New CAPR 52-16 Just Dropped

[a2capt]

So, if you're in a pot state:

The summary reads "Prohibits cadets from using or possessing drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Prohibits energy drinks and e-cigarettes at cadet activities. 2-4 "

But the actual text says "c. Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e-cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities."

But if the pot is by prescription, it could be argued that it's not "recreational" but a prescription medication as covered in section a. But yes, still prohibited under federal law.

So is the federal law override for prescribed items, or only recreational items?

[SamFranklin]

English teachers call them "context clues." Military officers call it "command intent." Read a text with an eye for it's overall philosophy and "problems" like whether Dr. Pepper Ultra counts as an energy drink or a pot prescription from the Netherlands, which is a NATO country, counts as legitimate for CAP, which is sometimes and sometimes not an instrumentality of the United States, tend to fade away.

Big picture, guys. Don't check your common sense at the door.

[lordmonar]

English teachers call them "context clues." Military officers call it "command intent." Read a text with an eye for it's overall philosophy and "problems" like whether Dr. Pepper Ultra counts as an energy drink or a pot prescription from the Netherlands, which is a NATO country, counts as legitimate for CAP, which is sometimes and sometimes not an instrumentality of the United States, tend to fade away.

Big picture, guys. Don't check your common sense at the door.

[darn] it Sam!  We can't use common sense!  That would be too smart! 

[Alaric]

English teachers call them "context clues." Military officers call it "command intent." Read a text with an eye for it's overall philosophy and "problems" like whether Dr. Pepper Ultra counts as an energy drink or a pot prescription from the Netherlands, which is a NATO country, counts as legitimate for CAP, which is sometimes and sometimes not an instrumentality of the United States, tend to fade away.

Big picture, guys. Don't check your common sense at the door.

Big picture, once you start down the slippery slope you never know where it will end up. Next up forbidding caffeine for senior members at CAP activities (its bad for you)   

[lordmonar]

Knowing a slippery slope is there does not mean you can't still go down it.

So saying we should not draw the line there because maybe, sometime down the road, someone may be inclined to move that line.....is not really a valid argument.

If you can show that this line "no energy drinks" is bad in and of itself....then by all means make that argument.  But if all you got is "next they will be banning coffee" I don't think that dog will hunt.

[Alaric]

Knowing a slippery slope is there does not mean you can't still go down it.

So saying we should not draw the line there because maybe, sometime down the road, someone may be inclined to move that line.....is not really a valid argument.

If you can show that this line "no energy drinks" is bad in and of itself....then by all means make that argument.  But if all you got is "next they will be banning coffee" I don't think that dog will hunt.

The rationale they used is poor "Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warns that energy drinks are hazardous to teens..." as the US DHS&S makes many such warnings.  Decisions regarding the diet of children belong to that child's parents not CAP.  Why are we taking this warning seriously but not the ones on (to name a few) caffeine in general, sodium, fat etc.  According to consumer reports Redbull has less caffeine than a cup of coffee (83mg < 100mg) http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20121025/how-much-caffeine-energy-drink.  If we are so worried about caffeine why were coffee and tea not mentioned?  A classic example of the "nanny state" mentality, former Mayor Bloomberg would be proud

[Storm Chaser]

If we are so worried about caffeine why were coffee and tea not mentioned?

The day CAP bans coffee from activities is the day I would most likely hang my CAP uniform.

[lordmonar]

Knowing a slippery slope is there does not mean you can't still go down it.

So saying we should not draw the line there because maybe, sometime down the road, someone may be inclined to move that line.....is not really a valid argument.

If you can show that this line "no energy drinks" is bad in and of itself....then by all means make that argument.  But if all you got is "next they will be banning coffee" I don't think that dog will hunt.

The rationale they used is poor "Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warns that energy drinks are hazardous to teens..." as the US DHS&S makes many such warnings.  Decisions regarding the diet of children belong to that child's parents not CAP.  Why are we taking this warning seriously but not the ones on (to name a few) caffeine in general, sodium, fat etc.  According to consumer reports Redbull has less caffeine than a cup of coffee (83mg < 100mg) http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20121025/how-much-caffeine-energy-drink.  If we are so worried about caffeine why were coffee and tea not mentioned?  A classic example of the "nanny state" mentality, former Mayor Bloomberg would be proud

When the cadets are on CAP time.....we are their parents in a lot of ways.

We already say no smoking....even for cadets who are of age.   We also say no alcohol or illegal drugs....even if said cadet's parents may allow it for their child.

We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues....even if those activities are perfectly fine with their parents.

So that argument does not play well.

As for the Nanny State comment......okay...I'll buy that to a point.   Maybe we would not have so many kids over weight and with insipid type 2 diabetes if parents were doing their job.  When the cadets are under our care we need to be doing the right thing.

If you want to argue one type of substance over another....go right ahead.   

[Alaric]

Knowing a slippery slope is there does not mean you can't still go down it.

So saying we should not draw the line there because maybe, sometime down the road, someone may be inclined to move that line.....is not really a valid argument.

If you can show that this line "no energy drinks" is bad in and of itself....then by all means make that argument.  But if all you got is "next they will be banning coffee" I don't think that dog will hunt.

The rationale they used is poor "Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warns that energy drinks are hazardous to teens..." as the US DHS&S makes many such warnings.  Decisions regarding the diet of children belong to that child's parents not CAP.  Why are we taking this warning seriously but not the ones on (to name a few) caffeine in general, sodium, fat etc.  According to consumer reports Redbull has less caffeine than a cup of coffee (83mg < 100mg) http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20121025/how-much-caffeine-energy-drink.  If we are so worried about caffeine why were coffee and tea not mentioned?  A classic example of the "nanny state" mentality, former Mayor Bloomberg would be proud

When the cadets are on CAP time.....we are their parents in a lot of ways.

We already say no smoking....even for cadets who are of age.   We also say no alcohol or illegal drugs....even if said cadet's parents may allow it for their child.

We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues....even if those activities are perfectly fine with their parents.

So that argument does not play well.

As for the Nanny State comment......okay...I'll buy that to a point.   Maybe we would not have so many kids over weight and with insipid type 2 diabetes if parents were doing their job.  When the cadets are under our care we need to be doing the right thing.

If you want to argue one type of substance over another....go right ahead.

Actually your argument is a little spurious.  We don't forbid smoking, we forbid tobacco products; We forbid alcohol, not allow beer but not allow liquor.  If our real concern with the new regulation is the health of our cadets, then why energy drinks, and not all caffeine.  Alcohol actually shouldn't even be an issue in this argument as the law forbids drinking under the age of 21 and we are required to obey the law.  If the CAP believes they know better than the cadet's parents on what they should or should not consume then a) I would like to know that the people making these decisions are health professionals, not lawyers or other non- health professionals; b) That we make it very clear to parents that we will be making such decisions for their children before they write the check c) I would like to see the appointment of at least a Wing level nutritionist that will need to approve the menu for any CAP event.

Let's look at something else to quote above "We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues...." why only for cadets, aren't we concerned about our senior members.  Let's ban donuts, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco products for them as well.  Once again once allow one "nanny" type decision, you have allowed precedent to be set and then what's your argument when they ban something else.  For instance, why don't we ban donuts at CAP events?  I don't think anyone would argue they are good for you.

[Ned]

Actually your argument is a little spurious.  We don't forbid smoking, we forbid tobacco products; We forbid alcohol, not allow beer but not allow liquor.

Ummm, what?  I've read that a few times and can't make much sense of it.  Can you expand on that a bit?

If our real concern with the new regulation is the health of our cadets, then why energy drinks, and not all caffeine. 

Ahh, you caught us.  We actually don't care about cadets' health at all.  We only do this out of an because we can get away with it and it is fun to torture young people by depriving them of tobacco, alcohol, and energy drinks for days and weeks at a time.

Seriously, what do you think our "real" concern is?

Alcohol actually shouldn't even be an issue in this argument as the law forbids drinking under the age of 21 and we are required to obey the law.

I agree that generally speaking possession and use of alcohol is heavily regulated in all states for persons under 21.  But there are certainly circumstances when it is lawful (certain religious practices, under parental supervision in a private residence, etc.  All vary by individual state.)

Historically, CAP's prohibition on cadet use and possession of alcohol predates the universal 21 year "drinking age" that was required by Federal law in the (early 80's?).  I had several lawful drinks as a 18 year old college student (and CAP cadet) in Boston.

But again, I'm not sure I take your point.

If the CAP believes they know better than the cadet's parents on what they should or should not consume then a) I would like to know that the people making these decisions are health professionals, not lawyers or other non- health professionals; b) That we make it very clear to parents that we will be making such decisions for their children before they write the check c) I would like to see the appointment of at least a Wing level nutritionist that will need to approve the menu for any CAP event.

CAP believes strongly that a parent's wishes and guidance should be respected, but the alcohol / tobacco / energy drink guidance in the 52-16 covers our own CAP activities --  not what happens when the cadet is at home.  Parents are absolutely permitted to allow their cadets to have cigars, tequilla shots, and Red Bull at home.  Sounds like quite a party.

Let's look at something else to quote above "We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues...." why only for cadets, aren't we concerned about our senior members.  Let's ban donuts, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco products for them as well.  Once again once allow one "nanny" type decision, you have allowed precedent to be set and then what's your argument when they ban something else.  For instance, why don't we ban donuts at CAP events?  I don't think anyone would argue they are good for you.

So your position is that CAP should not encourge or discourage anything for cadets?

Really?  That's not part of our job of encouraging fitness? (See CAPR 52-16, para 1-2 "MIssion")

I don't have the mission of developing the leadership, character, fitness, and aerospace skills of our seniors, but I have a Congressionally-mandated mission of doing exactly that for our cadet members.

BTW, I am all for encouraging healthy lifestyles for our seniors.  CP doctrine actually has a lot to offer them.  All seniors have access to the nutrition and fitness training materials including CAPP 52-18.  We already forbid alcohol and tobacco use by seniors (when interacting with cadets.)  All of our DDR materials -- including the lessons that describe the unhealthful effects of energy drinks -- are likewise available to our terrific senior members.

But I'm not sure all senior share your enthusiasm for restrictions on their food, alcohol, and tobacco choices during CAP activities.  But maybe I'm misreading that.  We'll just have to see.

[lordmonar]

Because 52-16 only applies to cadet activities
It would be wrong for the CP shop to dictate health and safety to all CAP personnel and operations

[Alaric]

Actually your argument is a little spurious.  We don't forbid smoking, we forbid tobacco products; We forbid alcohol, not allow beer but not allow liquor.

Ummm, what?  I've read that a few times and can't make much sense of it.  Can you expand on that a bit?


In the case of alcohol and tobacco we ban them entirely not only some sources and not others

If our real concern with the new regulation is the health of our cadets, then why energy drinks, and not all caffeine. 

Ahh, you caught us.  We actually don't care about cadets' health at all.  We only do this out of an because we can get away with it and it is fun to torture young people by depriving them of tobacco, alcohol, and energy drinks for days and weeks at a time.

Seriously, what do you think our "real" concern is?

Once again, if caffeine is bad, then isn't all caffeine bad why ban one source and not the others

Alcohol actually shouldn't even be an issue in this argument as the law forbids drinking under the age of 21 and we are required to obey the law.

I agree that generally speaking possession and use of alcohol is heavily regulated in all states for persons under 21.  But there are certainly circumstances when it is lawful (certain religious practices, under parental supervision in a private residence, etc.  All vary by individual state.)

Historically, CAP's prohibition on cadet use and possession of alcohol predates the universal 21 year "drinking age" that was required by Federal law in the (early 80's?).  I had several lawful drinks as a 18 year old college student (and CAP cadet) in Boston.

But again, I'm not sure I take your point.

If the CAP believes they know better than the cadet's parents on what they should or should not consume then a) I would like to know that the people making these decisions are health professionals, not lawyers or other non- health professionals; b) That we make it very clear to parents that we will be making such decisions for their children before they write the check c) I would like to see the appointment of at least a Wing level nutritionist that will need to approve the menu for any CAP event.

CAP believes strongly that a parent's wishes and guidance should be respected, but the alcohol / tobacco / energy drink guidance in the 52-16 covers our own CAP activities --  not what happens when the cadet is at home.  Parents are absolutely permitted to allow their cadets to have cigars, tequilla shots, and Red Bull at home.  Sounds like quite a party.

Once again, all I'm saying is that if CAP is going to make decisions parents should be making then we should make sure that is clear before we take their money.  I note you did not respond to c)

Let's look at something else to quote above "We forbid a lot of activites on CAP time....for safety issues and health issues...." why only for cadets, aren't we concerned about our senior members.  Let's ban donuts, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco products for them as well.  Once again once allow one "nanny" type decision, you have allowed precedent to be set and then what's your argument when they ban something else.  For instance, why don't we ban donuts at CAP events?  I don't think anyone would argue they are good for you.

So your position is that CAP should not encourge or discourage anything for cadets?

Really?  That's not part of our job of encouraging fitness? (See CAPR 52-16, para 1-2 "MIssion")

I don't have the mission of developing the leadership, character, fitness, and aerospace skills of our seniors, but I have a Congressionally-mandated mission of doing exactly that for our cadet members.

BTW, I am all for encouraging healthy lifestyles for our seniors.  CP doctrine actually has a lot to offer them.  All seniors have access to the nutrition and fitness training materials including CAPP 52-18.  We already forbid alcohol and tobacco use by seniors (when interacting with cadets.)  All of our DDR materials -- including the lessons that describe the unhealthful effects of energy drinks -- are likewise available to our terrific senior members.

But I'm not sure all senior share your enthusiasm for restrictions on their food, alcohol, and tobacco choices during CAP activities.  But maybe I'm misreading that.  We'll just have to see.

First encourage and discourage is not the same as allow and forbid; we are not discouraging cadets from using energy drinks, we are forbidding it that's a difference.

I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us? 

[Eclipse]

The part that is going to be a pain is now cadet squadrons will have to much more proactive in getting this done in stead of waiting for the next O-flight day.   Which I think is a good thing.

Agreed - I can't tell you how many times I've heard "wing has no ride days scheduled"...

Hint: You don't wait for someone else to do your job.

[Eclipse]

Saying "no tobacco products" insures we don't have to deal with the nonsense of "vaping" or whatever it is called this week.
I suppose we're going to need to get off the stick on legal marijuana, since in a number of states it's a legit issue,
and few 12-year olds will understand the "states rights" conversation about legal consumption, especially when mom, dad,
and sis are too high to discuss it.

Saying "no energy drinks" still allows for cadets to have an occasional pop, or drink some coffee, which do contain caffeine and
can be harmful, though the sugar and artificial sweetners are the real danger.

"Energy drinks" like Monster and Red Bull are the liquid equivalent of Facebook and Twitter - horrible taste, appealing to
the most baseline, uneducated consumer, overpriced by a factor of about 10, and chocked full of whatever junk is left over on the chemists
bench that is banned (yet), sounds sciencey, and can be produced cheaply.  Like a lot of food these days, they are literally tuned to
promote consumption vs. satisfaction.

There are also a number of studies that indicate that the way energy drinks are consumed is more the problem then
the drink themselves (vs. say coffee).  The energy drinks are flavored to appeal to children, more prone to binging and "shotgunning"
and properly made coffee is essentially a natural beverage - but I wouldn't suggest my adolescents drink that, either.

If they can't stay awake, they need more sleep, not more caffeine.

[lordmonar]

I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?

No....being more mature we can handle adult things better the younger cadet aged people.
Also being mature adults we don't need a nanny state dictating our behavior beyond that is necessarry to accomplish our mission.

So just like a beer drinking parent we are going to say to our cadets......do as I say....when you are older you can do adult things.

[Alaric]

I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?

No....being more mature we can handle adult things better the younger cadet aged people.
Also being mature adults we don't need a nanny state dictating our behavior beyond that is necessarry to accomplish our mission.

So just like a beer drinking parent we are going to say to our cadets......do as I say....when you are older you can do adult things.

If only cadets had mature adults legally obligated to make decisions for them.  No wait aren't they called parents?

[MajorM]

Except often those parents aren't present.  The rule structure allows parents to have a reasonable assumption of what things will be like when they hand their kid over. 

And I seriously cannot believe the debating point is whether energy drinks, alcohol, or tobacco should be restricted at activities.  There are real issues to debate... And we're going to navel-gaze about whether a kid can have Monster?  Let's try debating the substantive stuff.

[MajorM]

My major beef with the new reg is the "substantive edits" that we're never put on the proving  ground.  Why have the proving ground?

The monthly contact mandate will really stiff units who had quality, quarter-organized programming.  No, that doesn't mean "it's AE quarter".  It means a unit might do AE for three weeks in January to focus on a project.  Then do double leadership the next month.  NHQ is reducing innovation in delivery.  I realize that's sort of the point in regulation, but forcing people in a box isn't always the way to get where you want to go.  It assumes the box is the right place in the first place.

The admin burden on unit approval to other activities also not thought out.  It's a wide definition ... Guaranteed you'll see more 31s required which are a barrier to participation.  We focus so much on process and not enough on outcomes.

And I continue to have a real problem with NHQ's approach to TLC.  I support requiring TLC grads in every unit, but if it's so important then NHQ needs to reflect that.  TLC directors used to receive great support, now it's next to nothing.  I know this change is not CP's choice, but it does send a message to the membership.

[Alaric]

Except often those parents aren't present.  The rule structure allows parents to have a reasonable assumption of what things will be like when they hand their kid over. 

And I seriously cannot believe the debating point is whether energy drinks, alcohol, or tobacco should be restricted at activities.  There are real issues to debate... And we're going to navel-gaze about whether a kid can have Monster?  Let's try debating the substantive stuff.

My mother wasn't present at BSA meetings didn't mean she didn't have a say on what I was allowed to eat or drink. 

[lordmonar]

I don't have any enthusiasm for restricting the food, alcohol or tobacco choices for Senior members, but if its good enough for the cadets then shouldn't it be good enough for us?

No....being more mature we can handle adult things better the younger cadet aged people.
Also being mature adults we don't need a nanny state dictating our behavior beyond that is necessarry to accomplish our mission.

So just like a beer drinking parent we are going to say to our cadets......do as I say....when you are older you can do adult things.

If only cadets had mature adults legally obligated to make decisions for them.  No wait aren't they called parents?

NOT ON CAP TIME.  That's where you argument breaks down.  I don't care what your parents allow you to do.  Eat Cheetos and Jelly Bellys for breakfast and 10-15 Monsters a day, 1/2 pack of Camel Unfiltered, and beer at dinner time. 

ON CAP TIME you are we as CP Leaders need to be treating them responsibly as if we were legally responsible for their health and well being.....oh wait we are.