Previous drug use question 2002 - 2018 [Merged]

[Loachman]

If I only knew who your recruiter was, I'd pay them good money to ask that question.

 

[Jed]

I expect the CAF to have a conservative attitude towards drugs.  I believe that abstinence from psychoactive drugs is the best policy in the military and civilian life.  It is self-evident to me that I perform much better when I abstain from any intoxicating substance (this would include alcohol but not necessarily caffeine). 

My job is not to try to educate a recruiter about drugs and I would only say something like what follows if I were unable to avoid the topic.

Suppose a recruiter asked something like, "Don't you know that LSD stays in your spinal column forever and damages chromosomes?" 

I would have to give an honest answer, which would be something like, "LSD use does have risks but the idea that LSD stays in the body or spinal column forever is a myth.  The evidence suggesting LSD damages chromosomes does not stand up to scrutiny."

What kind of scientist would I be if I changed my answers just because I think someone won't like them? 
....

Answer: You would be a climatologist.  8) [

 

[GAP]

:rofl:

 

[PuckChaser]

Answer: You would be a climatologist.  8) [

 

[OrganishChemiker]

If I only knew who your recruiter was, I'd pay them good money to ask that question.

Well, at the very least it would give me a good story.  Some of these myths are so strongly believed that they seem self-evident.  I think his jaw would just drop open.

More than likely it won't come up.  Hopefully it is so far in the past that it won't really matter.  I have not used many drugs prohibited by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and most of that was 14 years ago or longer.

Jed: I'm not a climatologist.  I think when it comes to climate the difficulty in making accurate predictions is that the Earth is not a simple system.  Climate can reach a dynamic equilibrium and then become chaotic.  It's hard to predict and models have to be constantly refined.

I like to argue, not in the sense of screaming back and forth at another person, but having a rational argument about something which we disagree on.  I'm a bit iconoclastic maybe.  It is unfortunate that funding sources can cause conflicts of interest and bias in science.  Good scientists should always be trying to set up experiments that would prove their hypotheses wrong.  Look at the pharmaceutical industry and how they don't have to disclose all of their data.  A pharmaceutical firm could do 100 clinical trials on a drug they are developing and find that only 2 of those trials gave the results they want to see.  They then only publish those 2 trials.  I think that is dishonest: it is lying by omission.

Then, of course, some pharmaceutical firms do dishonestly market their products, such Pfizer's marketing of Neurontin (gabapentin) for unapproved (i.e. "off-label") uses.  Or look at Purdue Pharma's dishonest marketing of Oxycontin, the time-release version of oxycodone.  They claimed that their product would be less addictive than immediate release opioid drugs simply because it would not hit the user all at once.  I don't know how MDs could have believed such a thing.  Pharmaceutical chemists have been trying to separate the euphoric properties of opioids from their analgesic properties since the elucidation of morphine's structure, well over a century ago, and nobody has been successful.  Any drug that acts as an agonist at the mu opioid receptor will cause analgesia and euphoria.  Suddenly Purdue Pharma comes along and claims their powerful narcotic product might be less addictive just because it is a time release formulation.  I just don't see how MDs could have believed that.  Indiscriminate prescribing of Oxycontin has been a big part in causing the heroin epidemic that the USA (and Canada) are facing.  Purdue Pharma paid a $600 million fine.  I'm sure that's peanuts compared to the profit they made from Oxycontin which came on the market in 1996.

My apologies if this is too off-topic.  I'm not trying to derail the thread.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Man, how you handle the interview and facetime with your recruiter is up to you.  I read your posts and Sheldon Cooper's image pops up in my head.  You goal in your recruiting it not to educate the recruiting staff, it is to get selected and sworn in.  Right? 

This is not complicated.  You will be asked about prior drug use.  Be honest in your answer, but not 'educating' about if LSD stays in your spinal cord or what it tasted like in your personal urine sample.  Just answer the questions asked, honestly.  You will likely be asked if you understand there is a zero tolerance policy for drug use in the CAF and asked if you agree to not use if you are part of the CAF.

Recruiters are busy people with more than your file to deal with.  I suggest making things are easy as possible and not coming off like...Sheldon Cooper.

:2c:

 

[DAA]

I have been looking through this thread and cannot see the answer to my question and I also tried to the search function, so I hope this isn't redundant.
I'm applying for direct entry officer.  I have an upcoming aptitude and personality test.  I've seen a few people say that after the aptitude tests, questionnaires about prior drug use are handed out.  Is this still done?
I have no problem discussing prior drug use in detail with a  CAF doctor.  I understand that is part of the process and I am fine with it.  I am uncomfortable with the idea of being given a form with a whole bunch of questions about what I've used and when and then just handing that form off to someone (who, a recruiter?).  Can anyone offer any insight into what reaction I might get if I say that I can't answer the questions on that form right then?  Or do they even hand out those forms after the aptitude tests any more?

Yes, this process is still done.  Upon completion of your CFAT/TSD you will be required to complete the NPD Form (Non-Prescribed Drug Use) just like every other applicant.  The form is a "screening tool" and not a means for open discussion on the topic.  Your answers will be reviewed by a Recruiter and the form will be filed away.  You won't be discussing your answers to the questionnaire unless you are scheduled for an interview with an MCC (Officer) at a later date or if the need arises and it won't be an indepth interrogation.

Good luck!

 

[OrganishChemiker]

Man, how you handle the interview and facetime with your recruiter is up to you.  I read your posts and Sheldon Cooper's image pops up in my head.  You goal in your recruiting it not to educate the recruiting staff, it is to get selected and sworn in.  Right? 

That's what I said (that my goal isn't to educate anyone or go in and start arguments) and I know I worried about it too much.  I came up with a scenario that is so unlikely to happen.

As for Sheldon, I cannot stand that show.  I've only ever come across two scientists who reminded me of people on that show.  Actually, the reminded me more of the three nerdy roommates Homer Simpson had when he went back to college.

Alright, alright, thanks for everyone's help.  It's fine.  I get it.  No worries.  We'll see what happens.

 

[kungfupanda]

I have noticed a common theme on this thread...I have searched both with in army.ca and Google searched for my answer. 

I have completed up to my interview and am awaiting my reliability check to clear to get merit listed.

Even with the no drugs policy do you guys find there is still a lot of illegal drug use in the cf?

I'm asking cause I am tired of getting stuck working with addicts that slipped through the cracks. Just wondering if it is better on the military side? Or a big subculture..

Thanks.

 

[ModlrMike]

I don't think that "a lot" is an accurate measure, more like some. According to this article from 2014, urine testing revealed about 5.5% positive for at least one illicit drug. There were almost 4200 samples tested, with 279 positive results, so I think a valid sample size. That being said, there appeared to be a concentration in a single geographic region, which may have skewed the results.

The 2008 CF Health and Lifestyle Survey put the rate at less than 10 percent, based on anonymous disclosure, which matched the US rate. I don't have access to a more current version.

No zero tolerance programme ever achieves zero. Rest assured that we don't have legions of addicts at work that you have to watch out for. In addition, take comfort that those who use are quite regularly found out and dealt with.

Notwithstanding the above, I think alcohol is the most widely used substance in the CF. In any regard, it is everyone's responsibility to look out for each other and help folks who may be going down the wrong road.

 

[kungfupanda]

Thank you for the response! That makes sense, I am glad that it is proactively dealt with. From my own experience on the civilian side unless they are doing it right in front of supervision it never gets dealt with until someone else get injured or causes costly equipment damage.

I applied for armoured crewman and am scared of getting stuck in a 2 ton hot box instead of a 2 ton fart box. That would make the job a bit less enjoyable..

 

[PuckChaser]

If people are smoking dope at work close to weapons and ammunition, you will need to take that up with your chain of command, it's unacceptable.

 

[eitan67]

August 20th I stopped using marijuana, after smoking for almost a year regularly and going to start my Policing Foundation course (in order to apply to MP) in September 6th and will finish it on November. Always wondering if I quit too late fearing that they will not accept me on the first interview telling me to come back next year or whatever.
Any answers are appreciated!

 

[PuckChaser]

Is it you, or your "buddy"?

A buddy of mine just stopped to smoke regularly marijuana after a year or two because he wants to start hes career in the military.
Now is like in the RCMP where you have to be clean for two years then apply or different in the military where they judge for themselves if you are a good fit?

You quit for 6 days, so I'll forgive your shortened attention span that prevented you from reading the 46+ pages here on past drug use and how long you need to be clean for before applying.

 

[eitan67]

Is it you, or your "buddy"?

You quit for 6 days, so I'll forgive your shortened attention span that prevented you from reading the 46+ pages here on past drug use and how long you need to be clean for before applying.

Ha, yeah its me and my buddy.

 

[Loachman]

Seriously, read through the thread. There's no need to add another page or more of the same thing. This goes for any other question(s) that you may have. We've got most things covered fairly well.

 

[Cooldude87]

Hi gents,fl for the past 6 months I've been experienmenting with al-lad. The drug is legal and produces LSD like effects when taken dose is over 100ug. I would take about 10ug every other day. I never felt high or loaded, the rocks never glowed but it did smooth out the cracks and just generally made my day much smoother overall.  I was hardly depressed but the best description i have is like an antidepressant. Should I disclose this and how would I mark it on the drug sheet? I'd hate be labeled a serial drug abuser when the substance is legal and the intoxication level is similar to drinking 1/10 of a shot of vodka.

Other than that and the once a month weed use I've been clean and haven't touched any drugs since high school 6 years ago or so.

 

[George Wallace]

Hi gents,fl for the past 6 months I've been experienmenting with al-lad. The drug is legal and produces LSD like effects when taken dose is over 100ug. I would take about 10ug every other day. I never felt high or loaded, the rocks never glowed but it did smooth out the cracks and just generally made my day much smoother overall.  Should I disclose this and how would I mark it on the drug sheet? I'd hate be labeled a serial drug abuser when the substance is legal and the intoxication level is similar to drinking 1/10 of a shot of vodka.

A drug is usually considered "LEGAL" when it is prescribed by a physician.  Just because a drug may be "LEGAL", if you are taking it without a prescription or otherwise abusing the method of administering it, it may stray into the "ILLEGAL" zone.  In some/most/all cases, this can also be said for non-prescription drugs sold over the counter, should you not use them as intended.  As you are "EXPERIMENTING" with it; it seems that you are illegally abusing the administration of a legal drug.  Best bet:  Be upfront and honest and disclose what you are doing.  They will determine how to handle it.

 

[ModlrMike]

IMHO, AL-LAD would probably be classed as a prohibited drug under Schedule VI of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In particular, Lysergic Acid (Note 1 - includes synthetic and natural forms).

Just the same, not illegal =/= legal.

Come clean and put it in the illicit drugs portion of the questionnaire.

CDSA Schedules

 

[Cooldude87]

That's disheartening to hear. I know how government  bureaucracy works. I've taken this drug 100 times the dosage or application won't matteer. I'm probably blacklisted for life. I'll try my luck with the reserves I imagine the standards are lower.