Drug Testing

[bflynn]

Then I have to try to take questions as to why things that are more highly addictive and dangerous than marijuana, like alcohol and nicotine, are legal and therefore only bad until you're of the appropriate age.

So the problem you have with it is that you cannot explain why society chooses that MJ is illegal and alcohol/nicotine is not?

[AngelWings]

Nathan, you most likely have not been related to drug abusers or alcoholics. Lost an uncle to alcohol, my cousins are in abd out of jail on drug charges, another uncle is very messed up on alcohol and weed, my aunt is a drug abuser, and my sister used to smoke weed. Their bad behavior did not start out with drinking, it started out with weed. I am positive your degrees and lab experiences are very informing, but simply saying you don't think weed is as bad as people think is very shallow. Weed is very dangerous, it is (as I am sure you know) is a gateway drug.

Your arguement came off as a few college students I've talked to via the internet who smoke weed and argue its usefulness and how it is not bad. I am not saying you are a smoker, I am saying your choice of words is very similar to theirs and I was trying to help you out so you do not sound like those tools.

[Nathan]

Nathan, you most likely have not been related to drug abusers or alcoholics.

Your assumption is incorrect. I just don't rely on anecdotal evidence (personal experiences and those related to me by others) for justifying any beliefs I have. I rely on science-based evidence, and the evidence does not support the concept that many of the illegal drugs are as dangerous as their status would have people believe, and certainly not more dangerous (or even AS dangerous) as the legal ones.

Their bad behavior did not start out with drinking, it started out with weed.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Smoking weed is a delinquent behavior because it is illegal. You can argue that the weed caused their bad behavior, but the evidence doesn't agree with you. Instead, I would argue that their bad behavior might have led them to smoke weed. Similarly, one might not argue that getting a gang tattoo makes one a violent gangster, but rather that one gets a gang tattoo when they become a violent gangster.

Again, this is why anecdotal evidence simply isn't enough to get the full picture.

I am positive your degrees and lab experiences are very informing, but simply saying you don't think weed is as bad as people think is very shallow. Weed is very dangerous, it is (as I am sure you know) is a gateway drug.

Weed is not very dangerous. Like I said, it is physically impossible to overdose on weed. The only significant, proven damage it causes is from the smoke inhalation, which is not any different than what cigarettes do. Even heavy use hasn't been shown to do any damage to the brain.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain

And what I know is that marijuana is PURPORTED to be a gateway drug, because the concept of a "gateway drug" is only a theory. There is not enough evidence to support the concept that people who smoke marijuana typically do or even desire to try harder, more dangerous drugs.

Further, marijuana is hardly the most significant of the gateway drugs. As I mentioned earlier, prescription drugs are far more of a concern. Ritalin, for instance, is basically the Sesame Street version of cocaine. Marijuana itself isn't necessarily tough to get, but certainly isn't as easy to get as prescription stimulants and narcotics, which are often MUCH more addictive and dangerous.

Your arguement came off as a few college students I've talked to via the internet who smoke weed and argue its usefulness and how it is not bad. I am not saying you are a smoker, I am saying your choice of words is very similar to theirs and I was trying to help you out so you do not sound like those tools.

I don't know if you realize how condescending it sounds when you say you're trying to help me not sound like an idiot. You're writing off the "stoner college students" because you apparently believe that they are automatically wrong simply because they also happen to do illegal drugs when making an argument. The fact is that I am making many of the same arguments that they are, and I am not wrong because of that fact.

So far, you really have yet to provide a single compelling argument that can compete with the actual research being done on the subject, so I dare say that you should probably worry more about making yourself not sound uneducated on the subject, and worry less about looking down on people who disagree with you.

And for the record, I am not arguing that weed is a good thing. These arguments are all being made to support the assertion that it would be a huge waste of resources to do drug testing on our membership, and if we ARE going to do drug testing, we might as well focus it on alcohol first, since it's directly responsible for about 75,000 deaths a year, while marijuana is responsible for about 0.

[Eclipse]

Where do you get that marijuana is responsible for no deaths?  You think people don't drink impaired on weed?

As you'll see a little further down the Google list you checked,a lot of "accidents" involve marijuana.  And as to dangers, try living in Juarez.

Make it legal and those deaths changed from drug lords to traffic fatalities.

[bflynn]

Nathan, it's sounding to me like you need to refrain from being involved with drug reduction programs since you don't appear to believe in drug reduction.  It's always harder to do something you don't embrace yourself.

[Nathan]

Nathan, it's sounding to me like you need to refrain from being involved with drug reduction programs since you don't appear to believe in drug reduction.  It's always harder to do something you don't embrace yourself.

If you think that I don't believe in drug reduction, then you're missing the point.

I have no problem with a drug demand reduction program. But I have a problem with the fact that CAP expects me to take a moral stance on drug use, rather than one based purely on policy. And that's a problem for anyone who actually goes to the trouble of researching the drug issue through objective sources.

Like I said, I have no issues if CAP wants to have a no-tolerance policy, and I can go out in front of the cadets and say, "CAP has a no-tolerance policy for drugs." But if CAP tells me that I need to say that "drugs are bad", I need to be able to back up those claims in case any cadet asks me WHY specific drugs are bad. The big reason that programs like DARE and, I would imagine, our own DDR policy don't work is due to the fact that we only tell people that drugs are bad, and have no way of telling them WHY.

Which essentially only ensures that they know that the adults don't like kids doing drugs for no apparent reason, similarly to the fact that we don't like them watching rated R movies.

I can hold my own fairly well when we talk about heroin, because I can say it's a highly dangerous, highly addictive substance that's even been used as a torture method by some countries.

But if I'm asked about why it's morally bad to do weed, then what am I, as someone who has done the research, supposed to say? Should I say that it kills less brain cells than a sneeze? That it has no confirmed long term effects, and that short term effects wear off in a few hours? I suppose I can say that it isn't good to do just based on health effects from inhaling burning leaves, but then someone can ask me why alcohol is legal and, by CAP's definition, moral. So then what do I say?

You see the problem? CAP is forcing me to advocate the belief that if something is illegal, then it's because it's immoral. I'm having to try to FIND reasons why marijuana is bad in order to justify saying that it is bad, because that's the stance that CAP has chosen to take.

And again, this isn't just me. Anyone who has done the research into this and other drugs (such as MDMA) is forced into a similar conundrum, because we're having to make up facts to support the theory, or at least redirect attention away from the facts so that the cadets don't bother asking us questions that we really can't answer without saying that there is a huge inconsistency in the US drug laws when comparing what is legal with what is not.

I don't have a problem with a no-tolerance drug policy in CAP. But I don't think there's any way that anyone with any knowledge of how these drugs actually affect the brain can participate in taking a moral stance against something to which no morality can actually be assigned. We should just be saying, "It's illegal to do drugs, so we'll kick you out if we find out you do them." Outside of that, we're really not being honest, or if we think we are, it's out of ignorance.

And it's really a shame that the people with actual knowledge of drug mechanisms are the ones being told that they shouldn't be participating in the program. 

[Ned]

If you think that I don't believe in drug reduction, then you're missing the point.

I have no problem with a drug demand reduction program. But I have a problem with the fact that CAP expects me to take a moral stance on drug use, rather than one based purely on policy. And that's a problem for anyone who actually goes to the trouble of researching the drug issue through objective sources.

Nathan,

I think we can agree that our DDR program represents the best efforts of the USAF Surgeon General, but is not "evidenced-based" in the sense that we don't have any studies that suggest that it measurably changes behavior in the target audience.  And we all know there are a bunch of studies that show that DARE, arguably a similar program to DDR, does NOT measurably change the behavior of middle and high school students.

(And when you get down to it, neither is our safety program "evidence-based, but that's another thread.)

But I don't think the lack of hard evidence supporting the effectiveness of the program alters your responsibility as a CP officer to participate as directed by your commander and actively follow the lesson plans and activities.  Even if you think parts of it are questionable, or even wrong.

If you cannot bring yourself to say "Marijuana is a bad thing and you should not use it," then say something like "CAP teaches that Marijuana is a bad thing and you should not use it."  Or "the USAF Surgeon General, a respected officer and physician, says Marijuana is a bad thing and you should not use it."

If one or more cadets ask "But why?" (and they of course will) simply refer them to the DDR materials and activities which do a fair job of explaining why marijuana users can be at a disadvantage in the aerospace world and society in general.

Like This PowerPoint, prepared not by CAP, but the folks at the National Institute of Drug Abuse. 

Or this Fact Sheet prepared by the DEA.

Both are DDR materials available on the NHQ website.

Or simply tell them that marijuana users are not 'Fit for Flying", which should be a morality-free statement easily understood by an aviation cadet.

I certainly expect CAP officers to have varying moral stances on contraversial subjects in modern society.  Heck, that is one of the reasons we have a Charector Education program - to learn that folks have differing views, and that even people who hold differing views can be reasonable individuals who may have a different perspective than you do.

But every CP officer has an obligation to accept and support our DDR program.

Even if we might personally have designed it differently.

Ned Lee

[AngelWings]

Nathan, it's sounding to me like you need to refrain from being involved with drug reduction programs since you don't appear to believe in drug reduction.  It's always harder to do something you don't embrace yourself.

+1

Nathan, I was not trying to label you. I was legitmately trying to help you. Your post here have generally been well thought out and very intelligent.

My sister was a very smart person. Her friend (I was there, mind you, way long ago) said "Try it, it won't hurt you." She smoked it once, then twice, and then she was addicted. If you think she had a bad attitude, than you are wrong. I hung out with her all the time, and we were very close. I am positive you have heard of Peer Pressure.

Science is a very beautiful thing, but it will never be able to explain everything.

Here is food for thought. Why is weed illegal? Why does it have a bad reputation? Who decided it was bad enough to become illegal? I would argue the point it wasn't randomly chosen to be illegal.

[Nathan]

Nathan,

I think we can agree that our DDR program represents the best efforts of the USAF Surgeon General, but is not "evidenced-based" in the sense that we don't have any studies that suggest that it measurably changes behavior in the target audience.  And we all know there are a bunch of studies that show that DARE, arguably a similar program to DDR, does NOT measurably change the behavior of middle and high school students.

(And when you get down to it, neither is our safety program "evidence-based, but that's another thread.)

But I don't think the lack of hard evidence supporting the effectiveness of the program alters your responsibility as a CP officer to participate as directed by your commander and actively follow the lesson plans and activities.  Even if you think parts of it are questionable, or even wrong.

If you cannot bring yourself to say "Marijuana is a bad thing and you should not use it," then say something like "CAP teaches that Marijuana is a bad thing and you should not use it."  Or "the USAF Surgeon General, a respected officer and physician, says Marijuana is a bad thing and you should not use it."

If one or more cadets ask "But why?" (and they of course will) simply refer them to the DDR materials and activities which do a fair job of explaining why marijuana users can be at a disadvantage in the aerospace world and society in general.

Like This PowerPoint, prepared not by CAP, but the folks at the National Institute of Drug Abuse. 

Or this Fact Sheet prepared by the DEA.

Both are DDR materials available on the NHQ website.

Or simply tell them that marijuana users are not 'Fit for Flying", which should be a morality-free statement easily understood by an aviation cadet.

I certainly expect CAP officers to have varying moral stances on contraversial subjects in modern society.  Heck, that is one of the reasons we have a Charector Education program - to learn that folks have differing views, and that even people who hold differing views can be reasonable individuals who may have a different perspective than you do.

But every CP officer has an obligation to accept and support our DDR program.

Even if we might personally have designed it differently.

Ned Lee

I actually don't disagree with most of what you said. As a CP officer, I do carry out the DDR mission to the best of my ability. I just wish we didn't go about it in the way that we do, because I think it's going to cause some issues if/when the drug laws relax and we're left scratching our heads trying to figure out how we explain that something that used to be "bad" is now okay simply because the majority changed its mind.

I feel we're trying to achieve the same thing as the "abstinence only" sex education program is, where our goal is probably a good one, but we feel like the only way to meet that goal is to exaggerate the problem and therefore undermine the entire program. Teenagers aren't stupid, and regardless of what I tell them, or what the CAP DDR program tells them, or what the DEA tells them, they're going to find the evidence themselves that supports what opinion they want to hold, and in this case, that evidence is a lot stronger than the DEA and CAP is comfortable admitting.

Nathan, I was not trying to label you. I was legitmately trying to help you. Your post here have generally been well thought out and very intelligent.

My sister was a very smart person. Her friend (I was there, mind you, way long ago) said "Try it, it won't hurt you." She smoked it once, then twice, and then she was addicted. If you think she had a bad attitude, than you are wrong. I hung out with her all the time, and we were very close. I am positive you have heard of Peer Pressure.

Erm... the addictive properties of marijuana aren't exactly confirmed, and don't exist in any physical sense. That's not to discount the power of psychological addiction, but "addiction" itself is a tricky word. For instance, when you get addicted to a painkiller, it has to do with the fact that your body stops working the way it should because it becomes adapted to the painkiller.

Becoming "addicted to marijuana" generally means that the individual is using pot to psychologically replace aspects of their lives that they don't care for. It's basically the same sort of addiction that characterizes video game addiction or internet addiction. It's still being debated, and I'm not trying to deny that your sister may have developed a problem (because I'm not saying it isn't possible), but it's definitely not on the same level as legal drugs (like nicotine), and it's not nearly as endemic as the addictive problems that other drugs cause.

Which, again, is why I would say that if we're going to do drug testing, let's focus on the drugs that are proven to cause problems. I'd bet my life savings that you personally know multiple users of marijuana, and they function so well that you have no idea. That's much rarer when you're talking about true alcoholics, or heroin addicts, or even people addicted to prescription drugs.

Science is a very beautiful thing, but it will never be able to explain everything.

Yes, it will. The only limitation to what science can explain is what we can understand about science. Science explains fairly well that pot is far less dangerous than alcohol. Just because you choose not to believe it based on less scientific approaches to the question (such as personal experience) doesn't mean that science has failed.

Here is food for thought. Why is weed illegal? Why does it have a bad reputation? Who decided it was bad enough to become illegal? I would argue the point it wasn't randomly chosen to be illegal.

Oi, you're opening up a huge can of worms that would require a lot more of a citation-based thesis than I have time to play with right now. We can probably summarize it party due to the "poison laws" of the early 1900's, with the association of marijuana with Mexican immigration (which people still didn't like a long time ago and used marijuana laws to try to fight), the growth of the nylon industry (against which hemp was a main competitor), and so forth. You can do the research yourself, because if I sit here and explain the entire history, you're going to label me even more so as the college-poisoned pothead and try to "save me" from sounding like one of them. 

As for why it has a bad reputation, that has to do with institutional memory. For instance, I would imagine that you and many of the people who disagree with me see me as somehow falling off of some morally right path which claims with certainty that drugs are bad and anyone who doesn't accept that fact is somehow corrupted or completely ignorant.

But the fact that we all grew up being told in such blanket terms that "drugs are bad" doesn't actually prove anything. Which drugs are bad? Why are they bad? You asked all the right questions, but the difference is that when I asked those questions, I actually went out and tried to answer them myself, instead of assuming that they are such obvious questions that they must have a valid answer. What does your research tell you when you try to figure out why marijuana was made illegal, and alcohol was re-legalized? What forces were driving that? What evidence is there that it had to do with health issues rather than political or monetary ones?

But this is really derailing the topic. The entire reason I delved into this in the first place was because I was using marijuana as an example of why CAP probably should not be taking a moral stance against something as over-broad as "drugs." We have a lot of chance to do some real good with the DDR program, but I feel there are far more honest ways to handle it than trying to emulate the DARE program, which, as someone pointed out, seems to have INCREASED the tendency to use drugs rather than decrease it.

[krnlpanick]

Nathan +1

And to add a TL;DR memento - FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) are not an effectual way to educate people or reach some goal. Let's get past the FUD and start educating people!

[Ned]

Nathan +1

And to add a TL;DR memento - FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) are not an effectual way to educate people or reach some goal. Let's get past the FUD and start educating people!

Chris,

While I'm not sure I agree that FUD is always ineffectual, I want to point out that our DDR program does have a lot of factual educational material that is both truthful and age-appropriate  Take a look if you haven't seen the resources lately.

CAP is always open to better approaches to our DDR program.  If anyone can identify a better program (preferably supported by independent research and verification), then we would happily look at it.

The goal is to protect our cadets and give them the best possible outcomes in life.  We can and should disagree on doctines and methods - but our goals will always remain the same.

Ned Lee

[krnlpanick]

Ned

I had a big long post all typed up initially and acidentally closed out my browser

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the effectiveness of FUD - that being said, I am not saying that all DDR material is FUD or that is in ineffectual or even that it isn't factual information.

While I have just recently started going through the DDR material (with part of my PD specialty being CP) I also have a great deal of personal experience in the area of addiction and substance abuse. I am a recovering addict (sober 18 years last month) myself and have a deep understanding of where using and abusing can lead. I am a product of the 'Just Say No' and 'DARE' generations and neither program did anything other than make me feel like I was in even less control than I was already - which as we know is completely untrue but is a very real feeling that a lot of teenagers experience.

Dealing with things like peer-pressure is best accomplished by education. As Nathan eluded to, just telling kids that "Drugs are bad, mmkay" is akin to saying to them that "Sex is bad, mmkay" - there is absolutely no measurable outcome of this type of program. I personally would like to see a great deal more education in the DDR program that I have seen thus far (as I said I have just started going through the information available"

It's really the difference between telling a kid, "Heroine will make you steal all your mom's money and get AIDS" and telling them that "Heroine will replace the chemical processes that occur naturally in your body which will cause...." Teenager's are rebellious and inquisitive - simply telling them not to do something will only result in them hiding it from you if they do. Telling them that these are the tough choices they will be faced with as they continue to grow up and educating them will not only arm them with the knowledge to "hopefully" make the right choice, but also makes it more likely that they will come to you or another adult mentor about it.

Understanding the zero-tolerance policy of Civil Air Patrol, I personally would follow the regulations of CAP in the event that someone was caught or admitted to using - however I would also go out of my way to talk to that person outside of the organization about getting help and understanding their choices and the ramifications thereof.

Apologies for continuing this slightly OT side-conversation, but I have sat back and watched this thread since it started. I obviously have strong opinions about drugs and alc.

There is not one aspect of my life that has not been affected in some way by addiction - from my own battle as a young teenager to my cousin being killed by a drunk driver to my aunt drinking herself to death. I am adamantly against drugs and alcohol but I am just as much against anti-drug propaganda spreading misinformation which ultimately ends up doing more bad than good in most situations.

I am looking forward to reading through all the DDR material available and it is extremely likely that I will become heavily involved in my squadrons DDR program - but it really rubs me the wrong way when I see blatant misinformation being spread especially in the presence of those we are trying to educate.

Hopefully, this didn't come across as too offensive, defensive or judgemental - as I said I typed all this up once already. Just thought it was important to clarify my stance on the subject and give a little background of my own.

[Eclipse]

The most effective anti-drug CAP has in its arsenal is the program itself and the proper examples of its leadership, both cadet and senior.

People will do what they will on their own time, in their own space, but anytime a member is in the purview of cadets (especially) their behavior and example should be above reproach to insure we are not sending a mixed "do as I say..." message.

[Ned]

Chris,

I suspect we agree on far more than we disagree in this area.  As I mentioned above, there are certainly peer-reviewed studies that indicate that DARE is not an effective program.  And our DDR program shares some aspects with the DARE program.   But it is not the same program.

And you certainly have a great deal of experience when you tell us about what did not work for you, and the adverse consequences that flowed from that.  It's a cliche to say "thank you for sharing," but it is true nonetheless.

But all the debate about "what doesn't 'work'" or "which program is worse" according to our subjective judgments, or even based on some studies that suggest outcomes for certain programs seems misplaced unless and until we can begin to talk about alternatives that have peer-reviewed studies that indicate that they do measureably change the behaviors of young people in our demographic.

IOW, don't start telling me about what doesn't work until you can tell me what does.

Because in the meantime I am still have a program to run, and young people looking to CAP for guidance.

The AF Surgeon General wants me to run a DDR program for my cadets.  And provides resources.  I'm not going to tell him "no" or crticize the program until I have something better.

Point me to it.

[Flying Pig]

Nathan, Calling any of this a moral argument is laughable.  You think people should be able to smoke weed and your trying to turn it into an academic and moral debate based on your "research".  Your last sentence in your post is right on "And it's really a shame that the people with actual knowledge of drug mechanisms are the ones being told that they shouldn't be participating in the program."   Your right, I personally would not want you or your "moral" issues anywhere near any of my cadets.  Its people like you that have made it harder for those of us trying to combat this. And some of us are combating it more than just talking about it.   What knowledge do you have regarding anything other than the "research" you have chosen to side with in this debate?  Any real world experience in the drug trade and what fuels it?  Let me guess, if we legalize it and tax it the cartels will go away right?  HAAA!  Yeah, I heard that on CNN also.

I've been doing my own research for the past 15 yrs and have determined marijuana is bad.  It really is that simple.  (I am assuming that I don't need to go into meth or heroin right?)  If a CAP member doesnt have the life experience or the maturity to explain and articulate to a cadet why marijuana usage is bad beyond just saying "Its bad" then I would say you have no business being a part of it.  Step aside and find someone who will. I find it odd that someone has a moral objection to whether or not they should be able to take a stance on marijuana use and articulate the reasons against it.  I would like to see you argue for it.  That should be clue number 1.   

I see it when I go to trials.  I cant count the amount of times I have had to watch a judge deal with people who say "Well, morally I just don't think its my place to judge someone else."  or "Well, only God can judge"  Give me a freakin' break.  Run down to the cafeteria and get yourself a back bone sandwich while their still on special.

I know people who have jobs and know people who appear successful and who also smoke pot.  I think they are idiots.  I have no moral struggles with telling them that.  And I have.   And then I tell them to get away from me.  Would you encourage your cadets to smoke cigarettes?  You would be launched out of CAP so fast your Cadet Programs badge would be spinning on the floor in the dust.

I guess my moral compass comes from actually being in the fight vs sitting back and reading someone elses research and policy and trying to find reason as to why people should be able to adopt a destructive practice.  I've done my fair share of research and find most of it is agenda driven.  Even the "science".  I am in CA, the home base of the corrupt medicinal marijuana trade.  Thats a whole nuther' joke in itself.  What do you know about the resources that go into combating the drug trade or marijuana?  A number you got off an internet web site?  Again, people like you are part of the problem.  Some fights arent based in science.  Some are fought just because its the right thing to do.

I don't really care why marijuana became illegal, although Im fully aware of the arguments as to why it was made illegal in historical sense.  If the politicians decide to legalize it, it wont be for any sound moral reasons I can guarantee you of that.  I believe they got it right regardless of the origins of the law.  You can find research to support whatever argument you agree with.  I have read plenty of research to counter the pro-marijuana statistics.  Not to mention that I see and interact with that element daily.  Dealing with that element of society has formed my views solid enough.

I think the moral objection I have is that society today is fearful of telling people they are wrong or appearing passing judgement on someone elses actions.  Perhaps its how I was raised as a kid, the Marines, and getting into police work at an early age.  When I was in CAP I always heard the message that drugs were bad.  I always had solid role models to look up to.  War heros, law enforcement officers, parents, and and some down right awesome Senior Members who treated me better than they treated their own kids at times.  I grew up in a society of pretty strict standards where garbage like that wasnt tolerated or you were out.  People like you lower the standard and then claim there is a moral argument behind it then sit back and wonder why things arent working.  I know some cadets listened some didnt.  Some are doing fine in life, some are very successful. Some are not. But I can guarantee you the successful ones arent still using it.  Hmmmm, why is that?

Feel free to over analyze it all you want.  You research wont stand up for a second when lit on fire by reality.  Ive met plenty of recovering drug users, marijuana included.  I dont think Ive ever met someone who said "Hmm, I think smoking pot gave me the edge I needed."

Do I think DARE was a failure. Yes.  Not because of the message, but because there was no follow up in the later years.  Lets face it, 5th graders are not usually confronted with using drugs. By the time they are confronted with it, coloring in DARE class was years ago.  Its a failure of parents to raise their children, decline of the family, and the drug use and moral decline of their own parents.  I am amazed at the number of teens I deal with who are raising their parents.  And yes, you can be a locked on family and parent and still have a kid go astray.   In the end, there is nobody that thinks drugs are good for them.  People make their decisions, often believing that the consequences don't apply to them.  Thats something that is hard to teach in a DARE or DDR course.   I would say if a member doesnt have the maturity or life experience to explain to a cadet why starting to use marijuana is a big fat negative probably doesnt have the maturity or life experience to deal with the question in the first place. 

[krnlpanick]

Ned

It is commendable that you are running the program and I think the idea of the program is absolutely 100% great! I also don't expect you or anyone else to not teach the material that is available, on the contrary I expect us all to be doing so.

As for what works, I can only claim what worked for me and what I have seen work for others. For everyone it is different and admittedly the lion's share of my experience has been helping people overcome addiction as opposed to helping people avoid it. I know the path that I have chosen with my own children is to educate them as best I can and arm them with the knowledge to make the right decision. That includes sharing my own stories with them, talking about drugs, talking about peer-pressure, talking about ways to deal with the myriad of emotions that face them as they grow up. I know that I personally don't subscribe to the "Don't take the cookie from the cookie jar" methodology and that my own kids don't respond to it well either. It may very well work for other kids though.

I think that what I am really getting at is that while a blanket program is a good start, I think developing curriculum that can be adapted to an individuals specific needs is the best approach. This is no easy undertaking at all and requires buy-in at every level of the CoC in DDR - but it addresses the same problem that all education has been facing for quite some time - kids respond to different methods and different information differently. While telling one student a bunch of statistics may be effective for that student it isn't going to have the same effect on everyone else in the program.

I don't pretend to know all the answers - but I am more than happy to discuss this stuff any time, up to and including sharing my own stories of success and failure.

[Nathan]

Nathan, Calling any of this a moral argument is laughable.  You think people should be able to smoke weed and your trying to turn it into an academic and moral debate based on your "research".  Your last sentence in your post is right on "And it's really a shame that the people with actual knowledge of drug mechanisms are the ones being told that they shouldn't be participating in the program."   Your right, I personally would not want you or your "moral" issues anywhere near any of my cadets.  Its people like you that have made it harder for those of us trying to combat this. And some of us are combating it more than just talking about it.   What knowledge do you have regarding anything other than the "research" you have chosen to side with in this debate?  Any real world experience in the drug trade and what fuels it?  Let me guess, if we legalize it and tax it the cartels will go away right?  HAAA!  Yeah, I heard that on CNN also.

I think your entire post is evidence that you really aren't reading mine closely at all.

1) I made no assertion that people should be able to smoke weed. I made the assertion that it is not nearly as bad as the things that people ARE allowed to do. Only those who are reading to argue rather than understand fail to see that distinction.

2) I made no assertion that this is an issue concerning morality. In fact, I said quite the opposite, that our current program is based on telling cadets that doing drugs is an immoral act, and that I disagree with it. Again, the fact that you are 100% backwards on this point makes me suspicious that you're just looking to pick a fight (ironically, exactly what you're accusing me of doing).

3) Contrary to your assertion, I'm not letting YOU turn this into a political debate, because that was never my point. I would be more than happy to debate with you the effect of the War on Drugs through another medium, however. 

I've been doing my own research for the past 15 yrs and have determined marijuana is bad.  It really is that simple.  (I am assuming that I don't need to go into meth or heroin right?)

It's not that simple, and heroin and meth work on COMPLETELY different channels than marijuana. Trying to blanket them together is like trying to say we should ban .22 cal target rifles because some maniac went on a killing spree with an assault rifle.

If a CAP member doesnt have the life experience or the maturity to explain and articulate to a cadet why marijuana usage is bad beyond just saying "Its bad" then I would say you have no business being a part of it.  Step aside and find someone who will. I find it odd that someone has a moral objection to whether or not they should be able to take a stance on marijuana use and articulate the reasons against it.  I would like to see you argue for it.  That should be clue number 1.

Again, my point is that this is NOT a moral issue, but a legal issue. You can see that evidenced even in our own regulations. For instance, if alcohol was never made legal again, then it would be part of our DDR program. But since it is not, we simply have a regulation that says that members will not consume alcohol during CAP activities. There is no moral stance on the alcohol, because it is legal, despite being far more dangerous than weed.

See the point I'm making? We're trying to turn this into a moral issue because it's a legal issue, and that forces us to try to defend our prohibition on drugs from a moral stance. Normally, we could do that based on the harm that marijuana causes, but because we DON'T call people morally bad for doing alcohol, then we're left in a dilemma. It is NOT as simple as you want to pretend it is, and that's the point I've been making all along. If you choose to ignore that, that's your prerogative, and you didn't need to post at all. 

I know people who have jobs and know people who appear successful and who also smoke pot.  I think they are idiots.  I have no moral struggles with telling them that.  And I have.   And then I tell them to get away from me.  Would you encourage your cadets to smoke cigarettes?  You would be launched out of CAP so fast your Cadet Programs badge would be spinning on the floor in the dust.

Sure would. Then again, that's NOT because we claim that cigarettes themselves are immoral. It's because we would be advocating someone to break the law. That's different than what we do in the DDR program.

You're also drawing a false comparison. I have NEVER advocated that we encourage cadets to do drugs. Good try, but I'm not letting you slip that in.

I guess my moral compass comes from actually being in the fight vs sitting back and reading someone elses research and policy and trying to find reason as to why people should be able to adopt a destructive practice.  I've done my fair share of research and find most of it is agenda driven.  Even the "science".  I am in CA, the home base of the corrupt medicinal marijuana trade.  Thats a whole nuther' joke in itself.  What do you know about the resources that go into combating the drug trade or marijuana?  A number you got off an internet web site?  Again, people like you are part of the problem.  Some fights arent based in science.  Some are fought just because its the right thing to do.

Yeah yeah yeah, I've heard this before. For some reason, the "liberal agenda" is associated with people who are more highly educated in the subject, and therefore, there must be something wrong with the system. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the fact that people in college have access to a huge number of resources, learn how to read those resources, are exposed to an enormous amount of diversity (against their will, on occasion), and so forth.

Seriously, I wasn't going to go there, but I'm rather sick of people like you bashing the academics when it comes to matters that largely benefit from an academic point of view. I'm not writing a book about what it's like to shoot someone based on blog entries. I'm talking about what the NUMBERS say regarding an issue concerning numbers, and when you're trying to develop a nation-wide policy that affects millions and millions of people and an entire section of the economy, then I'm far more comfortable relying on research than your single point of view. This is simply a bigger situation than you. Get over it.

I don't really care why marijuana became illegal, although Im fully aware of the arguments as to why it was made illegal in historical sense.  If the politicians decide to legalize it, it wont be for any sound moral reasons I can guarantee you of that.  I believe they got it right regardless of the origins of the law.  You can find research to support whatever argument you agree with.  I have read plenty of research to counter the pro-marijuana statistics.  Not to mention that I see and interact with that element daily.  Dealing with that element of society has formed my views solid enough.

Dude, let's be clear. Law enforcement spends a huge amount of time dealing with problems relating to alcohol, despite the fact that drinking is not actually illegal. They don't have to go searching for people who are drunk and screwing up. The people just do it naturally. Around 30% of violent crime is associated with alcohol. (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/chap06c.pdf)

I tried to find statistics for violent crime that is associated with marijuana. I was unable to do so, because apparently the government doesn't even bother tracking these statistics, because marijuana use is not associated with violent behavior. Before you say it, that is COMPLETELY different than the violence associated with the underground sale of marijuana, which is related entirely to the fact that it is illegal, and not on the behavioral effects of the drug itself.

So when you say that you're "dealing with that element of society", I have a hard time believing that you're talking about potheads when you're discussing the violent criminal scum bringing down society. Alcohol has had far worse of an effect in that regard, despite its legality.

People like you lower the standard and then claim there is a moral argument behind it then sit back and wonder why things arent working.  I know some cadets listened some didnt.  Some are doing fine in life, some are very successful. Some are not. But I can guarantee you the successful ones arent still using it.  Hmmmm, why is that?

Ha, you're really on a role with the ad hominem tonight, aren't you? 

This is why your personal experience is a terrible way of trying to figure out a view of a national situation. MY personal experience working in hospitals and with people making a lot more money than both of us combined in the medical field tells a completely different story, that even physicians tend to smoke marijuana every now and then. Apparently, it's a fairly popular way to relax during medical school since it not only works immediately, but in small doses is even evidenced to improve concentration.

Of course, I don't have hard evidence for that at my fingers (right now, at least), but it does defeat your argument unless you think I'm lying (which means that you now have to provide hard evidence for YOUR point of view). Successful people ARE using drugs. Hell, Carl Sagan, a brilliant astronomer and astrophysicist, credited a lot of his success to pot. I'm not saying that to encourage anyone to do it, but simply to say that your point is anecdotal and no stronger evidence than anyone else's personal experience.

Feel free to over analyze it all you want.  You research wont stand up for a second when lit on fire by reality.  Ive met plenty of recovering drug users, marijuana included.  I dont think Ive ever met someone who said "Hmm, I think smoking pot gave me the edge I needed."

If I recall correctly, you're a cop. I would be somewhat surprised if anyone admitted doing pot to YOU, or if they were caught, didn't act remorseful for doing it.

[AngelWings]

You just don't get it Nathan. Your statistics can prove anything you'd like them to, but the problem is that they do not match up with the real world.

[Eclipse]

1) I made no assertion that people should be able to smoke weed. I made the assertion that it is not nearly as bad as the things that people ARE allowed to do. Only those who are reading to argue rather than understand fail to see that distinction.

Relativism, in this case, doesn't help.

Bottom line, smoking marijuana is a bad idea.  The fact that it might not be the worst idea on the block doesn't make it better.

The fact that it is illegal, makes it a moral character issue when members choose to violate the law.

As to the academics of the physiological effects of marijuana, they are irreverent to the conversation as well.  It's an intoxicant, used to alter
mental state outside the supervision of a medical professional.  That makes it a bad idea.  Further, it is used by those already inclined
towards self intoxication, who are willing to risk their freedom to get high, which in general indicates a lower threshold of both risk and common sense. 

Studies have shown that it is, in fact, addictive, permanently alters brain function, including speech patterns and cognitive ability, and
opens the door to more extreme forms of intoxication.

That there are other legal substances which may do the same or similar things is again, irrelevant.

[AngelWings]

1) I made no assertion that people should be able to smoke weed. I made the assertion that it is not nearly as bad as the things that people ARE allowed to do. Only those who are reading to argue rather than understand fail to see that distinction.

Relativism, in this case, doesn't help.

Bottom line, smoking marijuana is a bad idea.  The fact that it might not be the worst idea on the block doesn't make it better.

The fact that it is illegal, makes it a moral character issue when members choose to violate the law.

As to the academics of the physiological effects of marijuana, they are irreverent to the conversation as well.  It's an intoxicant, used to alter
mental state outside the supervision of a medical professional.  That makes it a bad idea.  Further, it is used by those already inclined
towards self intoxication, who are willing to risk their freedom to get high, which in general indicates a lower threshold of both risk and common sense. 

Studies have shown that it is, in fact, addictive, permanently alters brain function, including speech patterns and cognitive ability, and
opens the door to more extreme forms of intoxication.

That there are other legal substances which may do the same or similar things is again, irrelevant.

+1