Issues with Enforcement and Maintenance of Discipline

[Slim]

Mother of God - is it really that bad?

Jesus...Beginning to sound like the US army in the '70's!

This needs to be cleaned up...The problem that is.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Jesus...Beginning to sound like the US army in the '70's!

This needs to be cleaned up...The problem that is.

Ok - how?  Without resorting to mandatory testing, how do we go about fixing it?

How about testing for cause, whenever there is doubt?  How about professional soldiers "narcing" on the unprofessional ones?

Dave

 

[Slim]

Ok - how?   Without resorting to mandatory testing, how do we go about fixing it?

How about testing for cause, whenever there is doubt?   How about professional soldiers "narcing" on the unprofessional ones?

Dave

I'll be the first to admit that I have no clear idea what to do about this issue...Nor, I think, does anyone else...

Is it that drugs are such a part of our route culture now that its inevitable? What is the roote cause of drug abuse in the service, or drug abuse period?

I do know that I would never willingly serve with someone who is a drug user and would not feel safe with them while training on the range or what-have-you, never mind on the line in some operational theatre.

Slim

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Mandatory monthly drug tests ought to fix it in the short term.   Do that for a year then start doing random tests.   Send the dogs in the shacks, hell send them through the PMQ's.   Oh BTW have the RCMP conduct the above.   Any offenders put them in DB for 6 months min.

 

[S McKee]

Mandatory monthly drug tests ought to fix it in the short term.   Do that for a year then start doing random tests.   Send the dogs in the shacks, heck send them through the PMQ's.   Oh BTW have the RCMP conduct the above.   Any offenders put them in DB for 6 months min.

You forgot the black Mercedes Benz that arrives in the middle of the night...Although I like your idea about mandatory drug testing sending the dogs through the shacks we do have this thing called the Charter of Rights.

 

[GO!!!]

The Charter of rights does not prohibit the Chain of command from entering your room without you present, and yes, it happens - Sgts and up do it when they want to. So how could it possibly protect you from a dog search - which is done in High Schools?

 

[JBC]

If drug usage is as serious a problem with the CF as one may be led to believe, I suggest a one week force wide period of grace to turn oneself into ones chain of command so that treatment can begin and recovery to becoming an effective...drug free... member again, without fear of release.

After that, these people in white lab coats mysteriously begin to pop up without warning at bases across the nation. The idea is you never know when you will get a shake down so you are forced to stop, or risk loosing your job and perhaps receiving a nice trip to Edmonton. Correct me if Im wrong but the military will send you to jail for using drugs?

I know its simplified but it can be built on...

 

[McG]

If drug usage is as serious a problem with the CF as one may be led to believe, I suggest a one week force wide period of grace to turn oneself into ones chain of command so that treatment can begin and recovery to becoming an effective...drug free... member again, without fear of release.

This is always available.  A service member can approach the chain of command or seek help through the CF medical system.

 

[S McKee]

The Charter of rights does not prohibit the Chain of command from entering your room without you present, and yes, it happens - Sgts and up do it when they want to. So how could it possibly protect you from a dog search - which is done in High Schools?

That is correct, room inspections are covered under regulations "maintenance of kit and quarters", however they cannot be used to search for drugs or evidence of a crime "fishing expeditions" any evidence gathered as a result would be thrown out of court. In order to search a room, a search warrant must be obtained. The dog searches done in public schools are done as a preventable measure with the express permission of the school. Also public schools are just that; public, they are not classified as a residence so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, as is the case in Barracks Rooms.

 

[Infanteer]

Okay, so we can't use drugs found in a "snap inspection" as evidence, but we sure let the chain know who is not playing by the rules, can't we?

Are manadatory, unit-wide piss-tests possible?

 

[garb811]

It's obvious people's minds are made up regarding MP competence because of their perceptions regarding MP actions (or inactions), however I'll point a couple of things out as I think some of the issue here revolves around ignorance of the law and constraints which are placed upon ALL police and then I'll ask a simple question that I'm just waiting to see the answer on:

What your chain of command is conducting is an inspection in the custom of the service as opposed to a search for evidence of an offence.  These are authorized via the Inspection and Search Defence Regulations and there are very strict parameters under which evidence of an offence which is found during one of these can be used.  For example, if there is even the slightest hint that one of these inspections was targeted to find evidence, that evidence will not be admitted into court. 

Kevin, I'm sorry that stepping forward has left a bad taste in your mouth but just because you don't see an outcome doesn't mean nothing has happened with the information you provided.  This obviously isn't the place to discuss the details of it but there are strict requirements as to what is required to take certain types of action.  Giving names is great input for the Criminal Int programme but depending on what other information you provided there maybe isn't anything we can do immediately (although if you were to inform the CofC they could arguably order a drug test for cause...).  As for your roommate's baggie, that's a classic fruit of the poison tree scenario.  For legal purposes, it was never found and it never existed.

There is also a huge difference between what police can do in a public place as opposed to a private dwelling.  The hallway of a school is considered to be a public place so it's not a problem for the police to bring a dog in and run it down the lockers with the invitation of a competent authority at the school.  As I previously pointed out, rooms in the shack are legally considered to be private dwellings so EPS can't be invited up for "training" and have the dogs run through the rooms.  They could, however, run the dogs through the halls but to be honest, this would be useless and a waste of their time unless someone had their stash hidden under the garbage can.  I won't go into details here but since you guys seem to be "in" with your local civie force, next time you see a dog handler have a discussion with them about the limitations of the dogs.

Cocaine smuggling...yeah, you're right, only the MPs get that one wrong, that's why there's no coke available in Canada anymore and everyone has to try to get by on the home grown and meth produced in their basement lab.  The reality is police work is not Law and Order or CSI: Miami.  Crimes happen and don't get solved, even the best â Å“tipâ ? can lead to a dead end, even the most obviously guilty person can walk on a technicality no matter how much it disgusts the public and not every cop has the equipment or training to effectively lift prints at each and every crime scene.  We see threads on here which are discussing the Revolution in Military Affairs and the impact it is having on the CF, I'll just point out for the Police, the Charter and the subsequent case law, is an ongoing Revolution in Police Affairs and it has totally changed how all police need to operate.  Unfortunately it appears some people's perception on effective policing is shaped by Hollywood, high profile cases out of the States and fond remembrances of the days when the RSM ordered everyone to open up their lockers when a theft occured in unit lines...

So, my question is:  Please explain to me how exactly the RCMP, or any other civilian police force, would suddenly clean up the problem when it is apparent they are unable to police their current jurisdictions to the standard you seem to demand of the MP?

PS - Bah...this is what happens when you start a post and not finish it right away.  Rather than re-write it to remove the stuff Jumper covered I'll leave it as is.  Unfortunately unit wide, or even random, drug testing is not possible at this time even though it remains on the books.  Testing may be ordered for individuals but it must be for cause.  Anyone else remember the blind testing that was done in the early 90's in an attempt to set a baseline for drugs use and the problems that caused?

 

[Infanteer]

Can the Canadian Forces not gain a Charter Exemption (on account of National Security) to use extraordinary measures to weed out drug use?

 

[garb811]

We could but that would mean invoking the Notwithstanding clause of the Charter which the Federal Government will probably never do.  The courts have made it very clear that just because you join the CF doesn't mean you give up any of your Charter Rights.  My foggy memory tells me the blind and random drug testing programme was restricted to "for cause" testing in order to avoid a Charter challenge to the entire CF Drug program.

 

[Infanteer]

The courts have made it very clear that just because you join the CF doesn't mean you give up any of your Charter Rights.

Perhaps it could be written into the CF contract that a member automatically agrees to give random samples when required - hell, the contract allows for the principle of unlimited liability, so I'm sure getting someone to piss into a cup couldn't be hard.

 

[garb811]

heck, the contract allows for the principle of unlimited liability

Well, nobody has mounted a Charter challenge against that yet though, give it some time!  >

 

[FastEddy]

Shacks, someone correct me if I'm wrong, They are storeage containers outside the Base Main Gate for the use of personnel to store unnecessary gear or prohibited items ?. ( there like shipping containers in appearance).

Before anyone dies of laughter, my presumption was based on "CTDs" description of the location of the theft of his ATV, "Olly container - milk crates - ATV - shacks" ( in my day we referred to our quarters as the Hut, Re: "H" Huts and later the Banting Blocks).

According to KevinB's description of the present days quarters, the term SHACKS is certainly  not complimentary but seems appropriate. He also makes some pretty good points

In all fairness to those that serve without blemish, it seems that other certain areas of the Army are sorely lacking in discipline. I applaud those now serving members of the MP & NIS who are faced with these conditions and restrictions.

 

[KevinB]

MP 00161,

taken to PM 

People know my thoughts I'm done here.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Sounds like they wore you down Kev.  They won't catch me though I'm the Gingerbread Man.

 

[KevinB]

Not at all.

I figured my point was made and there was no sense continuing.

 

[McG]

The courts have made it very clear that just because you join the CF doesn't mean you give up any of your Charter Rights.  

True, however the Supreme Court has also ruled that certain curbs on those rights are demonstrably justified for service members (one such curb being the CSD applied exlusivly to service pers).

hell, the contract allows for the principle of unlimited liability

Well, nobody has mounted a Charter challenge against that yet though, give it some time!    >

This principle would be upheld.  Without it, the CF does not function.