Loachman said:I know, and that is what causes a good part of the problem. Were a strain to be developed (probably not possible) whose active elements could be completely metabolized in a few hours, like alcohol, that problem would disappear. I've heard of CF members (but not in any unit of which I have been a member) using cocaine as Eaglelord17 described. Personally, while I think that that is foolish, as long as they are not posing a threat then I am not particularly fussed. I also agree with his comment that legalization would not likely change usage patterns for CF members, or, as I have stated elsewhere, in the overall Canadian population. Them's what's going to use it are going to use it regardless. Many are willing to accept the low risk of getting caught for the pleasure that they get. Many others have no interest, and may or may not care about what others use. I tend not to care what people take for their pleasure, as long as they do not place others at risk.
Loachman said:Both, however, are legal. And no Flight Surgeon has ever told me that I cannot drink tea (my preference) or coffee prior to flying.
Loachman said:Another thought, Tess, as you mentioned other legal products that affect performance - standard tobacco.
Smoking reduces oxygen levels in the blood so, effectively, increases the altitude at which one is flying. Supplemental oxygen is required above 10000 feet. Aircrew who smoke can easily simulate being well above that altitude while actually being below it. Tobacco smoking also affects night vision, and not positively. Aircrew are regularly reminded of these effects, but the product is still legal, and Aviators (the ones who actually aviate, not the rank) have used it since the dawn of aviation.
I agree.Eaglelord17 said:My opinion is that legalization of Marijuana won't have any effect on the CAF because so many people consume it already and we have no negative effects from that (or at least obvious effects).
I would place money on if we did a CAF wide drug test that at least 10% would turn up positive for something in their system, and if we did it tomorrow (i.e. Saturday) quite a few would turn up with Cocaine in their system as they consume it on Friday, and by Monday they are clean.
TwoTonShackle said:The way I understand our services offences, once cannabis is removed from the schedule II drug list and is legalized it would immediately be legal for military members. As the current charge for marijuana use/possession falls under:
QR & O Vol II 103.61 - OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER CANADIAN LAW
Which would currently be validated by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
Offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Section 4(1) CDSA (Possession of Substance)
4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
Sample Charge: AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 130 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT, THAT IS TO SAY, POSSESSION OF A SUBSTANCE CONTRARY TO SECTION 4(1) OF THE CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT.
Once removed from the CDSA, it would no longer be a service offence. Someone may be charged under 129 or 103.16 Disobeying a Lawful Command, but I doubt neither would hold up to the AJAG litmus test.
So wether or not we (or the brain trust in Ottawa) like it, it seems like it is on it's way and has an arrival date. Hopefully there is a solid plan to be put in place to manage it come 1st July 2018. I suppose we'll see a 29 Jun 18 FLASH CANFORGEN detailing our do's and don't's.
the 48th regulator said:Instead o worrying how quick it exits the system, why not worry about the good it does. IT is being used medicinally in Canada for Veterans, paid by the Government, via VAC. You serve the Government, are they wrong? You keep focusing on the Psychoactives, trust me they do not present themselves days later.
the 48th regulator said:Oh sweet Loachman, bwahhahhahahahahaha, sweet sweet Loachman. Do you read what you type before you hit the Post button? If MaryJane was legalized, based on that statement, then that can't be questioned either by a Flight Surgeon.
the 48th regulator said:Stop trying to find holes in my posts, and review yours before posting.
Loachman said:The issue that I have with use of marijuana by active Aircrew is that, during any post-incident testing (and blood and urine samples are tested for things other than drug use as well, such as blood sugar levels and other toxins that could affect performance), it will show up regardless of any actual impairment or absence of same. That injects doubt, and doubt is not acceptable in the Aircrew environment. If a reliable measurement for impairment can be developed, and, again, based upon what I read in an article and studies that you posted in the other thread, so far one has not, then I'd likely not worry about detectable traces in somebody's blood stream one whit. My desire is that impairment can be either proven or discounted.
The intent of post-incident testing is done purely to determine cause factors, ie contaminants in an oxygen system, medicinal use legal or otherwise, etcetera but the results of that test cannot be used in a police investigation. They have to get their own samples for that purpose.
I disagree with random drug testing, but have no problem with testing for cause, and especially not for Flight Safety investigations.
I am not interested in the medical aspects, for veterans or others, in this case. I fully support that, but we are discussing serving members in this thread, and I am focussing on active Aircrew.
I do not serve the Government. I serve Her Majesty. The two are not the same.
It is precisely the psycho-actives that concern me in the case of active Aircrew, especially as there is yet no way to assess their presence or absence.
Yes, Much-Beloved Tess, I do read what I write.
Even legal for the general public, and perhaps even legal for most CF members, it is highly unlikely to be approved for Aircrew use. Both EITS and I have stated that other legal medications are not allowed unless approved by a Flight Surgeon. Most common medications will result in grounding, if the Aircrew member is not grounded for the underlying condition anyway, and recreational use of something likely to cause impairment in our specific and somewhat unique case, even if not for others, is not likely to be approved by either a Flight Surgeon or anybody in the chain-of-command all of the way up to the CDS.
Alcohol is legal, but, if somebody bends a machine and even a slight trace of alcohol shows up in a Flight Safety blood or urine sample, something is going to be done, and a CO is going to give the nearest MPs a non-social phone call and begin a collateral board of inquiry.
And I am happy with that.
Should the rest of the CF be so restricted if marijuana is legalized? Maybe not, as long as a reliable impairment detection/measurement means can be established. I'd still tend to err on the side of caution, but with an ever-open mind.
Right back at you, respectfully and lovingly...
As you described yourself in the post that you made as I was typing (and carefully re-reading) this, I, too, am quite libertarian. I have already said that I am not much worried about what people use as long as they harm nobody else.
I disagree with the American-style alcohol restrictions as well. I believe that people should be trusted, but whacked if they break that trust. Yes, we sometimes got hammered while in the field in The Good Old Days, but never let that jeopardize Flight Safety and our ability to function properly.
As has been pointed out twice now, even common legal medications can impair one's ability to perform adequately and safely while flying. There are enough hazards beyond one's control already. Wilfully adding more, and risking lives and expensive equipment, is not acceptable.
There is a balance to be had in all things. On the Aircrew side, that balance has to occur much closer to the cautious side. For others, not so much.
I am not against medical marijuana use at all, and have no real objection to recreational use, and don't believe that a change in legal status will have any real effect on reality. I do, however, want to see a means of accurately measuring impairment levels, as we have one for alcohol.
the 48th regulator said:Medical Cannabis is legal, and approved by Health Canada and VAC. However, serving members of CAF can not be prescribed Medical Cannabis.
TwoTonShackle said:The way I understand our services offences, once cannabis is removed from the schedule II drug list and is legalized it would immediately be legal for military members.
Ostrozac said:This isn't completely correct. While the CF medical system doesn't provide medical marijuana, there have been isolated cases where serving members have been referred to civilian specialists, who then write prescriptions for medical marijuana. I know a member personally who was prescribed medical marijuana while posted to a JPSU.
Ostrozac said:Plus there's our reserve force, who primarily get their health care from their provincial plans, which could provide medical marijuana to serving reservists.
the 48th regulator said:Obviously you know zero about the rules and regulations, I am not being harsh to demean you, but to impart that you are posting wrong information that can be detrimental to people's careers. I would advise you stand down, please
the 48th regulator said:Medical Cannabis is legal, and approved by Health Canada and VAC. However, serving members of CAF can not be prescribed Medical Cannabis.
Therefore, your post is incorrect, and a SME will show up shortly witht he proper links, I am sure.
Loachman said:Don't count on that.
The death penalty continued to exist in the CF for certain offences many, many years after it vanished from the Criminal Code.
TwoTonShackle said:Yes, currently (issued May 13, reviewed Feb 15 - I'm unaware of anything more current) D Med Pol 4200-10 states:
"CAF uniformed physicians, public service physicians, third party contract physicians and any other health care provider delivering care to CAF members in a CF H Svcs facility shall not provide medical documents to allow CAF members to access marijuana." It does state the should a CAF member be given access to medical marijuana they would then have to be placed on MEL's that completely limit their duties and activities.
Interestingly though its main justification is: "Ref A is Health Canada’s information for health care professionals with respect to cannabis and cannabinoids. Health Canada is very clear in that cannabis (marijuana, marihuana) is not an approved therapeutic substance in Canada: “Dried marijuana is not an approved drug or medicine in Canada. The Government of Canada does not endorse the use of marijuana, but the courts have required reasonable access to a legal source of marijuana when authorized by a physician”." This is based on Health Canada 2013 stance on medical marijuana.
Health Canada has since changed its stance: "On August 11, 2016, Health Canada announced the new Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR).
The ACMPR came into force on August 24, 2016. These regulations replace the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) as of August 24, 2016, and are being implemented as a result of the Federal Court ruling in the case of Allard v. Canada. The ACMPR allow for reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes for Canadians who have been authorized to use cannabis for medical purposes by their health care practitioner."
I would interested to know if the new stance had been or is currently being discussed at D Med Pol, or if everyone is walking around like the three wise monkeys.
My point was the current act of recreational cannabis use would be punished under 103.61 which derives its legal power from NDA 130 via the CDSA. Medicinal marijuana is omitted from the CDSA under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations. Once cannabis is removed from the CDSA all the dominoes fall and there would no longer be legal standing for it to be punishable under that particular service offence.
If I am wrong I can fully accept it and would readily read the references.
TwoTonShackle said:Yes it did, however don't mix up service offences with service punishments. To receive the death penalty you still had to commit the offence. By removing the legal validity of the offence no punishment can be applied.
Clause 36 would make a number of changes to the sentencing rules of the Code of Service Discipline. The general thrust of the changes is to add more flexibility and to eliminate some punishments that are seen as excessively harsh.
1) Abolition of the Death Penalty
Currently, the death penalty is applicable to the following offences under the Code of Service Discipline:
Misconduct of Commanders in Presence of Enemy
1. failure of a commander in action to properly engage, resist or pursue the enemy (s. 73);
Misconduct in Presence of Enemy
2. improperly delaying or discouraging action against the enemy (s. 74(a));
3. going over to the enemy (s. 74(b));
4. failure to diligently carry out an operation of war, when so ordered (s. 74(c));
5. improperly abandoning or delivering up one’s post to the enemy (s. 74(d));
6. assisting the enemy with materiel, or improperly abandoning materiel in the presence of the enemy (s. 74(e) and (f)));
7. improperly doing or omitting to do anything which results in the capture of persons by the enemy or the capture or destruction of materiel by the enemy (s. 74(g));
8. leaving, sleeping or being drunk at one’s post, while on watch when in the vicinity of the enemy (s. 74(h));
9. cowardice before the enemy (s. 74(i));
10. generally, doing or omitting to do anything with the intent of imperilling the success of Her Majesty’s Forces or any cooperating forces (s. 74(j));
11. improper communication with the enemy (s. 75(a));
12. improperly giving intelligence to the enemy (ss. 75(a) through (d));
13. using the wrong password, countersign or identification signal (s. 75(e));
14. improper alteration of or interference with any signal (s. 75(f));
15. improperly causing false alarms (s. 75(g));
16. improperly leaving or being drunk or asleep at one’s post while acting as sentry or lookout (s. 75(h));
17. forcing a safeguard or forcing or striking a sentinel (s. 75(i));
18. generally, doing or omitting to do anything with the intent to prejudice the security of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or any cooperating forces (s. 75(j));
Misconduct when Captured by the Enemy
19. deliberately or negligently becoming a prisoner of war (s. 76(a));
20. failure by a prisoner of war to rejoin Her Majesty’s service when able to do so (s. 76(b));
21. serving with or aiding the enemy (s. 76(c));
22. spying for the enemy (s. 78);
23. participation in a mutiny with violence (s. 79);
24. being the ringleader of a mutiny without violence (s. 80);
Misconduct in Naval Convoys by Officers
25. failure to defend a vessel or goods under convoy (s. 105(a));
26. refusal to fight in defence of a vessel in one’s convoy when it is attacked (s. 105(b)); and
27. cowardly abandoning or exposing a vessel in one’s convoy to hazards (s. 105 (c)).
With respect to the infractions described in numbers 1 through 21 (above), the death penalty is mandatory where the person "acted traitorously." With respect to the offences relating to misconduct by commanders in action (number 1 above): where the offence was motivated by cowardice, the death penalty is discretionary; otherwise, the maximum punishment is dismissal with disgrace. With respect to the offences relating to misconduct by a person other than a commander in the presence of the enemy (numbers 2 through 10 above): where the offences occurred in action, the death penalty is discretionary; otherwise, the maximum punishment is life imprisonment. In all of the other cases listed above, the death penalty is discretionary.
Clauses 24 through 28 would amend sections 73 through 76 and 78 through 80 of the Act so as to replace all existing mandatory death penalties with mandatory life sentences and all discretionary death penalties with discretionary life sentences. However, clause 28 would lower the maximum punishment in section 80 for participation in a mutiny without violence from life imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment.(49)
Clause 30 would repeal section 105 of the Act, which deals with offences in relation to naval convoys (numbers 25 to 27 above). It is felt that this section is redundant as the offences relating to misconduct in the presence of the enemy in sections 73 and 74 of the Act (numbers 1 through 10 above) are sufficiently broad to cover the offences relating to convoys.
Consequential to the proposed abolition of the death penalty in the Code of Service Discipline – the only remaining death penalties in Canadian law – clauses 119 to 121 would amend sections of the Criminal Code which continue to refer to offences punishable by death. The Criminal Code offences of perjury (section 132), attempting to commit a criminal offence (section 463), being an accessory to a criminal offence (section 463), and conspiracy to prosecute an innocent person (section 465(b)) all currently provide for a higher maximum punishment where they are committed in relation to an offence punishable by death or by either death or life imprisonment.
Clause 36 would replace section 140 of the Act with new sections 140 to 140.4. The new section 140 would essentially amend the current section 140(a) to make it clear that a person subject to a mandatory life sentence under the Code of Service Discipline, as amended by this bill, could not be sentenced to a lesser term of imprisonment. The change is essentially consequential as it is necessary to accommodate the proposed creation of mandatory life sentences to replace the mandatory death penalties. Currently, under the Act, all life sentences are maximum discretionary punishments.
Blackadder1916 said:Not to sidetrack the discussion off the demon weed, but am I correctly understanding your comment to read that the death penalty under the National Defence Act was only abolished because the offences to which it applied were removed as offences?
TwoTonShackle said:To receive the death penalty you still had to commit the offence. By removing the legal validity of the offence no punishment can be applied.