Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)

[Franko]

not the official number but the latest I got from BDE 16 pos out of 1200 tested

That's about the same numbers I heard as well. Most through admission, mind you that was the rumour mill at it's best.

Regards

 

[garb811]

I'd like to think that my barracks room is 'mine' because I pay to live there, but if they can't search my room for drugs, why can they come and inspect it when I'm not there?  Shouldn't it be the same thing?  I just don't see how checking to see if my bed is made or running a sniffer dog through my room would be any different?  I don't see the problem with having drug sweeps, but I could see how some people would.

Here's why they can inspect:  Inspection and Search Defence Regulations.  

With regard to searches for evidence, a barracks room is considered to be a dwelling house for these purposes and a warrant must be obtained, and this would include running a dog through the actual rooms unless they were open dorm style without locking doors.  Having said that, if an inspection is being conducted IAW ISDRs and something is in plain sight during the inspection, it's fair game.

 

[Greymatters]

That covers entrance and exit searches, and control of restricted and classified areas, but doesnt cover 'personal' spaces like PMQs or SQs.

 

[George Wallace]

PMQ's perhaps.  SQ's (or ESQ's) are still (Enhanced) Single Quarters and fall under the same Regs as those living in the Shacks.

 

[Franko]

PMQs get searched as well. Seen it a few weeks ago.

Probably got snitched on.

Regards

 

[X-mo-1979]

A certain person on a east coast base decided he was going to inspect PMQ's.
"Have your family ready at 11h00,I will be inspecting your PMQ."

That assneck didnt make it too far.

As for the search of the PMQ's,thats a search warrant thing,same as civilian housing.Most likely a fall out of the recent urine sample failures.

Any dopehead who gets a bit of pressure put on them after getting caught tell's their secrets.

Some people who failed the 03/08 know already.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

Not entirely true, in Victoria the Base Fire Prevention officer conducts an annual inspection, he is accompanied by a Cpl/LS that works in the base chiefs office for the purpose of making sure the smoke detectors work, certain building and fire code regulations are complied with, ie no clothes around the furnace, breaker box unobstructed (nothing within 1 metre of it) that sort of thing. They only need a warrant if they are conducting a disciplinary investigation and it need only be signed by the mbr's CO not a judge, they still belong to the CF even if they're administered by CFHA. But I'll agree with you on inspecting MQ's just because "I can" it usually doesn't go very far, there needs to be a reason first.

 

[Greymatters]

But I'll agree with you on inspecting MQ's just because "I can" it usually doesn't go very far, there needs to be a reason first.

"Reasonable grounds"

 

[X-mo-1979]

Not entirely true, in Victoria the Base Fire Prevention officer conducts an annual inspection, he is accompanied by a Cpl/LS that works in the base chiefs office for the purpose of making sure the smoke detectors work, certain building and fire code regulations are complied with, ie no clothes around the furnace, breaker box unobstructed (nothing within 1 metre of it) that sort of thing. They only need a warrant if they are conducting a disciplinary investigation and it need only be signed by the mbr's CO not a judge, they still belong to the CF even if they're administered by CFHA. But I'll agree with you on inspecting MQ's just because "I can" it usually doesn't go very far, there needs to be a reason first.

Uhh...What does fire prevention have to do with drugs?
I also live in the PMQ patch.They call weeks prior and some civilian shows up and checks your batteries...Kinda different than your SSM showing up with the OPP drug team don't ya think?

Oh and if someone wants to come inspect my house,feel free,but I aint putting pants on.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

Kinda different than your SSM showing up with the OPP drug team don't ya think?

Thats where the CO's warrant comes in to play

 

[garb811]

That covers entrance and exit searches, and control of restricted and classified areas, but doesnt cover 'personal' spaces like PMQs or SQs.

This section covers Inspections of personal spaces such as PMQs and SQs:

PART I
INSPECTION

3. An officer or a non-commissioned member may conduct an inspection, including an inspection for the purpose of maintaining military standards of health, hygiene, safety, security, efficiency, dress and kit, of any other officer or non-commissioned member or any thing in, on or about

(a) any controlled area, or

(b) any quarters under the control of the Canadian Forces or the Department,

in accordance with the custom or practice of the service.

The terms "search" and "inspection" are being used a bit loosely and interchangeably in this thread so it's important to clarify what is being/can be conducted when and under which definition it falls. 

The RSM going through the shacks on Monday morning making sure there is no pizza rotting under someones bed is conducting an inspection, running a drug dog through the shacks is conducting a search.  There are limits to what is a reasonable invasion of privacy in the conduct of an Inspection and going beyond that voids any "evidence" found.  ie. If the RSM comes across a baggy sitting on a desk, a legal seizure could be made, if he found a baggy while randomly opening desk drawers it'd be very hard to have the "evidence" admitted into court and he might as well leave it where he found it as "seizing it" could lead to the ludicrous situation of the RSM being accused of theft as he had no legal right to "seize" the item.  A search is conducted for the purpose of finding evidence of a criminal offence and as such, is subject to a much higher threshhold with regard to the invasion of privacy which is allowed without a Warrant.  While it is legit to run the dog through public areas such as washrooms, hallways etc, the Barrack Warden shouldn't be going along unlocking doors to individual rooms unless Warrants are in hand.

Ref CO's search warrants, these aren't to be used in Canada under normal circumstances and doing so is grounds for a challenge on the legality of the warrant.  Under normal circumstances a JP is always close at hand and they're the ones to get the warrant from as, unlike COs, they issue them all the time and know what is needed to make the warrant valid.  Additionally, the Mbrs CO can NEVER sign a Warrant, it has to be the CO of another Unit.

EDIT:  Spelling

 

[Greymatters]

Good examples...

 

[gwp]

Latest update

SOURCETAG    0808210760
PUBLICATION: The Edmonton Sun
DATE:        2008.08.21
EDITION:    Final
SECTION:    News
PAGE:        29
BYLINE:      SUN MEDIA
DATELINE:    MONTREAL
WORD COUNT:    267
________________________________________
Drug use in military
________________________________________
A first round of drug-screening tests conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces has netted almost 440 drug users in its ranks.
The Chief of Military Personnel sprung these surprise tests for the first time last December as part of an anti-drug program.
Between the end of 2007 and March 2008, ministry officials performed checks in 11 random navy and army units.
In all, urine tests from 6.5% of the 1,392 navy personnel and five per cent of the soldiers tested positive for controlled substances. Drug use was higher in the age group 27 and under.
The Canadian Forces also discovered that drug use was more common "with master corporals and ranks lower than with senior non-commissioned officers and officers."
"It's not that we're in the middle of a drug problem, but that we're trying to completely eradicate drugs and prevent use in any form," Lt.-Col. Lisa Noonan explained in June to The Maple Leaf magazine.
The Armed Forces note that drug use is two times less common within its ranks than it is in the general population.
"We can readjust our programs and our policies, but the zero tolerance policy, that will not change," Noonan added.
The 7,622 military personnel in high-risk positions, such as the 2,500 personnel from CFB Valcartier who were deployed in Afghanistan, were also tested.
In the end, 269 people, or 3.7% of the total, tested positive or admitted to using drugs.
The third and fifth rotations were also tested. In the first case, drug problems were identified in 4.3% of soldiers.
In the fifth rotation, some of whose members are deployed in Afghanistan, only 1.8% of personnel was red-flagged for drug use.
"If one person's test comes back positive, they are not authorized to participate in their mission. They cannot board the plane and their training is ended on the spot," said Noonan,
Military personnel caught using controlled or illicit substances face possible disciplinary and administrative action.
As a general rule they then come under the authority of the military health system for treatment and rehabilitation.
In total, 10,667 military personnel were subject to this first round of drug tests.
According to a 2002 Statistics Canada study, about 3.1 million people, or 12.6% of the population, said they had used illicit drugs in the previous year.

 

[AlphaQup]

Excuse my ignorance guys but what constitutes a drug? I understand that THC related products and other hard drugs, but do things such as ephedrine and caffeine pills fall under the Canadian Forces Drug Policy as banned substances?

 

[Inspir]

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-38.8/

It's all there

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Way to resurrect a necropost started almost 5 years old gwp :

 

[Rodahn]

Way to resurrect a necropost started almost 5 years old gwp :

Would you have rather that he started a new thread? He s at least shown the initiative and performed a search prior to doing so. Just because the thread is 4 years old does not mean that it's any less valid.

edited to correct a spelling error.

 

[George Wallace]

Nor the point that he highlighted: the CF has a 2% less problem than the General Population.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Would you have rather that he started a new thread? He s at least shown the initiative and performed a search prior to doing so. Just because the thread is 4 years old does not mean that it's any less valid.

edited to correct a spelling error.

Why don't you just lighten up and have some fun for a change. Look at almost any post that's resurrected, and you'll see the same sort of comment from lots of people around here.

Oh wait, I get it. Looking at your history, it must have been the DS tag under my name that set you off, even though I didn't sign my post as staff as is my habit when I do something official. Any chance you think you got eh?

You left your Fun Police cruiser unattended.

 

[Jarnhamar]