• 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)

niner domestic said:
Define steroids. Technically a women, (or man) using hormonal replacement therapy is using (sex) steroids. 

In the CF context, those you've listed above would be prescribed by a medical authority and thus would not fall under the auspices of "misuse."

I think we all know what the poster below meant, and unprescribed items versus those that have been  prescribed has already been covered regardless of whether or not we are talking steroids, codeine, horomones etc. We can run this around in circles all day using examples like horomones.

In short, not prescribed? Then you are at risk of falling within the "misuse" category.
 
Its the arse and its the arse fast if you fail. You fail your first test here and your gone. There might be chance you could say you were experimenting or were pressured but unless your a real young bloke and your story checks out then your out on your ear. Just because someone uses doesnt make them bad but it does spit on the rules that you serve under and it makes it tough to be trusted. I've seen the effects of cocaine or speed on people, they take it saturday and by Wednesday they'r a complete mess. It doesnt lead to safe and happy work environment.
I know Canada has a very high incidence of drug use (Vancouver anyone?) but the forces should be above that. People caught using need to get the arse and get discharged, not with some pissy misconduct but with a proper dishonourable discharge.

Hugs Not drugs man 8)
 
Steroids by definition are hormones and there are various categories of them.  Oddly enough, there are steroids that you can buy over the counter that don't contravene the Controlled Drug and Substances Act  - simple 0.5% hydrocortisone, a corticosteroid, is an example, and, like any other medication, if used improperly can cause side effect issues.  Back on track though - unless the person has a prescription for their testosterone or DHEA (as examples), they and the person that sold it to them are in contravention of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act - plain and simple (Schedule IV substances for those who care).  As that is illegal in Canada, it is therefore illegal in the CF.  The other reason anabolic steroids (ie testosterone and it's relatives) are on the list of no go agents in the CF is because of the side effects that result from their improper use - roid rage can turn to abject psychosis and therefore harm  the member and or others around him/her and therefore we lose that person and potentially others; liver or kidney failure that can cause us to lose the soldier for a long time if not forever; depression which can lead to suicide or loss of use of the soldier; the list goes on.  Case in point - there was a guy in my recruit class in 1988 that got tossed during week 2 when the results of his medical came back - his kidneys were in bad shape simply because of all the juice he was using (I swear he had muscles on his piss he was that big).  The fact you can buy some of this stuff in alleged nutrition stores is beside the point - it's up to the drug enforcement guys to deal with that and they have their hands full as it is.  I don't want to get into the other stuff they sell which may or may not be what is claimed to be on the label (legislation is supposedly forthcoming in that regard).

Take home message is this - if you weren't prescribed it and something comes up on a drug screen, you'd better have your ducks in a row and hope that there are more of them than shells in the shotgun.  If you feel the need to take over the counter meds, go to the base pharmacy so it can be documented that you got it from them.  If you are involved in high calibre sports (CIAU, CISM, etc), get a hold of the go/no go lists from your particular organisation and learn all the generic names and the "natural" agents that have those or similar substances in them - and talk to a pharmacist with the list in hand.  And as a final note/opinion -for those that feel their rights are being infringed upon regarding CF drug policies, just remember, you weren't conscripted  ;).

Cheers.

MM
 
Also bear in mind that being in possesion of a scheduled substance is a criminal offence, so that has obvious repercussions. 
 
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. 

niner domestic,

Before I go further, please know that I am not advocating for accommodation of all people who fail drug tests-I think people should be held accountable for their actions much more often than they actually are in this society of ours-irregardless of the cause for those actions.

In responding to milnewstbay's comment that the legal beagles seem worried about this issue, I was simply attempting to establish why they have cause to be worried.  They have to be careful on this one, IMO.

The connection between employment equity/disability and failing a drug test has been established.  The challenge has been played out in court (albeit, so far as I can tell, and as you say,not yet in a CF context).

This case, however, http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=502&lg=_e&isruling=0- Milazzo vs. Autocar, has all the same aspects of a potential CF case:

The employers had a zero tolerance policy in place, there was a last chance clause in the employment contract (ie - employees signed a contract stating they knew they would be fired for positive drug tests/drug use), and the employee who claimed discrimination worked in a  safety sensitive position (bus driver).

Many of these points would be applied to a CF case.

The guy failed a pee test, Autocar fired him, he challenged it, and although he eventually was fired, the company got raked over the coals for being discriminatory and still had to implement changes to its testing policy and were told, basically, that a zero tolerance policy was unacceptable.

I'm no great legal mind, (you seem much more learned in these things), but that's how it reads to me.  Correct me, please, if I've gone astray.

The sticky point in this is whether or not the drug use is recreational (fire him) or an addiction/disability (accommodate him).  The guy in this case denied he had a drug problem- therefore he was fired.

What seems like a very black and white situation is not so clear cut anymore,  and it seems that HRC has made it hard for employers to implement quick and decisive disciplinary action-which is what one would expect in the military- and what many do expect, if some of the responses in this and other drug testing threads are anything to go by.

Can you help me in understanding this one?- this order http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-2002-420///en?page=1- does this make CF personnel eligible for the same employment equity consideration as all other Canadians?  ie could the ruling on the Milazzo case and others be used in defense of CF members caught using drugs? And is it cases like these that have the legal services in the CF hanging back, being careful, and claiming that we can't be so quick on making employment decisions on soldiers who test for drug use?

 
My personal thoughts on the matter:

I was sworn in to serve in Her Majesty's Canadian Forces as a volunteer, first & foremost, and swore to lay down my life, if necessary, in the performance of that service and to obey during that service those Queens Regulations & Orders.

I volunteered to do that. I swore to that.

So did everyone else who chose to disobey those very QR&Os they voluntarily swore to obey.

Any civilian companies out there require the same thing from their 'employees?'

I can't seem to think of a single one. We are not a civilian company. These guys volunteered that oath, voluntarily broke that oath, and have now got caught. Sorry, I don't feel the least bit sorry for them.

They made their own bed...why would we try to make someone else guilty of making it? Let them lie there themselves. Personal accountability for one's actions...they have displayed none, which happens to be a critical factor in a successful leader in any military.
 
battleaxe said:
niner domestic,
The sticky point in this is whether or not the drug use is recreational (fire him) or an addiction/disability (accommodate him).  The guy in this case denied he had a drug problem- therefore he was fired.

All drug addicts deny they have a problem.  Try to have a conversation with a crack head some time.  It is pathetic.  I have had addicts swear on their children's lives that they had no drugs on their person.  That generally proves it in my mind that they actually do.  Most times, they don't have children. 
People have to get past this idea that drug use is harmless until someone is a useless bag living on the street. 

battleaxe said:
What seems like a very black and white situation is not so clear cut anymore,  and it seems that HRC has made it hard for employers to implement quick and decisive disciplinary action-which is what one would expect in the military- and what many do expect, if some of the responses in this and other drug testing threads are anything to go by.

And that is what is wrong with this country.  It still is a black and white issue.  It's just the socialists decided that it needed to be complicated.  It would be one thing if all of a sudden a company changed its policy.  But if you sign a contract, that should be final.  This is the same sort of BS thinking that sees people who host a party getting sued for some jackass who gets lit up and then gets in a drunk driving accident.  Personal accountability is dead.

battleaxe said:
Can you help me in understanding this one?- this order http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-2002-420///en?page=1- does this make CF personnel eligible for the same employment equity consideration as all other Canadians?  ie could the ruling on the Milazzo case and others be used in defense of CF members caught using drugs? And is it cases like these that have the legal services in the CF hanging back, being careful, and claiming that we can't be so quick on making employment decisions on soldiers who test for drug use?

CF members are subject to an entirely different set of laws that others aren't.  Being in the CF means that you sign off some of your rights under the charter. 
 
zipperhead_cop said:
CF members are subject to an entirely different set of laws that others aren't.  Being in the CF means that you sign off some of your rights under the charter. 

I'm with you on the personal accountability, zipperhead.  I think the legal waters are being muddied to the point that employers are often paralyzed into inaction for fear of being sued because these issues are over analyzed and abused.

People sign an agreement, they blow it, they get fired.  That works for me. 

If you look at the Milazzo case from the above post, and others, however, it seems that the validity of such agreements- oaths/contracts-are being called into question because people with disabilities cannot be held accountable (not my opinion) to fulfill those oaths or contracts.

And yes, the CF has many different standards that other employees don't have to meet, but I think employment equity has to be addressed in this instance.  I offered a link- http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cr/SOR-2002-420///en- to an order that states that the CF is to be considered a public sector employer for the purposes of Employment Equity.  If anyone has some clarification as to what the ramifications are on this order, I'd be glad to learn from them...but it seems to me that that it probably has something to do with the concerns about Human Rights cases that were mentioned in the article in post #21. I also fear I may be interpreting it wrong, but to me it means that one of the rights that CF personnel do not sign off on is employment equity.

I would embrace a return to clarity in the world- some of the laws and situations that arise today just don't seem to be based in common sense and fairness.  The fact remains, though, that the rules and legal precedents are there.  Realistically, and no matter how frustrating they seem, they will, IMO, need to be taken into consideration in discussions such as this, will play a big role in how CF drug testing will be handled in the future, and will determine how the cases of soldiers who fail drug tests will be handled in the here and now.

Just my thoughts, feel free to set me straight if you have a better legal grasp on this situation,

Bren
 
battleaxe said:
If you look at the Milazzo case from the above post, and others, however, it seems that the validity of such agreements- oaths/contracts-are being called into question because people with disabilities cannot be held accountable (not my opinion) to fulfill those oaths or contracts.

Addiction is not a disability.  It may be considered a medical condition, but it is a self inflicted one.  If this is going to be foisted on employers, don't be surprised when employers start requiring drug testing before making an offer of employment. 
Also bear in mind, if a persons drug use wasn't causing a problem in the work place then an employer would not know they were doing drugs. 
As for any extended knowledge of labour laws, I have none.  Hopefully some of the others who are well versed on this topic can help out. 
 
It may not be a disability but alcoholism is a disease.  That is a medical fact.


zipperhead_cop said:
Addiction is not a disability.  It may be considered a medical condition, but it is a self inflicted one.  If this is going to be foisted on employers, don't be surprised when employers start requiring drug testing before making an offer of employment. 
Also bear in mind, if a persons drug use wasn't causing a problem in the work place then an employer would not know they were doing drugs. 
As for any extended knowledge of labour laws, I have none.  Hopefully some of the others who are well versed on this topic can help out. 
 
tannerthehammer said:
It may not be a disability but alcoholism is a disease.  That is a medical fact.

That isn't in dispute.  Drug use is in question here, not alcohol usage.  But there will be people who will argue that drug addiction is also a disease, and that may be the case as well. 
But if you were to contract gonorrhea and didn't treat it, then didn't deploy because of your lack of seeking treatment, would there be any implications of failing to perform your job as a result of a self inflicted condition? 
Non-involved people need to stop making excuses for other peoples lack of self control.  If there is any walk of life where an individual would be expected to conduct themselves with self discipline and have a high degree of personal accountability, surely it would be the CF?  Plus, the way the cannabis activists would have you believe, it is harmless, non-addictive and better for you than alcohol. 
So what is it?  A harmless recreational substance and therefore should be easy to avoid and thus a person would be held to full accounting for using?  Or is it a debilitating, addictive substance that creates a medical condition that renders one helpless to resist, thus making a soldier unfit for duty? 
Can't have your IMP and eat it too. 
 
Well in order to seek treatment for Gonorhrea you would have to know you have it.  Some people may not know that they have addictions and hence don't feel they need to seek treatment for it. 

Yes, we still need to hold people accountable for their actions but I think we should more so address the "why" they used the drugs instead of "you did drugs and now you will be punished".  If you look at the Canadian courts and law the goal is to rehabilitate not incarcerate.

Furthermore, there may be a psycological reason why they are using drugs and with some treatment they could get off the drugs.  There is no doubt in my mind that people in the CF in situations like this slip through the recruiting cracks.

After all we are a kinder and gentler army now  ;)

zipperhead_cop said:
That isn't in dispute.  Drug use is in question here, not alcohol usage.  But there will be people who will argue that drug addiction is also a disease, and that may be the case as well. 
But if you were to contract gonorrhea and didn't treat it, then didn't deploy because of your lack of seeking treatment, would there be any implications of failing to perform your job as a result of a self inflicted condition? 
Non-involved people need to stop making excuses for other peoples lack of self control.  If there is any walk of life where an individual would be expected to conduct themselves with self discipline and have a high degree of personal accountability, surely it would be the CF?  Plus, the way the cannabis activists would have you believe, it is harmless, non-addictive and better for you than alcohol. 
So what is it?  A harmless recreational substance and therefore should be easy to avoid and thus a person would be held to full accounting for using?  Or is it a debilitating, addictive substance that creates a medical condition that renders one helpless to resist, thus making a soldier unfit for duty? 
Can't have your IMP and eat it too. 
 
tannerthehammer said:
If you look at the Canadian courts and law the goal is to rehabilitate not incarcerate.

.....and how's that working out for us ?
 
tannerthehammer said:
Well in order to seek treatment for Gonorhrea you would have to know you have it.

I think it tends to be one of those things that holds your attention.

tannerthehammer said:
Some people may not know that they have addictions and hence don't feel they need to seek treatment for it. 

Are you under the impression that there are people who can roll joints and smoke drugs in their sleep?  It is a fairly deliberate act.  Besides, addiction isn't the issue here.  USAGE is what is unlawful. 

tannerthehammer said:
Yes, we still need to hold people accountable for their actions but I think we should more so address the "why" they used the drugs instead of "you did drugs and now you will be punished". 

Why?  The simple answer is "why not?".  Since nobody has to answer for anything anymore, and nobody has to be held accountable for their actions, why not just do any GD thing you want and then blame it on something else?  If people had any concern for any valid punishment, then they would either choose not to jeopardize themselves, or they would fully expect the known penalty that comes from said violation. 

tannerthehammer said:
If you look at the Canadian courts and law the goal is to rehabilitate not incarcerate.

Yeah.  That is why the legal system is a pathetic donkey show which ENCOURAGES criminality. 

tannerthehammer said:
Furthermore, there may be a psycological reason why they are using drugs and with some treatment they could get off the drugs.  There is no doubt in my mind that people in the CF in situations like this slip through the recruiting cracks.

Why in Gods name would we want to be recruiting drug addicts?  I think everyone will be pretty okay with that being an untapped population base. 

tannerthehammer said:
After all we are a kinder and gentler army now  ;)

You say that like it is a good thing.  :p
 
Seems even the sandal-wearing, pee-masking set is wrestling with moral issues these days on this one  ::)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Too high to fight?
I usually offer to help soldiers fail drug tests - not pass them

MATT MERNAGH, Now Magazine, 15-21 Mar 07
Article link

I got some weird and crazy e-mail recently. Among the updates from war resisters groups and pot legalizers was a letter from the wife of a Canadian Forces soldier. The distraught woman was writing to ask my advice because her husband had failed his urine test and was being prevented from deploying to Afghanistan.

Talk about a moral dilemma. Oddly, just this month, writing for Cannabis Culture, I urged service personnel not wanting to wage war to get stoned and flunk the Department of National Defence's recently resumed pee test. If any CF soldier doesn't want to deploy, I'm offering to puff pot in their face all day or send them peace cookies. No reason to go AWOL.

So here I was being asked to help a soldier convince his superiors to retest him so he could deploy. I have no clout at DND, of course. However, it turns out that my anonymous soldier is one of 89 service personnel who popped positive out of the 2,276 tested before leaving for Afghanistan.

Two soldiers have been fired, three were able to show they had a narcotic prescription and five more were sent to counselling. There are 79 more administrative reviews to go.

According to Commander Denise Laviolette, the military has a very hard line on THC showing up in a soldier's urine. The thinking, she says, is that "You could've come for help before we caught you. There's personal responsibility. There's no second chance."

Odd, because I'd just read a DND directive emphasizing retention and rehabilitation for test flunkers, not dismissal. It reads, "A CF member shall normally be retained and placed on Counselling and Probation."

Laviolette bristles when I try to quote her the policy. That's until she looks up the directive herself and agrees that the criteria allow for grunts to defend themselves by arguing it's their first offence, the intake didn't happen on duty, it didn't impair operations and they're unlikely to reoffend.

Pee tests were reinstated in May, Laviolette says, because an increase in Taliban activity had General Rick Hillier wanting to ensure that everyone is shooting straight as an arrow. The decision, she says, "has nothing to do" with the kind of crops that fuel the Afghani economy. Or the report, carried on BBC a few months back of Canuck forces battling 10-foot-tall marijuana forest hiding insurgents.

When interviewed by the media, Hillier admitted at least one crew used cannabis to camouflage their vehicle. All efforts to down the indica thicket using white phosphorus and diesel fuel bombardment failed, he said. But when a small patch did ignite there were other problems: a section of soldiers downwind had "some ill effects.''

The United Nations Office of Drug Control estimates the Afghan cannabis crop at 30,000 acres, one-third of the world supply. The resinous strain packs that classic skunk smell and would be a terrible reefer toke, but it's pressed into hashish and transported to world markets. You can come across it in Toronto.

Are soldiers retested to make sure they're straight once they've settled into Kandahar? I can't help querying. "Where would they get the drugs from? In the mail?" Laviolette asks.

"The soldiers are in an enclosed environment. They're not even allowed to drink alcohol except for two beers on Christmas Day,'' minister of defence spokesperson Isabel Bouchard reassures. "The military always needs to be ready. This is Canada, we respect the Afghan way of life and are their invited guests," she says.

Interesting, because a little reefer recreation is great for treating post-traumatic stress trauma that can take place when the party hosts start shooting at the invited guests as an impolite way of asking them to leave now, please.
**
 
Perhaps not in keeping with the direction that this particular thread has gone, but I thought that you might find it interesting that we are now (on my urging) also testing our designated Op Reserve pers.  Based on the rather disappointing results of the "D-1" tests for TF 1-07 which resulted in a couple of recently deployed folks coming home after a week in theatre, I thought it only prudent that those "in the hopper" also be tested so as to avoid another "deployed one day, back the next" debacle.  The fact of the matter is that those designated "Op Res" on 7 days notice to move need to be tested - whether they eventually deploy or not. 

D-1 testing is all well and good, and serves a purpose in catching those who figure "I've made it throught the testing, so let's have a final hurrah".  But when the contracted lab can't provide test results in less than two weeks?  Well, then we need to rethink the process.  Having people deploy into theatre, only to be RTU a week later with associated activation of the Op Reserve is much less than efficient.  Indeed, it causes serious gyrations at multiple levels.

Just say'in.....
 
TF 3/07 did their own testing in the last month....
As anyone would expect, a couple of hickups where you least expect it BUT, at least it was addressed some 7 months before deployment......
 
geo said:
TF 3/07 did their own testing in the last month....
As anyone would expect, a couple of hickups where you least expect it BUT, at least it was addressed some 7 months before deployment......

Thats a huge problem in my opinion as well.Soldiers use to know they would NEVER be tested,unless the SSM seen you smoking a joint on a friday.Now all soldiers know 1 month prior to work up training,stop using.Once they come home on HLTA,and home for good they can start up again.

Random drug testing isnt so random anymore.

Those that got caught,kind of makes me wonder if they wanted to get off tour.....easy quick way off for those garrision soldiers.......
 
There may not be a need to send all urine samples to a lab for testing and wait two weeks in the process.

If to surf the net, there are plenty of companies that sell "THC Marijuana Cannabis Dip Strip Drug Urine Test Kits". ($4.00-$20.00US)

From the details of the various kits available it only takes two to ten minutes for a result.

If these kits are available and are considered reliable, why have they not been used.

If there results are not acceptable in a court of law then they can be used to determind what samples to send to the lab.
 
Back
Top