Service member being an idiot

[Spekkio]

I remember reading a story once about an army air corps bomber crewman, it seems he had problems with authority, had a chip on his shoulder and was generally getting into trouble. So much so that he was on KP when he was awarded his MOH. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that alot of those 19 year olds that just smoked weed and drank beer are performing just fine.

So you found an exception. Some of the most successful Americans dropped out of college. So by your logic, we shouldn't require Officers to have college degrees because we are denying the military some of the brightest, innovative minds who could earn a MOH one day.

 

[jtmedli]

I remember reading a story once about an army air corps bomber crewman, it seems he had problems with authority, had a chip on his shoulder and was generally getting into trouble. So much so that he was on KP when he was awarded his MOH. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that alot of those 19 year olds that just smoked weed and drank beer are performing just fine.

Yeah let's ignore the fact that we have to piss test the whole damn Navy every 10 mins because one guy 70 years ago got a MOH. Officers not excluded from that statement either.

 

[pourts]

You have to piss test the whole damn navy because the makers of the piss test have good sales people.

Yeah, because nobody ever pops positive on those tests.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I think you'd be surprised at how low the actual number is.

We've actually busted more kids because of paraphernalia, or actually smoking weed in the barracks then popping on the whiz-quiz. Can you tell we have a morale problem?

 

[FlyBoyd]

I think you'd be surprised at how low the actual number is. I used to know it when I had the command urinalysis coord collateral but have since forgotten. I do remember that it was generally non-existant to single digits per random at a sizeable command. I'd guess the annual testing cost for the Navy and Marine Corps to be about 150 mil if you include manhours to process/administer.

In my nine months in GTMO, my command popped 3 out of 550. Two for MJ and one for Meth.

One guy in VT land popped a while back for MJ. It was pretty much kept on the DL. I think it was eventually dropped but he never flew again and disappeared shortly thereafter.

Single digits or not, it serves to deter most people. DoD can also show that they take illicit drug use seriously so when a sailor kills someone while under the influence they can at least say they tried to prevent it.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

A 19 year old with a pulse and GED walks into a recruiting office, he gets scheduled for MEPS, passes a physical, and off he goes to boot camp.

That is very very rare, most USN recruiters send guys with GED's on their way, the ones with GED's that could come in are the ones that had at least 15 credits of college and can then be counted as HS equivilant.

Generally those with GED's would have a hard time getting a qualifying score anyway

 

[BACONATOR]

In my nine months in GTMO, my command popped 3 out of 550. Two for MJ and one for Meth.

One guy in VT land popped a while back for MJ. It was pretty much kept on the DL. I think it was eventually dropped but he never flew again and disappeared shortly thereafter.

Single digits or not, it serves to deter most people. DoD can also show that they take illicit drug use seriously so when a sailor kills someone while under the influence they can at least say they tried to prevent it.

You're absolutely right about the deterrence part. Most will never do it because of the testing (but probably due to their own personal ideologies). But the ones who would do it, will do it regardless. That is why the test is really there. To catch them. The test isn't really stopping anyone. The ones who wouldn't do it likely wouldn't have without the test. And the ones who would aren't going to be stopped by a test. That's sort of the crux behind addiction: drug tests, punishment, job loss, prison. These aren't deterrents for someone with a real problem. They are going to use anyway.

Just like the guy who goes out and kills someone while drunk. If it wasn't volitional, and their excuse was, "I was blackout drunk".... well guess what? They are an alcoholic, and probably had this problem for a while before it got to this level. The Navy's pamphlets about drinking and the quarterly GMT was never going to prevent it. It's unfortunate, but true... for anyone who's ever cracked a book on psychology.

Now I'm really curious when the US wakes up and legalizes MJ (it's already started), how the military is going to keep justifying how all drugs are "bad" or "immoral" when compared with alcohol. That should be good for a couple of laughs.

 

[Brett327]

Now I'm really curious when the US wakes up and legalizes MJ (it's already started), how the military is going to keep justifying how all drugs are "bad" or "immoral" when compared with alcohol. That should be good for a couple of laughs.

Because it's a very different argument that says people shouldn't perform certain dangerous work tasks under the potentially long-lasting effects of pot, vs. the argument that says people in general ought to be able to consume pot for reasons of personal liberty. The military doesn't prohibit drug use because of moral reasons - they prohibit it because it affects performance (and in very different ways than alcohol).

 

[scoober78]

Because it's a very different argument that says people shouldn't perform certain dangerous work tasks under the potentially long-lasting effects of pot, vs. the argument that says people in general ought to be able to consume pot for reasons of personal liberty. The military doesn't prohibit drug use because of moral reasons - they prohibit it because it affects performance (and in very different ways than alcohol).

OK Otto...since you disagree with this, why does the military prohibit drug use? More specifically, why do they prohibit the use of certain drugs, marijuana, spice, ecstasy etc...while allowing the use of others...alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. Even more topically, why does the Navy prescribe drugs (amphetamines) for performance enhancement but then disallow their use generally. Surely if amphetamines are immoral, they are immoral all the time. Are you seriously trying to argue that the military prohibits the use of say, marijuana, because it's immoral when the use or abuse of alcohol isn't?

 

[snake020]

Simple answer is federal law. Alcohol and tobacco are not part of the Controlled Substances Act. The other stuff is.

 

[scoober78]

Simple answer is federal law. Alcohol and tobacco are not part of the Controlled Substances Act. The other stuff is.

Doesn't really answer the question however...consider Dextroamphetamine...which the Navy has given me to use...is a Schedule 2 narcotic, same as cocaine, which the Navy would kick me out for using. There is an essential element of desired performance at work. The Navy allows me to use Dex because it allows me to perform in a way that they want me to. Cocaine? Probably not so much.

What I was responding to primarily though, was Otto's (and maybe I misunderstood you Otto) implication that there is some moral aspect to what we permit and what we don't.

 

[e6bflyer]

....
4) Never try to fix a genuine idiot. Just identify them and get them out of your organization ASAP.

My last tour was in an organization that had more than their fair share of idiots. Unfortunately, those guys are sometimes very hard to get rid of. Sometimes you think you have them gone and they find their way back. Kind of like the clap.

 

[Flash]

Just as an FYI, military-wide drug testing started as a result of a Prowler crashing into the USS Nimitz in 1981 and several deck crewman killed were subsequently found to have used marijuana (talked about on page 45 of the JAGMAN).

I have also heard the mishap cited several times as an good example why over-the-counter meds are a no-no for aviators.

 

[Spekkio]

If I had to guess, I'd say that the Navy outright bans other drug use because, along with them being illegal, there is no way for them to objectively test if you are actually high when you show up for duty. There is only a way for them to test if you have used the drug in the past X amount of time. It has nothing to do with "long term effects that are detrimental to one's ability to perform," since alcohol has similar long-term effects that can be just as, if not more devastating than MJ - impaired prospective memory, liver damage, insomnia, weight gain, heart problems, etc. If the reason that we don't permit MJ is possible negative effects to one's long-term job performance (which, to accomplish, one would have to smoke A LOT of weed), then we also should not permit servicemembers to drink alcohol.

Our current drug laws make no logical sense if we are going to draw the line in the sand at alcohol and then subsequently outlaw a myriad of drugs that are less dangerous than it.

 

[Brett327]

It's important to distinguish between long term health effects, which you've addressed, and long term performance effects. We have an established standard for alcohol that works (12 hours/ free from effects). MJ has lasting effects on performance that extend beyond when the user is high. The problem of being "free from effects" is more complicated and not as well understood within a military context. Without being studied extensively (as I imagine alcohol was in establishing that standard), we're not going to have a legitimate way of defining "free from effects" for MJ, thus it will remain off limits.