuthlessRandy]

I believe it was long over due, and it was no surprise to me when it was.
Canada shows it‘s openess and freedom rights to the world when doing this, and thats a very good thing.
cheers

 

[Spr.Earl]

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1428822


Liberals move to fast-track passage of marijuana bill



OTTAWA (CP) - The Liberal government, brushing aside objections by some of its own backbenchers, is moving to speed up passage of controversial legislation to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana.
House leader Don Boudria served notice Wednesday that he intends to refer the bill for early committee study, after just three hours of debate in the full Commons. The official referral will come Thursday. It will put the bill in the hands of an all-party special committee that is already on record - in a report delivered last year - as favouring decriminalization in principle.

"To refer it back to that committee, to me, is just normal," said Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. "Because they have the expertise, they‘re going to be able to deal with it in the fastest way."

Derek Lee, a Toronto-area MP and key member of the committee, noted it heard extensive evidence last year before bringing in a report that urged the government to eliminate jail time for possession of small amounts of pot.

Need Tickets to an Event? Try eBay.ca!



Lee suggested the second round of hearings, on the detailed provisions of the bill, will be short and sweet.

"We‘d want to hear from law enforcement people, there might be a couple of (other) envelopes where we‘d like to hear something. But generally I think we‘ve heard most of what we want to hear already."

Fellow Liberal Dan McTeague was outraged, calling the government‘s move to speed up the legislative process "reckless and irresponsible."

The committee chosen by Cauchon and Boudria is "stacked by the very people who have been advocates for decriminalization for some time," said McTeague.

"It‘s hardly a committee that‘s going to be objective."

McTeague, one of the most outspoken opponents of the bill since it was brought in by Cauchon last spring, branded it "ineffective and lousy legislation" that needs extensive revision.

Boudria, however, suggested it could conceivably be law before the fall session of Parliament is over.


"There‘s certainly enough time to pass it before Christmas," he said. "But of course that would depend largely on how many witnesses the committee decides to hear and so on."

Other MPs who spoke privately were skeptical of Boudria‘s claim. One Liberal backbencher said few believe the House will continue to sit after Nov. 15, the date the party will anoint former finance minister Paul Martin as the successor to Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Martin has said he favours decriminalization in principle, but some of his backbench supporters believe he may back away from the Cauchon bill as internal dissent grows.

John McKay, chairman of the Ontario Liberal caucus and a staunch Martin backer, said he hasn‘t personally made up his mind how to vote on the bill.

"I have some concerns that the marijuana that legislators are talking about has probably been experienced when they were younger," said McKay. "The marijuana that is currently on the streets is significantly more potent."

He suggested it would be a "pretty optimistic" timetable to get the bill through Parliament by next spring. Martin is expected to call an election around April, cutting off work on any legislation that hasn‘t passed by then.

The bill sponsored by Cauchon would not strictly legalize pot possession. But it would make possession of up to 15 grams - enough to roll about 15 or 20 joints - a minor offence punishable by a range of fines.

Offenders would no longer face jail time or be saddled with a criminal record that would follow them through life.

By contrast, the bill would take a tough line against illicit growers and traffickers, especially those linked to organized crime.

The maximum penalty for grow operations would be boosted to 14 years from the current seven. The penalty for large-scale trafficking is already life, although 20 years has been the stiffest sentence handed out in recent years.

The government has also set aside $245 million for enhanced law enforcement efforts, as well as information, research and treatment programs aimed at discouraging drug use, particularly among young people.


© The Canadian Press, 2003

 

[Michael Dorosh]

So what?

How does this affect the Code of Service Discipline?

 

[GrahamD]

Derek Lee, a Toronto-area MP and key member of the committee, noted it heard extensive evidence last year before bringing in a report that urged the government to eliminate jail time for possession of small amounts of pot.

When is the last time you heard of anyone actually getting jail time for possession of (small) amounts of marijuana?

It doesn‘t happen anyway, so why should cops have to bother jumping through the hoops of formally charging induviduals with a relatively harmless infraction. They would be better used to capture and charge drug traffickers. Do I feel safer when I see some cops nabbing some kids smoking pot in the park? Not really.
When I see articles in the paper talking about a successful sting operation, where 50+ street dealers are picked up and charged, then I feel like something is getting done.

Possession charges are a waste of everyone time. The current law which prohibits possession is a joke. It deters no one from what I can tell, it fills up the courts with junk cases that result in 16, 17, 18 year old kids being saddled with criminal records that represent nothing more than bad luck.
What do I mean by bad luck?

Example: kid#1 is driving with his buddies, carrying some pot he‘s taking to a party. Tail light is out and they get pulled over, he looks nervous, cop has probable cause to search him. He‘s found with a couple of grams, say‘s its all his, because he‘s a stand up guy, a team player, doesn‘t want to see his buddies get burned.
Few months down the road, he finally sees his day in court, gets 1 year probation. He‘s like so what? whatever, no big deal, I‘ll just buy my pot from someone at the party next time. Couple of years later, he quits for good, it was just a youthful phase. Now he wants to join the military, but they pass him over becasue he has a drug conviction. Tough luck.

Kid#2 was more street smart, he was in that same car, in fact they bought the marijuana together, only he doesn‘t want to carry it, he‘s shiffty, lets his buddie take the fall alone, because he‘s a coward. Later on, he‘s a predictably petty and selfish person, but he‘s charismatic, a great liar and manipulator, seemingly honest even while he lies his face off during his military interview, telling the recruiter about how he has never even done drugs before, or even that he used to do them but quit. The military scoops him up, he‘s clean of any drug offences, so why not give him a chance?

Obviously they can‘t always know when they are being lied to, but the point is that kid#1 should not be saddled with a record that is going to stick with him forever. Sure he may not ever quit, he may progress to harder drugs or more serious crime later on, but I say, just give kids the benefit of the doubt, catch them later on if that is the road they have chosen for themselves, but we all made some mistakes growing up, we should be understanding of that.

 

[Jungle]

And if being caught with pot is not considered a mistake anymore, what will be ??? I can see it from here:
"The kid was caught with a few grams of cocaine; you know, nothing serious, just a youthful mistake"
As a society, we have to draw the line somewhere. Since we are a tolerant society, we will always allow people to cross the line without much consequences, like we now do with pot. Are we ready to do the same with the next level of drugs ???

 

[Infanteer]

Graham, your arguement based on Army recruiting makes no sense. Case #1 has a criminal conviction and case #2 is a drug user. They both should have a few bumps going through recruiting. Like Jungle said, "we have to draw the line somewhere."

I am not to sure what CFRC‘s policy is on past drug use and past drug conviction, if someone knows, would they point it out.

I personally find these statements by the British Army reasonable, seems fair enough to give military life a chance to sort a guy out.

I have a number of convictions. Can I join?

You will be required to declare any convictions in accordance with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We only ask that you are open and honest with the recruiting staff in order that they are best able to advise you.


and

I‘ve got a criminal record/outstanding court case - can I join?

It depends. The Army believes in giving young offenders a second chance for certain offences. The important thing is to be honest with the recruiting staff about any unspent convictions or pending court cases during the recruitment process. Then your record will be assessed. You may be told that you must wait for a period before joining, to prove that you will not get into trouble again. All court orders must be completed and all fines paid before you can apply. Then you will have to wait for a period before joining. If you are waiting to go to court, you must tell the recruiting staff. You will probably not be able to apply until your case has been heard, and the outcome known.


and finally


I have taken illegal substances and I know the Army doesn‘t like drugs. Can I join?

The Armed Forces recognise that drug misuse is increasingly common in civilian life, particularly among the young, and you may have misused drugs yourself in the past. If so, this will not normally prevent your enlistment into the Armed Forces. But once you have joined the Armed Forces, you must not misuse drugs - you are required to stay clear of drugs and to avoid association with drug misuser‘s and suppliers. Moreover, once you have enlisted, you will be liable by law to random compulsory drug testing. If these tests show that you are involved in the misuse of drugs, it is Service policy that, with very few exceptions, you will be discharged.

What about our policies?

 

[Garry]

I think all drug laws should be repealed. If you want to pollute your body, go ahead: what you do to yourself is really none of my business. (or your‘s, for that matter)

I sincerely hope the Government taxes the heck out of marijuana sales, and makes at least as much $$ as the drug dealers did...maybe my taxes will go down.

Even if legalised, I don‘t see the Forces allowing marijuana to be used by it‘s members. The biggest reason is that THC is absorbed by the fat cells in the body, and is stored until released: usually by adrenaline. So, when the poop is splattering all over, that joint you had last week may come rushing back, and you‘re impaired. Not good.

Chemical users are just a body slowly rotting, with a mind that‘s near gone...I doubt that they would be tolerated no matter what the laws were.

Chers-Garry

 

[Infanteer]

I think all drug laws should be repealed. If you want to pollute your body, go ahead: what you do to yourself is really none of my business. (or your‘s, for that matter)

But it is my business when some crack-head and his junkie buddies can‘t get a job due to their addiction (which means I pay his welfare) and hang out in the streets doing drugs (which means I pay for the policing, increased crime, etc). The illegality of drugs stems not just from medical concerns, but from the societies unwillingness to accept the social cost of condoning drug abusers.

 

[Jungle]

I think all drug laws should be repealed. If you want to pollute your body, go ahead: what you do to yourself is really none of my business. (or your‘s, for that matter)

It certainly is my business: people who pollute their body usually become very sick at a young age. Then it is OUR tax money going to their emergency needs instead of other care. The "live and let live" thing is costing us a lot of money...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Gary, a drug-rotted body, as you describe, does become "tolerated" - perhaps not by the military, but by the welfare state we have become; we tax addictive substances, then use the tax dollars - and more - to not only pay for their health care, but to starve the Army while doing it. And it‘s not just the illegal substances either, obviously; take a look at the lung cancer patients at your nearest hospital, or those whose livers have failed, and ask how much we‘re paying to keep these people alive. I guess I wouldn‘t want it any other way, but I certainly wouldn‘t propose even more laxities when it comes to people abusing their bodies and then having the rest of us pay for their care.

 

[Garry]

Good points all guys, but the point I believe we‘re missing is that if they can rot their brains, they can suffer the consequences.

The free ride has got to stop.

For instance, if a bike rider doesn‘t want to wear a helmet, don‘t. However, that same rider has to realise that when he drops the bike and cracks his head, he‘d better pony up the $$ to the hospital, ‘cause our universal healthcare just slammed the door.

Lets call it "personal responsibility".

Most laws are there for two reasons: People are generally stupid, self, serving, or both.As well, some are just so meddlesome it hurts. Between the dummies and the do-gooders, we have pretty much lost our way. Our social mores (stuff that our Dads taught us, like don‘t hit women, don‘t pee on the stret, etc) are pretty much gone...as is our religious beliefs. Say what you will, but if nothing else all the major religions gave us a good set if rules to live by.

So, Infanter, why should YOU pay for the junklie who can‘t work? I don‘t think you should...let him rot.

Jungle, I don;t think the healthcare system should pay for self inflicted wounds. Does your work place agree? (sory, know the answer to this one ..)

Michael- agreed...but can you say "personal responsibility"? (try reading Ayn Rand‘s "Atlas shrugged")

I "think" that we all basically are on the same page...maybe I just hope a little more....

PS- nice to disagree so politely...many thanks!

Cheers-Garry

 

[patrick666]

I don‘t think drugs should be tolerated at all in the armed forces. The only enhancement a soldier should need is training.

 

[Garry]

Final thought: I didn‘t address the issue of the crackheads invading your home looking for loot to buy drugs with.

See the South Carolina "Castle law".

(basically, if a person is shot inside your house, no questions. Period. Joke is to shoot several times so he can‘t crawl out.)

I do NOT advocate violence. I am a true coward, scare easy, and hate confrontation...but there are some things I hate worse than being scared.

I would hope that the concept of personal responsibility would help the Police to defend us...and allow us to help the police when required.

Bet the scary stuff wouldn‘t last long..

Cheers (again) - Garry

 

[Infanteer]

I still disagree with the concept of drug legalization. Social costs go far beyond a monetary figure.