Army won’t sack recruits who use cocaine because the are so short of troops...
 

Okay, I realise that this is from the Mail on Sunday ...but is it likely to happen in the Royal Air Force ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5004447/Army-won-t-sack-recruits-use-cocaine.html


“Army recruits caught taking drugs during their basic training are being allowed to remain in the military for the first time.
Top brass have relaxed the rules because drug abuse is so rife among would-be soldiers that throwing out those who fail drug tests was decimating numbers at a time when the Army is desperately short of troops.
But the move has been slammed as ‘a weak and dangerous surrender’ – and raises fears about drug users having access to firearms.”


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5004447/Army-won-t-sack-recruits-use-cocaine.html#ixzz4wDls1fqV

No different to the Met accepting people with convictions for dishonesty.

The world's gone mad.

Whoever decided that must be on drugs themselves

A second chance, rather than immediate dismissal based upon what may be a single mistake?

The drugs laws of the nation make little sense, made to protect the public, but in practice making things worse through exposure to crime, contaminants in the substances, financing organised crime and terrorism. The Portuguese approach, treating drugs as a health issue, rather than a criminal one has shown much more promise than the ongoing pursuit of criminalisation as the way forward.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs found that alcohol was collectively the most dangerous drug, when both harm to self and others were taken into account. We have some way to go as a society, until we can really look at drugs in an adult way, based upon evidence and risk, rather than entrenched positions.

The Army's attitude to those who fail a drugs test should be based upon evidence and balance of risk, including risks from low recruitment and retention.

We've had a "War on drugs" for most of my life - and now hundreds of thousands of people partake and money flows to criminals in a flood - and it's fueled by petty crime

Time for a change I think

Perhaps they'd heard of 'Colombian marching powder' and thought it was de rigueur ;)

War on Drugs?
 

I agree, we should be shooting the Dealers, but treating Users as Victims. Currently it is a war we are losing, to the huge detriment of Mankind.

KiloB. Roger Moore's character Shawn Fynn had the right idea about dealing with drug peddlers in The Wild Geese.

The cocaine dealer was made to eat the bag of the filth he'd been selling - which had been laced with strychnine.

As for the pongos, I would wager that many Lt. The Honourable Rupert Hardly-Worthitt and his hoorah-Henry chums of some so-called smart cap badge outfit would probably have been involved at some party or other in the City with drugs widely available.

When recruiting for the UAS, we had to ask the 'Big 3', which included asking whether the candidate had ever been involved with drugs. Any hint of a 'yes' meant GET OUT! I hope that is still the case?

I don't think they now pass any judgment on historical recreational use of "drugs" (the definition of drugs of course gives alcohol an exemption), but have no tolerance for previous dealing.

I could dig up RAF or regular Army documents on medical standards for entry online, but did find the Gurkha one. I assume they will be broadly comparable in this regard:

"9. Drug and Substance Misuse
The short, medium and long-term effects of the misuse of either illegal drugs or substances or legally obtained drugs or substances can have a damaging impact on mental and physical fitness and health. Drug or Substance misuse constitutes a direct threat to the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces; the security and safety of Service personnel; and, potentially, the security and safety of the civilians whom they protect. Illegal misuse of drugs or substances by Service personnel also damages the reputation and standing of the Armed Forces. For all of these reasons, the misuse of drugs or substances is not tolerated within the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces recognise, however, that drug or substance misuse is increasingly common in civilian life, particularly among the young, and that you may have misused drugs or substances yourself in the past. This will not necessarily prevent you from enlisting, as all applications are considered individually. Acceptance into the Services will depend on the frequency of use and the class and type of drug or substance that has been misused. Criminal convictions for trafficking or supply of any class of drug or substance will bar entry.
Once you have joined the Armed Forces, you are required to stay clear of drugs or substances at all times and also to avoid association with drug or substance misusers and suppliers. Once you have been enlisted, you will be liable by law to random compulsory drug testing throughout your Service career. If these tests show that you have misused drugs or substances, it is Armed Forces policy that, with very few exceptions, you will be discharged."

How many people did the pilot high on weed kill on a US Navy carrier a few years back now

Times change BEagle. Now it's just as important to recognise something you've done in the past was wrong and that you shouldn't do it again than it is to filter everyone out. Social attitudes, and laws, change over time and so does the approach to handling these situations - as the Army is finding out. I'm sure it won't be long until cannabis becomes legal here, a lower grade drug than cocaine I know, but at least there won't have to be all of this ambiguity about what's now "only" a cautionable offence etc, etc,

And of course the effect if one is driving having consumed drugs - maybe I am just old fashioned

Meanwhile Sean Hughes has died age 51 of a heart failure complicated by cirrhosis of the liver. No doubt Hughes was a partaker in many drugs in his time, but it seems it was the drink that got him in the end. And yet alcohol still gets a free pass from many people who get exercised about other drugs. Personally I find drunks and dopeheads equally boring, but I dont think careers need to be ruined because of one drug offence, any more than one conviction for being drunk and disorderly.

MoD has a very strange attitude towards what it dismisses people for. "Offences" which I've known MoD staff to be convicted of yet retain their jobs, include child rape, child molestation (obviously), arson, attempted arson (obviously), fraud, wheel man on a robbery, grievous bodily harm. Yet I've seen a man suspended without pay for a week for using an MoD screwdriver when trying to get his car going, which had conked out and blocked the entrance to the establishment. He was the only one of the lot who didn't later get promoted. I can't work it out.

When I joined in 1975, one of those questions was: " are you a homosexual?". At the time, gay people were banned from the military and women who got pregnant had their careers stripped from them.

In WWI soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder were shot for cowardice.

In the Roman Army, the penalty for retreating was to have every tenth squaddie beaten to death by his mates, using only their bare fists.

Times change mate...thankfully.

I suppose the MOD want to save money as if the soldiers are HIGH on coke they will not require the use of parachutes when they are supposed to use them ????

At the third stroke it will be 2017 precisely...

Reminds me of, in the 1960s whilst on the Student Aircrew Holding Unit at Topcliffe, being asked:
OC: "Did you spend last night in The Three Tuns?"
Bas: "Yes sir."
OC: "With a woman?"

For a fraction of a second I considered replying:
"No sir, with a man!"

But, realising I was already in some sort of weird RAF trouble, decided to refrain from testing my sense of humour on our OC.

Anyway, later in the day, the RAF was redeemed by the Station Commander's remark to me:
"Jolly good show! If I was your age that's exactly what I'd be doing!"

I won't bore you with the details which was an enormous storm in a teacup - and I'm still married to the lady ;)

What he said!!:ok:

YS

They will be giving them Khat next before going into battle...

I remember one of the Boeing reps telling me about somewhere in Vietnam where he was based, they had found and set fire to a crop of drugs and loads of US troops were soon found downwind breathing it in.

A slightly less Daily Mail-esque discussion of this can be found on the 'Thin Pinstriped Line' blog.

For some weird PPRuNe reason, they won't allow links to it but if you Google the blog name and "Shooting Up in the Army?" you'll find it. There's a bit more context there.

Worth 15 minutes of your time to invest in some education on the evidence based approach to drug addiction, very enlightening!

https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_har...ong/discussion

Enjoy.

They will be able to order it from Amazon lol.... Not what this couple was expecting

Police investigate after 65 pounds of weed included with Orlando couple?s Amazon order | WFTV

He does say that, after 15 years, injecting is only down 50% in Portugal.
OTOH if one of that 50% is your kid then good.

I'm only convinced about the alcohol problem because vastly more people abuse alcohol.

Cocaine use is not uncommon in a highly educated sociable part of city society and heroin is getting there too, so these substances are not only used by the societally disconnected.

Are we comparing casual use with a life ravaged by addiction? They’re 2 very different sides of the same coin, much like alcohol. I like a beer but I can go months without, vs an alcoholic who’s entire life is based around alcohol.

And of the 50%, the devil is in the detail which unfortunately I dont have. 50% of 100 is the same ratio as 50% of 500,000 but has vastly different implications on society, individuals and the entire state of a country. Having been involved with the ambulance service for 5 yrs I can attest that 50% less drug related ‘999’ calls would have a strategic and far ranging impact on the UK, 50% less alcoholic related would be an absolute game changer!

Drug abuse is rarely by those who have had a loving home, opportunity and a real physical and meaningful social network (vs Facebook). And whilst I am most definitely not advocating that the military recruits from this demographic, smoking cannabis as a teenager is a different proposition compared to a 5 yr heroin addict. I am happy to go on the record and state that I tried cannabis in my teens. I am also happy to state that I have never killed anyone, robbed my grandmother or tried to sell the family car. I am now a fully funtioning, mortgage paying, responsible parent who has, and is, serving their country.

Times change and we all need to be open to new ideas. Let go of emotional responses and look at peer reviewed research by experts in the field who are looking to the future and not stuck analysing history.

Never tried nor ever wanted to try drugs, quite happy with a bottle of plonk or a few beers.
Alcohol always struck me as on the whole a social recreation taken in the company of others, where as drugs tend to be the opposite.

Because alcoholics never drink alone, and opium dens were large rooms filled with one person?

Not many opium dens on the high street where I live, but lots of pubs hence the "on the whole"

I think this is the key point: we have societal norms where alcohol is concerned, which we are unwilling to apply to e.g. cannabis, or contemplate that there may be people who can take something at a weekend sometime, have zero impact to their work, i.e. be to all visible measures to those around them "OK". They would still fail a drugs test. At the same time, we have a collective myopia where the damage caused by alcohol is concerned.

So long as we regard the whole point of drugs legislation (and hence the rules for service personnel) to be about managing risk, then they are not fit for purpose as they stand.

One extra thought: We employ contractors in many of the roles previously taken by Service personnel, yet they are not subject to the same testing and rules.

I have known quite a few recovering alcoholics during my time in the service, and after. There is little doubt that years ago there was a culture of drinking in all three services, where heavy drinking was not frowned upon, and even encouraged in some circumstances. One of the chaps I knew came off the bottle, but still eventually succumbed to throat cancer which was caused by his heavy drinking. Another friend has recently had one leg amputated (aged 65) He wont be playing cricket any more, which was his great pleasure in life,, but arteriosclerosis caused by years of heavy post match drinking eventually took its toll

I could go on, but the point is obvious. Yes Nutloose, I take your point about moderate social drinking - I'm a moderate social drinker myself, but our society encourages drinking. Look at any tv programme where two women are meeting for a chat - they will invariably be downing huge glasses of wine, probably more than a days worth of units in a glass. Look at FB with "hooray, its wine o'clock" etc posts. Its easy to come across as a miserable killjoy if you dont go along with the prevailing "ho ho, wink wink" attitude to drinking, but really I don't care - I've seen far too many lives ruined by the stuff - far more than I have by other drugs.

OK, so I am old fashioned, comes with being old.

I have to point out that we are talking about recruits. If they can't do as they are told at the early stages, what chance is there for them later on?

This should not be about drugs, it's about doing as you are told.

Not in my many experiences.

Your alcohol and your fags are drugs. They are just legal. In the future, a similar (far more reasonable) position may be held with drugs currently illegal. In the past in some places alcohol was illegal or at least more controlled with regard supply.

These days it is increasingly unusual to meet people who have not tried to some degree drugs which are still illegal.

I recall some 15 years ago walking along the sea front on an evening in Spain chatting to Mrs W and 16 year old W Minor. "need to tell you a couple of things", piped up WM. "Tried fags, did not like them, tried weed, did not like it". Mrs W was about to ask him if he had tried anything else that attracts 16 year old boys, but I gave her a look and she left it there.
However, we did thank him for his honesty and openness. Well, he did go to ciggies but has long since given them up, and he does not do drugs. Girls and alcohol, well you know 29 year olds

Remember the 'random' drugs tests that were first introduced to the RAF?

We had alpha, bravo and charlie (there's an oversight!) candidates, a certain proportion from each category were needed before the test was deemed finished and you could leave base.

I was at RAF Kinloss at the time, we had to show our ID's as we left the base and if your name was on the list , you had to go to the Med Centre and take the test.

As a relatively old guy, I was amazed to find that i was required to do the test in the first 3 out of 4 testing sessions.

I looked around the waiting room and saw lots of old, married guys waiting to be tested. I was nervous in case Ralgex or Bournvita was on the banned list.

It was then that I realised that, in order to meet the targets, no young, single, party going types were to be tested, it wasn't that the RAF had me down as a Columbian Drug Lord.

It was around the time Fort George provided a lot of positive drugs results, that the 'zero tolerance' approach was changed to a first offence warning!

Upfront disclaimer - I slightly shocked my Vetting Officer when I told her what I thought we should do to drugs dealers, so much so they brought up my answer again come renewal time. But I think there is a point here that whatever we are doing isn't working. And legalisation might be at least be considered.

I say that at the same time as admitting I still have no time for dealers and would cheerfully blunt my kukri on their ribcage, but this doesn't seem to work long term. There's an ex-Met drugs officer (I think) - Neil Woods IIRC who has come out to suggest that fighting dealers is like Darwinism: the Police go after the soft targets and leave the hardened ones to go free. So if fighting them doesn't work, and if as the academics on a University Short Course pointed out 'it's like squeezing a balloon; cut of supply routes in one area and they simply grow elsewhere', legalise them and disrupt the business model by taking control of the problem.

That aside, I'm not sure I think drugs and weaponry are compatible. But, in this day and age is it realistic to believe we're all Choir Boys turning up for training. Of course not. I suspect many of the characteristics attracting people to the military are also found in those of a more delinquent persuasion (by that I mean seeking excitement, adventure, something out of the ordinary from normal social conventions). I would perhaps be inclined to accept this and feature it in the application process: ask a direct question, backed up with CDT as part of the medical. You're honest and clean, fine. You lie and get found out, you're out. You're honest, and turn up positive but are remorseful we take you on probation with the proviso of your name appears on the CDT list for X years after. Might be a pragmatic way of dealing with youthful indiscretion that could have arisen through myriad societal factors other than simply being a bad egg?

I agree with that entirely.

Spent half my money on them.....the rest I just plain wasted!

With all those liabilities how could you possibly afford drugs anyway?;)


For those that don't know, Part 1 training is roughly the first sixteen weeks of service.

I find it all rather ironic, you lower the standards due to being unable to fill the recruitment figures and thus maintain the service establishment, after having made significant numbers of that establishment redundant over the last few years.