Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Dismissals For Failing CDT Tests On The Rise

It would, but until then, every subjective assumption of yours is just that a guess to suit your beliefs and mind set.

Common logic tells us that.
Unless you assume that CDT had a 100% hit rate and got everyone in one swoop (which would be a pretty weak assumption), leading to the further assumption that the only drug takers are new recruits, what I am saying is pretty much on point.
 
Lifted directly from the British Army website

The British Army takes a zero-tolerance approach to substance misuse. Drugs affect the fitness and reliability of service people and have a corrosive effect on operational effectiveness. Fail a drugs test, and you can expect to be discharged from the service.


Yet, there is a c@ckwomble, who claims to be still serving, advocating that this Policy should be changed.

Stand by your beliefs. Hand your kit in c@ckwomble and GTF.
 
Hmm?, so still guessing really to make it fit to your mindset and say what you want and need it to say ?... but , just for me, tell me how many WERE tested based on the 600 binned then, and show you current ( made up) figures?

Thing is, being a stroppy tw@t who loves a good argument disguised a civil debate, I've a very good knowledge of stats TBH. We loved to feck around with them our Social Science Studies .
Stats are one of those things that really gets my OCD juices flowing, cos you can play around with them , manipulate them, tell whole lies 'based on the truth' with them, but ultimately they produce the reality of fact rather then feeling or opinion.
So are you really, seriously suggesting that CDT is detecting every case of drug use by a soldier? It can’t be; testing is too infrequent and test thresholds are too high. The only question is how many are getting away with usage and not being found out?

At best CDT is a deterrent.
 
Unless you assume that CDT had a 100% hit rate and got everyone in one swoop (which would be a pretty weak assumption), leading to the further assumption that the only drug takers are new recruits, what I am saying is pretty much on point.


I've already said in previous post that it's pretty widespread knowledge that some Toms do miss the test, so no assumption here....I'm a big enough 'Ass' already without 'U' you joining 'me'.

And, where do you get the premise that assuming something along those lines must must mean that only new recruits are drug users , only you will know?

Possibly the those substances kicking your reasoning to shit?......loved that premise that only you must be on point with your views on this all too .


No further words needed , you shown us all how wrong you are.


Meh.
 
Next, the THC is mostly in its acid form, THC-COOH (usually written THC-A) which is not psychoactive. To be psychoactive, THC-A has to be decarboxylated; the acid COOH molecule has to be removed. The process is a combination of temperature and time. Put it in a bong and it decarboxylated quickly. Leave it in the sun and it happens slowly. Our growers flash freeze the plants when they are picked to prevent decarboxylation, so we can make pastes that are 40% CBD, 40% THC-A with just traces of THC.
Off-topic but this stood out. How do you manage to decarboxylate the CBD-A without also affecting the THC-A?
 
So are you really, seriously suggesting that CDT is detecting every case of drug use by a soldier? It can’t be; testing is too infrequent and test thresholds are too high. The only question is how many are getting away with usage and not being found out?

At best CDT is a deterrent.

I've not said anything like that at all, and for you to think that's what i meant shows how much you are twisting info to suit your own opinion.

Same with your second question...You or me, have absolutely no idea how many are getting away with it as there's no evidence/info/stats on who are swerving the tests.

All you've got to go on is your own opinion...and yes, it is a determent , that's what's it's there for.

It's the same formula used by Women's groups when they say the number of Rapes being unreported /record by the Police is going up , .er, Hello, if it's being unreported how can you measure it? ..unless they are only spouting their lies for more funding and sympathy .
 
Right, and you not quoting self justifying BS of the same, used to bamboozle gullible investors or influence users aka your clients aka your profits?

I have no knowledge of it , went to google - found an article , seemingly from a rival of yours?.... so you dismiss it ? how convenient?

The whole industry is based on convenient lies and you are great example of it
I’m not quoting anything.
Off-topic but this stood out. How do you manage to decarboxylate the CBD-A without also affecting the THC-A?
Decarboxylation is a combination of temperature and time. The decarb curves are quite different; CBD-A decarboxylates far more with age at low temperature than THC-A does. So you could just leave the plant to age

In practice, it should be irrelevant. If you want to make a CBD oil you use a strain with near zero THC. In some countries that would be referred to as hemp. Here is Aus, hemp cannot have more than 0.5% of any cannabinoid.

Bringing this back towards the topic, the problem is that cannabis strains cross pollinate back to the base Cannabis Sativa plant. Without strict bio-security measures, there’s no guarantee that the hemp seeds you’ve planted actually have near zero THC. Which is why so many CBD oils that aren’t supposed to contain THC do.

But a Holland and Barrett CBD oil and you are quite likely to be consuming THC.
 
I've not said anything like that at all, and for you to think that's what i meant shows how much you are twisting info to suit your own opinion.

Same with your second question...You or me, have absolutely no idea how many are getting away with it as there's no evidence/info/stats on who are swerving the tests.

All you've got to go on is your own opinion...and yes, it is a determent , that's what's it's there for.

It's the same formula used by Women's groups when they say the number of Rapes being unreported /record by the Police is going up , .er, Hello, if it's being unreported how can you measure it? ..unless they are only spouting their lies for more funding and sympathy .
I’ve not twisted anything. You’re the one who posted unintelligible drivel about how statistics get your juices going. Forgive me for misunderstanding you.

I suggested that the Army’s drug problem is far higher than the numbers discharged shows. I explained why that will be the case. Either it is or it isn’t. Which one is it and why?
 
Lifted directly from the British Army website




Yet, there is a c@ckwomble, who claims to be still serving, advocating that this Policy should be changed.

Stand by your beliefs. Hand your kit in c@ckwomble and GTF.
Did you read the last paragraph? And this isn’t the NAAFI bar so can you make your point without name calling, I fear you wouldn’t be so immature if we were face to face.
I’m advocating that the policy should be reviewed against societal changes and our manpower and output requirements. If we can tolerate the risk against our current and future manning levels fine, if not then let’s look at doing it better, quite what better is I don’t know.
 
I’ve not twisted anything. You’re the one who posted unintelligible drivel about how statistics get your juices going. Forgive me for misunderstanding you.

I suggested that the Army’s drug problem is far higher than the numbers discharged shows. I explained why that will be the case. Either it is or it isn’t. Which one is it and why?


'Unintelligible dribble ' :) .... you mean you can't cope with simple reasoning as it doesn't suit you views.

You can suggest what you want - I'll suggest you've a self interest in this due to profit - but suggestion and fact are often far , far apart and unless you can prove/convince , put up a reasonable and rational theory with a acceptable conclusion, it's all utter bollox and spun false logic.

You think that because ONLY 600 have been discharged, it's MUST be much higher , yet offer no real evidence to support it, all you have to go on is a feeling, an opinion, even a wish, based on your own mindset., which is nothing more that the height of arrogance and sanctimonious conceit

It's laughable, hearsay evidence at best.
 
Did you read the last paragraph? And this isn’t the NAAFI bar so can you make your point without name calling, I fear you wouldn’t be so immature if we were face to face.
Fight fight fight
 
Did you read the last paragraph?

This one ?

  • Regulate through discipline and administrative action: any service person found to have used illegal substances will be disciplined appropriately, including discharge from service.

Yes. it really sounds straightforward doesn't it. Caught and you're out.

I don't really know how they could make it any simpler for people to understand.


I fear you wouldn’t be so immature if we were face to face.

You might just happen to fear wrong.

I’m advocating that the policy should be reviewed against societal changes and our manpower and output requirements.

The is absolutely nothing to review. The Army ( As printed on the website ) has a zero policy tolerance as to the use of illegal substances.

The only time this policy should be reviewed is when these substances cease to become illegal substances in the UK.
 
This one ?
Yes. it really sounds straightforward doesn't it. Caught and you're out.
Nowhere does it say that.
I don't really know how they could make it any simpler for people to understand.
You might just happen to fear wrong.
The point is that you're coming across as a disrespectful internet warrior using language that I'd expect from a 12 year old.
The is absolutely nothing to review. The Army ( As printed on the website ) has a zero policy tolerance as to the use of illegal substances.

Agreed, appropriate discipline will be applied, and one of the results could be discharge, not all of them.
The only time this policy should be reviewed is when these substances cease to become illegal substances in the UK.
A mature person would be thinking "wtf do we do if some of it is legalised?" as opposed to hurumphing all the way to the turps.
 
The point is that you're coming across as a disrespectful internet warrior using language that I'd expect from a 12 year old.

As I said previously, followed by others, you are coming across as a complete idiot.

A mature person would be thinking "wtf do we do if some of it is legalised?" as opposed to hurumphing all the way to the turps.

A mature person understands that sometimes life is a bitch and that they cannot get everything they want in life. A mature person would also understand that it is pointless bitching about '' what ifs '' and do their utmost to support the organisation who they claim employs them, that includes supporting Policies that they themselves might not believe in.

If anyone is coming as a 12 year old internet warrior, have a long, hard look in a mirror.
 
What I've is seen is a silly argument for a change of Policy '...because civvies use it and we lose good people ...'

That's the strength of the argument .... a cop out if ever there was one.

Feck what civvies use, you're not a civilian when you're a service person, and if people were 'good', they wouldn't use it at the risk of their job - and among all the words,of those supporting the use/change of policy there's been not one on the downside/the negative impact, it can and does have on a person performance, just self justifying whining and BS.

It started to go wrong when they allowed quilts :)
 
As I said previously, followed by others, you are coming across as a complete idiot.



A mature person understands that sometimes life is a bitch and that they cannot get everything they want in life. A mature person would also understand that it is pointless bitching about '' what ifs '' and do their utmost to support the organisation who they claim employs them, that includes supporting Policies that they themselves might not believe in.

If anyone is coming as a 12 year old internet warrior, have a long, hard look in a mirror.
Hold on, you've conveniently cut off the first part of my quote. You said "Caught you're out", which is fundamentally incorrect. As for coming across as an idiot I'm not fussed as long as it's an open minded idiot.
The interesting bit is that you quotes in thematic post 199 a link to forces.net that said that the Army had dropped its zero tolerance policy. Is that the same zero tolerance policy that allows people to stay now?
 
What I've is seen is a silly argument for a change of Policy '...because civvies use it and we lose good people ...'

That's the strength of the argument .... a cop out if ever there was one.

Feck what civvies use, you're not a civilian when you're a service person, and if people were 'good', they wouldn't use it at the risk of their job - and among all the words,of those supporting the use/change of policy there's been not one on the downside/the negative impact, it can and does have on a person performance, just self justifying whining and BS.

It started to go wrong when they allowed quilts :)
I wasn't allowed a quilt in basic, but at least we weren't on bed blocks.
The argument is based around recruiting and retention as opposed to "because civvies use it".
The current incentive of "you could lose your job isn't working", so perhaps a different incentive is required, or even a more radical change.
 
Hold on, you've conveniently cut off the first part of my quote.

I never cut off anything. I replied to 2 separate parts of your comment.

The interesting bit is that you quotes in thematic post 199 a link to forces.net that said

I thought it was the Sun ? You made a very big hoo - ha about that, which brings me nicely to my next point.

As for coming across as an idiot I'm not fussed

It's just as well that you are not fussed. You are not coming across as an idiot. You are an idiot.

I'll refer you the British Army official website.

The British Army takes a zero-tolerance approach to substance misuse. Drugs affect the fitness and reliability of service people and have a corrosive effect on operational effectiveness. Fail a drugs test, and you can expect to be discharged from the service.

Why should the Army take this stance

Recreational drugs are chemical substances taken for enjoyment, or leisure purposes, rather than for medical reasons. They can lead to addiction, to health and social problems and to crime. Most are illegal, so their use comes with all the consequences of breaking the law.


Illegal

Recruiting and retention along with alcohol are nothing but red herrings.
 

Mufulira

War Hero
Being a national serviceman in the old SADF, any drug offence would see us sent to detention barracks (DB, where 'boning' sand was a popular thing.) and then you'd have to continue your 2 years service after discharge from DBs.
And the criminal record followed you for life.
SNLR wasn't an option.
Whilst a Regular Trooper it was evident that a few, very few were constant users of Whacky Tabacky, Laughing Grass, Boem or whatever you'd like to call it -- these were the few you'd never, ever rely on as back up or having the basic integrity to behave as a true soldier and part of the squadron ---- there was something lacking inside. Being perpetually stoned was Failure Rating as far as the rest of us were concerned.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top