legalized marijuana ... what will CAP do ?

[Johnny Yuma]

While I agree that MJ or any other illegal drug has no place in CAP, IMHO we have few options when dealing with it in CAP. However I'm more concerned about a nonprofit corporation whose policies begin to entangle around the private lives of its membership without any legal authority to do so.

Random dope testing is expensive and the general membership won't stand for it, especially if they have to pay for it. I'm okay for mandatory whizz tests post accident provided NHQ pays for it and establishes a defined set of policies regarding it.

Cadets and DDR? The kids are either getting the DDR message or they're not. I'm of the mind they are and are leaving the stuff alone, or at least smart enough to keep it a thousand yards from CAP. That's as good as we can expect.

[Eclipse]

While I agree that MJ or any other illegal drug has no place in CAP, IMHO we have few options when dealing with it in CAP. However I'm more concerned about a nonprofit corporation whose policies begin to entangle around the private lives of its membership without any legal authority to do so.

How is being a non-profit relevant to this conversation?

Define "legal authority".  CAP, or any other organization can absolutely define its own membership criteria, and being "a recreational user of an illegal substance" does not constitute "protected class".  Membership is a privilege, revocable on the (relative) whim of the corporation.

When you join, you agree to certain tenants of behavior, and to allow CAP to react to that behavior.   If they are too intrusive, spend your volunteer
some place else.

Or are you suggesting that illegal behavior should simply be ignored by CAP because it requires uncomfortable conversations?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

[RogueLeader]

Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

We can still say that we don't want our members using.  If they get caught, they get put out.

[Grumpy]

Despite that CO, as well as several other states, have legalized MJ, it is still an illegal drug by Federal Law.  It is NOT ok for use.  I would not allow anybody in my unit to use MJ, whether they had a license for it or not.  If they came to apply for membership using, outright rejection.  If they were a member, there would be a plan made to get them off, or termination.

What would you do if they were cancer patients and it was prescribed by an MD?  Do they get punished for something they have no control over?

[Garibaldi]

Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

We can still say that we don't want our members using.  If they get caught, they get put out.

Just like any job, you use, you get caught, you probably get canned. My point, and the OP's, was that what does CAP do IF this movement becomes bigger. I suppose the wing king and region CC are reaching for the Maalox...

[arajca]

Despite that CO, as well as several other states, have legalized MJ, it is still an illegal drug by Federal Law.  It is NOT ok for use.  I would not allow anybody in my unit to use MJ, whether they had a license for it or not.  If they came to apply for membership using, outright rejection.  If they were a member, there would be a plan made to get them off, or termination.

What would you do if they were cancer patients and it was prescribed by an MD?  Do they get punished for something they have no control over?

It's still illegal under federal law.

[RogueLeader]

Despite that CO, as well as several other states, have legalized MJ, it is still an illegal drug by Federal Law.  It is NOT ok for use.  I would not allow anybody in my unit to use MJ, whether they had a license for it or not.  If they came to apply for membership using, outright rejection.  If they were a member, there would be a plan made to get them off, or termination.

What would you do if they were cancer patients and it was prescribed by an MD?  Do they get punished for something they have no control over?

Federally speaking, a MD can not prescribe an illegal substance for any reason.  Use of such substance is ILLEGAL.

Yes, they are being punished, but not for something they have no control over.  Everyone using MJ (for either recreation or "medical" use) is in violation of Federal law. 

In those cases for short term "medical" use (ie 1-6 months), I would place them on a leave of absence until they are off of the drugs.  Anything longer or any other use, they need to resign and reapply if they stop using the drug. 

It has no place in CAP.

[Grumpy]

Oops, hit the wrong button.

Interesting isn't it?  I'd say simply follow the Air Forces lead and do what is AF policy.  They are our parent organization after all.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

We can still say that we don't want our members using.  If they get caught, they get put out.

Just like any job, you use, you get caught, you probably get canned. My point, and the OP's, was that what does CAP do IF this movement becomes bigger. I suppose the wing king and region CC are reaching for the Maalox...

That's because it is currently a controlled substance. But if it attains the same status as alcohol and tobacco?

[Eclipse]

That's because it is currently a controlled substance. But if it attains the same status as alcohol and tobacco?

CAP could still prohibit its use for members if it was so inclined. especially in uniform.

Ask the question after it happens.

It's not legal anywhere in the United States today, so the entire conversation in a CAP context is irrelevant.

[Майор Хаткевич]

That's because it is currently a controlled substance. But if it attains the same status as alcohol and tobacco?

CAP could still prohibit its use for members if it was so inclined. especially in uniform.

Ask the question after it happens.

It's not legal anywhere in the United States today, so the entire conversation in a CAP context is irrelevant.

If CAP was around during prohibition, would we still consider 2B'ing members at the end who chose to drink?

[Eclipse]

If CAP was around during prohibition, would we still consider 2B'ing members at the end who chose to drink?

Yes, of course.

[Johnny Yuma]

What I'm saying is that CAP, Inc. or anyone in CAP for that matter has no legal or other authority to start snooping around in the private affairs of its members outside of the organization.

I've gone around and around with many on the CPPT, of which we'll have to agree to disagree on CAP's ridiculous policies between relatioships between consenting adults. But we've also had threads on here regarding cadets caught with contraband off CAP time and how it should have been handled by CAP even though the courts and parents had the situation in hand. Now we're talking about how to deal with members who may partake in using a legal drug in their state yet is still illegal by Federal law. I will not get into the whole Interstate Commerce clause and the overreaching that is occurring for the sake of brevity.

I get the perception sometimes on here that its OK with CAP to meddle in what its adult members do in the privacy of their homes and use the rationale you offer below as their excuse. That attitude will neither add members to our rolls nor will it do anything to retain members, either.

While I agree that MJ or any other illegal drug has no place in CAP, IMHO we have few options when dealing with it in CAP. However I'm more concerned about a nonprofit corporation whose policies begin to entangle around the private lives of its membership without any legal authority to do so.

How is being a non-profit relevant to this conversation?

Define "legal authority".  CAP, or any other organization can absolutely define its own membership criteria, and being "a recreational user of an illegal substance" does not constitute "protected class".  Membership is a privilege, revocable on the (relative) whim of the corporation.

When you join, you agree to certain tenants of behavior, and to allow CAP to react to that behavior.   If they are too intrusive, spend your volunteer
some place else.

Or are you suggesting that illegal behavior should simply be ignored by CAP because it requires uncomfortable conversations?

[Johnny Yuma]

Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

We can still say that we don't want our members using.  If they get caught, they get put out.

I rest my case.

[wuzafuzz]

What I'm saying is that CAP, Inc. or anyone in CAP for that matter has no legal or other authority to start snooping around in the private affairs of its members outside of the organization.

When people break the law it's a matter of The People of the State of Confusion versus Mr/Mrs Wascally Violator.  It's no longer a private affair.  Any organization that cares about it's public image has to draw the line somewhere.   

[wuzafuzz]

^^^^ OK, when they break the law and get caught, it becomes a public matter.

[Eclipse]

What I'm saying is that CAP, Inc. or anyone in CAP for that matter has no legal or other authority to start snooping around in the private affairs of its members outside of the organization.

Your assertion is flawed, at best.  CAP is an "at will" organization, and therefore can establish any policies it deems fit.  If that fact is too onerous,
then the organization is not for you.  Further, as a benevolent organization with one of its stated goals to be the development and protection
of its most vulnerable members, there is a strong argument that CAP is duty-bound to take action whenever it becomes aware of situations
where "off-duty" behavior is dangerous or illegal, especially for cadets, but also for seniors who are frequently in charge of its cadets and / or other
members safety.

I've gone around and around with many on the CPPT, of which we'll have to agree to disagree on CAP's ridiculous policies between relatioships between consenting adults.

CAP's rules in this regard are neither uncommon nor onerous, and are intended for the common good.  Life is not "Twilight", and CAP is not "holding back the star-crossed destinies of its members just to turn them into automatons".  Plenty of corporations, schools, and the military, actively prohibit or discourage the same sort of relationships, for the simple reason that any "romantic" entanglements where the parties are not on equal emotional ground are a bad idea, and that badness tends to cause collateral damage and unintended consequences.

But we've also had threads on here regarding cadets caught with contraband off CAP time and how it should have been handled by CAP even though the courts and parents had the situation in hand. Now we're talking about how to deal with members who may partake in using a legal drug in their state yet is still illegal by Federal law.

what about when the situation is not "at hand"?  And while you're there, define "in hand".  How many convictions are necessary before its back "out of hand"? 
Again, CAP is not unique in this stand, and it protects everyone involved.  private corporations, most government agencies, schools, and similar organizations will all have a say or generate additional consequences for someone who violates the law, external to their direct involvement with the
respective organization.

Something deemed legal at the state level and illegal at the Fed level is..."illegal".  So arguing about it is pointless unless and only when that
simple fact changes.

I will not get into the whole Interstate Commerce clause and the overreaching that is occurring for the sake of brevity.

Trying to argue about the way thing s"should be", in a discussion of "is", is also pointless.  The Federal Government's authority
is not likely to shrink in our lifetime, nor is an organization like CAP going to have a say in the matter, or champion a contrarian attitude.
So this simply "is".

I get the perception sometimes on here that its OK with CAP to meddle in what its adult members do in the privacy of their homes and use the rationale you offer below as their excuse. That attitude will neither add members to our rolls nor will it do anything to retain members, either.

Then it would appear the "attitude" is effective.  Adding or retaining people who engage in illegal activity or poor judgement does not serve CAP's
purposes.

And while any number or substances may be legal, it will never be in CAP's best interest to do anything but actively discourage the
use of anything which alters or intoxicates its members. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

What IF they no longer are breaking the law?

Say tomorrow ALL anti-MJ laws are removed. It becomes legal, sold right next to the cigarette display case in your local 7/11?

Then what?

[lordmonar]

Then it falls under the same catagory as all other legal drugs...alcohol, OTC meds, Perscription Meds.

IMSAFE.... if you are impared don't be at CAP.  End of debate.