CAP Talk

It occurred to me recently that there is no incentive whatsoever for members that are using drugs to stop using them. It's basic economics, giving people no incentives effectively lowers the cost of doing drugs of any kind. Likewise, since CAP doesn't screen for drugs in it's members there is virtually no way to get caught, at least short of smoking crack in front of your commander. (that's a purposeful exaggeration, but not as exaggerated as might think)

Let us remember also that senior members are driving cadets all over the place and pilot senior members are flying them, but it strikes me as kind of risky, both for CAP assets and lives.

I envision a wing level branch responsible for proper administration and documenting of tests. The home kits are extremely accurate these days and really not very expensive. It just seems to me that as long as you weren't a drug king pin before you join CAP, there is just no way to know. I would think the best course of action would be to suspend flying and driving privileges for members testing positive for whatever with reinstatement only if they do some rehab. If they blow it a second time, or if they refuse to get help for their drugs habit, than see you later, we don't need that rabble bombing around with a van full of cadets hopped up on methamphetamine.

Thoughts on this?

No problem with that here.  We have post injury, post accident, and random testing where I work and I am clean so it works for me.

If this were actually a documented problem I would agree, but there have been no incidents that I personally have seen (my scope is limited, so YMMV) that have been because of a member using illegal drugs. Therefore, I think this is a solution looking for a problem.

There already civil and criminal laws, as well as CAP regs, which prohibit driving or flying while intoxicated.

That's plenty.

You have NO IDEAL what a PITA you are suggesting.

1) How do you randomly test people?
2) How do you collect/control the samples?
3) What do you do if someone tests positive.....any manditory reporters out there?
4) Where do we get the money to pay for all this?
5) What is the appeal process for someone tests positive?
6) Who pays for the "defense" of someone who tests positive for a perscription drug, or OTC suplement that produces false positives?

Do we really have a problem with members being high during CAP activities? 
What do we do in those places where drugs a legal (or simi-legal) like CA, NV, etc?

At approximately $48 per test x 60,000 members = $2,880,000

That is a huge line item, even if we only randomly tested a quarter of the membership each year, $720,000 is a lot of encampment scholarships.

I really think that this is a solution looking for a problem.

I am for drug screeining......no money in CAP to accomplish this!  We would no doubt loose some mmebers if we did.

From a medical / legal point of view, you do not want to open this can of worms.

I think what should be done is more of an observation process where the idea of wingmen comes into play. For example, if someone appears high and smells like weed, than I think as wingmen we should report them and they should be promptly reprimanded. Or if someones breath always smells like alcohol. This way we can test individuals. I'd even say make them pay for the test, and if they test negative, reimburse them.

Using my logic, we shouldn't have much of a problem with drugs. CAP attracts a much different caliber of person than a drug user. I doubt most senior members would want to dedicate time to an organization that does provide counter drug operations if they do drugs. I'd worry more about cadets (I've known one drug user in the program, but he fell off the face of the earth when he realized he didn't fit in to our organization).

Quote from: NateF on May 23, 2012, 06:21:36 PM
It occurred to me recently that there is no incentive whatsoever for members that are using drugs to stop using them.
...
Thoughts on this?

You mean, other than existing legal laws that prohibit illegal drugs?

We don't need another solution looking for a problem.

Quote from: bflynn on May 23, 2012, 07:59:49 PM

Quote from: NateF on May 23, 2012, 06:21:36 PM
It occurred to me recently that there is no incentive whatsoever for members that are using drugs to stop using them.
...
Thoughts on this?

You mean, other than existing legal laws that prohibit illegal drugs?

We don't need another solution looking for a problem.

I have been seeing this phrase thrown around every chance that comes around. It seems to me like a good idea, except for the legal issues that are able to come up, but I don't really see them vein an issue especially since we are congressionally chartered. And I do agree that the drug issue is for the most part, a nonissue. But there is a chance that it could be an issue, especially since cadets are involved. And not having any sort of testing or method in place to keep drugs down in CAP, it could become a problem. Let's face it, DDR isn't much, and it's aimed at cadets, not seniors. There really is nothing keeping seniors clean, other than the law, and as you should be able to tell, the law doesn't dissuade quite a few adults.

Why would you be against being tested? Heck test me now.

I see the big issue here as benefits versus cost. Will spending that much money really have a measurable and significant benefit? How many "druggies" do we need to catch to call it worthwhile? Is catching a couple of occasional pot users who mind their own business going to have any real impact on CAP as a whole?

What about folks like me who are on prescription pain killers? I've already had one go-around with a positive whiz-quiz that wasn't properly handled.

Quote from: SarDragon on May 23, 2012, 09:25:40 PM
I see the big issue here as benefits versus cost. Will spending that much money really have a measurable and significant benefit? How many "druggies" do we need to catch to call it worthwhile? Is catching a couple of occasional pot users who mind their own business going to have any real impact on CAP as a whole?

What about folks like me who are on prescription pain killers? I've already had one go-around with a positive whiz-quiz that wasn't properly handled.

Because a pot user minding his own business has no place in Civil Air Patrol!
"meh, it's just pot" is an aweful mindset. I won't allow a pot user minding his own business around cadets, and you shouldn't either. It's not just his business if he is a pot user, and he is in CAP, it is everyone in CAP, it is all of our business. We are the USAF Auxiliary, we have higher standards than that, and they should be upheld, and if you use illegal drugs, you should not be in CAP.

One hot pop on a test, and mandatory one year suspension, and you must prove that you have sought treatment, and your evaluator/rehab counselor must sign off on a successful rehab treatment. Pop hot again, and gone for good. Or my personal preference, pop hot, and you are gone.

There is no incentive to stop using illegal drugs? How about jail, ruination, divorce, illness, death, brain damage, and causing many of the aforementioned to innocent victims? If these are not enough for a person, then I suggest they are total idiots. I also see telling new members that they may be chosen "at random" ( And there is no such thing as "random") to pee in a cup at the whim of some anti-drug political officer as being a major deal-killer in recruitment of new members. ( Although in CAWG, many members might enjoy it and post the videos to Youtube) A very basic sort of drug screening test occurs in the pre-screening of members having a fingerprint check by the department of Justice. If they brought their drug habit with them to CAP, its likely that it was a problem for them before. Should we disqualify non-drinking alcoholics from membership? CAP is the least qualified agency to administer a program like this, since it generally has difficulties in locating its gluteous muscles using the double manual technique. Foggidaboutit.

Major Lord

From a Devil's Advocate perspective, who, on earth, would want to be involved with that kind of thing as a CAP member?

<SARCASM>
I would guess it would fall to the Health Services Officer.

We can give you Captain's bars but........... >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
</SARCASM>

I tend to agree with others that the kind of person that volunteers in CAP as a SM is not the kind of person who would abuse illegal drugs. On the cadet side of things, I could see a situation where a cadet falls into drug use through the usual ways (peer pressure, etc).

I think the solution is true espirit de corps. If we really know each other in our unit, and we really care and pay attention, we'll know quickly if someone is having trouble. Then, as a squadron mate, we can help support and help them as best we can. A really good friend can be a huge advantage.

I think your going to find this with prospective members more so than active members.  Ive walked two people out who were perspective members for exhibiting symptoms of being under the influence.  I am a court recognized DRE (Drug Recognition Expert). Although most units probably dont have that at their disposal.  Neither one of the people challenged me or ever came back.
There are avenues outside of CAP to deal with this, like calling the po-po. Im hoping its not a problem anywhere.  If someone comes into your unit and you think they are displaying these symptoms, then your SQ CC needs to have the intestinal fortitude to man-up (or woman-up) and address it with the member face to face.  There will usually be other outward symptoms and lifestyle changes that will support your observations.  But again if I have issues with your behavior, I can pretty much suspend anything you have as the SQCC, whether it be flying, driving, dealing with cadets or even showing up to meetings until I believe my concerns have been dealt with.  Just be professional, document your issues, and bring your command staff on board with any decisions or meetings.

But I tend to agree with the Walkman.  If its a member, who makes the decision to use drugs, hipefully they are connected and they have friends in CAP also and it will be someone we can salvage vs just changing the locks and deleting their numbers from our cell phones.  Howeever, that doesnt mean we neglect the safety of the unit during their "intervention" process. 

If you see something illegal (dealing, actual use of an illegal substance, etc.), report it to the authorities. If you think a prospective CAP member is under the influence, politely suggest that this organization may not be good fit (I don't recall seeing anything requiring a squadron to accept just anyone who wants to join). If you think a fellow CAP member might be under the influence, don't let them engage in a risky activity (flying, etc.) and enlist some other members to help intervene. We have ways to deal with all of this.

I see how my current wing regime operates and I wouldn't want any of them having the authority to hand out drug tests. It's all well and good if it isn't abused for no reason, but retaliation runs rampant around here, and even if there is no drug use the accusation can still be the last straw for good members to drop out. The financial overhead of execution and enforcement, along with all the legal issues, are also big concerns.

I'm sure like all other organizations with significant participants there are isolated incidents of substance abuse, but are there a significant number of examples where the safeguards already in place did not work where a CAP-wide drug testing policy would have solved the underlying problem? I suspect, like others on this discussion topic, that this is a solution in search of a problem.

I have no use for those who use illegal drugs.  Smoking a joint may not be as dangerous as shooting smack or doing crystal meth, but they're all against the law and against CAP regulations.

For those who choose to drink, and are of legal age, I have no problem with it as long as they don't become idiots behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, become violent, etc.  I used to drink but quit over a decade ago (personal choice).

However, I agree with all the others on here who have said that drug testing could be a can of worms that we don't want to open (more like snakes, actually).

I take prescribed medication.  I have it listed on my Form 60; names, dosages, etc.

Beyond that, what medication I take is between my doctor and myself.

As others have said, unless this is a documented problem, then there's no point of going on this witch hunt.

The fact is that if it takes a drug test to figure out that someone's smoking pot at home, then obviously, the pot-smoking wasn't affecting the member significantly enough at CAP for it to affect their work. If the drug use is evident at CAP, then we don't need a drug test to justify kicking them out.

Just apply the same rational to illegal drugs as you would to legal ones. If it's affecting a CAP activity, then it's our business. If there doesn't appear to be any problems at CAP, then it's not enough of a problem for us to NEED to go looking for these people. We have a zero-tolerance policy as it is. If the person isn't advertising their pot-smoking, isn't coming in to CAP stoned, and isn't tagged by law enforcement, then I don't feel that they're enough of a problem for me to worry about, at least not to the level of wanting a nation-wide (expensive) drug testing policy.

I wonder how that mindset would work for police military EMS and large corporations that require drug testing? It wouldn't work for them. If doing drugs at home is not okay for them, then why is it for us?

^^^^^^

Comparing CAP to law enforcement, military and EMS as a rationale for drug testing is an apple and oranges comparison.  What would be the cost benefit ratio of doing mandatory drug testing in CAP?

Quote from: PA Guy on May 26, 2012, 05:08:49 PM
^^^^^^

Comparing CAP to law enforcement, military and EMS as a rationale for drug testing is an apple and oranges comparison.

Really? So CAP never as the lives of others in their hands? CAP doesn't have military assets? CAP doesn't use government funding? I think we do. So it's not apples and oranges, it's more along the lines of fuji and red delicious. They are both apples, they just taste different. And remember, to sell both apples and oranges, they both have quality control, and they have to be fresh or they won't get sold.

Aren't pilots required to be drug tested through their FAA physicals anyways?  Not being a pilot, I don't know.

Personally, I hated the random drug testing while in the Air Force.  It cost a lot of money, and in my opinion was not a deterrent to those that would use illegal drugs.

My understand now is the US military is going to start randomly testing for legal drugs and other legal substances (besides alcohol) that may cause intoxication.

In the military we had a much higher find rate % with commander directed testing than the random tests  (e.g. normally given because of an accident or a disciplinary problem).    Today when someone has a serious accident, even as a civilian there's a good chance that a drug test/screen is going to be performed.   

I would think that CAP could very easily put in an agreement with pilots/air crew members & vehicle drivers that in case of an accident they are subject to alcohol and drug testing.   The problem is with the implementation, e.g. who takes the sample, how is it controlled OR even if a test facility (most likely procedure) is used who brings the member(s) there; what if the member refuses, etc ???

What's interesting is a lot of the impairment today isn't really caused by illegal drugs, but by legal drugs that are utilized improperly.    Sometimes people, even when properly complying with the physician's instructions can find themselves with issues because of other factors that they don't necessarily have control over at the time.  In other words the perfect physiological storm arrives without warning.    So the person who becomes impaired may not be a bad/criminal type person at all but has an incident or near incident :(

RM                 

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 26, 2012, 04:21:02 PM
I wonder how that mindset would work for police military EMS and large corporations that require drug testing? It wouldn't work for them. If doing drugs at home is not okay for them, then why is it for us?

I'm not saying "it's okay."

I'm saying that if there is no other way for us to tell that a person is doing drugs than using a drug testing kit, because their work at CAP is completely unaffected by their drug habits, then the problem is not big enough to warrant the insane expense of testing the entire membership just to root out these people.

We're a volunteer, non-profit organization. We have much better ways to be spending our money than looking for the people who, despite breaking CAP policy on drugs, are still doing no measurable harm to the organization in the first place. As was pointed out, if we were an actual company that had the money to blow on this sort of testing, then we can have a different conversation. But since that is not the case, then you're arguing just to argue.

Many police departments also have new recruits go through polygraph tests as well, sounds great for CAP to do so too! 

::sarcasm off::

This really is a solution looking for a problem.  IS THERE a problem in CAP?  Not that I can see.   The OP mentions lack of incentives, I think there are many incentives not to do drugs like jail time, body damage, for pilots, taking away their pilot's certification would pretty much be over for them, needless to say CAP.

At the moment, self-monitoring of members, watching out for signs for people you work with in your unit is the best thing to do.

Cost is not really that much of an issue.  My work uses something like this:
http://www.oralert.com/ (http://www.oralert.com/)

baiscally its an oral swab that you hold in your mouth for like 5 minutes: detects the presence of alcohol, opiates, cocaine, meth and marajuana.We usue them for random as well as post vehicle incident assessment.  If it comes up positive,then they send you/take you to our contracted ocupational health clinic for a full urine or blood test.

the cost for the swab is around $3.

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on May 27, 2012, 01:53:30 AM
If it comes up positive,then they send you/take you to our contracted ocupational health clinic for a full urine or blood test.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you end up doing the full test for any positive results because a $3 version is not trustworthy.

Which, again, means that we'd still be paying an unnecessary amount of money for a problem that is not actually documented to be a problem. This is pretty much a definitional witch-hunt.

Quote from: Eeyore on May 23, 2012, 07:04:18 PM
I really think that this is a solution looking for a problem.

Exactly!

Just to chime in here, most of those base tests do not test for the item itself but the chemicals used to create the products.  And the AF is starting to test for prescription items because it is a big item right now along with spice.  Not to mention many states have an implied consent clause to operate a motor vehicle within their borders and I'm sure the FAA has something similar to fly as well.  I concur this is an answer looking for a problem. 

Quote from: Nathan on May 27, 2012, 01:57:50 AM

Quote from: sarmed1 on May 27, 2012, 01:53:30 AM
If it comes up positive,then they send you/take you to our contracted ocupational health clinic for a full urine or blood test.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you end up doing the full test for any positive results because a $3 version is not trustworthy........

I dont think its not a non trustworthy, but more of that you wouldnt want to go to court over a $3 test, that you cant show a chain of custody or specific substances or amounts etc etc.  But why would you pay the big ticket amount everytime for something that usually comes up negative.

I dont think that random drug test are really useful for CAP, I would be interested in seeing the $3 option as something involved in accident investigation maybe.  From a who controls the purse strings sort of perspective; I would tell a member who damages a corporate asset (air or ground) that tested positive for an illegal substance when they had the accident, "You are on your own for the damages and medical bills, and NO federal workmans comp payments to you."  (many many companies I have run into require you to submit for a drug/alcohol test as part of your OJI treatment)

mk

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 26, 2012, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: PA Guy on May 26, 2012, 05:08:49 PM
^^^^^^

Comparing CAP to law enforcement, military and EMS as a rationale for drug testing is an apple and oranges comparison.

Really? So CAP never as the lives of others in their hands? CAP doesn't have military assets? CAP doesn't use government funding? I think we do. So it's not apples and oranges, it's more along the lines of fuji and red delicious. They are both apples, they just taste different. And remember, to sell both apples and oranges, they both have quality control, and they have to be fresh or they won't get sold.

No, its apple and oranges.  I think you are being melodramatic and projecting a grandiose view of CAP in trying to prove your point.

Quote from: sarmed1 on May 27, 2012, 03:19:02 AM

Quote from: Nathan on May 27, 2012, 01:57:50 AM

Quote from: sarmed1 on May 27, 2012, 01:53:30 AM
If it comes up positive,then they send you/take you to our contracted ocupational health clinic for a full urine or blood test.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you end up doing the full test for any positive results because a $3 version is not trustworthy........

I dont think its not a non trustworthy, but more of that you wouldnt want to go to court over a $3 test, that you cant show a chain of custody or specific substances or amounts etc etc.  But why would you pay the big ticket amount everytime for something that usually comes up negative.

I dont think that random drug test are really useful for CAP, I would be interested in seeing the $3 option as something involved in accident investigation maybe.  From a who controls the purse strings sort of perspective; I would tell a member who damages a corporate asset (air or ground) that tested positive for an illegal substance when they had the accident, "You are on your own for the damages and medical bills, and NO federal workmans comp payments to you."  (many many companies I have run into require you to submit for a drug/alcohol test as part of your OJI treatment)

mk

This approach makes somewhat more sense.  However, issues still make it a logistical nightmare.  The $3 test is sensitive but not specific.  A pos. test would require followup in a medical facility.  Then we are getting into chain of custody issues, HIPPA problems and what if alcohol is suspected who orders the BA?  Although in a MVA presumably law enforcement would be involved and depending on the state can order a BA under the state's Implied Consent law if they have one. Who is cleared in CAP to receive this info?  How is it maintained?  Is there a documented need to jump through all these hoops.  Personally I don't think so.

QuoteIs there a documented need to jump through all these hoops.  Personally I don't think so.

Why would it be documented.  If CAP isnt doing any sort of drug testing, there would be no documentation showing drug/alcohol involvemnt as a mishap factor unless done by LE as part of a bigger "investigation"

In a non injury accident it might be difficult to get someone tested, but when I worked ER many employer's requested a drug and alcohol screen as part of workmans comp related treatment.  I would imagine that info as well as any other "HIPPA" type stuff still has to get reported/collected by the workmans comp "people" if a claim is filed. (and I am sure you sign some sort of release statement once that ball gets rolling that allows them that level of access to you "private" medical info/lab reslts and likely allows them to order/request things like drug and alcohol screening)

I am sure the USAF/fed gov would be interested in knowing that as well if you are collecting on their dime for a AF auth mission related injury/mishap.
(I would feel pretty safe in assumig if there is a zero tolerance for their employees, CAP would fall under that umbrela in an AUX on status)

mk

Maybe a better way to put it would have been have there been any documented incidents where substance abuse has been suspected?  If we are in Aux On status I would feel much more at ease with how the info is handled within that system.  In Aux Off status I'm not so sure.  However I would still be concerned who in CAP would have access to my medical info and to what degree.  And as you said what about consent in a non-injury incident or a non Workmens Comp situation?  Workmens Comp is pretty clear cut, if you want to file a claim you play the game.

I personally have no issue with the idea of random testing, but I see it as kind of like a padlock, it just helps keep honest people honest.  Where really I see a problem is in the implementation.  The biggest issue is cost and administration.  In order to use the results for any negative action, you are going to have to:
Show chain of custody from the time the ($3 swabs?) testing materials are manufactured.
Maintain adequate stocks (how many? What kind of storage requirements?).
Ensure that they are within their use by date.
Ensure that random is truly random.
Ensure that "for cause" is actually reasonable and not "for vindictiveness"
Have a battery of lawyers to address all of the lawsuits that will arise over any negative actions.

Even if a "for cause" test comes back positive, you couldn't turn it over to LE as evidence unless every i is dotted and t is crossed.  If squadrons have trouble keeping track of half a dozen radios and a few pieces of SAR gear do you really expect them to be able to administer a legal and effective drug testing program? 

In the end, because CAP is a volunteer organization, and has no power to enforce any laws, the only real negative action available is to expel the member from the organization.  You obviously couldn't demote them, or put them on some kind of probation, because you have no way to enforce or prevent them from re-offending.  You can't have them retesting every month for X years, and as an organization, we couldn't afford the legal liability of someone who had been caught being allowed to operate our aircraft or vehicles, or mentoring cadets.

CAP doesn't have the same problems the military does. The military can attract people looking for the benifits college, training, money, and etc. CAP attracts people looking to do something right in their lives. Of course there is an exception, but exceptions are easy to handle with a 2B when they are caught doing drugs/being alcoholics, or suspensions, demotions, "get treatment or leave" can work too.

Most of the posts apply to illegal drugs. But what about legal precriptions that would show up on a drug test? How would that be handeled compared to an illegal substance that would have the same drug tests results?

Quote from: BillB on May 27, 2012, 07:20:35 PM
Most of the posts apply to illegal drugs. But what about legal percriptions that would show up on a drug test? How would that be handeled compared to an illegal substance that would have the same drug tests results?

Show your prescription, move on.

three pages.....really guys?

Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2012, 12:56:50 AM
three pages.....really guys?

It's a holiday weekend and I'm sitting here hand-holding a Google Apps migration (13000 messages in the IN Box, really?),
so all I have is "too much free time" and open tabs.

At least I can do it from home...

Quote from: Eclipse on May 27, 2012, 07:24:42 PM

Quote from: BillB on May 27, 2012, 07:20:35 PM
Most of the posts apply to illegal drugs. But what about legal percriptions that would show up on a drug test? How would that be handeled compared to an illegal substance that would have the same drug tests results?

Show your prescription, move on.

Easy for you to say. BTDT. Went badly. Ended up on what ended up being a 12 month whiz quiz program in the Navy.

Quote from: NateF on May 23, 2012, 06:21:36 PM
It occurred to me recently that there is no incentive whatsoever for members that are using drugs to stop using them. It's basic economics, giving people no incentives effectively lowers the cost of doing drugs of any kind. Likewise, since CAP doesn't screen for drugs in it's members there is virtually no way to get caught, at least short of smoking crack in front of your commander. (that's a purposeful exaggeration, but not as exaggerated as might think)

Let us remember also that senior members are driving cadets all over the place and pilot senior members are flying them, but it strikes me as kind of risky, both for CAP assets and lives.

I envision a wing level branch responsible for proper administration and documenting of tests. The home kits are extremely accurate these days and really not very expensive. It just seems to me that as long as you weren't a drug king pin before you join CAP, there is just no way to know. I would think the best course of action would be to suspend flying and driving privileges for members testing positive for whatever with reinstatement only if they do some rehab. If they blow it a second time, or if they refuse to get help for their drugs habit, than see you later, we don't need that rabble bombing around with a van full of cadets hopped up on methamphetamine.

Thoughts on this?

hmm. It is a solid thought, yes. I remember when I was 16 and did a paper-route kind of thing for the local paper here, and the "supervising adults" actually GAVE the kids weed!! Is it possible - yes. Is it likely in our line of service - not so much. Is it worth a price over 2 million to administer? Idk. Is it worth it to the cadets - YES.

We do work with "young adults" and we should be ready to bear that responsibility. I can't say it is budgetable in our fiscal year but if the funds were there - I would say I won't mind it one bit. My daughter is joining CAP, so yes, her safety is very important to me

This year, I would have to say that it is not plausible. But possibly next year it would be. We would just need to request the extra funding for congress. I am willing to bet my CAP paycheck that if we informed congress of our intent and reasoning they would jump at the chance.  If for no other reason than the cadets.

If my full-time public sector day job doesn't drug test me, why on earth should my volunteer "side gig"? I understand the sentiment, but again I have yet to see anyone show that this is actually a problem. And as far as being good for the cadets, there are better ways to get warm fuzzies that don't involve spending $2M in a year which will be very tight for everyone (in the NEC slides they're talking about cutting training funds, new equipment, cadet o-flights, etc).

I could just bring up the fact that the more popular drugs to test for, such as weed, don't actually provide as much of a scare as the legal ones, like alcohol. That's not even opinion. That's just science.

If you want to spend money toward something that can actually protect the cadets and is far more likely to get them hurt than weed or ecstasy, you should probably be advocating a "zero tolerance policy" when it comes to alcohol and ban any member who seems to be breaking it.

And I dare for you to argue with me that weed deserves more attention than alcohol when it comes to the safety of the cadets. :)

Quote from: Nathan on May 30, 2012, 10:11:22 AM
I could just bring up the fact that the more popular drugs to test for, such as weed, don't actually provide as much of a scare as the legal ones, like alcohol. That's not even opinion. That's just science.

If you want to spend money toward something that can actually protect the cadets and is far more likely to get them hurt than weed or ecstasy, you should probably be advocating a "zero tolerance policy" when it comes to alcohol and ban any member who seems to be breaking it.

And I dare for you to argue with me that weed deserves more attention than alcohol when it comes to the safety of the cadets. :)

A cadet who smokes weed is going to be a very misfitting and stupid looking cadet. Drug testing isn't 100% about safety, it is about weeding out the tools who are stupid enough to smoke and are breaking laws.

Trying to say alcohol is more important (which I honestly agree with) is more important than weed does not look good at all. It is either catch all drugs and alcohol or not. I would stop the whole weed isn't as bad arguement, it makes you (which I hope to god and don't think you are due to your great attitude on this forum) look like a smoker yourself.

Bottom line.......I just don't see a need for it.

I would rather spend the money on O-rides and NCSA or new radios.
I certainly don't have the time to adminster, yet another, program that will only increase work load and not acheive it's stated goals.

The USAF has been doing random drug testing for decades.....and it still has not STOPPED illegal drug use.

So......Someone.....anyone.....please show me where we have a "problem" with illegal drug use in CAP.....and I will be all over this....until then.

Stopping a problem is t all it's about. Ore often than not preventing a problem is better than trying to stop one, and is more effective.

Is safety one of those things to stop an accident, or to prevent one? Do you use ORM only when you are about to get hurt, or do you use it the whole time, beginning to end, to prevent anyone from getting into a situation where they could get hurt?

It seems to me, that since we don't have a rampant drug issue amongst our ranks, it is the perfect time to start the good hard prevention. DDR as it is can only go so far.

I don't know about you, but I would rather get rid of someone BEFORE they eat another man's face

I know, that is really far fetched, but I digress, drugs are drugs, any substance that can alter a persons mental status needs not be in CAP. And the best way to keep it out is to initiate a zero tolerance policy, and you can't initiate a zero tolerance policy without testing against it.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 05:06:20 PMI know, that is really far fetched, but I digress, drugs are drugs, any substance that can alter a persons mental status needs not be in CAP. And the best way to keep it out is to initiate a zero tolerance policy, and you can't initiate a zero tolerance policy without testing against it.

Today...you have made a powerful enemy...

The fight shall not end until only one survives!

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AwMJ7ystFJo/TC0VcLMlUkI/AAAAAAAAGNc/09zSmy7RFj4/s1600/starbucks_5.jpg)

Oh c'mon, you know I wasn't talking about caffein. You can't eat a loaf of bread without caffein.

Sorry. Caffeine is a drug that alters the mind, and I just love my mountain dew.

Ok, let me rephrase...

The improper use of any controlled substance has no place in CAP, and should be tested against and a zero tolerance policy should be implemented.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 06:04:15 PM
Ok, let me rephrase...

The improper use of any controlled substance has no place in CAP, and should be tested against and a zero tolerance policy should be implemented.

Ok. How are we going to be paying for it?

Quote from: RogueLeader on May 30, 2012, 06:09:42 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 06:04:15 PM
Ok, let me rephrase...

The improper use of any controlled substance has no place in CAP, and should be tested against and a zero tolerance policy should be implemented.

Ok. How are we going to be paying for it?

Refer to my Post On the last page. But I guess I will say it again...

This year I understand that budgeting wouldn't allow it. However next year it is plausible. When budgeting is raised with congress, explain to them that we  want to have drug testing coming into regulation, but budgeting is keeping us from doing so. I bet they jump on the idea of giving us more funding to implement drug testing.

And I bet you they wouldnt.  Cops and Firefighters dont even have mandatory drug testing.  CAP does have a zero tolerance policy on illegal drug use.  Can someone get a hold of NHQ and find out how many 2Bs have been initiated because of drug abuse?  Even with that, if your using illegal or abusing legal drugs, your going to have other issues that I, as a Sq CC can boot you for.  In my 20yrs in CAP Ive never seen it be an issue with any members. 

I'll second what Rob says and add that, IMHO, if CAWG doesn't have a drug problem, it isn't likely that any other state has one.  The drug scene in CA is a step beyond an epidemic.

Suggest that you guys turn your attention to the beret issue.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 06:04:15 PM
Ok, let me rephrase...

The improper use of any controlled substance has no place in CAP, and should be tested against and a zero tolerance policy should be implemented.

Okay.....are you going to pay for it?  How many O-rides do you want to cut?  Which NCSA?  How many missions do we scale back?

That's the bottom line.  Even if we a simple 10% survey of our members each year.....that 6000 members at $70+ a pop that $420,000 per year!

Then there is the extra costs involved when that small but significan number of people pop positive then fight it!

Not to mention that somewhere in our spare time we are going to have to manage this program.

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 30, 2012, 06:37:11 PM
And I bet you they wouldnt.  Cops and Firefighters dont even have mandatory drug testing.  CAP does have a zero tolerance policy on illegal drug use.  Can someone get a hold of NHQ and find out how many 2Bs have been initiated because of drug abuse?  Even with that, if your using illegal or abusing legal drugs, your going to have other issues that I, as a Sq CC can boot you for.  In my 20yrs in CAP Ive never seen it be an issue with any members.

Personally I can't believe (not saying you are lying at all just a figure of speech) that police and fire personnel don't have mandatory drug testing, even EMTs here have mandatory drug testing, and we aren't armed on duty.

As to California being the worst when it comes to drugs, I don't know, have you seen Memphis Tennessee, or Atlanta Georgia? They are pretty bad too.

Now, I do believe we attract the most mature and dependable people for the most part, but you have to know that the occasional idiot pops up, it happens everywhere, especially in the military. As the squadron CC, yes you have a great ability to see most of what happens in your squadron, but you don't see your members at home do you? Even the best sometimes miss things, and if you miss something like a drug user, and something happens, how would you feel?

Personally, if a drug screening program only caught one person in each wing, it would have been worth it, simply because they were caught and taken care of. The biggest plus, it keeps the threat down even farther than it is now.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 30, 2012, 07:47:10 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 06:04:15 PM
Ok, let me rephrase...

The improper use of any controlled substance has no place in CAP, and should be tested against and a zero tolerance policy should be implemented.

Okay.....are you going to pay for it?  How many O-rides do you want to cut?  Which NCSA?  How many missions do we scale back?

That's the bottom line.  Even if we a simple 10% survey of our members each year.....that 6000 members at $70+ a pop that $420,000 per year!

Then there is the extra costs involved when that small but significan number of people pop positive then fight it!

Not to mention that somewhere in our spare time we are going to have to manage this program.

Again, read my posts before you butt heads with one of them, if we inform congress, I bet they would allocate extra funding for it.

I disagree that congress would. I just don't see it.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 06:04:15 PM
The improper use of any controlled substance has no place in CAP, and should be tested against and a zero tolerance policy should be implemented.

And that would solve what problem?

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 07:55:18 PM
I bet [Congress] would allocate extra funding for it.

I'll take that bet, easiest money I'll have ever made.

If you see a fellow member looked wacked out then report them to law enforcement (or have them go to a hospital) and have them take care of it.   They have the specialists that handle this type of item.  Get to know your follow CAP members you work daily with. 

CAP has many real problems it faces, this isn't one of them.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 07:55:18 PM

Personally I can't believe (not saying you are lying at all just a figure of speech) that police and fire personnel don't have mandatory drug testing, even EMTs here have mandatory drug testing, and we aren't armed on duty.

In 15 yrs the only drug tests Ive ever done were pre-employment and the couple times Ive shot people.  And even then, that was by my request as to not give the law suit attorneys ANYTHING to have on me.  Rule out any doubt type of thing.  Beyond that Id challenge you to find me an LE or Fire agency (not a private EMS operator) that does routine or even spontaneous mandatory drug testing.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 07:55:18 PMAgain, read my posts before you butt heads with one of them, if we inform congress, I bet they would allocate extra funding for it.

I think you are smokeing crack....if you think that congress is just going to add $400K to our budget for drug testing.  Simply asking for it could send congress into a tizzy wondering if it smart turning over the $24M to an organisation that has a drug problem.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 30, 2012, 10:09:22 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 07:55:18 PMAgain, read my posts before you butt heads with one of them, if we inform congress, I bet they would allocate extra funding for it.

I think you are smokeing crack....if you think that congress is just going to add $400K to our budget for drug testing.  Simply asking for it could send congress into a tizzy wondering if it smart turning over the $24M to an organisation that has a drug problem.

Again, we don't have a drug problem in CAP. And we would like to keep it that way. The best way to keep it that way in a world where the drug problem gets worse every day, the best way to prevent it is to ensure that it isn't there. The ONLY way that I see to ensure that it isn't there is to test against it. If you have a better way, other than instincts, and yours seem to be way off if you think I am smoking crack (whitch I find extremely disrespectful), then lets hear it.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 31, 2012, 01:42:10 PM
And we would like to keep it that way. The best way to keep it that way in a world where the drug problem gets worse every day, the best way to prevent it is to ensure that it isn't there. The ONLY way that I see to ensure that it isn't there is to test against it. If you have a better way,..., then lets hear it.

The way we're doing it seems to be working just fine.

As a CAP member I don't see the need.

As a taxpayer I really don't see the need.  I can think of a thousand things we need to do in this country before we borrow another $400,000/year to test people that show no signs of drug use.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 31, 2012, 01:42:10 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on May 30, 2012, 10:09:22 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2012, 07:55:18 PMAgain, read my posts before you butt heads with one of them, if we inform congress, I bet they would allocate extra funding for it.

I think you are smokeing crack....if you think that congress is just going to add $400K to our budget for drug testing.  Simply asking for it could send congress into a tizzy wondering if it smart turning over the $24M to an organisation that has a drug problem.

Again, we don't have a drug problem in CAP. And we would like to keep it that way. The best way to keep it that way in a world where the drug problem gets worse every day, the best way to prevent it is to ensure that it isn't there. The ONLY way that I see to ensure that it isn't there is to test against it. If you have a better way, other than instincts, and yours seem to be way off if you think I am smoking crack (whitch I find extremely disrespectful), then lets hear it.

a) Your challenge to me to "find a better way" is a non-starter.  There is no problem to prevent....ergo I can't come up with a way to prevent it. 
b) With no problem to prevent there is no way in the FSM's Green Earth that CAP will ask congress and now way that they will approve INCREASING our budget!  You do follow politics right?
c) I don't "think" you smoke crack.....that's what they call a joke.....you know humor.

If......IF you can show that there is a problem.....even an emergering problem (like rising drug use of our target poplulation)....then maybe.....just maybe you have a point.  But really.....I can name 10-20 things I would rather do with $400K than doing random drug testing.

I can say that random drug testing in the military has not stopped drug use.  I have sat in on enough courts martial to know that.

Did you really ask me to find a problem like rising drug use of our target population? Ok challenge accepted.

12 to 18 years of age, the drug problem is rising exponentially... Our target age range of cadets. Sure sounds like a good portion of our target population to me.

It's not much better when you get into the next age group either.

So, challenge accepted, mission accomplished.

Now so far as what anyone would rather do with $400k a year, I can think of plenty, but do I really need more stuff in my house? In the scheme of running a country, $400k a year is t all that much. It takes about that to train one soldier I would imagine. But either way, I think ensuring the safety of our cadets would be a top priority, and anything we can do should be looked at.

So far as it being a joke when you suggest that I smoke crack, you should be able to tell by now that I am very serious about drug abuse being a problem. I have what I think is a decent sense of humor, but that doesn't do it for me. There are plenty of other jokes that you could make, and Thai often do make. But drug abuse isn't one of them. I have seen too many strung out on bath salts fentonil patches and other crap that should melt your brain when you abuse them to think its funny.

So, our target population having a rising drug problem? Yes
Other ways to spend money? yes
Safety of our cadets a concern? Yes
Safety of our assets? Yes
I just don't see why it's not worth trying to ask.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 31, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
Did you really ask me to find a problem like rising drug use of our target population? Ok challenge accepted.

12 to 18 years of age, the drug problem is rising exponentially... Our target age range of cadets. Sure sounds like a good portion of our target population to me.

It's not much better when you get into the next age group either.

Cite please. The ACTUAL data that I've seen over the years shows a stable to declining trend with intermittent upticks. That's not an exponential increase.

Quote
So, challenge accepted, mission accomplished failed.

FTFY.

QuoteNow so far as what anyone would rather do with $400k a year, I can think of plenty, but do I really need more stuff in my house? In the scheme of running a country, $400k a year is t all that much. It takes about that to train one soldier I would imagine. But either way, I think ensuring the safety of our cadets would be a top priority, and anything we can do should be looked at.

I can think of several things that we can spend that money on that will have more impact than random drug screening. More O-rides, encampment/NCSA scholarships, more NCSAs, an increase to the DDR budget.

QuoteI just don't see why it's not worth trying to ask.

Because this is yet another administrative solution looking for a problem. You have not shown that the problem exists AT ALL. You have not shown that the problem exists IN CAP. And even if the problem did exist, there's no way that Congress is going to allocate more funds for this. If you look through the NEC briefings that are posted on the national website, you'll see that NHQ is expecting severe cutbacks in FY '13 and '14.

That is what my quick google search on drug use in america came up with.

The decline over the las few years has leveled out.

So the "exponetial increase" is just BS.

And 12-18 years old is NOT the target audiance of your drug testing......there is NO WAY IN HELL we are going to be able to do random drug testing on our cadets!  It just aint going to happen........my $400K/year figure was base on only testing senior members.....so if you want to include cadets.....well just up that to $800K.   :(

I have two issues with the above:

First, I don't necessarily believe that drug use in that age range is rising "exponentially".  I think a lot of the assumptions are based more on media hype then reality.

Second, even if it is on the whole, if you take a look at the subset of those inclined to join CAP or similar organizations, you'll find the percentages to be
significantly lower, for all the same reasons that these kids (and adults) are inclined to join to start with.

Regardless, it's only relevant to CAP if it is causing issues for CAP.  I've been in for almost 13 years, and and not aware of a single situation in this wing where there have been any issues with substance abuse, including alcohol, which is much more likely to be a prevalent issue for our members.

You have to show a relevant correlation before you can justify the expense or the loss of member good will.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/pdf/us_drug_trend_yrbs.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/pdf/us_drug_trend_yrbs.pdf)

The CDC says that in the use of illegal drugs in youth has been declining or has stabilized over the past few years. More interesting is that I apparently got enough out of my statistics class to know what the footnotes mean >:D.

Quote from: Littleguy on May 30, 2012, 02:40:50 PM
Trying to say alcohol is more important (which I honestly agree with) is more important than weed does not look good at all. It is either catch all drugs and alcohol or not. I would stop the whole weed isn't as bad arguement, it makes you (which I hope to god and don't think you are due to your great attitude on this forum) look like a smoker yourself.

Oh dear, this argument made about as much sense as McCarthy made when he was persecuting people who disagreed with him as Communists.

A) I'm a scientist who chooses not to believe assertions without evidence, and there is no real evidence that weed is anywhere near as bad as people want to believe it is, and is certainly far less damaging and dangerous than alcohol, which is legal.

B) I'm a recent psychology major who studied fairly intensely the effect of drugs on behavior, and might know what I'm talking about.

C) I worked in a pharmacology and toxicology lab, again working with brains and drugs.

And so forth. Trying to pin me as a druggie simply because I choose not to take marijuana seriously as a problem we need to be spending money on is pretty lame.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofenIt seems to me, that since we don't have a rampant drug issue amongst our ranks, it is the perfect time to start the good hard prevention. DDR as it is can only go so far.

This argument works fine when the lack of a drug problem in CAP means we have absolutely nothing else to pay for. But we do.

Oh, and by the way, my squadron doesn't yet have to worry about volcanoes, since I'm in Kansas. Would it be a good time for us to spend money lava-proofing the building and buying volcano insurance, since there are no volcanoes anywhere near us?

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofenI don't know about you, but I would rather get rid of someone BEFORE they eat another man's face.

See, this is really why you shouldn't talk about things you don't understand. The drug that was involved in the face-eating incident was by almost all accounts probably LSD (which, for those of you who don't know, is also known as "acid", a fairly strong hallucinogenic). An LSD trip can last for a LONG time, and is undetectable in the usual cheap drug tests, which means that unless you have a cadet who is actively and obviously hallucinating (and it is obvious with LSD), then you aren't going to be able to detect the drug anyway, because it'll be out of their system pretty soon after they take it.

We're just going to have to live with the prospect that we have undetectable drug-fueled cannibals in our cadet program.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofenI know, that is really far fetched, but I digress, drugs are drugs, any substance that can alter a persons mental status needs not be in CAP. And the best way to keep it out is to initiate a zero tolerance policy, and you can't initiate a zero tolerance policy without testing against it.

And I say again, alcohol has been responsible for far more problems than a lot of the drugs you're saying we should test for. Why not test for alcohol, and kick out those who drink such a dangerous and mind-altering substance from CAP?

That's the main problem I have always had with CAP's stance on drugs. We take the stance that illegal=morally bad, and it's so stupid I actually am in awe of it. I'm expected to go out there and tell cadets that they are bad people for doing weed, instead of telling them that they are bad people for breaking the law when they do weed. 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.

And it's going to make for some awkward conversations if marijuana becomes legalized, at least in a controlled form, which I'm actually expecting will happen in my lifetime. We should just stick with saying that it's bad to break the law, and that CAP doesn't like having members who break the law, and base our zero-tolerance policy off of THAT, rather than the inherent "blanket badness" of illegal drugs over legal ones.

Oh, and by the way, I should probably also mention that prescription drugs are of far more concern to me than the vast majority of illegal substances. I would love to be able to tell cadets to be careful with their ritalin or lortab, for instance, because of how popular they are and how obviously addictive and dangerous they can be. But again, I'm expected to focus my efforts on battling drugs like marijuana which CANNOT be overdosed on, rather than something like percocet, which can destroy the liver and affect driving abilities as much as alcohol can with a fairly high addiction possibility.

Quote from: Nathan on May 31, 2012, 03:14:55 PMWe're just going to have to live with the prospect that we have undetectable drug-fueled cannibals in our cadet program.

I believe this is on the membership form now.

Quote from: Nathan on May 31, 2012, 03:14:55 PM
And it's going to make for some awkward conversations if marijuana becomes legalized, at least in a controlled form, which I'm actually expecting will happen in my lifetime. We should just stick with saying that it's bad to break the law, and that CAP doesn't like having members who break the law, and base our zero-tolerance policy off of THAT, rather than the inherent "blanket badness" of illegal drugs over legal ones.

Not going to happen - decriminalizing something isn't the same as making it legal.  Personally, I could care less, and would love to see the "War on Drugs" end with Walmart being the biggest supplier, but that's just not realistic.  If anything, the pendulum is likely to swing back the other way with the Supremes eventually ruling that the Feds have final say over pharmaceuticals because of interstate trade, and California's nonsense coming to an end.
If California's "experiment" has shown anything, it's that given an inch, people take a yard - it's become an open joke that Dr's will write a prescription
for "medicinal" marijuana for a hangnail.

Quote from: Nathan on May 31, 2012, 03:14:55 PM
Oh, and by the way, I should probably also mention that prescription drugs are of far more concern to me than the vast majority of illegal substances. I would love to be able to tell cadets to be careful with their ritalin or lortab, for instance, because of how popular they are and how obviously addictive and dangerous they can be. But again, I'm expected to focus my efforts on battling drugs like marijuana which CANNOT be overdosed on, rather than something like percocet, which can destroy the liver and affect driving abilities as much as alcohol can with a fairly high addiction possibility.

I don't see any reason why a DDR of CDI discussion can't include prescription drugs.  Abuse is abuse.

Alcohol is more dangerous from an abuse standpoint simply because of its proximity.  The average member's household is not likely to contain
illegal substances in easy reach, but most will likely have beer and wine (at a minimum).   That proximity, coupled with inattentive / absent parents
is the point of highest risk for our cadets.

I also have to agree with Lord that testing cadets under 18 is never going to happen.  Someone with an agenda might be able to push testing
pilots, especially post-mishap, but beyond that we're simply going to have to live with the same risks everyone else does.

DDR already includes abuse of perscription drugs....

However......DDR and similar programs are NOT effective in reducing drug use.  In some cases students who have gone through a DARE style program show an increase in use of certain types of drugs.

I have to agree with lordmonars last post about DARE programs.

From an EMT perspective, where we spent far more time on things like LSD and bath salts and prescription drug abuse like fentonil patches, I have to agree that marijuana is a far less concern than the heavier deadlier drugs. I have not been on any rant about marijuana, the fact is true, marijuana is the least deadly drug on the streets. And if your DDR program is focusing alley on pot, then I would request you focus on other drugs. There is already a statement about alcohol and caters if I'm not mistaken, and I don't think I am, about alcohol.

Drugs are bad, mkay...

So, my stance has not been swayed in the slightest about drug testing in CAP, but I most definitely understand the budget issues when it comes to testing, and if all we can do is test after someone has an accident that should have been avoidable, okay. But I wish it could go further than that.

QuoteWe should just stick with saying that it's bad to break the law, and that CAP doesn't like having members who break the law, and base our zero-tolerance policy off of THAT, rather than the inherent "blanket badness" of illegal drugs over legal ones.

because there is no money available for "bad behavior reduction"....

mk

Quote from: Nathan on May 31, 2012, 03:14:55 PMThen 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?

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.

Quote from: Littleguy on June 01, 2012, 12:10:15 AM
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.

Quote from: Littleguy on June 01, 2012, 12:10:15 AMTheir 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.

Quote from: Littleguy on June 01, 2012, 12:10:15 AMI 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 (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.

Quote from: Littleguy on June 01, 2012, 12:10:15 AMYour 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: bflynn on June 01, 2012, 12:21:30 PM
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.  ;)

Quote from: Nathan on June 01, 2012, 05:43:12 PM
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 (https://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/braincocopmar.ppt#1), prepared not by CAP, but the folks at the National Institute of Drug Abuse. 

Or this  Fact Sheet (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/marijuana_DrugDataSheet_82978B9CF046B.pdf) 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" (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/drug_demand_reduction/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

Quote from: bflynn on June 01, 2012, 12:21:30 PM
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.

Quote from: Ned on June 01, 2012, 06:17:23 PM

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 (https://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/braincocopmar.ppt#1), prepared not by CAP, but the folks at the National Institute of Drug Abuse. 

Or this  Fact Sheet (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/marijuana_DrugDataSheet_82978B9CF046B.pdf) 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" (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/drug_demand_reduction/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.

Quote from: LittleguyNathan, 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.

Quote from: LittleguyScience 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.

Quote from: LittleguyHere 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.

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!

Quote from: krnlpanick on June 01, 2012, 08:07:19 PM
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

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 01, 2012, 10:02:48 PM
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.  ;)

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 01, 2012, 10:02:48 PMI'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.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 01, 2012, 10:02:48 PMIf 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.  ;)

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 01, 2012, 10:02:48 PMI 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.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 01, 2012, 10:02:48 PMI 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.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 01, 2012, 10:02:48 PMI 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 (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.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 01, 2012, 10:02:48 PMPeople 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.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 01, 2012, 10:02:48 PMFeel 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.

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.

Quote from: Nathan on June 02, 2012, 12:17:24 AM
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.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 02, 2012, 12:31:59 AM

Quote from: Nathan on June 02, 2012, 12:17:24 AM
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

Quote from: Nathan on June 02, 2012, 12:17:24 AMThis 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.

You're going to seriously try and make the argument that just because Dr's use, it must be "OK"?
(http://blog.timesunion.com/mdtobe/files/2010/10/smoking-300x276.jpg)

Quote from: Nathan on June 02, 2012, 12:17:24 AM
we simply have a regulation that says that members will not consume alcohol during CAP activities.

Nope, wrong.

CAPR 52-16 says

"Senior members should exercise discretion when drinking alcoholic beverages or using tobacco products at CAP activities when cadets are present. Seniors should avoid drinking alcohol or using tobacco when they are directly working with cadets or when they are in a confined space with cadets. Additionally, seniors who are not working with cadets should avoid excessive alcohol consumption when they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets thereafter."

Quote from: Littleguy on June 02, 2012, 12:31:20 AM
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.

They match up a lot better than your personal experience does. And again, I think you're making the assumption that I haven't had to deal with similar issues as you, which would be incorrect. I'm not going to have a "who has dealt with a worst drug-related tragedy" game with you, but I'm just telling you here that I have the necessary background in that area to negate any problems with "real world experience."

Quote from: EclipseYou're going to seriously try and make the argument that just because Dr's use, it must be "OK"?

Absolutely not. Read closer. I was responding to his assertion that nobody successful does drugs, which is wrong. Lots of successful people (including our President, whether you like him or not) have used drugs in the past, and many successful people still do. It's ridiculous to assume that their status as drug users completely negates their contribution to the drug debate or society as a whole.

Quote from: NCRbluesNope, wrong.

CAPR 52-16 says

"Senior members should exercise discretion when drinking alcoholic beverages or using tobacco products at CAP activities when cadets are present. Seniors should avoid drinking alcohol or using tobacco when they are directly working with cadets or when they are in a confined space with cadets. Additionally, seniors who are not working with cadets should avoid excessive alcohol consumption when they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets thereafter."

Fair enough. I didn't have it immediately available (PDF reader isn't launching for some reason). Regardless, it doesn't change the point of the argument. In fact, it actually strengthens my argument. Despite being more intoxicating, addictive, and dangerous than many of the substances we rail against during DDR, we allow it during CAP activities. We have no problem with it because it's legal, but we have a problem with other drugs from a "moral" point of view, because they aren't.

Thanks.  :)

And Eclipse, the reason I didn't address your other post was because you said absolutely nothing that hasn't been addressed. There are numerous legal and even unregulated substances that fit the description of what you associate with marijuana.

But as you said, the moral issue is within the fact that they are breaking the law, and my point is that's where it needs to stay. Otherwise, we're basically teaching people that morality = legality, which is hardly the best character development lesson of the day, don't you think? I'm not advocating for them to break the law because it isn't CONNECTED to morality, but it isn't a simple equivalence, despite the structure of the DDR program.

Quote from: Nathan on June 02, 2012, 01:50:32 AMIt's ridiculous to assume that their status as drug users completely negates their contribution to the drug debate or society as a whole.

Not only is it not ridiculous, it is actually part of the core of the argument. 

Any medical professional who uses illegal substances is literally not fit to engage in the conversation, if for no other reason then
they have proven they cannot make good decisions for themselves, let alone others.  Period.
Pick the grounds, physical, moral, spiritual, legal.  Period.

And you're also leaving out the fact that medical professionals are some of the highest abusers of prescription medications, in large part because of their proximity and easy access.  They literally know better, yet make poor choices anyway.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822/college-know-it-all-hippies (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822/college-know-it-all-hippies)

Cool. You win. I am done arguing with you.

Eclipse, when you say that people who use marijuana can't argue about whether marijuana is bad because marijuana is bad, then that is a specific type of logical fallacy. I'm assuming you know which one.

Quote from: Littleguy on June 02, 2012, 02:05:47 AM
Cool. You win. I am done arguing with you.

That's probably for the best. When someone actually tries to argue that we should change the evidence to reflect what YOU believe about the way the world seems to be, instead of saying that you should change your beliefs to match the evidence, then that's probably a sign you don't really have anything more to contribute.

Whatever one's feelings are about medical marijuana, using it now and then to relax, decriminalising it or going to a coffee shop in Amsterdam is really not germane to the discussion here.  I know people who are passionately on one side or the other of the issue.

The fact is that under Federal law it is illegal.  That makes it off-limits for us in CAP.  Alcohol is legal, but there are specific regulations as to when it is allowed in CAP.  Tobacco is legal, but you'll not find a lot of places in CAP (since we usually meet on military installations, National Guard armouries, police/fire departments, civil airports, churches, schools or other public buildings) where it's OK to light up.

If you're operating a CAP aircraft or CAP vehicle, have a mishap, and a drug test shows any kind of illegal drug in your system, my guess is that you'll have problems.

I know this is a bump from the past, but I try to be a fair debater, and felt the need to point out that one of my earlier assumptions, while not proven wrong, hasn't been supported as I thought it would be.

They ran tests on the Homeless Hannibal Lecter guy who ate another man's face in Miami a while ago, and didn't find "bath salts" (a synthetic hallucinogen) in his body, and only found marijuana. Which I think is interesting. I still highly, highly doubt that marijuana was responsible for his behavior, but that's all they found.

http://news.yahoo.com/miami-face-eating-attacker-had-marijuana-body-215322998.html (http://news.yahoo.com/miami-face-eating-attacker-had-marijuana-body-215322998.html)

Just so you guys can never accuse me of cherry-picking the evidence.  ;)