Service member being an idiot

[Spekkio]

I buy that, but I also think that the reason it's not understood is that no one really cared to study it because it's illegal. It doesn't really take a whole lot to set up a performance experiment similar to the one that supposedly arrived at 0.08 BAC is the line where one has a significant performance effect on driving, and if more states start falling in line with CO and WA (and I think they eventually will), the military will have to figure something out.

 

[BACONATOR]

I buy that, but I also think that the reason it's not understood is that no one really cared to study it because it's illegal. It doesn't really take a whole lot to set up a performance experiment similar to the one that supposedly arrived at 0.08 BAC is the line where one has a significant performance effect on driving, and if more states start falling in line with CO and WA (and I think they eventually will), the military will have to figure something out.

THAT was more my point. The military will never let it be legal, but why?? If not for flyers, then what about office rats? They don't have a critical need to be at 100% the day after indulgence (just like I'm sure many of them show up to work with a hangover and never get caught). So, is it just a matter of intoxication period? You can be high for a couple hours, and be drunk for 12+ hours, depending on how much you use/potency. Is it a matter of not being able to screen people (ie: breathalyzer for a "fit for duty" check?) At least that's a valid argument.

However, there is a disconnect between what "Big Navy" claims the policy is and the general sentiment of the Navy in practice. Whatever, the real reasoning, I've personally sat on an ADSEP board in which drugs were a factor and I was outvoted by people for a lesser discharge due to their personal moral ideologies. "Drugs are BAD, so he deserves OTH. Fuck him". So whatever is the reasoning from the top, in practice, the Navy's execution isn't just a matter of how drugs intoxicate you. It is a very grey area filled with morality and other such nonsense. No one seems to understand how drugs were made illegal in the first place in this country....

 

[Brett327]

I don't see the disconnect. The policy is zero tollerance and an ADSEP board has the authority to characterize the discharge IAW the facts of each unique case. What's the problem? Why shouldn't someone who knowingly violates the rules be given an OTH?

 

[scoober78]

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.

I'm not sure alcohol is as simple as you are stating Brett. Ask any physiologist, as I'm sure you know, and they'll tell you that free from the effects takes far longer than we routinely acknowledge or allow with our current "12 hours before I brief" thumb rule. Mental acuity, reaction time etc...are effected for several days after consumption of alcohol. The detrimental effects on sleep alone can last for days.

I'm not making the argument that we should be able to light up a blunt and go flying, I'm simply pointing out that alcohol's effects on us are much more long term and complicated than we routinely acknowledge and we do fine for the most part self regulating our consumption of it in the aviation environment. Further, there are many peer reviewed studies on the effects of MJ on physiology but are likely not addressed by NAMI/NOMI etc...because the drug is excluded prima facie.

 

[Brett327]

That's really beside the point. We have an established standard for alcohol that works for the Navy, MJ not so much. There may be ancillary reasons to not treat MJ like Alcohol, but performance effects seem like the show stopper to me.

 

[scoober78]

That's really beside the point. We have an established standard for alcohol that works for the Navy, MJ not so much.

Agreed at the moment since it is still illegal for use...however...

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.

Your reasoning isn't valid. We don't have a policy because it isn't legal, not because it's somehow more difficult to determine one.

 

[BACONATOR]

I don't see the disconnect. The policy is zero tollerance and an ADSEP board has the authority to characterize the discharge IAW the facts of each unique case. What's the problem? Why shouldn't someone who knowingly violates the rules be given an OTH?

In that case, there were some serious mitigating circumstances, which I am just guessing I shouldn't be discussing on a public forum. But it doesn't matter. Drugs immediately colored the judgement of the other board members regardless of the circumstances. Even one of the other members said I should have been the guy's defense-council for the compelling points I made, but.... still they had made up their minds.

 

[Brett327]

Agreed at the moment since it is still illegal for use...however...



Your reasoning isn't valid. We don't have a policy because it isn't legal, not because it's somehow more difficult to determine one.

My reasoning is absolutely valid given that the government has no compelling reason to change the policy, even if it is legalized at the federal level. So, the effort required to determine a standard will never be expended. The end result is the same. You can draw parallels to a host of medications that one can't use in a flight status. I presume that many of them haven't undergone a rigorous study by NOMI because its easier or cheaper to just say, we're going to exclude people who are on these meds instead of studying whether they could be used by aircrew.

 

[scoober78]

The compelling reason will appear if it is federally legalized when a large fraction of the airwing starts showing up legally stoned...but I digress...

 

[Brett327]

No, because it will still be prohibited for DOD. I can't imagine DOD ever allowing it, can you?

 

[jmcquate]

On a side note, past drug use is a real issue in getting young talent into the IC. Sometimes it doesn’t make sense making blanket judgments on behavior while in high school and college…….but rules are rules.

 

[scoober78]

No, because it will still be prohibited for DOD. I can't imagine DOD ever allowing it, can you?

As hard as it is to imagine, I have a hard time picturing a situation where the DoD prohibits wholesale the use of substance that's legal to the general public. To me, federal legalization is the hurdle.

 

[Brett327]

You mean like Spice or Bath Salts?

 

[scoober78]

You mean like Spice or Bath Salts?

Fair point.

Something tells me that the "legalization" momentum we've seen over the last decade WRT MJ is reflective of a trend of broader public acceptance that I don't see being afforded bath salts/MDPV////...but who knows. I suspect that just like broader public acceptance of open homosexual service, that trend will have an influence on DoD. No real evidence...just thinking out loud because I have to fly tomorrow and can't drink...

 

[BACONATOR]

You mean like Spice or Bath Salts?

Pretty sure both of those are illegal. In fact, I know spice is, if not federally then in many states it is. So while it "wasn't" for a while, it was only a matter of time before the legislative inertia caught up and your point became moot.