Your zipping in and out of their lives isn't "in the trenches", and yes I'll compare "time spent" with you or anyone else my age or younger. I'm surprised that you are still an advocate for the continuation of programs that have a long history of failure. Even the ones that claim success have no quantifiable way to measure what they are calling success. Kids sit through those boring ass lectures and then give all the right answers when asked the canned questions. Yawn. How about posting some quantifiable results of some of those programs you mentioned. Quite honestly your offer of CV comparison leads me to believe that that's exactly why you did what you claim to have done. Pad that CV to get into the "right" program.
Your zipping in and out of their lives isn't "in the trenches", and yes I'll compare "time spent" with you or anyone else my age or younger. I'm surprised that you are still an advocate for the continuation of programs that have a long history of failure. Even the ones that claim success have no quantifiable way to measure what they are calling success. Kids sit through those boring ass lectures and then give all the right answers when asked the canned questions. Yawn. How about posting some quantifiable results of some of those programs you mentioned. Quite honestly your offer of CV comparison leads me to believe that that's exactly why you did what you claim to have done. Pad that CV to get into the "right" program.
Hey Ultra, if you're so s**t hot on testing, why don't you post some links to peer-reviewed studies that definitively prove that testing programs work, including recidivism rates?
God this thread is getting lame. Its a no win situation, or thats what your making out it to be at the least.
Lets see what could happen, some random jock is in football and he drinks. He isnt the MVP but is he isn't a waterboy. The school decides they want to have mandatory drug for extraciricuallar activites....This is what I could see happening
1)The jock decides to give up drinking and stays on the team.
2)The jock doesn't give up drinking, he trys to stay on the team. Lets say he gets cought. (Most will do this)
1)He gets suspended for the season and parents would most likely get notified. Depending on the school, in mine the police would most likely be involved. Where I live he'd most likely go into some program.
-Lets say whatever anti-drug program he has he passes, which is really easy you just sit on your ass and get quiz about health hazards of xxx drug. Now, what happens at home is up to the parents. Parents have a huge effect on their kids. In my personal opinion the ones who go through this usually have to make up their own minds. I've seen it go both ways.
3)Now lets say he gives up sports for the drugs? Now what? I'd like to see what you have to say this Doc. Should we let kids who activily drink and smoke stay in extra circiulular activites? How is that a good example?
Lets see what could happen, some random jock is in football and he drinks. He isnt the MVP but is he isn't a waterboy. The school decides they want to have mandatory drug for extraciricuallar activites....This is what I could see happening
1)The jock decides to give up drinking and stays on the team.
2)The jock doesn't give up drinking, he trys to stay on the team. Lets say he gets cought. (Most will do this)
1)He gets suspended for the season and parents would most likely get notified. Depending on the school, in mine the police would most likely be involved. Where I live he'd most likely go into some program.
-Lets say whatever anti-drug program he has he passes, which is really easy you just sit on your ass and get quiz about health hazards of xxx drug. Now, what happens at home is up to the parents. Parents have a huge effect on their kids. In my personal opinion the ones who go through this usually have to make up their own minds. I've seen it go both ways.
3)Now lets say he gives up sports for the drugs? Now what? I'd like to see what you have to say this Doc. Should we let kids who activily drink and smoke stay in extra circiulular activites? How is that a good example?
well that all requires new thinking - a paradigm shift, havent you noticed large organisations cant do that, you will have to wait for kerry for any new social ideas
I am sh!t hot on testing. And education. And parents (or someone) being involved in their kids lives. The charts on this page tell a very sad story:
Drugs
There is correlation if not causation for the rapid decline in .mil drug use at the same time random urinalysis and drug education was cranked up full bore. Unfortunately there is no similar change in the civilian sector for the same period.
The succise of drug testing in the military can't be used as proff the drug testing would do anything for over all drug use because the military has the option of throwing out drug users and thier isn't as easy to eliminate some one from the general population.
Here are some stats on .mil from 1980-98:
1998 DoD Survey
heavy alcohol use declined significantly from 20.8% in 1980 to 15.4% in 1998;
use of any illicit drugs declined sharply from 27.6% in 1980 to 2.7% in 1998; and
cigarette smoking decreased significantly from 51.0% in 1980 to 29.9% in 1998.
Most studies I've seen do not support that sentiment. Most indicate a decline in drug usage among school kids.
While far from being a scientific analysis, I would point out that in 1980, in the military, 30day illicit drug use was 27.6% whereas 30day illicit drug use in the 18-25 civilian population in 1979 was 38%. Likewise, 12 month rate in mil in 1980 was 36.7%, whereas 1979 civ was 45.5%. Different test methods and 1 year gap notwithstanding, that's a 25% difference between civ and mil populations.
Might it not be possible that the condition of being in the military preselects those subjects who are less likely to use (and or more likely to quit using) illicit drugs? Does it just mean that military are 25% more likely to lie? If that's the case, then how do we know that the percentage of liars hasn't gone up since 1980, rather than the percentage of users having gone down?
Even your military study is based on self-reporting .. Back it up with some data from actual drug testing.
Might it not be possible that the condition of being in the military preselects those subjects who are less likely to use (and or more likely to quit using) illicit drugs? Does it just mean that military are 25% more likely to lie? If that's the case, then how do we know that the percentage of liars hasn't gone up since 1980, rather than the percentage of users having gone down?
Even your military study is based on self-reporting .. Back it up with some data from actual drug testing.
During my 20 years in the Army, two years were served in the position of a Drug & Alcohol NCO as an additional duty. I've seen statistics indicating the amount of positive urine tests by command. However, I'm unsure if actual stats for positive tests are posted on the web. If these stats are up, I'll be more than happy to provide links after returning home.
From first hand experience, I can state, without doubt, that the tests were certainly effective in curtailing illicit drug usage.
In 2001 1.1 million samples were taken from active duty military and 1.49% of them came back positive. I am now done doing your research for you. Testing is an effective way to curtail drug use. Whether it can effectively be implemented in our high schools is a matter of debate. What is not debatable is that it is effective and nothing else has worked.
It is debatable if testing works. With the military the testing just strogerly selects against a population that doesn't do drugs. For you to claim testing works you need to show it working in a random sample of the a population.
I don't think it's debatable at all. The mil did not just start throwing everyone out who popped positive. They couldn't, they would have lost half the force but drug use immediately started declining after testing was started. So I would say that it was effective against a population that had already proved it would do drugs. But let's say you're right and we need a random sample. Let's start with our schools and see how it works.
Well, I remember in '80 walking through the barracks or even the perimeter out in the field and one could smell the smoke. Everybody I hung around with, even NCOs, were getting high back then. For the Army, random drug testing started gaining momentum around '82. This turned out to be quite a shock for many. The chain of command really dealt with the problem too.
Yeah, there were false positives early on before the process was perfected. In the beginning, many just received Summary Article-15s. The situation rapidly changed through the late 80s and 90s. For about the last 7-8 years I was in, E-1-E4 were given a second chance. E-5 and above, however, were out the door.
Anyway, I was there before and after. The situation certainly changed.
Burned, I'd be interested to see those links if you can find them .. also I'm curious, if you have any insight into the matter - why did the military want to eliminate drug use in the first place? Did they do any efficacy studies ... was it a morale issue ... all politics? Not to start with the presumption that drugs are harmless, particularly in the systems of people carrying guns 
but I'm wondering what precipitated the new environment.
Also, why would they toss the higher rank and "reform" the lower? Is it that there is a presumption that the higher rank necessitates a greater level of responsibility/needs to be a role model?
but I'm wondering what precipitated the new environment.Also, why would they toss the higher rank and "reform" the lower? Is it that there is a presumption that the higher rank necessitates a greater level of responsibility/needs to be a role model?
Well you can be the boss of your company and every day when you knock off you can go have a few beers at the bar and still perform your job at work as well as you could if you didnt go to the bar. Point being you go to the bar to relax you might even perform better (depending on your personality if you have time to unwind). I think this is more of a case of abuse rather than anything else, ie becoming an alchoholic where you need them to function. We still have alot of drugs out there that are illegal for no good reason at all, possibly because if they were legal the pharmacutical companies couldnt make billions off of riddlen and lithium. Whats the difference after all 90% of the country with ADD on riddlen or 90% who smoke pot. As for use in high school its been going on for years everyone has experienced it no matter how old you are some do some dont thats just the way it is. Society wont ever change, everyone will just find a new way to get around whatever laws are passed about this after all it is a personal choice the thing america was based on this should be left up to parents.
There was a very bad accident on the Nimitz. The investigation revealed that a sinificant number of the flight deck personnel were high and that was the catalyst. Widespread testing started soon after that. The success of the program is indisputable.
A presumption? No, it's a fact.
did they pass a law against drinking in the military, and exactly how many accidents in the military are related to drinking. Somehow i get the ida that the navy is particularly known for there love of alchohol. Maybe this is just a historical thing.
So how do you explain the dramatic fall in drug use for 12-17yo bewteen 1985 and 1993? It must be testing since nothing else has worked!! Truthfully, I don't know the answer to that question myself . . . maybe it's a statistical fluke (although that's unlikely considering the trend line). Drug use patterns run in cycles as drugs fall out of favor and new drugs arrive on the scene.
UQ, you cite EXACTLY one reason for the fall in reported military drug use but the best evidence you cite is nothing but correlative. Is it possible that drug use fell as Vietnam/Korean era vets became a smaller proportion of the ranks? You know the military's evolution into an all-volunteer force is a relatively recent phenomenon. I would consider the removal of transients (non-career) to be a profound selection bias in your sample.
Every real authority on the planet would roll off multiple reasons why drug use continues to be a global problem but NO intelligent person ever cites a singular solution to this issue. In fact, most note multiple approaches as part of an effective drug use reduction program. Curiously, testing is rarely high on the list.
You linked to some of SAMHSA's data (granted it's also DEA, DOJ) but totally disregarded SAMHSA-sponsored studies that show interventions (that do not include testing) apparently work. Your rationale for testing is the epitome of bad science . . . non-representative cohort, unstable cohort, NO control, no clearly uniform methodology, and conclusions are ex post facto.
You must be kidding. I doubt you've even seen the inside of an alternative school much less been a teacher for a year. But hey, prove me wrong . . . what did DS do that is comparable to teaching the kids that other schools throw away?
About the only program I've cited is Abecedarian. Google it yourself . . . I've already posted links but since you haven't bothered to read them why should I bother again. OK, I cannot resist.
The development of cognitive and academic abilities: growth curves from an early childhood educational experiment.
Prevention of intellectual disabilities: early interventions to improve cognitive development
Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: a follow-up study of children from low-income families
Preventive education for high-risk children: cognitive consequences of the Carolina Abecedarian Project
Japanese like our work
For the record, Abecedarian is now collecting data on former 6 month old subjects that are now entering their 30s.
from navysite.de
"An EA-6B aircraft attempting to land at night struck a helicopter, then hit another aircraft and tow tractor before coming to rest. A fuel fire erupted. Improved flight deck fire fighting systems quickly contained the fire, and once the fire was believed to be out, the order was given to start the clean-up.
As sailors approached the scene, a SPARROW missile warhead that was buried in the debris detonated. The explosion restarted the fire and three more warheads detonated before the fire could be extinguished. Fourteen sailors were killed and 45 injured. Three planes were destroyed and nine were damaged."
from miltary.com
"I too believe that the antihistamines that were taken by the pilot that night was the sole reason for the deaths insued. I was there, I was 2nd man on a fire-hose, concentrating on the "Phoenix" of an F-14 forward of elevator #1." T.H.
"I, too, was onboard when the plane crashed on the flight deck. As I recall, the pilot also had traces of drug in his blood, although not THC. I wouldn't try to blame his bad piloting on the enlisted flight deck crew. Most of those crewmen died fighting the fire that the pilot caused." M.S.
"An EA-6B aircraft attempting to land at night struck a helicopter, then hit another aircraft and tow tractor before coming to rest. A fuel fire erupted. Improved flight deck fire fighting systems quickly contained the fire, and once the fire was believed to be out, the order was given to start the clean-up.
As sailors approached the scene, a SPARROW missile warhead that was buried in the debris detonated. The explosion restarted the fire and three more warheads detonated before the fire could be extinguished. Fourteen sailors were killed and 45 injured. Three planes were destroyed and nine were damaged."
from miltary.com
"I too believe that the antihistamines that were taken by the pilot that night was the sole reason for the deaths insued. I was there, I was 2nd man on a fire-hose, concentrating on the "Phoenix" of an F-14 forward of elevator #1." T.H.
"I, too, was onboard when the plane crashed on the flight deck. As I recall, the pilot also had traces of drug in his blood, although not THC. I wouldn't try to blame his bad piloting on the enlisted flight deck crew. Most of those crewmen died fighting the fire that the pilot caused." M.S.
I have lots of insight on why the military wanted to eliminate drug use. The main reason is discipline. We had a very screwed-up culture in the military during the 70s after conclusion of the Vietnam conflict. Consider this:Originally posted by: myusername
Burned, I'd be interested to see those links if you can find them .. also I'm curious, if you have any insight into the matter - why did the military want to eliminate drug use in the first place? Did they do any efficacy studies ... was it a morale issue ... all politics? Not to start with the presumption that drugs are harmless, particularly in the systems of people carrying guns
Also, why would they toss the higher rank and "reform" the lower? Is it that there is a presumption that the higher rank necessitates a greater level of responsibility/needs to be a role model?
Collapse of the Armed Forces - Col Robert D. Heinl, 1971
Arresting the drug problem was but one means to address the discipline problem. There were numerous other problems too. McNamara's Morons.... low espirit de corps..... pay......post-Vietnam hangover, etc. Back in the early 80s during inprocessing over in Germany, new arrivals watched film of dead GIs who had OD'd on drugs. The problem was quite serious in the Army at one time. It wasn't just limited to pot either.
Those with higher rank are booted because they were trusted and therefore violated that trust, according to my understanding of the situation. Retaining NCOs found guilty of substance abuse sets a bad example. I never totally agreed with the practice. Two of my close friends, who were NCOs, beat positive drug tests though. In both instances, the chain of custody for the urine specimens was found to be corrupt. In the first case, the battalion commander (O-5) threw out the charge. In the second case, the other NCO beat the charge at a courts martial.
If I can find the other info on urinalysis results since the mid-80s, I'll post it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter