Drug Testing For TF 1-07

[GUNS]

According to the previous post, one out of 20 tested positive. If this information is correct then.

75 were determined to have a banned substance which would make the number tested,( 75 tested positive )X (1 of of 20) = 1500

So 75 out of 1500 would be 5%.

Interesting when compared with the Summery Trail stats. for 2004/2005 which states that 1.95% of  Summery Trials were for Article 129(Drug/Alcohol) and 2005/2006 stats. show that 2.17% were for Article 129.

One side note to this is that for the same 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 periods, Article 97 Summery Trials were 7.8% and 6.51%, respectively.

 

[George Wallace]

Article 129 is not Drugs/alcohol.

 

[armyvern]

As George said, 129 = Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

 

[GUNS]

You are correct about 129,  Summery Trial Stats. list Drug/Alcohol under 129 along with other offences. If I come across the correct Article I will correct the post.

 

[George Wallace]

You are correct about 129,  Summery Trial Stats. list Drug/Alcohol under 129 along with other offences. If I come across the correct Article I will correct the post.

:

129 is the "Catch All".  It was once upon a time 119, but that is a thread hijack.  So, of course, it would also include drug or alcohol related offences prejudice to good order and discipline.

 

[Michael OLeary]

According to the previous post, one out of 20 tested positive. If this information is correct then.

75 were determined to have a banned substance which would make the number tested,( 75 tested positive )X (1 of of 20) = 1500

So 75 out of 1500 would be 5%.

Interesting when compared with the Summery Trail stats. for 2004/2005 which states that 1.95% of  Summery Trials were for Article 129(Drug/Alcohol) and 2005/2006 stats. show that 2.17% were for Article 129.

One side note to this is that for the same 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 periods, Article 97 Summery Trials were 7.8% and 6.51%, respectively.

Am I missing something?  What is the point of that comparison?

 

[GO!!!]

Two things;

First, where did the press get the 16-18-25% number from? What a scoop!  :

Second, I'd be interested to see a breakdown of those numbers by unit/rank/moc etc., just to see who we are working with.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This is not good for the task force!
From the Fredricton Daily Gleaner, 24 Oct. 06:

Soldiers nabbed in drug tests

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military officials are saying little about reports that some soldiers from Canadian Forces Base Gagetown training for deployment next year to Afghanistan have failed mandatory drug tests.

Sources have told The Daily Gleaner that between 16 and 18 per cent of soldiers preparing for February's mission flunked.
Substances such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin and speed are said to have been discovered, the newspaper has been told.

"I would definitely not put faith in those figures," Janzen said in a telephone interview from Halifax.
"I think those are rumours. We want to wait until we have all the results. Everyone in Gagetown has not been tested."

And just so I'm clear,mate, this is front page news in Fredericton.  The author, Mike Staples, has been around the military a great many years!  He is not prone to rumour!  This has also been backed up by ATV news tonite.

Boy, I'm glad he's not prone to rumour. Who knows how big the percentage would've been in the story then............................

 

[The Bread Guy]

And just so I'm clear,mate, this is front page news in Fredericton.  The author, Mike Staples, has been around the military a great many years!  He is not prone to rumour!  This has also been backed up by ATV news tonite.

When I was a reporter, it was not uncommon for broadcast outlets to pick up stories they'd found in newspapers.  Ideally, you would use the paper as an idea generator, talk to people and produce your own story.  Sometimes (too often), though, stories are just re-written from the paper - the journalism term for this rewriting someone else's story without doing your own research (often without attributing the source, either) is "scabbing".  Even wire services are known to take stories from member papers, and redistribute them with the original mistakes all over their respective networks across Canada.  So it's not impossible that once the "scoop" was out, and there were no other sources for the information, ATV just used what they knew, maybe even without saying, "the Gleaner reports....." to show they didn't do the digging. 

Just to show that hearing it on more than one outlet doesn't guarantee each outlet did their own independent research....

 

[Lager and Ale]

OK...colour me confused...after all of the news...you still don't believe it??? ???

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I just would like an explanation of his "sources" for the 16 to 18 %..........methinks his *cough* "source" is nothing but his need for a story.

 

[284_226]

I'm curious to know how much advance notice was given that the testing would be performed.  Depending on the answer to that question, one could speculate that 5% of the personnel tested were stupid enough to use drugs within the detection window, if they knew the testing was coming - which varies from 1 to 30 days, depending on the substance.  One could also surmise that the actual number of drug users is higher, but that some hadn't used recently enough to be snared by the testing.

That's still no excuse for publishing a wild figure of 16-18% unless the testing supported that figure.

 

[Lager and Ale]

Although BM will probably have issues with this responce...a fly on the wall indicatates less than 30 hrs and more than 12.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Why do you assume I would have issues?  Big difference between you saying "a fly on the wall" and a reporter writing for a large newspaper using the term "sources".

 

[284_226]

Although BM will probably have issues with this responce...a fly on the wall indicatates less than 30 hrs and more than 12.

Did they have a heads up that testing would be performed sometime in advance of the deployment, or was it a complete surprise?  If it was a complete surprise, the results are probably pretty accurate.  If there was some advance warning, however vague, then at least some people would be "playing it cool" and not abusing.

 

[GUNS]

Everyone who puts on the uniform is aware that there is a possibility of being tested for drugs. That being the case everyone had been warned. In this case with the TF there was no warning, they got together for a BG picture and then were told that they would be tested.
For those who tested positive, there is no excuse.

Did they have a heads up that testing would be performed sometime in advance of the deployment, or was it a complete surprise?  If it was a complete surprise, the results are probably pretty accurate.  If there was some advance warning, however vague, then at least some people would be "playing it cool" and not abusing.

 

[Lager and Ale]

I heard it was a kit check in the drill hall....but what ever....I agree, you put on the uniform, you were warned.

 

[GO!!!]

Did they have a heads up that testing would be performed sometime in advance of the deployment, or was it a complete surprise?  If it was a complete surprise, the results are probably pretty accurate.  If there was some advance warning, however vague, then at least some people would be "playing it cool" and not abusing.

Why so cynical?

Could it be that only 5% of the forces is that dumb? Or do you enjoy keeping these reporters lurking with more grist for the mill?

 

[geo]

Still believe that within that 5% there are individuals who were using Ephedrine & other substances which were restricted without being prohibited.

 

[Lager and Ale]

Still believe that within that 5% there are individuals who were using Ephedrine & other substances which were restricted without being prohibited.

But that's the point GEO, its still non prescribed drugs and it is against the law.  I know that when I was in...I didn't' want a substance abuser in the same trench as me!  Its a mater of trust.