The Drugs Don't Work - Thoughts on the article on second chances for CDT failures

The Mail on Sunday has published a story (HERE) noting that large numbers of troops are being offered a second chance to stay in the Armed Forces after failing a ‘Compulsory Drugs Test’. Traditionally UK MOD policy was to discharge individuals out of the Service, baring them for reenlistment for failing a test. Today the policy is more nuanced, and under certain circumstances an individual can have a ‘second chance’ if they fail a test.

These second chances are used under tightly controlled circumstances, generally applying to younger personnel deemed worth keeping, usually in junior ranks and comes with a heavy penalty in terms of further tests and likely career stalling. This is particularly key given that some 70-75% of failures in the British Army are aged between 16-24– SOURCE.

For some years now the total number of military personnel failing a CDT, and then discharged from the armed forces, has averaged about 500-600 people per year (usually 20-30 RN and RAF or 0.1% of manpower, and the rest are Army). Over the last 15 years this means that nearly 10,000 people have been discharged from the armed forces for drug use. For context the average annual outflow over the same period in total has been upwards of 15,000 people per year – meaning that about 5% of service leavers each year are accounted for by drugs test failures.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

In a time when the military is struggling to recruit, is it sensible to discharge a significant proportion of your workforce for failing to pass a drugs test, or is it a common-sense procedure to maintain public confidence in the armed forces?

It is easy to demand that all who fail such tests are immediately discharged and removed from service, that they have failed the trust placed in them and should not be permitted to keep their jobs. It is also right that those who fail to meet the high employment standards of the Armed Forces should rightly risk their employment status if they choose to partake in illegal substances.

The issue though is that society is changing, and that the standards and expectations placed on people are different to the past. Firstly it is worth considering that for all the policy on drug use, there is a long history of the Armed Forces using drugs in a legal manner to support their troops, from morphine as a pain relief, to giving amphetamines and bendrezine to combat fatigue (a good short history is HERE).

For many years too the Armed Forces were, and arguably still are, an organisation where a core part of the ethos and moral component of fighting power is, at least in part, drawn from legally partaking in intoxicating substances – e.g. going out and getting drunk together. The culture of alcohol (and tobacco) is central to the military culture, from formal mess dinners and passing the Port, to informal initiation rituals and knocking back skinfuls of lager.

Many tales of veterans usually involve alcohol, and many of the problems incurred are linked to people losing control of their judgement or being too impaired to act sensibly as a result. For instance, the recent story in the media of an officer locked in a disabled toilet who had to force his way out HERE owes an awful lot to the fact that the participants were all, allegedly, very drunk. It is highly unlikely that their actions would have happened had they been sober.

Similarly, a cursory glance at the many listings for the Military Courts Martial Centres (link HERE) to some of the hundreds of cases will show just how many involve alcohol related charges. (noting that many other incidents will be dealt with under the AGAI framework allowing units to impose minor punishments).

It is easy to moralise and suggest that someone who has taken drugs has failed their mates and is a danger to themselves and others, but equally given the prevalence of alcohol at the heart of armed forces culture, this is perhaps somewhat hypocritical. For every young soldier who gets stoned using cannabis, there are many other incidents of soldiers getting smashed out of their mind on booze and causing reckless criminal damage.

The issue for the military is how to handle drug use in a society where peoples attitudes are increasingly ambivalent towards restricted drugs, and the approach it should take to them. Discharging may seem appropriate – they have after all failed a test that forms part of the condition of their employment and broken the law of the land too.

Such a zero-tolerance approach does make sense, but it also comes at a cost too. From a practical perspective, it may immediately cost the army a good individual who has huge potential but who has made an error of judgement on a night out. How many good SNCO’s today made similar errors when young privates after a good night out turned messy? In the latter case, ‘extras’, summary punishment and the potential of a Courts Martial punished them but permitted them redemption and a chance to show they could learn from their mistakes. In the former, someone is immediately removed from their job, setting in train a chain of life changing circumstances that rarely has a happy ending. This can potentially be a significant overreaction for a Saturday night out with a spliff round a friend’s house, causing no problem to anyone.

The challenge for the Armed Forces is to decide where the line must be drawn. Without doubt there are some individuals who are not well suited to military life, or whose decision to take a Class A drug in some circumstances could put others at risk. But, for those who argue that anyone who takes a drug could turn up to work stoned and the risk of the consequences, how many more soldiers, sailors and airmen have ‘turned to’ for First Parade while still under the influence of alcohol and a good night in the mess? As police forces across the country regularly prove when pulling drivers over, alcohol stays in the bloodstream a lot longer than people think. How many military personnel have driven whilst under the influence, or been on the range, often without realising it?

In a society where people are being recruited from a variety of walks of life, there will be many who have taken drugs, or who know friends who take drugs. They are incredibly prevalent in many places, and we would be fools as a nation to pretend otherwise. Similarly, many young members of the armed forces are often emotionally immature, or prone to potentially exercising poor judgement. Does this mean they should be thrown out without the promise of redemption for a single mistake?

The Army has to balance these considerations and decide where to draw the line. The current system seems to give people the opportunity of a second chance, which seems pragmatic and sensible. People make mistakes and there is a vast difference between taking one puff or trying out something new, and becoming a genuine addict with all that this entails. One of the great strengths of the Armed Forces (and the Army in particular) is in taking people who have often not had a great start to life and giving them every opportunity to better themselves, succeed and become something better as a result. This benefits the individual, their family and society. Throwing someone out at 22 because of a stupid mistake that in most other jobs would not see any impact runs the risk of reducing manpower and losing the chance to help that person better themselves.

It is easy to moralise, and easy to demand a zero tolerance policy on all drug use in the military. It is far harder to defend the adoption of a pragmatic approach that recognises people make mistakes. But this problem is not going away – the numbers failing have remained relatively consistent, and if anything growing as overall military headcount shrinks. Discharging people for failing means you are losing years of experience which cannot be easily replaced – you need to be certain there is no other way.

Where to draw the line then? Without doubt the ability to discharge immediately remains a useful deterrent tool, and is particularly valuable if someone fails the test for using particularly serious drugs. But equally the ability to offer a second chance is potentially useful – it gives the system the chance to keep good people and recognises that some drugs are so widely available that they are essentially recreational in the same way as tobacco and alcohol. Sensible and pragmatic management is needed here, not rushing to lose a good soldier over a slip up.

As societies values change, this debate will continue to intensify. Already there are questions over the validity of the test given reports of soldiers being discharged for failing it over use of muscle growth powders which may or may not contain banned substances. Were the UK to adopt a more relaxed view of drugs, and in particular on cannabis, there may well be further policy issues as to whether cannabis use is incompatible with service life, or if saying that is akin to saying that homosexuality is incompatible with service life – a view that today sounds pathetically risible, but was active policy less than 20 years ago.

You only have to drive across parts of the USA to see that the world is changing – last year Humphrey drove through the West Coast and grew strangely used to seeing shops advertising tobacco, beer, guns and marijuana. It is becoming part of Western culture, and not something that is easily stopped in its tracks. The questions is whether to be hard lined and throw people away over it, or to take a chance on someone, give them an opportunity to redeem themselves and prevent them from throwing everything away for the sake of a good night out.