Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)

[KevinB]

Thanks.

Down here it's pretty easy to get a sample or convict them for refusal -- either civy side, or Mil side.

Plus most refusals get sprayed or tased due to belligerent behaviours.

 

[McG]

Twenty years of studies confirm, the stuff is bad for your body and mind.  It does not matter what civi side does, we do not need this allowed within the CAF.

20 years of marijuana research shows ill effects of chronic use: review
Josh Elliott, CTVNews.ca
Published Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:57PM EDT

A 20-year medical review shows regular marijuana use won’t kill you, but it will increase your chances of developing psychotic symptoms or addiction to the drug – especially if you start smoking at a young age.
A review published Monday in the scientific journal Addiction seeks to summarize all that doctors have learned about marijuana in the last 20 years. According to the latest research, marijuana use can impair people’s ability to drive and produce a number of adverse effects in regular users, including addiction and various psychological disorders.

Regular smokers who start using the drug in their teenage years are even more at risk of developing these adverse effects, according to review author Wayne Hall.

Hall, a World Health Organization expert advisor on addiction, reviewed cannabis research since 1993 for his article titled “What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?” Hall’s article defines a regular cannabis user as someone who smokes marijuana nearly every day.

According to the studies Hall reviewed, regular cannabis users face a one-in-10 chance of developing a dependency on the drug. However, that number goes up to one-in-six for users who started smoking regularly in their teenage years.

Hall says cannabis has become more potent over the years as people have turned to cannabis plants with higher levels of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Addiction cases have also gone up over that time. “The number of cannabis users seeking help to quit or control their cannabis use has increased during the past two decades,” Hall says in the article.Regular marijuana users increase their chances of developing psychotic symptoms and disorders like schizophrenia, particularly if they have a family history of mental illness, Hall found. Users who start smoking in their adolescence are twice as likely to develop a disorder, he said.

For people already at risk of developing psychosis, marijuana can bring those symptoms on sooner, Hall found. The drug essentially makes it easier for psychosis to come to the surface in people who show a tendency toward it.

Hall’s review also found teenagers who use marijuana regularly are more likely to develop an intellectual impairment. Hall says according to a number of studies, regular teenaged marijuana users fare worse in school than their non-using peers. “Studies showed that the earlier the age of first cannabis use, the lower the chances of completing school and undertaking post-secondary training,” Hall’s review said.

Hall also concludes that regular cannabis use causes a person’s IQ to drop over time. “The decline in IQ was largest in those who began using cannabis in adolescence and continued near-daily use through adulthood,” he said

Hall says there is almost no chance of someone dying from a marijuana overdose, since even a very heavy user cannot take in enough THC to reach lethal levels.

However, marijuana can still be deadly if a user gets behind the wheel of a car.

Hall says marijuana impairs reaction time, hand-eye coordination and cognitive abilities, making it difficult for a driver to judge and react to situations quickly. “Cannabis users who drive while intoxicated approximately double their risk of a car crash,” Hall said.

That risk is even higher when marijuana is combined with alcohol.

Babies whose mothers smoked marijuana while pregnant showed a number of adverse effects, according to the studies in Hall’s review.

Hall says babies born to pot-smoking mothers often have a slightly below-normal birth weight, and tend to be more easily startled. Their eyesight develops slower than it does for other babies, and later in life, they are more likely to show “delinquency and problem behaviour,” he said.

By grade school, children of marijuana-smoking mothers often fare poorly in reading and spelling tests, Hall’s review found

Hall’s review of cannabis research turned up a number of other long-term health issues linked to the drug, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and increased risk of heart attack. “The cardiovascular risks of cannabis smoking are probably highest in older adults, but younger adults with undiagnosed cardiovascular disease may also be at risk,” Hall said.

However, Hall says it’s tougher to link marijuana to lung cancer because many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, which is known to cause lung cancer.

Hall says marijuana is the third-most common drug addiction in Canada, behind only alcohol and tobacco. He estimates between one and two per cent of adults per year will be affected by marijuana addiction, and up to eight per cent of adults will deal with marijuana dependency in their lifetime.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/20-years-of-marijuana-research-shows-ill-effects-of-chronic-use-review-1.2043868

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

MAke the troops piss more often, and fire those who fail pour encouragez les autres.

If that actually happened the CAF would be in the hurt locker. Anecdotal evidence only mind you.

 

[cryco]

I'm just curious, is pot smoking a problem in the CAF? Has it caused issues with behavior or performance?
Is there an anonymous movement trying to get the CAF to OK pot smoking?
I couldn't care less if pot was legalized or not, but I sure hope it would never be permitted within the CAF or any other group that drives heavy machinery/vehicles and handles weapons on a regular basis.

 

[brihard]

If that actually happened the CAF would be in the hurt locker. Anecdotal evidence only mind you.

Would it be embarrassing? Absolutely. But in the long term it would be to our benefit to increase the deterrence of drug use, as well as to 'catch' more guys and get them into treatment before their drug use becomes worse. If hitting more guys with piss tests has a down-the-road impact on reducing CF members who catch criminal charges for substance related idiocy like driving high or getting coked up and committing an assault, I'm all for it.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'd love to see drug dogs down the hallways of the shacks and in suspicious PMQ's, however I think if every member convicted of a drug charge were released we'd have a skeleton crew on many bases.

 

[Edward Campbell]

We don't need to release for drug use ... we need to reform, as in the 1970s, we began to reform people who abused alcohol. I'm not sure we ever took the reform far enough, but I can guarantee you, with 100% certainly, that the reform programme included medically supervised treatments and release was one possible outcome, and it was used, at least once.

We do need to punish drug trafficking severely. Punishments for trafficking or for possession in amounts that indicate an intent to traffic must be exemplary: 60 days in the Service  Prison followed by months or years in civilian prison and release during that process.

There are several lifestyle choices which the CF should treat as problems: alcohol and drug use are amongst them. How much is too much? I have no idea, but I have read some good ideas and some disturbing data here. The fact is, however, that we you CF members are not like everyone else and they can and should be treated differently ... to meet the needs of the service.

 

[The_Falcon]

Would it be embarrassing? Absolutely. But in the long term it would be to our benefit to increase the deterrence of drug use, as well as to 'catch' more guys and get them into treatment before their drug use becomes worse. If hitting more guys with piss tests has a down-the-road impact on reducing CF members who catch criminal charges for substance related idiocy like driving high or getting coked up and committing an assault, I'm all for it.

A good place to start is early, ie in the recruiting/basic training phase.  Why we don't piss test applicants is beyond me.  I mean most assume we do already, it's actually more of a surprise to them when they find out we don't.

 

[DAA]

A good place to start is early, ie in the recruiting/basic training phase.  Why we don't piss test applicants is beyond me.  I mean most assume we do already, it's actually more of a surprise to them when they find out we don't.

Just a guess but I do believe it has something to do with the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms". 

Urinalysis at the enrolment level only serves to validate what the applicant has voluntarily disclosed during the recruiting process, so given the odds, it really isn't worth the cost.

If you know or suspect someone, the easiest and most simple solution.......CFTPO Tasking to a deployed OP, will resolve it pretty quickly.  Not what the system is designed for but then again, some of us, can become very creative when we need to be.

PS - and the dead give aways when they do get called in for whatever the reason..........

1.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I was at a party/concert this past weekend and there were people around me smoking up.  I didn't but I probably inhaled some second hand smoke.....      :facepalm:
2.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I eat ALOT of poppy sead bagels from Tim Hortons and I heard that this can result in a false positive result and I don't want that on my records....    :facepalm:
3.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I've been taking medication X and I heard that this can result in a false positive result......    :facepalm:

If prior to providing the sample, they start coming up with reasons why it could be a "positive", then the writing is on the wall.

 

[Tibbson]

I'd love to see drug dogs down the hallways of the shacks and in suspicious PMQ's, however I think if every member convicted of a drug charge were released we'd have a skeleton crew on many bases.

Unfortunately there are well established legal principles and case law decisions that prohibit the use of dogs in such a manor without a warrant.  In order to get that warrant there has to be sufficient information to have one granted.  Long gone are the days when you could take a dog through the halls and common areas of barracks, or even workplaces, and have it be usable in any fashion....legally or even administratively.

Combine that with the fact the CAF will not fund any sort of working dog program.  Its just not in the budget.  Ranks, buttons and bows are more important I guess.

 

[KevinB]

Run dog training in the Shacks for training.
  Dog get a hit - then you have PC for a Warrant.
You can run hygiene inspections in the barracks, why not dog's.

The CF owns the barracks - they can do whatever the fuck they want to in them --if someone wants to cry - then make a condition of living on base...

  I highly doubt the CoR&F was designed to allow druggies a safe haven in government service (well actually on reflection PET was a bit of a pot head...)
 
We piss test all our employees - we also invite the local LE, SO, and State Troopers to use our facility for K9 practice (we are a DOD facility so we can search as well without warrant). 

 

[ModlrMike]

PS - and the dead give aways when they do get called in for whatever the reason..........

1.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I was at a party/concert this past weekend and there were people around me smoking up.  I didn't but I probably inhaled some second hand smoke.....      :facepalm:
2.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I eat ALOT of poppy sead bagels from Tim Hortons and I heard that this can result in a false positive result and I don't want that on my records....    :facepalm:
3.  I'm a bit worried.  You see, I've been taking medication X and I heard that this can result in a false positive result......    :facepalm:

If prior to providing the sample, they start coming up with reasons why it could be a "positive", then the writing is on the wall.

I agree with your last point, and a great deal of skepticism needs to be used when dealing with those making excuses. Just for information sake, here's some reality applied to those excuses:

1. A well discounted claim - you would have to sit in an environment so thick with smoke you couldn't see. Added to which, the elimination half life of THC is 5-8 days detectability in urine for single use; 15-30 days for chronic use.

2. While according to this [1] study it is theoretically possible it is highly improbable given how well the seeds are cleaned; retest provisions apply. Morphine, Codeine, heroin, and opiate analogues are detectable for 2-4 days after single use.

3. Easy enough to verify by having the member report to the BSurg.

If a member stepped forward and said they were going to fail for either number 2 or 3, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and deal with them under the existing regulations regarding admission of use. If they claimed second hand smoke my response would be markedly less than charitable.

[1] Urinary Concentrations of Morphine and Codeine After Consumption of Poppy Seeds

I agree with Edward that eduction and rehabilitation for users is the appropriate first step, with an escalating response for treatment failures. Trafficking on the other hand needs to be vigorously and ruthlessly punished so as to serve as an example to others.

 

[Rifleman62]

Question. Around 1978 or so, a RCMP drug dog was shot in the RCHA Officers Quarters in Shilo. The officer got off the charge. True or not?

 

[DAA]

Trafficking on the other hand needs to be vigorously and ruthlessly punished so as to serve as an example to others.

False positives do come up from time to time and it generally results in the requirement for another test.  But on to your comment above and it's a rather humourous story........

Back then, there was a book, I called it the "Red Book", which provided CO's with guidance on how to deal with drug related charges.  The Red Book, even went to far as to "spell out" exactly what the punishment would be, based on the crime (ie; Use, Possession, Trafficking, etc, etc).  It ranged from 30, 60, 90 days in DB if found guilty.

Mid 80's, 4 guys are sitting in the shacks smoking up.  Duh!!!  Someone reported it to the MP's who responded and caught them redhanded.  Off they go, they get separated and questioned.  None of them had any idea just where the MJ came from or who provided it.....it was just magically there.  Guy 1, 2 and 3 stick with the story "It was mine, I picked it up, took a toke and put it back down in the ashtray.  I never passed it to anyone and I didn't see anyone else smoke it."  That was all they would say or admit to.  But guy # 4 decides he's smarter and is going to beat the charge so he says "Yup, I was there obviously.  Buddy was smoking the stuff and passed it over to me.  I don't smoke that crap, so I just passed it on to the guy beside me.  But I never used it."

Guy 1, 2 and 3, guilty as charged.  Red Book punishment table for "use" was 30 days DB.  Guy # 4, guilty as charged.  Red Book punishment for "trafficking" was either 60 or 90 days DB.    :rofl:

 

[TCM621]

Run dog training in the Shacks for training.
  Dog get a hit - then you have PC for a Warrant.
You can run hygiene inspections in the barracks, why not dog's.

The CF owns the barracks - they can do whatever the frig they want to in them --if someone wants to cry - then make a condition of living on base...

  I highly doubt the CoR&F was designed to allow druggies a safe haven in government service (well actually on reflection PET was a bit of a pot head...)
 
We piss test all our employees - we also invite the local LE, SO, and State Troopers to use our facility for K9 practice (we are a DOD facility so we can search as well without warrant).

Everyone entering a military base consents to search and seizure. Surely, that applies to CF members as well.

My biggest concern would be if pot was legalized but stayed illegal in the forces.  Could you be charged if you spouse had pot in your PMQ? It would be shitty if you could but if not, then people could just claim those plants are my wife's.

If pot becomes legal, I think the only way to handle it would be based on impairment. And there should be some mechanism which would empower the CoC to march a suspected user straight to the pee test if they believe they smoked up before work.

Now in the interests of full disclosure, I have gone to work still drunk from the night before, so that is a little hypocritical.

 

[Brasidas]

Everyone entering a military base consents to search and seizure. Surely, that applies to CF members as well.

My biggest concern would be if pot was legalized but stayed illegal in the forces.  Could you be charged if you spouse had pot in your PMQ? It would be shitty if you could but if not, then people could just claim those plants are my wife's.

If pot becomes legal, I think the only way to handle it would be based on impairment. And there should be some mechanism which would empower the CoC to march a suspected user straight to the pee test if they believe they smoked up before work.

Now in the interests of full disclosure, I have gone to work still drunk from the night before, so that is a little hypocritical.

I know chronic users who never smoke up before work. They do it every evening, as part of their social routine, and leave it at that. They would fail a pee test, as THC is always in their system.

To the best of my knowledge, such a person may drive and operate machinery safely and without impairment. Screening will show them as positive for THC. To be certain that its not impairing them, you'd need to forbid the use of MJ regardless of whether it is legal for most of the population.

Did I make any mistakes in there?

 

[The_Falcon]

I know chronic users who never smoke up before work. They do it every evening, as part of their social routine, and leave it at that. They would fail a pee test, as THC is always in their system.

To the best of my knowledge, such a person may drive and operate machinery safely and without impairment. Screening will show them as positive for THC. To be certain that its not impairing them, you'd need to forbid the use of MJ regardless of whether it is legal for most of the population.

Did I make any mistakes in there?

Really.....so of course you would have zero issue letting them drive you (or your kids if you have any) around?

 

[Brasidas]

Really.....so of course you would have zero issue letting them drive you (or your kids if you have any) around?

No issue whatsoever.

There's a difference between a pot user who wakes up and smokes and a pot user who will do so in the company of their friends in a relaxed setting.

 

[ModlrMike]

No issue whatsoever.

There's a difference between a pot user who wakes up and smokes and a pot user who will do so in the company of their friends in a relaxed setting.

No, there's not. Long term marijuana use is associated with increased short term memory loss, decreased ability to form new memories, and increased risk taking, in addition to other detriments. The time of day consumption occurs has nothing to do with the performance degradation. If you want I can post the studies so that you can read them yourself.

Not the type of person I want driving my kids, let alone my AFV or anything else for that mater.

 

[TCM621]

No issue whatsoever.

There's a difference between a pot user who wakes up and smokes and a pot user who will do so in the company of their friends in a relaxed setting.

True. But if that user shows signs of impairment, then the drug test would only be a confirmation. And I know a hell of a lot of people who will smoke a joint in situations where they would never, ever drink. Like before work, while driving, etc. Among a growing population, pot is seen as perfectly fine to use at anytime.