Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)

[ModlrMike]

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.

There is no peer reviewed evidence that marijuana has a bone fide medical use, nor are you likely to find a military member with a prescription allowing such use.

 

[the 48th regulator]

There is no peer reviewed evidence that marijuana has a bone fide medical use, nor are you likely to find a military member with a prescription allowing such use.

You are completely wrong on both counts.  The only part you are slightly correct is Spectrum of Care does not allow for members to get a MMPR prescription, from their doctors, and therefore not cover it either. 

Please note, this descision is ripe with a constitutional challenge, which is why MM is allowed, and paid for by te Federal Government. i.e VAC.

dileas

tess

 

[reccecrewman]

It should be mentioned however, that there are medications that many serving military members could be using as per their MO's orders that can test positive for THC.  Pantoloc, Ketaprofen, Naproxin and Promethazine are a few that I can think of that will test positive for THC in a drug screening.  There is certainly the chance that a percentage of the positive test results that this sample took that may well be false positives from some of these medications.

 

[OldSolduer]

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.

You're pretty much spot on with the drug policy.

Where I disagree is kicking someone out for a first offence. The cost of training and retaining solidrs makes it worthwhile to put someone in rehab vice tossing them out.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You're pretty much spot on with the drug policy.

Where I disagree is kicking someone out for a first offence. The cost of training and retaining solidrs makes it worthwhile to put someone in rehab vice tossing them out.

The only issue I find with the rehab situation is it is like giving one freebee. If the punishment was harsher from the get go then maybe less people would do it. I do understand the whole training costs part and the retention issues associated with it but the question you do need to ask yourself is are these the type of people we want representing our country?

 

[OldSolduer]

The only issue I find with the rehab situation is it is like giving one freebee. If the punishment was harsher from the get go then maybe less people would do it. I do understand the whole training costs part and the retention issues associated with it but the question you do need to ask yourself is are these the type of people we want representing our country?

The CAF is made up of people from Canadian society. I think you'd be hard pressed to make up the entire military strength of Canada with tee totallers and those that do not use substances of some sort.

Harsher punishment doesn't always equate to less smoking pot or committing murder for that matter.

 

[McG]

There are six types of tests that are authorized:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/toc-20.page

 

[thehare]

If the punishment was harsher from the get go then maybe less people would do it.

Harsher punishment doesn't always equate to less smoking pot or committing murder for that matter.

What Jim said.

Current research into the area of Criminology (the study of why individuals commit crime) seems to suggest that the severity of the punishment for a crime has limited impact on an individuals' decision to continue committing said crime. What seems to affect these individuals is the certainty of punishment, which in this context would be individuals knowing they would be facing the consequences of their drug use instead of it continually being swept under the rug like some posters have suggested. Harsher punishments would likely have little to no influence on these individuals' behaviour.

This was a nice short read expanding on the topic:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf

 

[reccecrewman]

individuals knowing they would be facing the consequences of their drug use instead of it continually being swept under the rug like some posters have suggested. Harsher punishments would likely have little to no influence on these individuals' behaviour.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf

I'm one of the people who mentioned it being swept under the rug, but I also want to clarify by no means do I believe it to be epidemic. I mentioned I know of two isolated incidents with two different Units I served with, but over the course of my career I saw plenty of individuals charged with drug related offences.  I felt I needed to clarify this as I believe the vast majority of NCO's and Officers I ever had the honour of serving under conducted themselves in a fashion expected of such a position.  I was only pointing out that sometimes, the system doesn't exactly work out as it is supposed to, and as much as we'd like to believe in the integrity and honour of our leadership, sometimes a few slip through the cracks.  I don't want people thinking I believe the CAF's (Or even my own Regiments) leadership to be corrupted through and through when my beliefs are very much the opposite.  I believe the NCO's to be the backbone of a Regiment, providing a living example to young soldiers on what they should aspire to be in uniform, and that is how I view(ed) the majority of my NCO's.

I digress and will steer this back to the topic at hand, like I mentioned, I had to clarify that.

 

[Armymedic]

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.

I am unsure if this study took that info into account. But with other types of testing, a positive result prompts a review of the medical file and an interview of the offender with the MO to determine if there was an "alternate cause" to the positive result.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I am unsure if this study took that info into account. But with other types of testing, a positive result prompts a review of the medical file and an interview of the offender with the MO to determine if there was an "alternate cause" to the positive result.

I was just curious, I doubted there was, and if it would even be significant.  Morphine was the obvious one, but with marijuana now being allowed to be prescribed to CAF members as per the CANFORGEN from a few years ago with certain (generally pretty serious) illnesses, and MDMA being investigated as part of the treatment with therapy for PTSD, there could be some 'noise' in the results.  It would come out easily enough for a normal test, but I think they normally would screen people anyway to identify expected positive results.

Given how widely available and easy drugs are to get, not sure why this is a surprise, and it's still at a much lower rate then the Canadian population.

One question I would have if they had found any correlation between the rates at the army regiments being higher then other untis, which would kind of be expected with all the Afghanistan deployments.

 

[TCBF]

- Drug addicts are liars. first, they lie to themselves. Then, they lie to everyone else.

- Experience has taught us that suspected and known drug users - especially those who used in civilian life before joining the military - have a much higher rate of stress injuries and failure to adapt. Do to our permissive mental health community, their inevitable VAC claims for PTSD/OSI paint the military as the bogeyman, not their previous inadequate existence before joining.

- You want the truth? DNA.

- I am retired from the Army. The civ company I work for pays for a seventy minute medical/physical exam before hiring. Drug and alcohol testing (with immediate interim results), eye, ear, mobility, strength, and flexibility tests follow. Push ups, scrunches, proper lifting technique demo (by you, not her). It is a very efficient seventy minutes. Fail? You don't get an interview - you get a "No thanks".

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=TCBF]
- I am retired from the Army. The civ company I work for pays for a seventy minute medical/physical exam before hiring. Drug and alcohol testing (with immediate interim results), eye, ear, mobility, strength, and flexibility tests follow. Push ups, scrunches, proper lifting technique demo (by you, not her). It is a very efficient seventy minutes. Fail? You don't get an interview - you get a "No thanks".
[/quote]

This would save the Canadian Forces millions of dollars.

 

[mariomike]

The civ company I work for pays for a seventy minute medical/physical exam before hiring. Drug and alcohol testing (with immediate interim results), eye, ear, mobility, strength, and flexibility tests follow. Push ups, scrunches, proper lifting technique demo (by you, not her). It is a very efficient seventy minutes. Fail? You don't get an interview - you get a "No thanks".

After the medical, and prior to challenging the Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT), the department I retired from sends candidates to this place:
http://www.awci.ca/index.php

Do to our permissive mental health community, their inevitable VAC claims for PTSD/OSI paint the military as the bogeyman, not their previous inadequate existence before joining.

In my opinion, individuals straight out of high school or college were more moldable than older individuals with "life experience" to the subcultures of the military and emergency services ( many of whom were ex-military when I hired on ). 

Background checks are obviously less complicated if the military, or service, is the individual's first career.

 

[TCBF]

After the medical, and prior to challenging the Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT), the department I retired from sends candidates to this place:
http://www.awci.ca/index.php

In my opinion, individuals straight out of high school or college were more moldable than older individuals with "life experience" to the subcultures of the military and emergency services ( many of whom were ex-military when I hired on ). 

Background checks are obviously less complicated if the military, or service, is the individual's first career.

- The average age of my squads in Cornwallis was 19, we had far less injuries and admin complications than my older platoons in St-Jean ten years later.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

- The average age of my squads in Cornwallis was 19, we had far less injuries and admin complications than my older platoons in St-Jean ten years later.

Maybe, but then again from my experience with new Ptes coming in, the older guys are definitely more mature and more reliable. Not a hard and fast rule but definitely a trend.

 

[OldSolduer]

- The average age of my squads in Cornwallis was 19, we had far less injuries and admin complications than my older platoons in St-Jean ten years later.

18 and 19 year olds are more of a challenge, however they have less to "unlearn" than an older recruit.

They are easier to mould and change their thinking. Not so much with older recruits.

 

[DovoNewb]

This would save the Canadian Forces millions of dollars.

People where I am constantly ask our leadership why doesn't the CF do named drug tests, as opposed to the blind testing that they do to get "statistics?" We get told about human rights, and that it is against the law. My unit in particular seems to have a lot of disciplinary investigation and actions in relation to drug use which is obviously against CF policy.

Aren't there private companies in Canada that subject their staff to drug testing at least at the time that they are hired?

 

[mariomike]

Aren't there private companies in Canada that subject their staff to drug testing at least at the time that they are hired?

They do where I used to work: "The candidate will be required to attend a medical examination by a physician appointed by the City to undergo and pass a pre-placement medical examination and a drug test."

 

[stealthylizard]

I'm drug tested annually.  I am also subject to a drug test following a recordable incident, for reasonable suspicion, or upon a client's request.  It's pretty standard now in the oilfield to have a pre-employment test, and regular or random testing.  Last time I worked for a oil-sector company without a drug test was in 1998.  The biggest change has been that most companies no longer do "in house testing".  They send you to a independent testing facility.