Previous drug use question 2002 - 2018 [Merged]

[PMedMoe]

I agree with the blind testing of everyone, not just those going on tour.
I was told by a Lab Tech that results would do not go on one's medical file as any repercussions for positive results are strictly administrative.  I guess that means maybe it would go on one's Pers file?  ???

 

[British Army]

"It was also reported that there were plans to expand the drug testing program to include blind testing, which would encompass the entire Canadian Forces, not just soldiers slated for duty in Afghanistan."

That's good to hear; this is method of testing which we employ over here. I must have been tested at random a dozen or so times. Although blind testing is good I still believe it should be used in conjunction with regular mandatory testing and not as the alternative.  :clubinhand:

 

[gcclarke]

I agree with the blind testing of everyone, not just those going on tour.
I was told by a Lab Tech that results would do not go on one's medical file as any repercussions for positive results are strictly administrative.  I guess that means maybe it would go on one's Pers file?  ???

Waaaiiit a minute. So there's no way that a positive lab result for drug use can be used in disciplinary action? This smells fishy to me. I can understand it possibly not being a medical issue, but methinks that the code of service discipline has something to say on the matter.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The blind testing is already being done. My Unit went through it a couple of months back. No word on results yet though. Maybe everyone passed? ;D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Waaaiiit a minute. So there's no way that a positive lab result for drug use can be used in disciplinary action? This smells fishy to me. I can understand it possibly not being a medical issue, but methinks that the code of service discipline has something to say on the matter.

Disciplinary action would be encompassed within the administrative actions, methinks.

 

[PMedMoe]

Waaaiiit a minute. So there's no way that a positive lab result for drug use can be used in disciplinary action? This smells fishy to me. I can understand it possibly not being a medical issue, but methinks that the code of service discipline has something to say on the matter.

Perhaps Obviously, I wasn't clear.  Positive results would be used for disciplinary action.  No results (negative or positive would be on medical docs as drug testing and the possible repercussions are purely administrative.  I think I'm trying to say that it may be difficult to do testing without the assistance of the medical folks as they may have to go through an outside agency for testing.

There is a guy deploying from here who is going with a group from Winnipeg.  He requires testing and as of a week ago, he has not been able to find out where/when/how he can get it done.  He is deploying in June.

 

[Occam]

Waaaiiit a minute. So there's no way that a positive lab result for drug use can be used in disciplinary action? This smells fishy to me. I can understand it possibly not being a medical issue, but methinks that the code of service discipline has something to say on the matter.

Two different testing programs in play here.

Deployments are Safety Sensitive Drug Testing, covered under QR&O 20.09.  Note B to that QR&O says "(B) Because the focus of this testing is deterrence and administrative action to reduce the danger to safety, paragraph (1) of article 20.15 (Disciplinary and Administrative Action) does not permit the results of the urine test to be used as evidence in any disciplinary proceedings against the member who was the subject of the test."

Blind testing is under QR&O 20.13, and is anonymous testing, as the word "blind" suggests.  No admin/discip action if you don't know who tested positive...

 

[mellian]

I am just amused that most of the discussion and issues of drug use surrounds mostly around pot than any other substance. Let alone alcohol, which on average is more abused than pot ever as from every stats I ever read and from all people I ever known.

So I am curious, how extensive is the testing and questionnaires for alcohol? I known people who have never done any illegal drugs, yet have abused alcohol, regularly getting intoxicated and in turn sometimes getting in trouble because of it. Meanwhile, those that I known who regularly smoke pot rarely get into as much trouble.

I have not drank alcohol until 3 years ago or so, and not in any serious quantities up until the past year (yay roller derby after parties!). I am 25 now, so pretty much been "straight edge" for majority of my life and way longer than average. Admitingly, I tried pot for the first time in the past year out of shear curiousity and while intoxicated, and personally do not know how anyone can get anything out of the stuff. I even tried it while completely sober out of further curiousity and experimentation, and I still do not know, as most it maybe does is make me hyper like any any sugar candy or chocolate would. Heck, out of all the times I tried, I was more likely to burn my throat with stuff than anything.

I understand that different people have different tolerances, and for some even just makes them sick, but even observing friends and others that I known from the stuff, which is many throughout my life since high school including current roommates (meaning bit hard to avoid it second hand wise even when I do not smoke it along with cigarettes), they are more affected and prone to stupidities or being off due to alcohol than pot. So if I get nailed for pot in my bloodstream and not because of alcohol, I would be pretty miffed.

Many in this thread that I read mentioned they never tried drugs, yet drink alcohol. Is it really any different from those who smoke pot? Harder drugs like shrooms, acid, cocaine, heroine, and etc I can understand, but pot? Seriously? I think any organizations or institutions who are concerned about pot should be just as concerned about alcohol, as they are both just as effective in incapacitate someone to the same general degree, and usually worse for alcohol in some ways.

 

[George Wallace]

First off: Alcohol is not an illegal or restricted substance as the topic subject "drugs" are.

Second: One is questioned on their alcohol consumption on every Medical that they will have in the CF.

Third:  The affects of alcohol are easily observed.  There are physical affects on persons that can be easily tested and analysed.  People's muscles relax.  Their breath smells of alcohol.  Their pores ooze of alcohol.  The Police have instruments to measure the Blood Alcohol Levels of people suspected of drinking.

Fourthly:  Alcohol related Charges have sever career ramifications on members of the CF, often resulting in Termination of Service and a Criminal Record.  In some cases, Alcohol related Charges are more sever than Drug related ones.

 

[Jungle]

but pot? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. We don't need more pot-heads in our ranks. The policy is fine as it is; all CF members are aware of it, and know the consequences of consuming anyway. There is no excuse.

 

[KevinB]

FYI my current employer tests for drugs prior to hire, and random testing year round, plus immediate testing upon incidents.

  There are way better ways to get highs in life than drugs.

 

[ThadoS]

I use to Smoke pot.. Last time probably Dec 08, that was just once, before around the beginning of September
maybe in a 4 year span of 04-08, i'm perfectly clean, it's all i ever did... I rarely drink, I'm usually the friend that's the Dedicated Driver...
I smoked it for 4 years, i'm not very proud of it, I look down on it and i see how much of a potential killer it is, no good comes out of it.

Yet i'm a little worried about my interview (I have passed my CFAT) I was honest on the drug sheet, i wrote that i use to do it, i would just hate like hell for it to ruin my chances of becoming a Member of the Canadian Forces.

 

[the_girlfirend]

They just do not want you to lie about it... (if you can't be honest why would they hire you?)
You don't even need to defend yourself or justify it...
Most of us tried it, (I am very happy I did ;D) and now we are all clean...
We grew up, we are adults and we now have different ambitions...
That is it.

 

[X-mo-1979]

The blind testing is already being done. My Unit went through it a couple of months back. No word on results yet though. Maybe everyone passed? ;D

Don't count on that.
We were tested during the beginning of work up training.6 months later a few people were hauled off tour,after being in theater for 3-4 months.

So the guys who know they failed should still be sweating.

 

[PMedMoe]

Don't count on that.
We were tested during the beginning of work up training.6 months later a few people were hauled off tour,after being in theater for 3-4 months.

So the guys who know they failed should still be sweating.

If it's blind testing, they won't know who was positive.  They can only give generic results such as "2% of people tested postive for blah,  blah, blah." 

Testing before a tour is not blind so as to weed (pun intended) out those who are using.

 

[X-mo-1979]

If it's blind testing, they won't know who was positive.  They can only give generic results such as "2% of people tested postive for blah,  blah, blah." 

Testing before a tour is not blind so as to weed (pun intended) out those who are using.

Ok seen.
I think blind testing is a waste of money.It may act as a deterrent for a short time but offers no consequence to the offenders.
However even these results will take a long time to filter back.

 

[mellian]

Yes, seriously. We don't need more pot-heads in our ranks. The policy is fine as it is; all CF members are aware of it, and know the consequences of consuming anyway. There is no excuse.

You took that out of context from the point I was making. I am saying that if the CF is concerned about the affects of pot, they should be concerned of the affects of alcohol as well, and be treated the same way. If it is not simply because alcohol is legal, makes me wonder if the consequences of pot would be reduced if it ever gets decriminalized or legalized.

 

[Kat Stevens]

There's a very nice thread around here somewhere dealing with the what if variable.  As it is, alcohol is legal, TAXED, and available from reputable retailers, pot is none of these at the present time, so here we are.

 

[Journeyman]

So took that out of context of the point I was making. I am saying that if CF is concerned about the affects of pot, they should be of alcohol as well and treated the same way. If it is not treated the same just because alcohol is legal, makes me wonder if the consequences lessened if pot ever gets decriminalized or legalized.

LOL. Thank you for reaffirming Jungle's post. You may want to edit that into coherent sentences once you're sober/straight (not wanting to judge your grammar-skewing substance of choice    )

 

[mellian]

LOL. Thank you for reaffirming Jungle's post. You may want to edit that into coherent sentences once you're sober/straight (not wanting to judge your grammar-skewing substance of choice    )

Oh thank you, I appreciate the assertion that I am a drunk or/and pothead just because of my lack of sleep yet sober grammar.  :