MilitaryForums.co.uk

What about going into some sort of drug counselling/drug awareness work?

You might find that your experiences if presented well may stop others from ruining their lives.

There's more to life than the RAF you know.

Gore.

Drugs arent bad, just not dont have a place in the military....

But I do find it rather ironic the RAF types are sounding off about it when pilots in Iraq were given a derivative of Ritalin which helps ADD and is related to amphetamines.......

But I do find it rather ironic the RAF types are sounding off about it when pilots in Iraq were given a derivative of Ritalin which helps ADD and is related to amphetamines

And you don't think all the pills we were popping during the scud attacks are related to some other odd illegal drugs?

'Class B drugs include anphetamines - non injected (which are stimulant drugs) are controlled substances commonly misused for pleasure.

So now we've established the lads were 'issued' by the Surgeon General stimulants akin to blinkin' pro plus (which I think 80% odd of the armed forces have used at some point), your point is?

I think you'll find the difference in attitude lies with the terms 'recreational' and 'prescribed'. 'Nuff said?

Jeberdiah Klink wrote:Drugs arent bad, just not dont have a place in the military.... But I do find it rather ironic the RAF types are sounding off about it when pilots in Iraq were given a derivative of Ritalin which helps ADD and is related to amphetamines.......

Drugs aren't bad?? I beg to differ. Or what drugs are you talking about?
I have seen what drugs do to people, my opinion would be that most of them are. That includes alot of prescription drugs !

Gore.

I hate typing long posts and tend to avoid them best possible, but....

aes69 wrote:So now we've established the lads were 'issued' by the Surgeon General stimulants akin to blinkin' pro plus (which I think 80%
odd of the armed forces have used at some point), your point is?

Aes - First of all, thank you, thank you for proving my point. You yourself have admitted that many of the RAF have taken a drug, which is what I said. Now that we have RAF personnel admitting it doesn't it make people who attack people who have also took drugs a hypocrite?
Also, I really think its wide of the mark to band modafinil with pro plus, much like grouping shandy with some of Lithuania`s finest 95% Absinthe. They are just extremely different.

aes69 wrote:I think you'll find the difference in attitude lies with the terms 'recreational' and 'prescribed'. 'Nuff said?

Recreational or prescribed, it doesn't matter, the effect of the drug is the same as is the side effects. 'Nuff said'?

goreD. wrote:Drugs aren't bad?? I beg to differ. Or what drugs are you talking about?
I have seen what drugs do to people, my opinion would be that most of them are. That includes alot of prescription drugs !

Hello Gore - Your a Police Officer, you see the dark under belly of everything that is wrong in our society. I would doubt you have had it come over your radio 'Gore. Will you please goto 29 Acacia Avenue, we have reports of a young man on LSD who has realised that all matter is merely energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream and we are the
imaginations of ourselves.' You are more likely to have 'Gore. Please goto 29 Acacia Avenue, we have reports of a man on LSD who thought he
was a bird and jumped out his upstairs window.' Now, if we look at this, as this is a tadge of an urban myth. I`ve took LSD and I`ve never thought I was a bird. Don't go blaming LSD on this idiot, take off from the ground and check it out first.

But of course some people abuse drugs, much like people abuse drink and cigarettes amongst other things. I`m a cocky little bastard and I like to deal in hard facts. Alcohol and Cigarettes kill more people than all drugs combined, so you people who take these could also be called hypocrites. I also like the 'DON'T DO DRUGS, THEY KILL' or 'ASK FRANK' advertisements then the next advertisement is 'Carlsburg probably the best lager in the world' or 'Bud: True'.
If drugs were legalised addiction and deaths associated with them would decrease greatly, drugs could controlled and manufactured safely and information could be given to users on how to use them safely. Tax could be used solely for the health care of drug takers and take a load off the NHS, thus saving you 'clean' people tax. One thing you might find interesting is that Amsterdam, renowned for is liberal attitude for drugs has one of the lowest rates of hard drug users in the world and drug related crime, thanks totally to its attitude and drug policy.

Locking people up for smoking dope and what not is counter productive, my life is infinitely times better due to me taking drugs, but if I had been arrested for taking them it would be infinitely less better. I never hurt anyone, never made anyone cry, never upset any person or never infringed anyones freedom just had oneheluva inner journey.

The Law is the Law for a reason.

Drugs do many different things to many different people.

I personally have no real issue with people who smoke grass or blow. They generally don't want to fight and can be dealt with relatively easily.

However, the rest.......

Your reasoning that because you never 'hurt' anyone is rot. They are against the law, they are illegal. "Oh yes, I did have an AKM assault Rifle and 2000 rounds of ammo in my house. I just like it and I wasn't going to hurt anyone".


Speed, EEEEs, Cocaine, opiates and the others I will always be bitterly opposed to. They are against the law. If you wish to lobby the Government and try and legalise them go ahead. If I catch you with them your feet won't touch the ground. You can tell your story to your cellmate after an 'intimate' moment.

Gore.

That old chestnut, 'Y'all liss'n here. The law is the law bowy, an like'a that. Talkin like that roun' these parts is likely ta git yall ended up killed. Ya reckon?'.

I think your analogy with the AKM is somewhat extreme. And to some extent a bad one. Dam, if you had some Magic Mushrooms, who knows what you could have churned out. (See, even you could have uses for drugs, knocking out some kick arse analogies).

Seem as though we are at both extremes of the scale maybe we can come together and achieve a better understanding together. Wouldn't that be novel? Why is Marijuana and Cocaine against the law? They grow naturally on our planet, hence if it is 'against' the law, doesn't that then make nature against the law? Why stop there, if you believe in God, then are you saying God made a mistake?

Well its the law, so Gore, please go lift God 'off his feet'.

Jeberdiah Klink wrote:I think your analogy with the AKM is somewhat extreme. And to some extent a bad one.

I don't. In this country you would probably get the same level of sentence by the courts.

AKM 2000 rds ammo= 8 years.

1-2 Kilos Cocaine= 8 years.

Just out of interest, the Military health care proffesionals that I work with tell me that the Americans have been giving their aircrew a form of Amphet for years. BUT, it is controlled and above all prescribed, not bought illegally and used to "get off ones's tits" - I believe there is a clear difference.

Seem as though we are at both extremes of the scale maybe we can come together and achieve a better understanding together. Wouldn't that be novel?

Jeberdiah Klink why are you on this forum? Doesn't sound to me like you are at all suited to the military.

Flintham Block1 wrote:Just out of interest, the Military health care proffesionals that I work with tell me that the Americans have been giving their aircrew a form of Amphet for years. BUT, it is controlled and above all prescribed, not bought illegally and used to "get off ones's tits" - I believe there is a clear difference.

Friendly fire deaths linked to US pilots 'on speed'
Andrew Buncombe
03 August 2002

The Independent (UK)

American pilots in Afghanistan, blamed for a series of "friendly fire" incidents and devastating erroneous attacks on innocent civilians, were routinely provided with amphetamines to tackle fatigue and help them fly longer hours. Pilots were allowed to "self-regulate" their own doses and kept the drugs in their cockpits.

The pilots were provided with the stimulant Dexedrine, generically known as dextroamphetamine and referred to as a "go-pill" by the airmen, when they set off on missions. When they returned, doctors gave them sedatives or "no-go pills" to help them sleep. Pilots who refused to take the drugs could be banned from taking part in a mission.

The use of the drugs is outlined in a 58-page document seen by The Independent entitled Performance Maintenance During Continuous Flight Operations, produced by the Naval medical research laboratory in Pensacola, Florida. It says: "Combat naps, proper nutrition and caffeine are currently approved and accepted ways ... to prevent and manage fatigue. However, in sustained and continuous operations these methods may be insufficient ..."

A statement issued yesterday by the US Air Force Surgeon General's Office confirmed the use of amphetamines by pilots. It said: "During contingency and combat operations, aviators are often required to perform their duties for extended periods without rest. While we have many planning and training techniques to extend our operations, prescribed drugs are sometimes made available to counter the effects of fatigue during these operations."

The use of stimulants by American combat pilots appears to be an open secret within the defence world, although it is believed this is the first time the Pentagon has confirmed their use was officially condoned.

The revelation has fuelled speculation that the use of amphetamines may have been a factor in a series of devastating errors by pilots that led to attacks on Afghan civilians as well as so-called friendly-fire incidents. In the worst friendly-fire incident of the campaign, four Canadian soldiers of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were killed and eight injured in April when an American pilot dropped a 500lb laser-guided bomb on their position.

The F-16 pilot, Illinois Air National Guard Major Harry Schmidt, had flown three hours from Kuwait to the combat zone and faced a three-hour flight back afterwards. F-16 missions from Kuwait routinely took up to nine hours.

In addition, few of the pilots based in Kuwait – where they were originally deployed to patrol the no-fly zone over southern Iraq – received the recommended 12 hours rest between missions as they were on double duty.

John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a defence think-tank, said: "Better bombing through chemistry. I think [enquiring whether amphetamine use had a role in the bombing errors] is an obvious question to ask. I am surprised that the question has not been asked before.

"When you look at the original story of the [Canadian] friendly-fire incident it seems that the pilot was being inexplicably aggressive. It goes beyond fatigue or lack of experience or [being a] cowboy or trigger happy or any of the standard prosaic explanations. The simplest explanation is that the guy had eaten too much speed and was paranoid."

Two unpublished reports into the friendly-fire incident reportedly concluded that Mr Schmidt made his error because he failed to properly assess the supposed risk before striking.

Mr Schmidt, a former Navy pilot and instructor at its elite "Top Gun" training school, said he saw muzzle flashes on the ground and believed he was acting in self-defence. Moments later he was informed there were "friendlies in the area". It later emerged the Canadians were taking part in live-firing exercises which America was aware of.

Mr Schmidt's lawyer, Charles Gittins, was unavailable to comment yesterday on whether his client had been taking amphetamines. However, he told the Toronto Star, which revealed the use of amphetamines by pilots: "I don't know. I never asked my pilot if he was medicated. But it's quite common."

The Performance Maintenance manual reveals just how common the use of amphetamines by pilots is. A survey of pilots who took part in the 1991 Desert Storm operation suggests 60 per cent of them took Dexedrine. In units most heavily involved in combat missions, the rate was as high as 96 per cent. During Desert Storm, the standard dosage of Dexedrine was 5mg. In Afghanistan it was 10mg.

The manual itself warns of the potential dangers of amphetamine use, particularly from repetitive dosage. It says: "The risk of drug accumulation from repetitive dosage warrants serious consideration."

Despite this it appears that pilots are under a considerable degree of pressure to take the drugs. A consent form that all pilots are required to sign says use of the drug is voluntary. But it adds: "Should I choose not to take it under circumstances where its use appears indicated ... my commander ... may determine whether or not I should be considered unfit to fly a given mission."

Last month scores of Afghan civilians were killed in the village of Karakak, 100 miles north of Kandahar, after being bombed by American forces which may have mistook wedding celebrations as hostile fire.

Biggles1211 wrote:

Seem as though we are at both extremes of the scale maybe we can come together and achieve a better understanding together. Wouldn't that be novel?

Jeberdiah Klink why are you on this forum? Doesn't sound to me like you are at all suited to the military.

Hello Biggles -

Could you be so kind as to tell me how you can come to this conclusion? I would appreciate it.

I`ll take a stab in the dark and say its because I have a liberal view of drugs? I cant see how this would not make me suitable to serve for my country. I also stated I wouldn't condone them in the military, and for that matter, doctors, nurses, drivers, butchers, bakers and/or candlestick makers. Do I take drugs now? No - will I in the future? Yes. Would I take them whist in any of the above trades? No. If I seen someone in the military taking drugs I would sing like a falsetto canary.

If you wouldn't mind, I`d like to make some presumations of my own and assassinate your character based on a paragraph or two taken from your posts on the Internet.

Thank you for your time,

JK

Jeberdiah Klink wrote: Why is Marijuana and Cocaine against the law? They grow naturally on our planet, hence if it is 'against' the law, doesn't that then make nature against the law?

Magic Mushrooms grow naturally on our planet. If you pick them and then prepare them you are breaking the law of our country.

Marijuana grows naturally on our planet. If you grow it you are breaking the law of our country.

Cocaine does not grow naturally. It has to be prepared. If you do you are breaking the law of our country.

Metal is found naturally on our planet.
If you mine it and fashion it into a AKM you are breaking the law of our country.

If you don't like these facts, and they are FACTS I suggest you lobby for the relevant laws to be reversed. I think that you will find yourself in a minority though.

If you really don't like it move to Colombia. They have all the drugs you want there. You can even get an AKM.

I support the stance that our country has/is making. I think that you have chosen the wrong place to try advertise the benefits of being a druggy.

Gore.

Jeberdiah Klink wrote:I also stated I wouldn't condone them in the military, and for that matter, doctors, nurses, drivers, butchers, bakers and/or candlestick makers.

Don't you start picking on butchers or I may have to take you to one side and bitch slap you

Im on drugs now.........Ive just sat on a brufen least my arse has shrunk

Brufen makes yer arse shrink???

Give me a shedload!!