Forces Go Soft On Drugs

[Talk Wrench]

Today's Telegraph,Monday 27 February 2006.
Forces ease tough line on taking hard drugs
SERVICEMEN and women are no longer automatically dismissed if they use class A drugs, the MoD confirmed yesterday.
Where once they would have been thrown out immediately over the use of ecstacy or cocaine, they may now get a second chance if they agree to rehabilitation.
A spkesman stressed that drug misuse would not be tolerated but those who break the rules may be retained in "exceptional circumstances".
The MoD began an open ended trial of the policy in September 2003.
It was understood the military would still regard heroin much more seriously than recreational users of cocaine and ecstacy.
An MoD source told the Sunday Mirror, "We judge cases on individual merits. Apromising soldier may be given a second chance if they attend a rehabilitation course".
Does this mean that our Forces really are going to pot:( :(
This is a very bad move. Even Cannabis use should result in a stint inside and immediate discharge.
There is no room for drug abuse in the Forces, Cigarettes and Alcohol are bad enough.
The use of drugs (except prescribed), indicates a tremendous lack of self discipline and control.
I for one, don't wish to work with these people.
This is a serious subject and I hope, one that encourages lively debate.
Talk Wrench

[Wyler]

TW

You say you don't wish to work with these people but the harsh reality is, you probably already do. Recreational drug use is part and parcel of todays lifestyle for an increasing number of people, especially 'professionals'. Personally, I have never seen the attraction, I prefer my drug in a pint glass thanks very much.
I would like to think this initiative is dsigned to not exclude those individuals who have dabbled in their youth, at school or university. Everyone is allowed one skeleton in their cupboard.
Lets face it, if they were to ban everyone who had been p*ssed a few times and thrown up on the carpet, there really would be a recruiting crisis. After all, alcohol is a mind altering drug that becomes an addiction to some. If it were invented to day, the Government would ban it.
As to abuse by those still serving. Each case should be taken on merit. It would be interesting to see the stats on alcohol consumption ant time off work or ineffective due to hangovers etc.
Use of drugs like heroin though should result in dismissal. As should alcoholism.

[Roland Pulfrew]

So not content with trying to do something about the exit of some of our brightest and best because of all that is wrong/going wrong with the military we are now content to try and keep those too stupid to realise that drugs are not acceptable/compatable with the military. What message does this send? It's OK to take drugs guys, as long as you are keen and thrusting (for which read we have a severe manpower shortage in your branch/trade) we wont throw you out!
The story is today's Telegraph as well but I can't find it on their website.
The lunatics really have taken over the asylum!:eek:

[Wyler]

Define Drug then!

Alcohol is a drug yet if you were to ban alcohol there would be uproar and it would probably have a bigger impact on recruiting and retention than any other single issue. Having spent 2 years accompanied in the Falklands, and 24 in the RAF, there is no doubt in my mnd that alcohol abuse is a very real problem in the forces, at all rank levels.
I am not trying to justify acceptance of drug usage BUT if we are going to have a zero tolerance regime, it has to be across the board. You can't just pick and choose.
This is similar to the time we stopped dismissing Homosexuals from the forces. I was at one of these useless EO training days and I remember a SNCO saying that he would resign if this was introduced because no way was he going to share facilities with gays. Nor would he work with them. It completely escaped his notice that he had been doing just that since the day he joined.
Like drugs, best to bring the issue out in the open and, in the case of this kind of activity, judge each situation on merit.

[Talk Wrench]

Wyler, the topic in question does not refer to homosexuality, nor does it encompass getting legless on a saturday night.
The issue is the softly softly approach to the MISUSE of class A and B HARD DRUGS by members of HM Forces. Whilst you admirably have many years of service,I urge you to get an up to date drugs briefing. The subject of hard drugs is an extremely serious matter within the Military and should not be underestimated. Would you like to have your safety jeopardised by someone who is as high as a kite? Not to mention the effect on sections, such as unreliability, possibility of theft from colleagues and so on. The individual may also be susceptible to blackmail, become a security risk etc.
No disrespect to yourself Wyler, but don't underestimate the danger that these substances pose.



Talk Wrench

[The Swinging Monkey]

Wyler,
I'd like to be sympathetic to your cause old man, however the fact remains that alchohol (whether we like it or not) is a LEGAL drug, and class A drugs are ILLEGAL. Now what is your argumant with that point?

We either have laws that we obey such as drug abuse, or we have laws that we can choose NOT to obey. That cannot be right. I am by no means an expert, however I remember very well my drugs lecture in the service where the nice man spouted on about 'flashbacks' and how they can occur much later on in time. If that is true, then I sure as hell wouldn't want someone who has been on drugs tinkering with my aircraft, or anything else comes to that.

I am not belittling the alcohol problem. If its as bad as you say then clearly something needs to be done, but for goodness sake, please do NOT let the 'goody goody' brigade get involved in allowing drug abusers second chances in the services. It is just too dangerous and MUST NOT be allowed to happen.

The rules should be clear and concise - IF YOU TAKE ILLEGAL DRUGS, OF ANY SORT, THEN YOU ARE OUT ON YOUR AR$E.

Rant over
Regards
TSM

[GengisKhant]

I cannot believe that our Lords and masters are about to dilute the current drugs misuse regulations, and adopt a softer approach!

Some time ago I received a briefing on the use (misuse) of drugs and more importantly, the problems associated with the knock-on effect, sometimes days, weeks, months after the drugs have been taken. A very sobering film depicted an aircraft turnround, where a drug enduced 'Flashback' during a vital part of the turnround service resulted in an indivdual missing an important check. The bottom line was the aircraft malfunctioned and crashed with the loss of both crew. Now, how relevant was this film....? Was it just scaremongering, or did it reflect a true perception of just one of the side effects of drugs. I certainly would not wish to climb into a cockpit not sure if the preflight of my a/c had been completed correctly.

The military work in teams..., and we all have to place our trust at sometime in others. A trust that from a flying perspective, must be total -lives depend on it!

I fully understand the pressures on the younger element, both commissioned and non-commissioned who, unlike ten or fifteen years ago, are now exposed to drugs almost every day, and see recreational drugs as 'part of the scene' and something that can't or won't harm them. This is a fallacy, and every airman, NCO, officer in todays military should have the strength and commitment to rise above the crowd and say NO..., I don't do drugs.

I also believe that the random drug sampling should continue, and in many cases, be stepped up. Where a test for unauthorized drugs proves positive, individuals should be immediately removed from their place of duty, and a thorough check of their past working activities reviewed.

As far as rehabiliation goes, I see no issue with the military having a centralised and coordinated approach to drugs rehabilitation. I would say however, that those found positive of taking drugs should be fast tracked out! There has been enough waste of time, money and manpower on numerous CMs, with civilian lawers collecting nice fat fees for accepting defending duties.

There is no room for drug users in yesterday's todays, or tomorrow's military. There should remain a Zero Tolerence policy throughout. If there is concern about drug taking on any military establishment, then increase the random tests, and get rid of those who test positive, and who clearly do not have strength of conviction, nor the ability to stand up and say NO.

From a standpoint slightly right field of Atilla the Hun!

[16 blades]

Oh dear.

Standby for the crackdown on the "evil and anti-social act" of drinking a pint on a Friday night, running in parallel with a relaxation of drugs policy. It's already happening with smoking - we will soon be in the ridiculous situation where you could be arrested for smoking a cigarette, but merely cautioned for toking on a joint! Whatever your views on smoking, that makes no sense.

Inverted morality is a marker of a facist state - Hitler, after all, was an animal rights advocate.

[Mr C Hinecap]

From what I read on a news website, you only get this 'soft' touch if you're Lance Jack or below (across all 3 Services). Can someone correct me on that?

Also - please get away from DRUG abuse and realise that it is SUBSTANCE abuse. This includes solvent abuse, gas sniffing and certainly brings alcohol into the equation. If you get 'off yer face' on anything, you are a risk - and people in all those classes have been found in the Forces.

I happen to believe that we have the correct methods of dealing with miscreants ie no drugs. However, you have to accept that some people will not be quite as grown up and mature as we'd like before they join up. This is giving them the ability to make a single mistake very early on - something I have to begrudgingly support. Some 'late developers' turn into the very best that we need.

[GengisKhant]

Mr C Hindcap...., should that not read "no unauthorized , dangerous, or banned substances....!"

[FJJP]

If anyone thinks that the use of illegal drugs can be recreational or 'harmless', have a chat with your local MO [especially if he has had outside GP experience]. It does not take much to mind-alter to the point where individuals can develop serious psychiatric conditions. And very often they manifest themselves over a very short period of time, where it might not be picked up until the individual has harmed himself or does something catastrophic, like commit a serious servicing error.

Latterly, and after 30-odd years of service, I resented being drug-tested, until I realised that it was the only way to weed out the drug-takers. Then I tolerated the intrusion. As far as I am concerned, the present policy if slinging out the drug users is absolutely right - high as a kite and carrying a loaded weapon? Servicing an aircraft?

Roland was absolutely right - the lunatics really have taken over...

[Talk Wrench]

FJJP,
You are most correct when you state that psychiatric conditions can manifest themselves in a short period of time (e.g psychosis, bipolar disorders, psyhotic episodes etc)
I am reliably informed by an aquaintance in military psychiatry, that it is presumed that some kind of drug misuse is suspected in 90% of their referrals.
Putting things into perspective though,
How many times have we all been to the SMC and been given advice at the dispensary about the side effects of the prescriptions we have been issued. (may cause drowsiness, that sort of thing) I have been signed off work because the painkillers I have been prescribed were so powerful that the MO knew my work would be affected.
Prescribed, trialled and monitored medication is one thing, illegal drugs is another and must not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.
CDT is a good thing and hopefully will get rid of the foolish ones who wish to partake
.
Talk Wrench

[The Swinging Monkey]

Ghengis,

I seem to recall a story a few years ago when the RN almost lost a submarine when the 'driver' (is it the planesman?) had one of these flashbacks. Apparantly it was some considerable time after he had taken the illegal substance, but nevertheless he had one. I understand that he put the sub in a very steep nose dive. It was only after a few 'biggish' sailors managed to pull him off the steering wheel that the sub recovered.

Whatever, this must NOT be allowed to happen. If there is one thing that the services still (appear) to ahve a strong handle on, its substance misuse. I pray it stays.

Kind regards
TSM

[The Helpful Stacker]

....Would you like to have your safety jeopardised by someone who is as high as a kite? Not to mention the effect on sections, such as unreliability, possibility of theft from colleagues and so on. The individual may also be susceptible to blackmail, become a security risk etc.
No disrespect to yourself Wyler, but don't underestimate the danger that these substances pose.



Talk Wrench

And all of that could equally be applied to alcohol.

How many pilots do you think have walked out to their a/c the day after a heavy night before?

How many people do you notice stinking of stale booze in your section on a Friday morning? Are you happy for them to work on an a/c or do you send them back to their room to sleep it off?

Pure hypocrisy.

Having worked with both people who were recreational drug users and also people who were heavy drinkers I know which I'd rather be working with. The 'but its illegal' comment is complete Daily Mail trash. Do you honestly think if alcohol were discovered tomorrow it would be legal? Its about time the government did the only sensible thing it can do about the whole 'drug problem' and legalised drugs. A legalised product can be controlled and more importantly, taxed. Those taxes could then be used to treat the comparatively few people who are weak enough to develop an addiction, the same as with alcohol abusers.

In six years of performing volunteer drugs work and counselling at clubs around the country in my spare time I can count the number of users I've met who were abusers on the fingers of one hand.

As someone has already mentioned, drugs are now very much a part of modern culture and the people who use them are not all heroin addicts who lie in alleys in a comatose state. Many recreational users are valued and productive members of society, just like those of us who have an occasional 'sesh' in the bar on a Thursday night but know when to stop. Unfortunately for those of you who still live in the 70's we can not go back in time to recruit nice young binge drinking guys with RAF 'tashes and thankfully someone with scrambled egg on their hat is finally realising this.

Now I am fully expecting to be flamed to hell for my views, no doubt being accused of being a 'lefty' or some such but hey ho.

At the target in front in your own time, go on.

[Talk Wrench]

Stacks, I don't think it would acceptable for anyone to slate you for carrying out voluntary work,
However,
In six years of performing volunteer drugs work and counselling at clubs around the country

If drugs aren't a problem, then why the need for drugs work and counselling?

And yes, you can argue the same case against alcohol.

Talk Wrench

[The Helpful Stacker]

Stacks, I don't think it would acceptable for anyone to slate you for carrying out voluntary work,
However,
If drugs aren't a problem, then why the need for drugs work and counselling?
And yes, you can argue the same case against alcohol.
Talk Wrench

You've basically answered your own question.

The counselling is more a case of "make sure you drink the correct amount of water" than "drugs are bad, m'kay".

You will never stop people doing things which are illegal, I defy anyone to tell me there wasn't a secret little buzz to drinking cider down the recreation ground when you were 16 that was lost when you 'turned legal'. The problem with drugs though is more of "does it really need to be illegal?"

Like alcohol there are many different forms of drugs from the relatively mundane (cannabis) through to smack and crack. People often say that one leads to the other but this is on the whole complete rubbish, put around by a press fed on a diet of Leia Betts pictures (not playing down her tragic death but the Ecstasy wasn't the sole reason she died). As I've already said many people enjoy productive and 'normal' lives whilst at the same time enjoying a small amount of recreational drug use of a weekend. Yes you get addicts but these people normally have quite addictive personalities anyway and if it weren't drugs they were killing themselves it'd be nice, legal alcohol.

Of course the question everyone is clamouring over is whether drugs and the forces are compatible? Alcohol obviously isn't as otherwise we wouldn't require 'two can rules' in deployed locations. "But thats because its an operational area" I hear you all cry, but if that so why not introduce a zero tolerance to drugs whilst deployed policy (enforced by CDT's prior to entering theatre) and a less stringent policy in the UK.

All the current policy does is play into the stereotype put about by the right-wing press of all 'druggies' working their way towards a cardboard box underneath Waterloo Bridge whereas this couldn't be much further from the truth.

[Skeleton]

:uhoh:

The lunatics really have really taken over the asylum!

Duggies are druggies... zero tolerance end of.

Glad im out!

[The Helpful Stacker]

:uhoh:
The lunatics really have really taken over the asylum!
Duggies are druggies... zero tolerance end of.
Glad im out!

But the biggest joke of all this is 'back in the good old days' when there was a don't ask don't tell policy there was probably quite a few people doing drugs but just not getting caught. Hell we (the RAF) were the last of the services to introduce CDT. Now considering that apparently drugs are so bad (m'kay) and that we, as an air force, are routinely asked to launch tons of metal into the air (and have been for quite a while) shouldn't we have been the first?

As I said before, the whole thing is complete hypocrisy. Drinking yourself stupid in the rugby club then playing with a spanner the next morning = good drills lad. Smoking a joint on Saturday night then turning up to work fresh faced on Monday = the devils spawn, burn him....

:rolleyes:

[southside]

I agree with totally with Helpful stacker here. In the Armed Forces we positively encourage drinking. Our social lifes are governed by alcohol, we build our living spaces around a bar, the biggest and best of us are the ones who can drink the most in the least time. And yet when it comes to other sunbstances we shy away from them (mainly because we know little of them) and ban them. I think this relaxing of the rules is a good thing. As already stated, those of you who think that they are working (and flying) next to someone who doesn't take drugs are mistaken. But all things in moderation and (as with alcohol) if you abuse the substance and dont conform with corrective training to stop your substance abuse then you should be shown the door.

[16 blades]

Helpful Stacker,

I seriously do hope you are no longer a member of the Forces (or never were) with an attitude like that. You are most certainly a lefty stereotype (your 'Daily Mail' jibe shows that) displaying all the fundamentally flawed reasoning typical of your breed.

You cannot compare alcohol and other drugs. Alcohol is NOT a narcotic drug that alters your perception of reality. It supresses the transmission of nerve impulses to the brain across the synapses (gaps between nerve cells) - it does not alter what the messages are saying (unlike illegal narcotics). To compare use of illegal drugs with use of alcohol is to compare apples with oranges.

Once alcohol is out of your system, it's effects are over. This is NOT the case with most illegal narcotics which can cause long term or even permanent alterations to your brain chemistry, even in small or irregular amounts. Whilst it is true that alcohol will also damage the body, it requires frequent and long-term over-indulgence to do so.

Doubtless you will attempt to point out the widespread problems caused by alcohol consumption, and trumpet the supposed lower incidence of illegal drug-related problems. Again, a specious argument. Virtually every adult in the Western world consumes alcohol to one degree or another, which is bound to lead to a statistically greater incidence of alcohol-related problems, whereas only a tiny proportion of adults use illegal drugs, and these are mostly to be found in two distinct groups - young urban professionals (the trendy fabled 'Notting Hill set' being a perfect example) and worthless council estate chavs. I have moved in both those circles, so I am not exercising blind prejudice here.

The point is, alcohol is part of our culture, and has been for centuries. Illegal drugs have only been in widespread use for a relatively short period of time, and have caused devastation. THERE IS NO COMPARISON.

Alcohol is safe when not over-used, its effects are short-lived and predictable. Drugs have unpredictable and long-term effects.

There is a REASON why they are illegal.

I agree with totally with Helpful stacker here.
How utterly, sadly predictable, Southside.

THS, when the resident prize bell-end comes out in support of you, it's time to hang your head in shame.....

16B

[MSF]

As an ex oggie mover I can tell you that promotions were purely bar related.

This latest fiasco sounds like the 'get out of Iraq by using the drugs excuse' door has been firmly slammed.
I can imagine that with all the extra troops going east ,this old nugget is used more and more and has probably reached epidemic proportions.
All those claiming drug abuse would be sent out east and on return would be discharged.
Most of these guys dont use drugs and are just using the excuse to get a discharge.

[southside]

A little bird (scablifter) tells me that during recent CDT the results were astronomical. So high in fact that they were ignored in case it meant disbanding an entire front line squadron. Maybe the powers that be have seen the results and decided that if you can't beat 'em....etc

[The Helpful Stacker]

I'm sorry to upset the apple cart over this '16 Blades' but I have voted blue all my life, never red.

Anyway back to the subject in hand. It appears that you have truly swallowed the press view on drugs hook, line and sinker. Yes some drugs can causes long-term and permanent alterations but the same can be said about long-term high usage of nice, safe alcohol, something which isn't exactly unheard of in this bar-centric armed forces we serve in (yes I still serve).

The point is, alcohol is part of our culture, and has been for centuries.

As I've already mentioned do you honestly believe alcohol, a drug (yes thats what it is folks) that can cause violence, depression, liver damage and lead to serious addiction problems and all the linked problems that entails would ever be legalised if it were discovered tomorrow?

drugs have only been in widespread use for a relatively short period of time, and have caused devastation.

Have they? Are you sure drugs haven't been used in one form or the other since the days of early man? And this devastation, is it as widespread as that caused by alcohol?

I'm not trying to change your mind on this issue, like myself you obviously have strong views on this and as such to attempt to enlighten you would no doubt be fruitless, I've just pointed out what I believe may be the reasons behind this 'softening' of the military drug policy.

Oh BTW, although 'Southside' does seem to talk more often than not complete b)ll&cks he does very occasionally (is there a blue moon outside at the mo?) say something worthwhile. Now although I'm not sure if he is playing devils advocate to wind you regulars up or not he does seem to take a more enlightened view on this issue than the tired old "it didn't happen in my day"(yes it did actually) and "birch them then throw them out" (the can you please take all the alcohol abusers out as well then too? Last one out turn off the light).

[sled dog]

At low level i would rather be sitting behind a bloke with a slight hangover than with a bloke who might have been " High " the night before :eek:

[PileUp Officer]

The use of drugs (except prescribed), indicates a tremendous lack of self discipline and control.
I for one, don't wish to work with these people.

How many people in the forces smoke/use alcohol/caffeine or self medicate? :sad:

only a tiny proportion of adults use illegal drugs, and these are mostly to be found in two distinct groups - young urban professionals (the trendy fabled 'Notting Hill set' being a perfect example) and worthless council estate chavs.

No offence but that’s utter rubbish. At least 40% of my friends outside the Air Force use illegal drugs and they are by no means limited to a single social group. The acceptance and/or use of drugs within the forces is also extremely high if you know the 'right people' to talk with.

In my opinion illegal drugs and Flying/Forces don't mix. I would hope that the majority of RAF personnel would be professional and strong-willed enough to turn down drugs. I have refused offers on countless occasions. It's not exactly a big deal and to be honest I wouldn't want to be friends with people who thought it was.

The RAF has been described as a 'drinking club with a flying problem' and this is most definitely the case. Alcohol pervades every aspect of our shared social lives. Most people are professional enough to be sensible with 'bottle to throttle' rules and the consequences of hangovers but a large group aren't.

As somebody said earlier: Which would you rather work with; the guy who has the occasional joint to relax and is fresh faced the next day or the one who drinks 10 shandys a night and is hungover all next day?

[The Swinging Monkey]

PileIp Officer

Sir,

'The acceptance and/or use of drugs within the forces is also extremely high if you know the 'right people' to talk with'

If, as you say above, this is a fact, then I sincerely hope that you have the courage and leadership to bring those responsible to the attention of the relevant authorities.

Your comments will strike utter fear into every member of the Armed Forces who are both sensible and law abiding people. And it will create severe concern amongst ALL of those who rely on others for their safety and well-being. I strongly urge you to do the right thing and help irradicate this problem and these people.

Strong words I know, but you have the option and the ability to do something about this, to do the right thing. One day it might be you who needs to rely on someone who might have taken drugs the night before. I'll bet your family will be upset if the BOI finds that your life was lost because some fool had been taking something the night before. So come on Pile Up, be a man and do the right thing.

As for the old 'bottle to throttle' thing, yes I have seen it abused also, and used right up to the line, and I certainly do not condone it either. Remember the JP that crashed into the lake many years ago now? You probably don't but many on this forum will - enuf said!

Kind regards
TSM

[PileUp Officer]

Perhaps I got a little carried away with my words there. Use of drugs (In my experience) is not particularly high but there is a very large tacit acceptable of drug use amongst others.

The vast majority of people I have spoken to have used drugs prior to joining the Air Force and in lots of cases to a much greater degree than the 'usual few joints at university'.

[BEagle]

"The vast majority of people I have spoken to have used drugs prior to joining the Air Force and in lots of cases to a much greater degree than the 'usual few joints at university'."

Name them, shame and shop them. Such low-life should be thrown out right now.

Not wanted. Not at all. Goodbye, no pension, f*ck off and never come back.

Anyone caught peddling illegal drugs should be boiled alive in their own excreta until dead. For a first offence.

[southside]

Hey, come on Beags....don't sit on the fence with this one. spit it out man, if you have a point then tell the world...tee hee.

[16 blades]

THS,

Exactly the response I was expecting. You may be a 'blue' voter (possibly due to your background, I don't know - I used to be a 'Red' voter because of my background, until I actually became TRULY enlightened and saw that lot for what they are) but your attitudes betray utterly typical blind trendy 'liberalism'. As do your utterly typical smear tactics - if I (or anyone else) do not see things the 'modern' way, I am not 'enlightened', as you claim to be? I can assure you that I am VERY enlightened when it comes to drug culture. I have lived amongst it and seen it happening all around me. The difference is, I do not resign myself to accepting it just because I see it around me. Just because many are doing it, that DOES NOT make it acceptable.

As I've already mentioned do you honestly believe alcohol, a drug (yes thats what it is folks) that can cause violence, depression, liver damage and lead to serious addiction problems and all the linked problems that entails would ever be legalised if it were discovered tomorrow?
Try reading my post again, oh 'enlightened' one, and you will discover that I already addressed this point you are trying to make (and, in fact, I predicted, accurately, that you would make it).
drugs have only been in widespread use for a relatively short period of time, and have caused devastation.
Again, read before you reply. I have emboldened the key word in this statement to make it easier for you.

No, my friend, I'm afraid it is YOU who have swallowed the trendy propaganda of the pro-drugs lobby who have pressurised this pathetic govt into softening drugs policy, flying in the face of mounting and manifold medical evidence of the harm caused. You are guilty of believing that your narrow social circle represents society as a whole (again, wholly typical of your breed) - you need to open your eyes before it is too late.

PUO,

Re-read my post that you quoted.
only a tiny proportion of adults use illegal drugs, and these are mostly to be found in two distinct groups - young urban professionals (the trendy fabled 'Notting Hill set' being a perfect example) and worthless council estate chavs.
Again, key word emboldened. At no point did I infer exclusivity to these groups, merely a trend. Note also that I said 'ADULTS'. Students are not adults in my eyes. They are largely arrogant kids who think they know it all, but will very quickly discover tht they do not.

At least 40% of my friends outside the Air Force use illegal drugs
Then you need to get some new friends. Seriously.

Which would you rather work with; the guy who has the occasional joint to relax and is fresh faced the next day or the one who drinks 10 shandys a night and is hungover all next day?
Being well aware of the TRUE effects of cannabis, and having witnessed first-hand the kind of devastation that even mild long-term use can create, I will fly with the hung-over bloke ANY DAY. And so would anybody else with half a brain.

With the attitudes you have both displayed and the admissions you have both made, It is my sincerest hope that the company plods that peruse these boards make every effort to track you down and expose you, extracting information from you on exactly who these 'right people' are and hunting them down too. There is NO place in the Armed Forces for illegal drug use. PERIOD.

I sincerely hope that NEITHER of you are responsible for any subordinates.

16B

[Talk Wrench]

This thread has certainly divided people and judging by others comments, there clearly are two camps forming, the Pro illicit drug brigade and the Anti illicit drug alliance. I for one sit firmly in the latter.


I suggest that Helpful Stacker and Southside contact their DAPO for some much needed advice.


I also hasten to add that this turn it around "alcohol is the root of all evil" argument is a dead duck. Most people here on this forum will agree that alcohol abuse is indeed frowned upon and considered anti social. Drink Driving, most will agree,is offensive and repulsive. The people who consider the latter statements as correct are more likely to be the ones who also abhor the use of illicit drugs in HM Forces.
If someone wants to take drugs, then fine, it's up to them to suffer the consequences. The consequences being reduced to the ranks and DISMISSAL.


Talk Wrench

[Tourist]

Oh my god.
I agree with southside 100% on something.

Before I start, I have never taken any illegal drugs, and would not begin if they were legalised.
Some of the people on here just parrot opinions of the Media without thinking them through.
Alcohol is without doubt the most damaging drug in human existence, no matter what criteria you choose.
Most deaths.
Most accidents.
Greatest cost. (NHS and lost work days)
Most families wrecked.
Most murders.
Most abuse. (who ever heard of someone on the weed beating their wife?)
You people are just unwilling to think about it because it would entail critically looking at your own behaviour from the past. ie flying pissed/hungover which you have all done.
Small minded hypocrits.
Nobady should fly or work near or on aircraft under the influence of any drug including alcohol

But legalise the lot. It will make no difference to the amount consumed, but will rid the world of the scum who sell them. It will also be taxable to support the NHS which deals with the inevitable problems(just like booze) There will be a lot less deaths from dodgy mixed drugs and poor quality control/concentrations

[southside]

Oh My God.... I agree with Tourist. Stop the bus, I wanna get off

[16 blades]

I guess you chimps can read, but you obviously are incapable of basic comprehension. I'll make it easy for you:

Alcohol is without doubt the most damaging drug in human existence, no matter what criteria you choose.
Most deaths.
Most accidents.
Greatest cost. (NHS and lost work days)
Most families wrecked.
Most murders.
Most abuse. (who ever heard of someone on the weed beating their wife?)
...BECAUSE...
Virtually every adult in the Western world consumes alcohol to one degree or another, which is bound to lead to a statistically greater incidence of alcohol-related problems

DO YOU GET IT YET? Or do you need a crayon picture, oh 'enlightened' ones?

Picture a world where virtually every adult used narcotic drugs on a regular basis. Now that you have something approaching a like-for-like comparison, tell me AGAIN that:
Alcohol is without doubt the most damaging drug in human existence
Your argument has just disappeared up its own ar$ehole...but keep going, you're obviously desperate...
But legalise the lot. It will make no difference to the amount consumed, but will rid the world of the scum who sell them.
Holy sh1t, just HOW naive can you possibly be? Perhaps you think the villains who make millions of pounds every year selling drugs will just shrug their shoulders, say "Well, that's that then!" and retire quietly to the Costa Del Sol?

Carry on, by all means. You are destroying more and more of your credibility with every post...and you didn't have alot to start with...

16B

[Khaine27]

well at my sqn we had 3 people kicked out due to the prescence of coke in their systems during a random drugs test.

bet they wished they had waited a couple of months before getting tested....

from a personal point of view, the last thing i want to to be working next to someone who is whacked out of their head and not knowing what they are doing. i have never tried or would ever want to try class A drugs, just working with someone whos is a bit hungover is bad enough, but i would rather work with them than someone who is drugged up!!!

[Biggus]

I have to admit guys that 16 blades has made his arguement crystal clear, if you are going to try to shoot holes in it the least you could do is read it properly first!! Otherwise you are not debating his points, you are merely preaching your own gospel.

Here endth the lesson...................

[PileUp Officer]

Note also that I said 'ADULTS'. Students are not adults in my eyes. They are largely arrogant kids who think they know it all, but will very quickly discover tht they do not.


Then you need to get some new friends. Seriously.

It seems rather close-minded to assume I am talking only about students. I never insinuated or even mentioned students in my post. In fact I even went so far as to state that they were by no means limited to a single group. By this I meant students, parents, forces people, ‘professionals’, manual workers and a number of other groups.
It seems your mind was already made up on that issue before you even read my post.
Drug use runs right through our society and is not limited to students or chavs. I judge my friends on their overall character not what they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes.
Please also note I did post the following:
In my opinion illegal drugs and Flying/Forces don't mix. I would hope that the majority of RAF personnel would be professional and strong-willed enough to turn down drugs. I have refused offers on countless occasions. It's not exactly a big deal and to be honest I wouldn't want to be friends with people who thought it was.
I don't agree with illegal drug use in flying or forces. There should a zero tolerance policy.

[Tigs2]

My youngest son was introduced to the delights of these "non-harmful" substances at public school. Those of you who think they are harmless and acceptable can get right back in your box, you are VERY misled. If i caught anyone peddling this stuff i would quite happily do something very nasty to them. Do not condone it in any respect. I was recently at a lovely dinner there were a few so called trendy people (oxygen thieves actually), a couple of whom started snorting the white stuff and passing it around, i stood up mid-main course excused myself and left (and wont entertain their company again). There is no place for it in the armed forces, its bad enough having soldiers carrying live weapons when they are on Prozac (sp?). If you make your own free choice to do it thats fine, but DONT introduce or encourage others and LEAVE. I have seen the "non-harmful" effects of drugs first hand and they are totally "non-Harmfully" bloody destructive in every sense of the word. Persuade me otherwise NOT:mad: :mad:

[Roghead]

My understanding is that drinking alcohol publicly and privately is still legal.
Smoking tobacco is still legal privately but not always publicly.
Using illegal drugs is still that.......illegal whether in public or privately.
Until such time as the use of these illegal substances is made legal (heaven forbid) all offenders should be removed from our Armed Forces.

[PileUp Officer]

This is a sincere question so please don't take it sarcastically or badly but are the Dutch armed forces allowed to use weed? (Can’t spell Maryjaneiguana)

[16 blades]

No, and neither is anyone else in the Netherlands.

Contrary to popular (read 'trendy progressive') beliefs, drugs are NOT legal in the Netherlands. They have simply chosen not to enforce the law by prosecuting or even cautioning individual users. It is still illegal to buy cannabis in the Netherlands - you just won't get done for it. Growing, refining or producing drugs still carry heavy penalties under Dutch law. An utter contradictory nonsense if ever I saw one.

And my, are they reaping the 'benefits' of their liberalisation. Crime is rife (the ones that they still choose to prosecute for, that is) unemployment is soaring, Mental health problems are skyrocketing, school and college dropout rates are astronomical.......you get the picture. And hard drug use (concentrating on which the govt used as an excuse to go soft on cannabis) is out of control. Not exactly the tranquil, liberal paradise the trendies would have you believe.

16B

[The Helpful Stacker]

In Switzerland the government 'issues' class A drugs to habitual users as its cheaper than trying to treat someone in the long run and has led to a reduction in crime and death by over-dose.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/switzerland/

Intrestingly they also point out that motorists who are involved in car accidents who are found to have THC's in their bloodstream are usually found to be positive for alcohol too.

[Tigs2]

Stacker
You are missing the point!! Regardless of what is going on in any pinko lefty society, thre is NO place for illegal drugs in the military. If people are doing it on the quiet, thats up to them, if they are less than discreet and get found out then its time for a career change.

[The Helpful Stacker]

If people are doing it on the quiet, thats up to them, if they are less than discreet and get found out then its time for a career change.

And there is the crux of the argument. It doesn't matter how discrete they are, with compulsory drugs testing they will be found out anyway, yet all the tests in the world thrown at the rank and file of the Armed Forces won't pick out that bloke with a hangover doing a Friday afternoon job on some vital for flight safety piece of kit.

If we are going to have one rule for one intoxicant and one for another there is always going to be the appearance of hypocrisy in the system.

Perhaps we should introduce breathalysing for the service personnel who are suspected of being still under the influence of alcohol. Breathalyzers are used within the NHS and branches of civil aviation.

[Tigs2]

Stacker
I have no problem with breath testing anyone at random in an aviation environment, and no problem with a duty authoriser saying breath in here before you go flying. We DO have one rule for one intoxicant and another rule for the other type. That rule is ONE IS ILLEGAL THE OTHER ONE IS LEGAL. endex. There are strict rules surrounding the use of alcohol prior to flying, and the amount of alcohol allowed in the blood is so low it may as well be zero. If any line manager or member of a peer group thinks someone is hung over and working on aircraft or associated components and support duties then they have a responsibility to sort it out.

The crux of the matter as you put it is nothing to do with the reasons you give. The crux of the matter is that time and time again people like you refuse to listen, refuse to read, refuse to comprehend and refuse to modify your thought process even when people state the bleeding obvious to you. IT IS ILLEGAL Stacker, regardless of your thoughts on Beer, Drugs ARE ILLEGAL. Now can you comprehend that last sentence?

Bye the way, there is a failing in the random drugs testing system. If you eat a bread roll for lunch that is covered with poppy seeds, within 30 minutes of consuming said bread roll you will prove positive for opiates!! Absolutely true.

[Tourist]

I sometimes speed in my car.
that is also illegal.
Burn Me!

[Tigs2]

Tourist
you surprise me. Considering the subect of this thread your comment is totally purile and really f:mad: me off. Are you one of the types of commercial pilot jet set that ive seen who likes to indulge??

[PileUp Officer]

No, and neither is anyone else in the Netherlands.
Contrary to popular (read 'trendy progressive') beliefs, drugs are NOT legal in the Netherlands. They have simply chosen not to enforce the law by prosecuting or even cautioning individual users. It is still illegal to buy cannabis in the Netherlands - you just won't get done for it.
16B

Yeah, this has now been confirmed by a good Dutch friend of mine. She says that the word is not translatable, that it's not illegal and not legal but 'tolerated''

Just wondered

[MrFire]

I want to hear more about these lethal flashbacks... And the class B hard drugs. And how someone who may have used drugs once prior to joining up should get the boot even if they no longer use drugs... Or how deeply respectful you are all to every letter of the law... and how a drug user is nothing more than a druggie, while someone who has a pint is a bloke who just had a pint... I drink, but im not currently drunk. I fully agree that drugs and alcohol have no place in any precision, or hazardous, or engineering, or safety critical environment, but the drugs training courses mentioned above sound 1950s era rubbish. Oh, and 16 Blades, wind your neck in. You might be an aviator, but your sure as fek no pharmacologist... For everyone, drugs is a very wide ranging word, and drugs testing picks up and ids certain legal and illegal drugs that stay in the body for periods varying from 12hours or so for some stimulants to >3 months for cannabis (cos the THC is soluble in body fat, so becomes passively deposited). Please try to understand that there are differing degrees of drug and drug use. THERE IS a difference betwween clintons 'one toke on a spliff but didnt inhale' and chronic heroin or crack addiction. To be fair, in the latter case your colleagues should be able to spot severe impairment no?

[Tourist]

Tigs, you have an amazingly blinkered mind
I was pointing out that sometimes people make a big deal out of laws when it suits them.
and I quote "drugs ARE ILLEGAL"
but so is speeding and if you pretend you never have you are even more of a moron.
As I keep saying, I have never and have no intention of doing illegal drugs, even if they become legal. If they became legal I would still want them banned, like alcohol, from being imbibed within a suitable time frame of dealing with or flying aircraft.

The point I keep trying to make is that Prohibition has failed, as it always has done throughout history.
An extraordinary percentage of the UK population does illegal drugs on a daily or weekly basis. Most people joining the UK military today will have tried illegal drugs. An amazing percentage own up to it at AIB or service equivalent.
The sheer amount consumed per week is easy to interpret from the effect that massive drugs busts have on the street price of drugs. None whatsoever. When £50 million of drugs are captured it is a totally insignificant proportion of the amount being used.
Drugs illegality has not stopped this in any way. All that keeping them banned does is make massive amounts of money for scum.
It is a very simple equation. Because of their illegality, instead of being cheaper than paracetamol, drugs are relatively very expensive. This gives criminals an enormous profit margin, only matched by the bootleggers in the US during prohibition. This makes it worth their while to sell them, even with the attendant risk.
Because they are scum the will happily cut the drugs with rat poison and such like to make more money thus causing more deaths etc.
Because you cannot tax illegal substances, drugs do not pay their own way with the NHS as do Cigarettes and Alcohol for example.
People who become addicted to the drugs cannot afford to buy them so turn to crime to feed their habit. Drug related crime is an enormous percentage of petty crime. This is crime caused by the addict needing money, notcrime caused buy the addict being off his/her head. Alcohol use incidentally is a major cause of crime due to immediate effects of inebriation.

Simple solution.

Legalise all drugs

EFFECT:

Drugs are still used by same large percentage of population.
These people are now not criminalised.
The drugs they now use meet EC standards (less drug related deaths) and carry health warnings and are sold in shops.
The tax pays for the NHS costs of dealing with the problems that already exist.
Drug dealers no longer make a decent margin so move to some other business or more likely go out of business entirely, because no other business is so easy to make money from.
The police enjoy massive drop in petty crime. Even addicts on the dole can easy afford to feed their habit.

You people don't get it do you.You seem to be under the impression we are manning a dam and managing to hold the flow of drugs to a small trickle used by an evil and tiny proportion of bad people in the UK.
Outside of the military, drugs are ubiquitous in all walks of life, from the Royal Family to pikey council estates to Presidents to MP's to policemen. My god CHURCHILL was on Coke!

We have lost the battle against drugs. Humans like messing with their heads and experimenting, just like we all drank before we were 18 even though "it was ILLEGAL"
Fact of life.

Any of you codgers with kids at Uni are living in a dream world if you imagine that your little darlings have never tried it even once.


All we can do is minimise the damage. Just like we currently do with the most damaging mind altering substance of all..

Alcohol

[Tigs2]

Tourist

In response to your comment of

"I sometimes speed in my car.
that is also illegal.
Burn Me!"

Why do i have "an amazingly blinkered mind" for stating

"Considering the subect of this thread your comment is totally purile and really f:mad: me off."


Did at any time i mention in my post that i have never sped or imply that i have never sped? I never mentioned the subject as it has no relevance here.
As such i take great exception to you calling me a moron.

To try and put you back on track Tourist, we are not debating the UK's drug problem and the rights and wrongs of it. We are debating their suitability for use by members of HM forces considering they are an Illegal mind altering substance. If you are able to answer without resorting to personal comments it would be appreciated. Feel free to curse as much as you like at me but i take exception to your comment.

[Tourist]

Good, that was the intention.
......imbecile:ok:

[Tourist]

The subject has every relevance because you make a big deal out of legality as the most important issue.
"IT IS ILLEGAL Stacker, regardless of your thoughts on Beer, Drugs ARE ILLEGAL. Now can you comprehend that last sentence?"

We are not arguing about the legality.
Everyone knows they aren't.
What we are arguing is whether they should be.

We do not suggest that you should throw people out of the military for speeding, even though it is illegal.
ergo, it is not the illegality of drugs that offends people, but something else.

hence illegality is not the issue.

Q.E.D.

[Tigs2]

Tourist
perhaps you should re-read Talk Wrenches original post and you will see that no one is discussing if they should be legal, they are discussing if they should be permitted/tolerated (just like all of our speeding and illegal parking which is tolerated by everyone, except the police when you get caught). I for one do not believe they should be. As you continue to personally slag off for no adult reason perhaps Tourist it may be better if you start your own Website called PPJuNe

The Professional Pilots Juvenile Network

There are a few prime candidates around who could join you, then you could slag each other off to your hearts content. Last comment from me on this, refuse to participate with small minded people.

[Tourist]

Aw Bless...............

[16 blades]

An extraordinary percentage of the UK population does illegal drugs on a daily or weekly basis.

Well, f**k me sideways, Tourist - I guess that makes it OK then....

People who become addicted to the drugs cannot afford to buy them so turn to crime to feed their habit. Drug related crime is an enormous percentage of petty crime. This is crime caused by the addict needing money, notcrime caused buy the addict being off his/her head.

SIMPLE SOLUTION:
DON'T BE A TW@T AND TAKE DRUGS!

The point I keep trying to make is that Prohibition has failed, as it always has done throughout history.
It will ALWAYS fail if you let the market grow, by going soft on users / addicts, who lets face it, take the stuff of their own free will in the first place, so deserve no sympathy. If there is a market for it, people will find a way around the law to feed that market. That doesn't make the law itself a failure.

Perhaps you think that people who download pictures of children being sexually abused should be gone easy on as well - after all, THEY are 'addicted' and need to commit crime to feed their habit. And they are not doing the abusing, they are just 'the market'. My point is - remove the market (by jailing anyone who takes drugs and keeping them in solitary for 6 months, perhaps) and there is no money to be made anymore.

Drug dealers no longer make a decent margin so move to some other business or more likely go out of business entirely, because no other business is so easy to make money from.
The police enjoy massive drop in petty crime. Even addicts on the dole can easy afford to feed their habit.

You believe this? I mean, you ACTUALLY THINK THAT THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN?? Your naivety defies all known measure. You obviously have no knowledge of crime or the black market. There are PLENTY of other things to deal in that will make you as much, if not more, than drugs. And what on earth makes you think that prices will plummet? It is NOT the 'illegality' that dictates price, it is the demand - what the product is WORTH to the purchaser. Which school of economics did YOU attend? And you really think that drugs are a good thing for a jobless chav to be spending their free taxpayers' money on?

As for the drop in crime, well hey - let's just go the whole hog and legalise rape and murder. After all, an awful lot of people commit rape and murder - just think of all the people we could 'decriminalise' - and the drop in crime figures! If it's no longer a crime, it's no longer a crime figure! Jeez, you are a f**king genius!

Outside of the military, drugs are ubiquitous in all walks of life
No, they are not. They may well be in your small, arrogant little circle, but the vast, VAST majority of people DO NOT use illegal drugs and never will. You are either exceptionally narrow minded or very young and naive if you believe otherwise. I'm guessing you are a student, or recently were....figures.

The sheer amount consumed per week is easy to interpret from the effect that massive drugs busts have on the street price of drugs. None whatsoever.
Wrong. VERY wrong. I know you are wrong because I have a family member who is a police officer, working mainly on 'drug squad' duties. BIG busts have a BIG effect on street price - if only temporarily.

We have lost the battle against drugs. Humans like messing with their heads and experimenting, just like we all drank before we were 18 even though "it was ILLEGAL"
Only when they are young and stupid, which you clearly are. Granted, some never grow up - I sincerely hope you do one day.

notcrime caused buy the addict being off his/her head.
Oh, REALLY? I thing you'll find that a GREAT MANY accused use 'drug intoxication' as part of their defence in court - "Your Worships, my client was high on drugs at the time of the alleged assault and thus can't recall it in much detail" - sound familiar? There was recently a case of a young bloke who battered his mother to death due to cannabis psychosis.

the most damaging mind altering substance of all..Alcohol
Please provide evidence to substantiate this claim. And, for a second time, alcohol is NOT a mind-altering substance - it is a nerve-impusle supressant. Alcohol does not use or alter neurotransmitter chemicals to achieve its effects. Comparing alcohol to illegal narcotics is pointless - can you not see this?

16B

[southside]

alcohol is NOT a mind-altering substance

Last weekend it altered my mind alright....

[Tourist]

16 Blades.
Name a criminal activity that you believe has the same profit margin as drug dealing.

"It will ALWAYS fail if you let the market grow, by going soft on users / addicts"

You miss the point. It has already grown. It will not go away. Learn the lessons of history.

"And what on earth makes you think that prices will plummet? It is NOT the 'illegality' that dictates price, it is the demand - what the product is WORTH to the purchaser"

The price is vastly artificially infated by the drug dealers. It is the law of supply and demand. Legal supply would slash demand because there would be competition. The demand for Mars Bars is enormous, but they still cost 50p, even though they are more complex and expensive to produce than drugs.

Incidentally, where are you going to find another 20 million prison cells.

"As for the drop in crime, well hey - let's just go the whole hog and legalise rape and murder. After all, an awful lot of people commit rape and murder - just think of all the people we could 'decriminalise' - and the drop in crime figures!"

Any law which criminalises the majority of the people it affects is a bad law.
And there aren't a lot of people who commit rape and murder or child abuse, though there may be in amongst your group of friends.

You mention that you believe I was recently a student.
This is not the case, however I am glad you brought up students, since you seem to agree with me that most student try drugs. The majority of people now go to college
Therefore the majority of people now try drugs.

Anyone who says that alcohol is not a mind altering drug is an idiot. The fact that it is a nerve impulse suppressant only describes the mechanism through which it alters the mind.

We have all done something due to alcohol which we would not do sober.
ie it alters your mind.

It beggars belief that you don't believe that drug use is ubiquitous.
When there is next a big drug bust, note the actual quantity of pills captured. Note that this is the captured number, not the far larger percentage that gets through.
Lets assume an ecstasy user uses 4 pills per weekend for example( I am sure someone with greater knowledge can tell me an average use?)

Divide that into the drugs bust number of pills.

The number you now have, is the number of users that this confiscated pile of drugs was going to supply for the weekend.
The number always has a lot of zeros.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Tigs,

Well said Sir, although I think you may be pushing the the old smelly stuff up the hill as far as Stacker is concerned.

Stacker - You need assessment and to listen to people who know just a little bit more than you.

Kind rewgards
TSM

[Tragic Rug]

16 Blades Said

Please provide evidence to substantiate this claim. And, for a second time, alcohol is NOT a mind-altering substance - it is a nerve-impusle supressant. Alcohol does not use or alter neurotransmitter chemicals to achieve its effects. Comparing alcohol to illegal narcotics is pointless - can you not see this?

Just to correct the above comment I'm going to quote verbatim from 'Physiology of Behaviour, 7th Edn. by Carlson, N. R. published by Allyn and Bacon (2001)

'Alcohol has greater costs to society than any other drug. A large percentage of deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents are related to alcohol use, and alcohol contributes to violence and aggression. Chronic alcoholics often lose their jobs, their homes, and their families; and many die of cirrhosis of the liver, exposure, or diseases caused by poor living conditions and abuse of their bodies. Women who drink during pregnancy run the risk of giving birth to babies with fetal alcohol syndrome, which includes malformation of the head and brain. The leading cause of mental retardation in the Western world today is alcohol consumption by pregnant women (Abel and Sokol, 1986). Therefore, understanding the physiological and behavioural effects of this drug is an important issue'.


Here comes the mind altering bit....

Alcohol, like other addictive drugs, increases the activity of the dopaminergic system and increases the release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens as measured by microdialysis (Gessa et al., 1985; Imperato and Di Chiara, 1986). The release of dopamine appears to be related to the positive reinforcement that alcohol can produce. An injection of a dopamine antagonist directly into the nucleus accumbens decreases alcohol intake (Samson et al., 1993), as does the injection of a drug into the ventral tegmental area that decreases the activity of the dopaminergic neurons there (Hodge et al., 1993).

In low to moderate doses, alcohol appears to have two major sites of action in the nervous system, acting as an indirect antagonist as NMDA receptors and an indirect agonist at GABA receptors (Chandler, Harris, and Crewes, 1998). That is, alcohol enhances the action of GABA at GABA receptors and interferes with the transmission of glutamate at NMDA receptors.

NMDA receptors are involved in long-term potentiation, a phenomenon that plays an important role in learning. Therefore, it will not surprise you to learn that alcohol, which antagonizes the action of glutamate at NMDA receptors, disrupts long-term potentiation and interferes with the spatial receptive fields of place cells in the hippocampus (Givens and McMahon, 1995; Matthews, Simpson, and Best, 1996). Presumably, this effect at least partly accounts for the deleterious effects of alcohol on memory and other cognitive functions.

Withdrawal from long-term alcohol intake (like that of heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, and nicotine) decreases the activity of mesolombic neurons and their release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens (Diana et al., 1993).

The second site of action of alcohol is the GABAA receptor. Alcohol binds with one of the many binding sites on this receptor and increases the effectiveness of GABA in opening the chloride channel and producing inhibitory postsynaptic potentials.

The reinforcing effects of alcohol is at least partly caused by its ability to trigger the release of the endogenous opioids'.

I hope that all of the above provides enough detail to explain that alcohol is in fact a powerful mind altering drug.

Regards,

Tragic Rug

Reference


Carlson, N. R. (2001) Physiology of Behaviour 7th Edn, published by Allyn and Bacon.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Steady now 'Tragic Rug' you're stepping dangerously into fact territory there rather than the usual I read in the Daily Mail/I heard in the mess/I have no experience but a huge amount of rant* format that many of the anti's have been using for their 'sources'.

*Delete as appropriate.

Stacker - You need assessment....

Assessment for what? Having a different view on a subject to you?

....and to listen to people who know just a little bit more than you.

Yes, of course I should. You chaps that pick up all your 'real world' knowledge from that chap who sits at the end of the mess bar telling "when I was" stories are the best sources of info to 'put me straight' on this issue.

Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with what I've leaned in 6 years of doing volunteer drugs work and from the medical professionals who have advised myself and many others on the facts, not what the 'paid for by the government to produce 'facts' that suit the polls' studies say.

[16 blades]

Wow Rug, I guess you think you're being really clever. However, not half as clever as you think.

This:
In low to moderate doses, alcohol appears to have two major sites of action in the nervous system, acting as an indirect antagonist as NMDA receptors and an indirect agonist at GABA receptors (Chandler, Harris, and Crewes, 1998). That is, alcohol enhances the action of GABA at GABA receptors and interferes with the transmission of glutamate at NMDA receptors.
...is, in fact, EXACTLY what I was saying earlier, just put a little more scientifically:
It supresses the transmission of nerve impulses to the brain across the synapses (gaps between nerve cells) - it does not alter what the messages are saying.
I understand the passage you quoted. You obviously do not.

ONCE AGAIN, FOR THE TOTALLY THICK AMONGST YOU:
'Alcohol has greater costs to society than any other drug. A large percentage of deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents are related to alcohol use, and alcohol contributes to violence and aggression. Chronic alcoholics often lose their jobs, their homes, and their families; and many die of cirrhosis of the liver, exposure, or diseases caused by poor living conditions and abuse of their bodies. Women who drink during pregnancy run the risk of giving birth to babies with fetal alcohol syndrome, which includes malformation of the head and brain. The leading cause of mental retardation in the Western world today is alcohol consumption by pregnant women (Abel and Sokol, 1986). Therefore, understanding the physiological and behavioural effects of this drug is an important issue'.
BECAUSE.....
Virtually every adult in the Western world consumes alcohol to one degree or another, which is bound to lead to a statistically greater incidence of alcohol-related problems
You may think you are clever, but you certainly seem incapable of reading. Arguments stating that "Alcohol is more damaging than any other drug" are null and void, for the reasons that I have, several times, already posted. If you are going to try and make yourself look clever, the least you could do is read and properly analyse the arguments you are trying to defeat.

Tourist,
Name a criminal activity that you believe has the same profit margin as drug dealing.
Try Human Trafficking, Sex slavery, Diamond smuggling, Protection racketeering, Credit card fraud, Arms dealing.....all HIGHLY profitable, most with minimal outlay. Many firms who were mainly about drugs have recently moved into human trafficking and sex slavery - why? Easier AND CHEAPER than drugs dealing, thanks to the now non-existent border controls between east and west Europe, VERY profitable, and sustainable long-term.
You mention that you believe I was recently a student.
This is not the case, however I am glad you brought up students, since you seem to agree with me that most student try drugs. The majority of people now go to college
Therefore the majority of people now try drugs.
Nearly true, Tourist, but not quite - a typical Lefty half-truth. Almost half of all young people go on to higher education, and, yes, I agree, the majority of them will try drugs at some point. But whichever way you cut that, you are still left with those who try drugs being an overall minority of the general population.

Your claim, however, was nothing of the sort. Even within this minority, only a minority of them are stupid enough to go on to become regular users. So, you are basing your assessments on a minority of a minority - and that's hardly the majority that you claimed earlier.

PLEASE guys, this is becoming tiresome - don't keep posting the same nonesense, over and over, to try and support indefensible arguments. I have responded to the points you have made with valid arguments that show your positions to be untenable. If you are going to try and blow holes in my argument, by all means do so, but PLEASE post NEW arguments instead of recycling the same b0ll0cks, forcing me to re-quote my own posts time and again.

A question for Tourist, THS et al: Do you think a recovering / recovered addict would support the legalisation of drugs?

16B

[The Swinging Monkey]

Stacker,
Why is it that on virtually every thread on PPrune, you come over as a complete Numpty?? Why is it you seem to know more about everything than everyone else?
I can only suggest that you are in the wrong job, and you should be running the country 'cos you've got the answers to everything.
I've decided NOT to reply to anymore of your misguided comments and suggest to the rest that they do likewise.
Regards
TSM
PS are you aircrew of any denomination or just a bored bluntie?

[Tourist]

Bored of your inability to recognise reasoned argument.

[southside]

Rather than insult him why dont you try to argue with him. Don't call him names.


If you don't agree with his POV the form a coherant, lucid and strong argument to counter his thread. If you cant counter his POV (because it is too strong) then don't revert to name calling and swearing....just admit defeat and slide away quietly.

[16 blades]

Bored of your inability to recognise reasoned argument.
If there was reasoned argument, backed up by fact, I would recognise it. There is simply repetition of the same specious claims, which I have repetitively shown as such. The fact that you have no new arguments to add demonstrates this.

If you don't agree with his POV the form a coherant, lucid and strong argument to counter his thread.
I did. Several times. He either cannot read, cannot understand, or chooses to ignore, instead relying on 'flood jamming' repetitive propaganda, Blair-style.

If you cant counter his POV (because it is too strong)
Your views may be strong, they may even be genuinely held and believed, but they have little basis in reality or fact.

I have made my point (which you have not successfully countered) and I will leave it at that. If you have anything NEW to add to the debate, I will gladly discuss.

[Talk Wrench]

Thanks to everyone for the input into this thread.
I, like most on here, deplore the use of drugs by military personnel. It is however, it's quite obvious that the "pro" drug sympathisers seem to have missed the point completely and believe that drug use is not a danger to those in a Forces environment. Well, it is.

Moreso, everyone involved with aviation should be responsible enough to realise that their actions can directly or indirectly, have an impact on flight safety.The use of illicit substances by an individual will eventually creep into the flight safety machine with a domino effect consequence.

I just hope that anyone who supports or condones drug use realises that Flight Safety is everyones concern and the implications of such activities can be devestating to not just the individual, but to many others as well.


Talk Wrench

[The Helpful Stacker]

Talk Wrench - And I hope by those same high standards you are holding up there that you will make sure the book is thrown at the next person you catch in work still stinking of the previous night alcohol, after all alcohol is also a serious threat to flight safety and I'd hope that any responsible member of the RAF would insist on such action. Examples must be made.

TSM - Funnily enough with a login name such as 'The Helpful Stacker' I am firmly in the 'bored bluntie' rather than 'bored growbag' camp. I do hope with such lacking observational skills you fly nothing more serious than a desk in handbrake house or perhaps your login has something to do with your trade and you're actually some king of rockape that has gotten stuck in a tree.

[Tragic Rug]

16 Blades,

A few points. Firstly I was not trying to defeat your argument, I was simply trying to provide a more detailed explanation of what alcohol use and abuse involves.

You said:

And, for a second time, alcohol is NOT a mind-altering substance - it is a nerve-impusle supressant.

Just by way of further clarification for you:

Alcohol IS a mind altering substance for all the reasons I gave in my earlier post. I will also provide you with some more information to back up this fact.

You said:

Alcohol supresses the transmission of nerve impulses to the brain across the synapses (gaps between nerve cells) - it does not alter what the messages are saying.

Alcohol is not simply a nerve-impulse suppresent

An agonist is a substance that mimics the natural effect of a neurotransmitter by occupying receptor sites for the natural substance.

An antagonist is a substance that occupies the nerve synapse receptor sites and blocks the natural transmitter’s receptor occupation and so inhibits its actions.

So in fact when alcohol acts as acts as an indirect antagonist at NMDA receptors and an indirect agonist at GABA receptors (Chandler, Harris, and Crewes, 1998). This means that alcohol is mimicking the natural effect of the GABA receptors and inhibiting the natural effects of the NMDA receptors.

I don’t know what you think this means, but to me it implies that alcohol alters what the neurotransmitter messages are ‘saying’ as you put it. The very fact that alcohol is mimicking or inhibiting a neurotransmitter means that the neurotransmitter is not working in the way it would with no alcohol in the system, alcohol has therefore altered the mind.

You said:

Once alcohol is out of your system, it's effects are over. This is NOT the case with most illegal narcotics which can cause long term or even permanent alterations to your brain chemistry, even in small or irregular amounts.

Again there is evidence that this statement is incorrect:

Opioid peptide neurotransmitters are a class of neurotransmitter that produce physiological effects similar to those of morphine and heroin. In humans, opioid peptides interact with other neurotransmitters to influence a broad range of physiological functions, including the control of pain. High blood levels of opioid peptides have been correlated with feelings of euphoria. Alcohol consumption affects the activity of opioid peptides, which in turn appears to increase the rewarding effects of alcohol.

Alcohol induced activation of specific serotonin receptor subtypes can stimulate dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens, potentially contributing to alcohols rewarding effects.

The rewarding effects of repeated exposure to alcohol can lead to neuro-adaptation. Neuro-adaptation involves a fundamental change in the way your brain operates. Interestingly studies investigating the reward systems within the brain and neuro-adaptation have yielded some interesting findings regarding drugs that may be able to reduce craving and drug using behaviour. There are a number of other studies that are looking into the production of ‘vaccines’ that target the areas of the brain involved in addiction. It is hoped that such vaccines would allow users to be immunized against the effects of drugs of abuse.

I do not disagree with you ref the fact that many people use alcohol and therefore alcohol is involved in more crime and general unpleasantness. Indeed I would not want other drugs legalized for exactly this reason. I still believe that alcohol is the most damaging drug in our society simply because of its availability, this does not invalidate the statement that alcohol is more damaging than any other drug. I do however feel that any debate on illegal drugs and drug control policy (including alcohol and nicotine), should be based on scientific fact and not the more traditional approaches that have been explored to date. Ultimately I believe that Illegal substances have no place in the armed forces. We do need to think about better educating our people about other legal drugs though.

That’s it for now, I’m off to the pub!

Regards,

Tragic Rug

[Tigs2]

OK I cannot resist it, i said no more but to consider our services is staffed by people who have an inability to answer what is being said or to even reason i am so alarmed i must chip in.

Stacker
Even though you have it from the horses mouth i.e Talk Wrench, who's first and last post was quite clear you seem unable to grasp the simplest of ideas. This thread is about class A and class B drugs, as TW stated in his first post. Despite all of the replies, you and One other are unable to contribute, rather choosing to bicker and bitch and moan. If you want to start a thread about the dangers of drinking and flying/working on aircraft, then do so and i am sure you will have many contributions. That is not what this thread is about. Now as i mentioned earlier will you and Tourist go and start the Professional Pilots Juvenile Network. Like Tourist it seems that your only recourse in all of this is to resort to personal insult.

your quote "Funnily enough with a login name such as 'The Helpful Stacker' I am firmly in the 'bored bluntie' rather than 'bored growbag' camp."

Firstly you may well be bored but there are very few Aircrew and Techies that have the time to be bored at the moment. Secondly i fear that your
handle is a complete misnomer. Stacker, there is absolutely nothing 'Helpful' about you at all. You are clearly the most balanced person on your unit, i.e you carry a very large chip on both shoulders.

Maybe an entry on your next ACR should read 'The best thing this man could do for the military is Leave'

Or 'His laziness and low standards have alienated the majority of his workmates to such an extent that being on shift with him is seen as a punishment'

or (one i have seen of a Cpl Supplier! was it you?) 'He is not unintelligent, just somewhat stupid'


Or another one from a report (was this you?) 'Has developed the knack of ensuring that most personnel on the squadron who have any dealings with him for more than 15 mins at a time, would happily use him for target practice on the range'.

Stacker
Please let me sleep tonight and tell me that you are NOT in a position of line management in the forces.

[Talk Wrench]

From chef to driver, from techie to steward, from mover to rockape, from TCO to WSop, from pilot to supplier. DRUGS ARE NOT WELCOME IN HM FORCES.

HOPEFULLY, the message will eventually get through, even to the sympathy crowd. If you want to take drugs as a recreational pastime, then do it outside of the main gates and without the Queens shilling and your uniform. If you wish to take drugs, then you have no respect for your service, your uniform or yourself.

To the sympathisers, you obviously have no respect for the people who do not wish to partake in the consumption of illicit substances. I also suspect that you are also of the genre who, upon leaving the services, as I have witnessed idiots do, fall into the, " I can't believe I did X years in the mob when I can get stoned at weekends instead" types.

I have seen people like that who were colleagues once upon a time, lose marriages, mortgages and liveliehoods.

Yes, I knew them once, but now, only as wasters.

Did I do them a disservice by disowning them?

No I didn't. They did it to themselves.

So Stacker, for all of your lectures and your counselling expertise, I think you need to go and speak to the Doctors and the nurses, the parents and the families of drug users who have to pick up the pieces.

Think about it please.

Talk Wrench

[Tightflester]

They should try viagra then :ok:

[Tourist]

Tigs Tigs.
You promised to leave.
I am not upset, just disapointed.

[16 blades]

Tragic Rug,

Thank you for your clarification - you obviously have something useful to contribute to this debate and if my earlier post seemed a little aggressive in impugning you, I apologise.

I am obviously not a biochemist, just a layman with an interest in this field. I do however disagree with your assessment of this paragraph:
So in fact when alcohol acts as acts as an indirect antagonist at NMDA receptors and an indirect agonist at GABA receptors (Chandler, Harris, and Crewes, 1998). This means that alcohol is mimicking the natural effect of the GABA receptors and inhibiting the natural effects of the NMDA receptors.

I don’t know what you think this means, but to me it implies that alcohol alters what the neurotransmitter messages are ‘saying’ as you put it. The very fact that alcohol is mimicking or inhibiting a neurotransmitter means that the neurotransmitter is not working in the way it would with no alcohol in the system, alcohol has therefore altered the mind.
I understand the concept of Agonist / Antagonist mechanisms in the body, but I see that description differently. It obviously cannot be argued that with alcohol present, the neurotransmitter mechanisms are working as they should (although THS and Tourist would probably try to argue that, if it suited their agenda!), but the way I read it is that alcohol is Antagonising NMDA receptors (making them a LESS sensitive target) and Agonising GABA receptors (making them MORE sensitive). I cannot see how this is 'altering' what the neurotransmitters are trying to tell the brain (yes, an oversimplified description I know) - it seems to me that the result here is the 'dulling' of some sensations / emotions and the amplification of others, rather than the artificial creation of sensations / emotions that were not already there. This would manifest itself empirically, for example, as a person who has natural aggressive tendencies becoming overtly aggressive when drunk (despite managing to suppress those tendencies when sober, as most of us with normal social skills do!) - This theory would seem to fit with most observations.

I guess one COULD argue that that alone amounts to 'mind alteration', but it depends on what your definition of 'mind alteration' is - I would define it as the artificial creation of sensations, emotions or responses that are not already present. Hallucinogenic and Narcotic drugs fall into this category, but I don't believe alcohol does. As an example, drinking whilst feeling depressed will simply make you MORE depressed (at least in the vast, vast majority of people) rather than making you feel better about things.

This is why I believe any debate of this nature, comparing Alcohol with Illegal drugs, is simply a specious distraction from the issues by people with an agenda to push - Apples and Oranges, as I said originally several pages ago.

16B

[Tourist]

16B.

I cannot believe we are even debating whether alcohol alters your mind.

You must have heard of the phrase beer goggles.
They either change your perception of beauty, or change your threshold of beauty.
Either way, they have affected your mind.

[16 blades]

Re-read my post above and DO try to understand this time, Tourist.

The key is the difference between 'Alteration' and 'Enhancement / Suppresion'.

Let me put an example in terms YOU might understand.

Alcohol may cause you to sh*g the odd fat ugly bird, but it would never cause you to sh*g a bloke, would it?? (assuming, of course, you are not gay).

16B

[[email protected]]

I'm surprised that people are surprised that there is a policy of 'softness' towards those caught by CDT and 'let off' if they are LCpl (or equivalent) and below. This has been the case since the inception of CDT. It is nothing new.

[Tourist]

16B
DUH!
Enhancement is an alteration.
Suppresion is an alteration.

In your case an IQ of over 100 would be a large alteration

[The Swinging Monkey]

Stacker,

I would rise to your bait, but I've got something slightly important to do.
I think that 16 Blades, BEagle, Torque Wrench, Tigs2; infact just about everyone on this thread has said it all for me.

No, of course I'm not a rock ape - durrrrrrrr
if you had read some of the other threads on here, you will have noted that I am an EX Nimrod, Sea King and E-3D driver, (with the odd tour on Canberra chucked in)

Get a life and listen to what people are telling you, for all our sakes.

Now off shopping at Mr Tescos shop!!
Kind regards
TSM

[Tourist]

Monkey.

erm..you just rose to the bait.


Will you people make up your mind?

you go off in sulks........
you join in........
You sulk again.......

[Tigs2]

But Tourist and Stacker
Its just like trying to ignore youre children if they are misbehaving, you try and try but you just cant ignore little kids when they are really irritating you.I just wish i could.