Dear Parents: Your Son Was a Drug Addict Before He Joined The CF, Not Just After

[TCBF]

I am sick and tired of all of the moaning and dripping and slamming of the CF in the media for not being supportive of those of us who snap under the various pressures in life.  Guess what folks: Your kid was broken when we got him.  You raised him - you bloody well own up to it.

How do we know? Because young people talk.  His ex-friends, his ex-girl friends, his fomer peers in his previous Militia unit - they all talk: "He was into drugs and booze waaaay before his first tour!"

So - no more blaming recruit school for not correcting the damaged results of seventeen years of  flawed home life.  I put hundreds of Recruits through both Cornwallis and St-Jean, and our un-official, motto for the recruiting and selection process was "GIGO: Garbage In Equals Garbage Out."

But - we can't mention names, because of the privacy thing. Unless...

My recommendation is that every time the CF gets blamed for screwing up somebodies head - they fight it.  Want a medical pension to buy more cocaine, loser? No sweat.  Let's have an investigation on what you were made of when you joined.  Oh, here is the guy who sold you crack in Grade 12.  Here is the medical report from your pysch assessment as a JD (Young Offender).  Here is your ex-girlfriend's complaint to police and the restraining order that resulted.

Maybe the taxpayers should not be pissing away all of this DND/DVA money on people that were mentally or psychologically defective long before we recruited them.  Pre existing injury? Un-declared on enrollment? Off you go, son...

Comments?

 

[bradlupa]

i think that you are right on the button for the most part.  Sometimes you could have a bad part in your life and "you" are seeking for guidance and the military is that gudiance.

There are things that i have done in the past that I surely thought that I was going to jail.  But low and behold i just needed so guidance and i found that guidance with air cadets and now i have changed for the better.  Not saying that everybody has the willingness to change but for the most part yes.  If they fail later in life then they truley did not want to change rather then just cover it up with the Military or whatever else they could find and for that yes "bye bye" should be the answer.

Just My thoughts

Hell if we kicked everybody out that had abused alcohol in there life we would have no forces. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

So let me get this straight,

You would want the Crown to now pay for an invasive investigation, for every Soldier being assessed for a Mental Injury, so that we can save money to catch the few people who were "broken" before he/she got in??

Jeez, that is a brilliant idea.... :

So, what would the criteria be?  Would you now investigate, say a person who has 20 years in, and comes forward to be treated for an OSI?

Would love to hear your comments.

dileas

tess

 

[Bzzliteyr]

TCBF,

What I think needs to be done in this particular case is that someone needs to alert the Public Affairs office of the situation.  If they can do a counter article/rebuttal then maybe negative images that were created by any recent articles that involve this individual could perhaps be reversed?

I understand the frustration involved and I completely agree but I think we are too limited in ressources in the CF to do any type of investigating for every case.

 

[armyvern]

TCBF,

What I think needs to be done in this particular case is that someone needs to alert the Public Affairs office of the situation.  If they can do a counter article/rebuttal then maybe negative images that were created by any recent articles that involve this individual could perhaps be reversed?

Hmmm, interesting that my thoughts are:

Actual reporters doing actual "reporting" would have come up with those same things were a reporter writing up a story that was unbiased on any partcular incident. But sadly, it's all about selling the papers and grabbing the headlines ... and anything that means"governments fault, not poor upbringing" grabs those headlines.

It shouldn't be up to PAOs to counter this crap, that's the reporters job. Report the facts - all of them.

Canada is a cradle to grave nation; Gawd forbid anyone actually be accountable for their own actions or how they raised their chldren. It simply must be someone else's fault - normal these days. Bullshit, but normal.

 

[40below]

TCBF,

What I think needs to be done in this particular case is that someone needs to alert the Public Affairs office of the situation.  If they can do a counter article/rebuttal then maybe negative images that were created by any recent articles that involve this individual could perhaps be reversed?

Not only haven't you thought that one through, you haven't even begun.

The CF cannot legally do that, but the optics of having a soldier slagged by the resources of the federal government in an follow-up article containing nothing but hearsay and gossip to prove what a POS said individual is would be abominable.

Or if it is not hearsay and gossip but grounded in fact, by all means, lets allow the PAO to walk the public through the member's confidential medical and psychological files without that person's permission. It would be easier to list the agencies that wouldn't launch investigations than the ones who would, and ignores the question that will immediately be asked of the CF, "Well, if he was that messed up when you got him and you knew it, why'd you let him in / keep him / deploy him?"

 

[Another Mom]

There are many, many reasons why a kid goes off the rails: undiagnosed learning disabilities, susceptibility to psychiatric problems, etc. They do not get there by choice. It is next to impossible for kids to be treated when they are younger, particularly if a parent does not have the money or wherewith all to find and get help that can work.  There are virtually no treatment options for kids who get addicted to drugs or alcohol. This is a Canadian shame. I work in a facility with a year++ long waiting list. This is not all about parents who cannot raise their children properly. The issue is much more complex.

 

[armyvern]

There are many, many reasons why a kid goes off the rails: undiagnosed learning disabilities, susceptibility to psychiatric problems, etc. They do not get there by choice. It is next to impossible for kids to be treated when they are younger, particularly if a parent does not have the money or wherewith all to find and get help that can work.  There are virtually no treatment options for kids who get addicted to drugs or alcohol. This is a Canadian shame. I work in a facility with a year++ long waiting list. This is not all about parents who cannot raise their children properly. The issue is much more complex.

I absolutely agree with you; however - that doesn't make it the CFs fault either. Where's the reportage on ALL the facts regarding an individual's history ... why the urge to just blame the "CF" ... The rants are about the reporting of issues like these as being 100% preventable and caused by the CF and service in the CF.

Where's the individual accountability? Why not just "say no" (sorry Nancy) in the first place as a kid; seems pretty preventable to me.

 

[TCBF]

... and ignores the question that will immediately be asked of the CF, "Well, if he was that messed up when you got him and you knew it, why'd you let him in / keep him / deploy him?"

- And a good question it would be.  My belief is that - even after Clayton Matchee cost us a fine Regiment - we still spend more time and effort and COST checking out an applicant's football injury or dental overbight, and little or nothing searching for above the neck non-visible issues.  I suggest we start with an MMPI II test for every applicant before enrollment, and perhaps broaden the scope of our present system of background reliability interviews where recommended by the CFRC. 

- We have also failed increasingly over the last ten years to vigorously apply releases for pre-existing medical/psychological conditions.  We no doubt received some extremely flawed (and politically driven) advice on this in the mid nineties, and this has plugged up our holding platoons with people who should be released to the civilian medical system.  Instead, they are kept in service (largely against their will) for conditions which should have precluded their initial enrolment. An expensive and morale-sucking administrative burden which we can ill afford.

 

[Yrys]

There are many, many reasons why a kid goes off the rails: undiagnosed learning disabilities, susceptibility to psychiatric problems, etc. They do not get there by choice.

Some, yes, choose to go there. They want to try, they want to follow their friends,
they want to look cool to certain people. Not all handicaped or sich children choose
that way.

As a slight example, I was bullied at high school to start smoking (tobacco).
My head was put under water on the pool, etc. I was afraid of the girls ganging on me,
but I never said yes. I"'m not the only one to say "No".

It is next to impossible for kids to be treated when they are younger, particularly if a parent does not have the money or wherewith all to find and get help that can work.  There are virtually no treatment options for kids who get addicted to drugs or alcohol. This is a Canadian shame. I work in a facility with a year++ long waiting list. This is not all about parents who cannot raise their children properly. The issue is much more complex.

Once drugs touched, it's often turn out to be a medical problem to stop using.
There is a lack of ressources, yes, but it seems to me that there is also a lack
of trying or wanting to stop. I've know users of drugs, I've talk to them
about ressources available. None showed interest up to now, when it would
have help them about some of the problems they were complaining about,
like lack of money, etc....

 

[Another Mom]

The vast majority of parents I work with, care about their kids. I would wager that if you  invited the parents (or foster parents) of applicants in for 15 minutes, and asked them "We will give your kid a loaded gun, do you have concerns about that?"  you would get an honest answer. On the other hand, if you have a parent who replies "Whatever, dude" that would be good to know, too.

As for "trying", some people appear not to try, because they have failed so often in the past. Again, this is no less complicated than a lay person telling a soldier to "get the bad guys and what is the problem?" The more you now about a field, the more complicated the solutions are.

 

[TCBF]

... The more you know about a field, the more complicated the solutions are.

- A truism which seems to have escaped the awareness of the highly renumerated Marxists who pass for professional journalists in Canada these days.

 

[SARgirl]

I am sick and tired of all of the moaning and dripping and slamming of the CF in the media for not being supportive of those of us who snap under the various pressures in life.

  I agree.

Guess what folks: Your kid was broken when we got him.  You raised him - you bloody well own up to it.

 

Everyone has free-will.  A poorly behaved child or adult, was not necessarily raised by bad parenting... many of the dead-beats, druggies and behavioral challenged adults and children of society did/do have/had very good parents and a very good home life.

You also can't necessarily believe hearsay about what sort of parents someone had, unless you have seen first hand for yourself X child/adult being trained up by their parents because many children (adult aged or child age) will lie about such things for a variety of reasons and/or they will not remember things as they really happened for whatever reason. 

Many parents receive an unjust and unproven speculations about their parenting, but w/o an investigation and proof (hearsay is not proof), there is really no way to be certain.  Even if a child's friends say X happened throughout X child's home life; what they are saying could be based on rumors and/or their own misinterpretation of things and not a factual first hand experience and/or based on what the child in question told them (which very well many not even be true) and/or etc... .

There is only so much a parent can do... there are a lot of very good parents, who, for whatever reason (a list of factors individual to each situation), end up w/ a child or children who go off the rails w/ behavior and/or drugs and/or etc... (be it due to genetics or situations which arose outside the home or etc... etc... etc...).

I do not feel it is wise to automatically blame parents, without proof via a legitimate investigation (medical records, metal records, hospital records etc... etc.... etc...) for the choices their children (adult or child) choose to make of their own free-will and even still, even if a parent has been proven through an investigation to be a bad parent, none the less, that only goes so far, at some point, the child in question needs to make a decision as to whether or not they are going to let said situation ruin the rest of their life or not... it's their choice.

Once someone reaches the 'age of reason', they are responsible for their own behavior and choices and they need to not blame others for this or that which they chose to do, say, not do, not say etc... .

There are a lot of children and adults who go through some exceptionally horrible circumstances and yet, many of them still find a way, by a choice they make of their own free will, to move on and not to use whatever happened to them as an excuse for whatever they choose to do or not do throughout their life... they simple make the decision to find the will to push on and find a way to move past it.  This is, at least in part, I feel, where survival of the fittest comes in.

There are a lot of really horrible parents out there, by where their children grow up to be some of the gems of society and an inspiration to many because despite what these people went through as children, they still chose to be a fine upstanding citizen. 

Like wise, I don't feel it is reasonable for CF to be blamed for the decision someone makes, of their own free will.  If a solider chooses, of his/her own free will, to take illicit drugs or make some other unwise or unhealthy decisions, that is their choice, of their own free will and neither CF nor the person's parents or anyone else should be blamed for the illicit drugs X person chose to take.  There are certainly a lot of other, more healthy, options out there for dealing with the stress a solider is put under.

Whatever happened to people taking ownership for their own choices, rather than blaming those around them or those from their past.  People in general, a solider or not, need to 'solider on' when this or that arise throughout their life and find a way to move past whatever it is that happened.  We all have crosses to bare, every single one of us, but that still does not give anyone the justification to blame anyone or any organization for the unhealthy, unwise or wrong decisions they made of their own free-will.

Just my :2c:.

Does CF not do drug testing as part of their screening process???

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Whatever happened to people taking ownership for their own choices, rather than blaming those around them or those from their past.  People in general, a solider or not, need to 'solider on' when this or that arise throughout their life and find a way to move past whatever it is that happened.  We all have crosses to bare, every single one of us, but that still does not give anyone the justification to blame anyone or any organization for the unhealthy, unwise or wrong decisions they made of their own free-will.

Blame that on PE Trudeau. The Ultimate Enabler. He made self responsibility blase and people are finally waking up to the results of his failed social experiment to redefine Canadians. Unfortunately, a number of his party's minions still revere, and deify him, and slavishly follow his ideals to this day.

 

[Larkvall]

I once paid a visit to a small manufacturing company in rural New York State. The GM of the plant told me that they had to suspend their drug test policy or else they would have difficulty retaining their workers. He said it was a common problem for the companies in the area.

This is the first thing I thought about when I heard on this forum that urine tests are no longer always required during the medical. I wasn't asked for one when I did my medical a couple weeks ago.

Is the CF trying to give people more time to 'clean up' before they are tested? If so, is this the best approach?

 

[George Wallace]

Is the CF trying to give people more time to 'clean up' before they are tested? If so, is this the best approach?

No.  The CF is complying with the Law.  You cannot check someone for drugs, unless you have a Warrant to do so, or are a LEO and have just cause. 

 

[Jammer]

Not in my experience is this the best way to weed (pardon the pun), out those who use illicit drugs.
Just because you didn't get a pee test on a medical doesn't mean it isn't administered at other times.
I personally escorted a young lad last week through the release process after he had gone though the administrative process finally leading to an unsatisfactory C and P.
He was released as a 5F after repeatedly failing random unit pee tests.
He was given every opportunity to sort himself out with assistance, however you cannot spend all your time on one particular person especially if he is not interested in helping himself.

 

[TCBF]

No.  The CF is complying with the Law.  You cannot check someone for drugs, unless you have a Warrant to do so, or are a LEO and have just cause.

- Actually, the "Oil Patch" guys and other industrials spot test all the time.  No blind testing, either.  You fail - gone.  Do to the lack of skilled labour a few years back, they would not be gone for long.

- i see no reason why we could not apply the "industry Standard". instead of release, we could just back seniority to the perp's last successful drug test.

 

[bradlupa]

Is drugs in the CF being used that much

When i filled out my forms at the recruiting center, if i remember correctly there was a form that we signed stating, we would refrain from using drugs. 

If that is the case I see no problem with random drug testing and if you fail. bye bye

 

[chrisf]

No.  The CF is complying with the Law.  You cannot check someone for drugs, unless you have a Warrant to do so, or are a LEO and have just cause.

If it's part of the terms of employment, you certainly can require employees to under-go drug testing.

In much the same fashion, an "inspection" of quarters isn't considered an "unwarranted search".