drug testing

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

Gents,

GO!!! has pointed out that

it is worthwhile to point out that COs have had broad powers to test individuals for drugs for years. They also had the option of not testing at all, which many of them took

.

Unfortunately, many COs wish that were the case.  Their hands are tied in most instances of drug use; the system strongly favours the alleged drug user over the chain of command.  The burden of proof that COs must satisfy to even order a test for cause, much less lay charges under the NDA, mean that drug users either must be caught "in flagrante delecto" by an authority figure or MPs during an investigation or idenfitied by a reliable witness with full detail including exact place, time, substance, eyewitnessed not hearsay. 

Usually, any misstep by the chain of command results in the 'case' being dismissed and no action being taken.  While COs have the option to remove drug users from deployments or positions of responsibility on suspicion until resolved by testing, the decision to place a soldier on C&P rests in Ottawa at DMCARM after a thorough, objective review of evidence and test results, including MO input and re-evaluation by further testing if test results are questionable.  The process takes time and career action for drug use is not taken lightly.  Drug testing for cause is also the responsibility of the unit chain of command, not the medical system - ask a medic - this is a command issue not a H Svcs Gp one.  For example, in Petawawa, UMSs will not take the lead in executing urine tests for drugs - this is done, in most units, by the duty staff or RPs.

Steve29, I am not sure you are getting the whole story in full detail.  Perhaps it has been enhanced to provide more smoking area street credibility.  In any case a test for cause cannot be ordered unless there are some pretty clear, legally accepted indicators of drug use to prove that a test for cause is required.

A public domain google search of "DAOD Drug Use" will direct you to the following: http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/DAOD/5019/3_e.asp which is an unclassified doc for all to see wrt CF Drug Control Policy. 

With regards to drug use, members are innocent until proven guilty and a concerted effort must be made by the chain of command to take action against drug users both in terms of career action and under the Code of Service Discipline.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms covers military personnel and admissibility of bodily fluids.  Google search on urine sample admissibility brings up several Supreme Court and other documents identifying the whys, wherefores  and legalities of ordering a urine sample without sufficient grounds.

As media releases have stated, long-overdue policy changes are coming to test deploying personnel. 

Hope this clears up some misconceptions.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Drug testing is good.
Catching dummies before going on tour is good too. By dummies I mean guys who can't wait 2 days until they get home on HLTA and get caught in camp.

Like Steves example, I can see a lot of people getting caught up in the witch hunt and screwed around which is goin to be a shame.

 

[sigtech]

Food for thought

You decided to do drugs while in the military fail a drug test before going to Afghanistan..... Your replacement go over and gets killed that is your falt that person is dead.

in my opinion the person that failed his drug test just added in one of his buddies getting killed. All members should stay clean for the love of God it is your choice to join and serve so follow the rules or get the hell out.

 

[Deleted member 9665]

AMEN

But even more if you are tasked in Canada and do a mistake that injures a colleague is no more acceptable.

 

[x-zipperhead]

jonstarks, I sympathize with the ethical dilemma you are faced with.  There is no doubt this is very difficult and I am glad I do not find myself in a situation like yours.   However, I find this comment troubling if I understand it correctly;

I think there is a big difference between a couple guys you train with, or you find out some of your subordinates are engaging in this type of behaviour, then having a couple of your ncm buddies that you run into twice a year talk about what they were doing while training this year.

Are you suggesting that it is okay to show more leniency, in executing your duty, towards your " buddies " than to you peers or subordinates because your"buddies" are NCMS and you don't see them very often?  If so, I think you should perhaps re-think that idea. There should be no difference.   Even if they are not directly in your CoC they still pose a threat to whoever does have the misfortune to be working beside them. They are committing an offence and it is your duty to report them.

Good Luck

 

[poko]

Anybody know how much it cost to test a soldier?
They must use an outside agency!?

Drugs are bad ummmOK.

 

[sigtech]

AMEN

But even more if you are tasked in Canada and do a mistake that injures a colleague is no more acceptable.

True

Is Drug testing needed in the military , looks like but it shouldn't be.

Let's put it like this you join don't use........ if you have a problem with drugs get help there is help out there
I was just a little floored when I heard how many people got dinged from Gagetown....
I hope that at least some of them were false positives

btw fyi poppy seeds and alot of over the counter drugs can cause false positives
below are a few links regarding this:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp
http://www.collegegrad.com/jobsearch/24-2.shtml

 

[steve29]

Gents,

GO!!! has pointed out that .

Unfortunately, many COs wish that were the case.  Their hands are tied in most instances of drug use; the system strongly favours the alleged drug user over the chain of command.  The burden of proof that COs must satisfy to even order a test for cause, much less lay charges under the NDA, mean that drug users either must be caught "in flagrante delecto" by an authority figure or MPs during an investigation or idenfitied by a reliable witness with full detail including exact place, time, substance, eyewitnessed not hearsay. 

Usually, any misstep by the chain of command results in the 'case' being dismissed and no action being taken.  While COs have the option to remove drug users from deployments or positions of responsibility on suspicion until resolved by testing, the decision to place a soldier on C&P rests in Ottawa at DMCARM after a thorough, objective review of evidence and test results, including MO input and re-evaluation by further testing if test results are questionable.  The process takes time and career action for drug use is not taken lightly.  Drug testing for cause is also the responsibility of the unit chain of command, not the medical system - ask a medic - this is a command issue not a H Svcs Gp one.  For example, in Petawawa, UMSs will not take the lead in executing urine tests for drugs - this is done, in most units, by the duty staff or RPs.

Steve29, I am not sure you are getting the whole story in full detail.  Perhaps it has been enhanced to provide more smoking area street credibility.  In any case a test for cause cannot be ordered unless there are some pretty clear, legally accepted indicators of drug use to prove that a test for cause is required.

A public domain google search of "DAOD Drug Use" will direct you to the following: http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/DAOD/5019/3_e.asp which is an unclassified doc for all to see wrt CF Drug Control Policy. 

With regards to drug use, members are innocent until proven guilty and a concerted effort must be made by the chain of command to take action against drug users both in terms of career action and under the Code of Service Discipline.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms covers military personnel and admissibility of bodily fluids.  Google search on urine sample admissibility brings up several Supreme Court and other documents identifying the whys, wherefores  and legalities of ordering a urine sample without sufficient grounds.

As media releases have stated, long-overdue policy changes are coming to test deploying personnel. 

Hope this clears up some misconceptions.

No I always believe there are 3 sides to every story(his,theirs, and the truth )But I know this guy went through hell for 3 weeks. He was removed off of my DP3A a career course. Only missed a couple of days before he returned. After he was cleared he was called by mental health and told that the unit wanted him examined for an addictive personality. He had to get the DSM of the school to call to tell them he wouldn't be going he was found innocent before they would drop the whole thing.

Oh I am all for drug  testing by the way but you have to have people that know what they are doing looking after these things or peoples lives let alone their careers get messed up. Put his family through hell. I say do it but let the MO's handle it. My 2 cents

 

[poko]

I found the a site that list the price for testing
http://www.calgarylabservices.com/LabTests/Toxicology/Pricing.htm

 

[geo]

..... and before rumours get started, the drug test has to be conclusive

Gawd - there was so much speculation about the gagetown "bust" that it made my head spin.

 

[steve29]

..... and before rumours get started, the drug test has to be conclusive

Gawd - there was so much speculation about the gagetown "bust" that it made my head spin.

Well that is what I thought also, but you would be surprised. 

 

[GO!!!]

I'd hardly call that unreasonable. Civilian courts require similar information to get a conviction, the CF should not be held to a lower standard.

Usually, any misstep by the chain of command results in the 'case' being dismissed and no action being taken.

We pay the CoC alot of money and give them alot of training to ensure that these "missteps" do not happen. Are you stating that the CF legal system is too complicated for military leaders? These are just checks and balances, and in any event, there is an entire legal trade devoted to helping the CoC avoid any of the pitfalls associated with them. There is also the possibility, which you neglect to mention, that the accused may be innocent, a provision few military leaders seem to want to acknowledge, once an accusation is made in any CF legal proceedings.

While COs have the option to remove drug users from deployments or positions of responsibility on suspicion until resolved by testing, the decision to place a soldier on C&P rests in Ottawa at DMCARM after a thorough, objective review of evidence and test results, including MO input and re-evaluation by further testing if test results are questionable. 

How is this undesireable? How would you like to be wrongly accused and be dragged through the mud by an overzealous CoC eager to make an example of you? Is'nt the power to make a soldier utterly unemployable in the time while his guilt or innocence is ascetained enough?

The process takes time and career action for drug use is not taken lightly.  Drug testing for cause is also the responsibility of the unit chain of command, not the medical system - ask a medic - this is a command issue not a H Svcs Gp one.  For example, in Petawawa, UMSs will not take the lead in executing urine tests for drugs - this is done, in most units, by the duty staff or RPs.

So, as I said, COs have broad powers to test individuals on suspicion of drug use. I fail to see how the fact that the UMS will not do the testing for you is even an issue. If you want a test, you must order your subordinates to collect it.

Many of your statements here are not related to the powers the CoC has in dealing with suspected and confirmed users, they are related to the ease of which they are investigated and punished. I personally don't think it should be easy to ruin soldier's careers and lives without due cause, and if the Adj has to do a bit more paperwork, and the Duty Sgt has to watch me pee in a cup, that's discipline in the 21st century. My job is'nt easy either.

Also, unless I am mistaken, while disciplinary action may not be taken in many cases, administrative action can be. This can be up to and including a release from the CF - so I really have a tough time wih your ascertation that COs powers are insufficient.

A CO may order a drug test; on suspicion of use, someone with a previous documented case of use, an individual on C&P, or blanket testing. Those individuals may be grounded (and all trade related equivalencies), removed from positions of authority, pulled off courses, deployments and career training while their guilt or innocence is ascertained, and once a medical professional has reviewed the results, the CO may take administrative action to kick someone out of the military.

How much more power does a CO require? What improvements to this system would you make?

 

[Kat Stevens]

So, if a troop is accused, tested, career restricted, folded, spindled, and mutilated by the system, for 6 months to a year and then exonerated does he have access to any kind of recourse?  Or does he just get a "sorry old bean, nothing personal, ruck up and drive on"?  I know it would leave a (even more than usual) bitter taste in my mouth.

 

[GO!!!]

105,

<Sigh>

Something I need to work on is my overly confrontational tone - I was'nt fending off a percieved attack - just a bad habit I have. Don't read too much into my tone!

I agree with the gist of what you are saying - I also agree with drug testing for all levels of the CF, especially prior to deployments.

Although I realise that DMCARM has the final say in most matters of at the higher end of the disciplinary/administrative action spectrum, I am now a bit confused as to your take on it - I believe that COs powers in the area of drug testing are sufficient, and that the ocean of paperwork associated with it provides a "check and balance" in and of itself. Is this your position as well?

Finally, I read the QR+O reference on authority to test for drugs, and it corresponds with your ascertation that blanket testing is unconstitutional (my interpretation).

I was tested along with the rest of the unit and supporting elements for an upcoming deployment - a policy I agree with. But how is testing the whole deploying group constitutional, while testing a formed unit is not?

 

[KevinB]

Its not unconstitutional -- the SCoC has ruled on that -- Its an AJAG who would  :-\ probably fail the piss test who had that part of the QR&O inserted...

 

[Loachman]

So how much of a drug problem is there, really, that would warrant random general testing?

Are people showing up to work on Monday morning unfit for duty? How many? How often?

Are people deploying overseas unfit for duty? How many? How often?

Are there instances that people here have witnessed where a hazard existed because of somebody's drug use? How many? How often?

I fail to see a need for this unless there is a real "threat" - an imagined one does not justify the effort, expense, negative aspects of false accusations, negative media reaction when there are negative or questionable results, and possible violations of rights. And - Torlyn (I believe you were the one that mentioned this) - what specific Charter-guaranteed rights and freedoms do we sign away on enrolment? None come to my mind, and none were listed on my enrolment documents.

We have a guaranteed freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. If a search warrant is required to search my house and seize property as evidence, and an information must be sworn before a judge or JP to secure that warrant in order to justify it, why should a seizure of my bodily fluids require any less justification? That, after all, is at least as invasive, and more so to some (but clearly not all here).

If military property on any given base is discovered missing, should all CF members living within the geographic area be expected to throw open their houses to the MPs to prove that they "have nothing to hide"?

For those that state such things as "if you are not using, then you have nothing to fear", would you be willing to open your house at random times with no notice for police inspections just because you have no stolen goods or grow ops located therein?

Rights are protected, and need to be protected, for good and valid reasons. If society keeps on diluting them in the cause of expediency (technology allows us to test for drug use, so we shall, technology allows us to monitor e-mail and telephone conversations, so we shall. technology allows us to place listening devices into all homes to detect spousal abuse and automatically alert the authorities, so we shall, technology allows us to implant monitoring devices in all citizens to track their whereabouts to see if they were near a crime scene, so we shall) then we will be entrapped within an Orwellian society in a few more years. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and vigorously defended. Random drug testing crosses that line. What follows next?

I have become exceedingly rights-conscious over the past couple of decades in my part of the fight against successive rounds of "gun control" legislation. One of the major irritants of that is the expectation of the government that law-abiding citizens should constantly have to prove their "law-abidingness", or are otherwise to be considered criminals.

I am in a safety-oriented business: flying. I have no interest in being anywhere near anybody not fit for flying or flying support duties because of any level of impairment, chemical or otherwise (fatigue, illness, stress, distraction, etcetera), and neither does anybody else that I know. And chemical for us includes legal prescription and over-the-counter medication not approved by a flight surgeon, as flying-related factors (supplemental oxygen, reduced air pressure, acceleration forces, unusual motions etcetera) may amplify or cause unexpected side-effects. I have never seen the need for random testing within my work environment, however, and still don't. Despite bazillions of "intensive" parties in the past, I've never seen anything but alcohol used, and everybody was particularly careful to insure that they were fit by the next working day. Chances are, somewhere, sometime, an aircrew member has been busted for drug use, but I am not aware of a single one over the course of my 26 years of flying-related experience.

Testing when there is reason for suspicion, and as part of an accident, is another issue. My observer and I gave blood and urine samples following an accident several years ago and neither of us had any objection to that. It was always an understanding that such was automatic as part of a flight safety investigation. It's not purely for drugs and alcohol, either, but also for a wide variety of potential cause factors such as hypoglycaemia and carbon monoxide etcetera. Likewise, we have annual aircrew medical exams during which blood and urine samples are freely given. To the best of my knowledge, these are not tested for drug use, but I would not object to that.

I am definitely NOT in favour of random, pre-deployment, or general testing. To me, it is an indication of lack of trust and a cop-out. Leaders are supposed to know their subordinates. If a leader does not perceive that subordinates have a drug (or other) problem, then it's because the leader is not doing his/her job, or there is no problem (and use does not equal impairment).

My commissioning scrolls both state that Her Majesty trusts me. If my Sovereign does, then my superiors should, too, unless I give them cause not to. I, in turn, trust my peers and subordinates until they give me reason not to (and none so far have).

Not trusting others dehumanizes and demeans them. Such an untrusting environment is not one that I would care to live and operate in.

And that is fundamental to me: an order to submit to a random or pre-deployment drug test is a clear statement by the person who orders it that he/she does not trust me, whether that is the specific intent or not.

 

[Jay4th]

I am with you on the erosion of rights with regard to firearms law.  You are right out of it however on pre-deployment testing.  We are doing it to PREVENT an accident.  Use may not equal impairment but it does equal flagrant violation of Canadian and military law.  Its screening plain and simple, just like a 13km BFT or a polygraph test to join the police.  Trust has nothing to do with it.  Often we do not have sufficient time with our soldiers due to re-org and orbat changes to just know when someone is using.  Test everyone. Test often.

 

[Loachman]

And you can randomly search members' houses to detect and deter theft of military property as well. If one is going to search bodies and seize fluids, why not do that, too? Theft is also against Canadian and military law. Random house searches could also be called screening - in fact the Firearms Act tries to justify unreasonable search and seizure by linking it to "safety" and referring to it as "inspection" and "taking of samples" in a feeble attempt to disguise it from what it is.

Provide me with specific examples of incidents where drug use contributed to accidents or other incidents on duty. How many training injuries and deaths and how much property damage can be linked to illicit drug use? How many incidents have occurred in Afghanistan that can be linked to illicit drug use? Prove to me that there is a real problem, beyond the purely legal aspect (and which should be dealt with exactly the way that any other crime would be). Show me how implying that everybody is a druggie is beneficial. Show me how many accidents can be prevented by drug testing. Justify unreasonable search and seizure.

Demonstrating fitness, as in a BFT, is one thing, but a positive drug test does not prove unfitness. It only indicates a likelihood of past exposure. It cannot provide any indication of impairment or unfitness, which is what you are claiming as justification.

I am not sure if any court has considered the reverse-onus aspect of this, in that all are accused and must prove innocence by passing a drug test.

And that is on top of the lack of proof that testing provides any real benefit. Polygraphs are not accurate enough to constitute admissible evidence in court, and that is one of the reasons that I disagree with their use for any other purpose. Trust is the other, and, as far as I am concerned, the greater.

There are numerous methods that one could use to ensure that people never do wrong, like universal constant video surveillance, e-mail and telephone monitoring, implanted transponders, and, in the future, others I am sure. The courts have already balked at universal fingerprinting and DNA sampling as invasions of privacy.

What other spurious and invasive measures are you willing to accept? Should there be cameras in quarters to catch illegal/unsafe activities? Just in the halls and common areas, or sleeping areas as well? Should every man's DNA be on file to prove that they are not rapists? After all, if it prevents or solves just one rape, it's worth it (to paraphrase the Lieberals' attempt to justify the Firearms Act, also claimed to be about safety).

 

[paracowboy]

go buy more tinfoil.  :

 

[KevinB]

Demonstrating fitness, as in a BFT, is one thing, but a positive drug test does not prove unfitness. It only indicates a likelihood of past exposure. It cannot provide any indication of impairment or unfitness, which is what you are claiming as justification.

Umh -- so what about a Breath-a-lyser?  I guess that does mean impairment either...  :