Spekkio wants his weed...

[USNMark]

Fuck you. People like you make me puke. And stay the hell out of "my" Navy while you're at it ...

If "drugs are a huge interest" of yours ... I don't want you anywhere around me or anywhere around any of my airplanes.

By the way, I'm not "special" and I somehow managed to avoid "the influence".

Go try ImaPothead.org and "flounder" around their forums ... if you can navigate the keyboard.

Well. said. sir. I couldn't voice this sentiment any better myself.

In NorCal....

also well said. Says it all right there.
Who the fuck cares what you grass wizards do up there? This is the US military we're talking about. Do yourself a huge favor, give your NROTC slot to someone who cares about more than just their own temptations. :icon_rage You're honestly wasting your time if, of all the responsibilities, strains, obligations, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. you might have one day as a naval officer, this is where your focus is.....

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Lazer,

Yes, if you smoke up everyday, you're probably going to have some adverse effects. But getting drunk everyday would result in health effects that are far worse. Moreover, impairing memory for "a few weeks after extended use" is not a long term effect in my book. I have not seen any definitive study that outlines specific chronic diseases/conditions that result from marijuana use.

That section about dopamine can apply to any substance/activity/whatever known to man. Like most articles dealing with marijuana, it's trying to grasp at straws to make it sound worse than it is.

It's long term in that if you do it you're affected for days on end. I've got a chronic condition that results from the use of marijuana. STUPID.

So if you do it once you're affected for a least a few days. So it's not an issue of hey I'm not high anymore. It's hey I'm still under the influence for days after I got high.

 

[Gaucho]

I have a question, and given the types of responses I've seen on this thread so far, I may get jumped on:

Given that there is no draft, no one is being compelled to enlist or go for a commission, doesn't the act of signing on say something about the individual? If they had a prior history of light drug use years ago (or even more possibly), the fact that the individual cleaned up, and now wants to voluntarily serve in the amred forces in a time war ought to be worth something. Actually, allot.

There's pretty clearly some cultural hostility on this board (like between the guy from Nor Cal and the guy from southern), but unless there is real, permanent drug-related damage, I'm not sure why prior use is such a big issue to many. Especially given some of the wavers given for felonies, and other more serious crimes.

 

[OUSOONER]

I have a question, and given the types of responses I've seen on this thread so far, I may get jumped on:

Given that there is no draft, no one is being compelled to enlist or go for a commission, doesn't the act of signing on say something about the individual? If they had a prior history of light drug use years ago (or even more possibly), the fact that the individual cleaned up, and now wants to voluntarily serve in the amred forces in a time war ought to be worth something. Actually, allot.

There's pretty clearly some cultural hostility on this board (like between the guy from Nor Cal and the guy from southern), but unless there is real, permanent drug-related damage, I'm not sure why prior use is such a big issue to many. Especially given some of the wavers given for felonies, and other more serious crimes.

I don't think it is so much the drug use. People make mistakes. I think it is more the attitude after the drug use/experimentation. If you acknowledge the drug use is wrong..and that it was just a stupid thing you did a while back and do not advocate it's use; then I think that is one thing.

However, if you did drugs/continue to do drugs..and are seeking a commission in the military where this is severely frowned upon. Then I think that is where a lot of the hostility comes from. Say you did it, made a mistake, learned from it and moved on, don't say "you don't know what the big deal is."

While I haven't ever tried drugs, I've done things that I'm not proud of..it may or may not be a big deal to others but I want to hold myself to a higher accountability then just the average Joe on the street. So what normally isn't "a big deal"..is a big deal to me. As I think it should be for all officers and officer wannabes.

 

[Gaucho]

I don't think it is so much the drug use. People make mistakes. I think it is more the attitude after the drug use/experimentation. If you acknowledge the drug use is wrong..and that it was just a stupid thing you did a while back and do not advocate it's use; then I think that is one thing.

However, if you did drugs/continue to do drugs..and are seeking a commission in the military where this is severely frowned upon. Then I think that is where a lot of the hostility comes from. Say you did it, made a mistake, learned from it and moved on, don't say "you don't know what the big deal is."

While I haven't ever tried drugs, I've done things that I'm not proud of..it may or may not be a big deal to others but I want to hold myself to a higher accountability then just the average Joe on the street. So what normally isn't "a big deal"..is a big deal to me.

I agree.

 

[A4sForever]

.... I'm not sure why prior use is such a big issue to many...

It's an issue of trust and confidence, imbecile. It's about standards.

Or don't you get that ... ???

 

[USNMark]

A4sForever and OUSooner nailed it: it's not necessarily about whether you did drugs--we're all products of our pasts, in good and bad ways. It's about what your current status and attitude towards drugs is. If you've used drugs, it's for the selection boards to review. But if either you're using them and/or have anything less than a conforming point of view to the zero tolerance policy, well it's dismal, bum life for you.
So... if A4s and OU nailed it, I must be beating a dead horse.. Signing off for now

 

[Spekkio]

So if you do it once you're affected for a least a few days. So it's not an issue of hey I'm not high anymore. It's hey I'm still under the influence for days after I got high.

And I can tell you from personal experience that this is a fallacy. Yes, the world's biggest potheads might have short-term memory issues until they stop using it for a month or so, but using weed as much as a normal person drinks (ie, 1-2x per week) isn't going to turn you into an imbecile, and does not leave any effects the next day (unlike alcohol which can leave you hungover).

Now, I don't do drugs, and don't plan on doing drugs. I understand that the Navy/military wants its personnel to be drug free, and I'm perfectly fine with that. But some of the sentiment on here that people who have tried drugs need to be burned at the steak/are horrible human beings/whatever is just stupid. According to the link I posted, over 60% of the population 21-26 has tried an illegal drug. I'm pretty sure most of them turn out to be fine, upstanding citizens.

 

[HooverPilot]

I fear you have missed the point Spekkio. It isn't about the drugs or their effects on health. It is about the fact that someone who thinks breaking the law is ok, sometimes.

Big Navy, your CO, your passengers, etc all have to have faith that you will do the right thing, even when no one is watching. Can the Navy trust someone who doesn't think that drugs are wrong to do the right thing when he discovers a subordinate is smokin' it up on his off time? Remember, some of the junior enlisted are still in the "young and dumb" stage of life, but the rules still have to apply to them. They are the ones fixing the planes, carrying weapons, etc.

Also, prior use of drugs is one indicator that can be used to "look into your soul" and judge you for admission to the military, a promotion, a MOS/Designator or a clearance. You are and always will be judged by your past choices. Previous bad decisions can be overcome, that is where the "total package" comes in. But it will always come down to whether you can be trusted. Some of what has been argued above makes me doubt some.

Oh, and I don't care if 60% of the population has tried drugs. There are more than enough outstanding candidates in the other 40%. Naval Aviation isn't even close to 1% of the US Population.

 

[Swanee]

Big Navy, your CO, your passengers, etc all have to have faith that you will do the right thing, even when no one is watching.

I am reminded of a quote: "The true test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching." -John Wooden

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

And I can tell you from personal experience that this is a fallacy. Yes, the world's biggest potheads might have short-term memory issues until they stop using it for a month or so, but using weed as much as a normal person drinks (ie, 1-2x per week) isn't going to turn you into an imbecile, and does not leave any effects the next day (unlike alcohol which can leave you hungover).

Now, I don't do drugs, and don't plan on doing drugs. I understand that the Navy/military wants its personnel to be drug free, and I'm perfectly fine with that. But some of the sentiment on here that people who have tried drugs need to be burned at the steak/are horrible human beings/whatever is just stupid. According to the link I posted, over 60% of the population 21-26 has tried an illegal drug. I'm pretty sure most of them turn out to be fine, upstanding citizens.

I guess it affected you.

Forgot how to spell.

 

[CWJones411]

Mmmmmm burned at the steak....

 

[smwatson82]

I fear you have missed the point Spekkio. It isn't about the drugs or their effects on health. It is about the fact that someone who thinks breaking the law is ok, sometimes.

Big Navy, your CO, your passengers, etc all have to have faith that you will do the right thing, even when no one is watching. Can the Navy trust someone who doesn't think that drugs are wrong to do the right thing when he discovers a subordinate is smokin' it up on his off time? Remember, some of the junior enlisted are still in the "young and dumb" stage of life, but the rules still have to apply to them. They are the ones fixing the planes, carrying weapons, etc.

Also, prior use of drugs is one indicator that can be used to "look into your soul" and judge you for admission to the military, a promotion, a MOS/Designator or a clearance. You are and always will be judged by your past choices. Previous bad decisions can be overcome, that is where the "total package" comes in. But it will always come down to whether you can be trusted. Some of what has been argued above makes me doubt some.

Oh, and I don't care if 60% of the population has tried drugs. There are more than enough outstanding candidates in the other 40%. Naval Aviation isn't even close to 1% of the US Population.

I must commend you sir, on one of the most outstanding posts in this thread, as it brings the the forefront the core issues behind drug use.

I had been about to respond to A4s Forever's post about trust/confidence/standards with a hypothetical question about "how is the breach of standards with experimental prior drug use any worse from a 'standards' perspective than the fact that I was completely out of shape and fat as hell a year ago?" but you answered perfectly that the reason is rules: Will an individual follow the rules, even if he thinks he can get away with breaking them? If officers can't be expected to follow the rules, how on earth can anyone expect the enlisted guys to do so?

Edit: And not that anyone cares, but I never have done illegal drugs, and I never will.

 

[BullGator]

HooverPilot, and others, I understand your points but Spekkio is the only one on here that has a leg to stand on in this argument on the countering side. I must say as a devil's advocate approach to what HooverPilot was saying: how many of us have never really broken the law: traffic tickets and speeding (with or without being caught)? I even recall A4sForever sharing (years ago) that he would smoke cigarettes while flying in the Navy (I think (?...correct me if I'm wrong) that A4sForever's stake in this thread has to do more with the anti-hippy feeling, which we can all agree with). No offense sir (A4sforever), my point is just that some rules and/or laws are broken still by great men, and that there is a high-horse feeling to this thread (as stated). If these men, Marines or otherwise, who have made drug-related mistakes can admit to it and own up for acting stupid I commend them and hope that they keep living right with or without a commission. As officers they may be perceived as setting a bad example by some, but they could also relate better to some Sailors or Marines than people like us that have been living right all along and don't really understand the stuff. I hope I am not too much out of line here; Hell, I just found this thread interesting and funny at times and wanted to keep it going.

 

[bert]

There is one point that some people seem to be missing in this thread (and this gets missed again and again all over this site). Taking that 60% number as gospel for a moment, what a lot of people lose sight of is that we don't want anywhere near 60% of the population (let alone need them). Should one stupid mistake haunt somebody for the rest of their life? I would say no, if they can learn from it and not repeat it and grow into a smarter person for it. But if two otherwise similar records, one with a drug waiver, one without, come up in front of the board then should the guy who had enough sense to stay clean in pursuit of his goals get the nod? I would say yes.

Somebody from the officer recruiting side can answer this authoritatively, but I bet USMC/USN could fill our pilot slots with perfectly qualified candidates without giving any drug waivers. I actually don't mind people getting waivers that amount to the one time "I was a retard as a teenager/too dumb to know better" but past that, if somebody doesn't have the desire or fortitude to keep themselves drug free then we can simply get somebody better than them. Nothing personal, no hard feelings, just a nice chunk of reality that we ought to be responsible for the choices we make.