 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The bandit
Commander
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349
|
 Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 10:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Romani ite domum wrote: |
I don't really care what he says. I know what I experienced in that time period, I know when it started for my unit. It was both in the flight physical and by random selection at other times between flight physicals.
San Diego Navy Historical Association
http://www.quarterdeck.org/WindsOfChange/030-45%20MCPON%20Jack%20Whittet.htm
Look down to page 41 "Drugs and Alcohol". It says "In July 1972, DOD began its random urinalysis drug testing program."
Campenni is wrong. I have absolutely no idea why he's quoting the eighties, but he's wrong. |
No, I think you are very confused. Let's assume this piece you cite is fact. From your cited link:
"In July 1972, DOD began its random urinalysis drug testing program. All members of the armed forces became subject to random, periodic testing to detect possible drug abuse."
Couple of questions for you:
1) What does this have to do with Bush being in AL and having no F-102's in AL to fly?
2) What does this have to do with this topic of Sen. Kerry? If you want to talk about Bush and drug testing, why don't you start a new post on that subject?
3) Find us one pilot from 1972 in the ANG (preferably Texas/AL) who will state on the record he was randomly tested by this drug policy you cite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Romani ite domum wrote: | | Campenni is wrong. I have absolutely no idea why he's quoting the eighties, but he's wrong. |
Campenni is not wrong.
"Random urinalysis" as begun by Zumwalt is not what you might think it was. I'm sure he had good intentions, but for several reasons, it did not have the effect desired.
1. The tests were unreliable.
2. Evasion of the test was easy. A vial of someone else's urine could be carried into the privacy of the restroom and dumped into the sampler. (Having monitored one of these random line-up-and-pee exercises in 81 or 82, I remember holding a cup out to my co-monitor to mark and asking her, "Why is this pee so cold?" Shortly thereafter, it became part of the "Zero Tolerance Policy" that the "submission" of the sample had to be fully witnessed.)
3. The tests were too expensive to put into broad use.
4. Samples taken were often discarded in the lab, without any testing done on them at all.
Now, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Air Force was doing routine urinalysis for marijuana in the early '70's. The AF has traditionally been better funded, especially in the areas of health and welfare, than the other services - maybe they could afford it.
The Navy cited cost as having been a historically prohibitive factor as late as 1979, when the newer, cheaper tests were being field-tested.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romani ite domum
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The bandit wrote: | 1) What does this have to do with Bush being in AL and having no F-102's in AL to fly?
2) What does this have to do with this topic of Sen. Kerry? If you want to talk about Bush and drug testing, why don't you start a new post on that subject?
3) Find us one pilot from 1972 in the ANG (preferably Texas/AL) who will state on the record he was randomly tested by this drug policy you cite. |
As far as your question 1 and 2, you originally raised the issue in a thread that you started. Your assertion contradicted events I personally experienced, and I stated that personal experience, and only that personal experience. I did not assert that any other service besides my own was doing drug tests during flight physicals, because I have no direct knowledge of that either being, or not being the case.
What does this have to do with the topic of Sen. Kerry? Not a thing, so why did you bring it up? I did not initiate it in either a post or a thread, I responded to your initial assertion. As has been pointed out more than once, this is a board of Swift Boat veterans, although they welcome other non-Swift Boat veterans as well as veterans from other services. I would not initiate a thread on Bush, because that is not the focus of this forum. That being said, I will not remain silent when something contrary to my own experience is asserted. I always strive for accuracy and truth
Did I want to talk about Bush and drug testing? I didn't mention Bush at all - you did. All I ever said about drug testing is that I had undergone it starting in the summer of 1972.
Find us an ANG pilot... Why? I didn't say the ANG was undergoing drug testing in 1972. I wasn't in the ANG, I was regular active duty Air Force. Why would I assert anything about the ANG when I was not ANG and therefore have no direct knowledge of what policies they were following, then, now, or anytime?
The original assertion I replied to was this: | The bandit wrote: | | I bet you one of them sorry demwits who believe they conducted "drug test" during flight physicals in '72 |
The meaning I took from this is your assertion that there were no drug tests during flight physicals in 1972, whereas I underwent drug tests during flight physicals starting in 1972, which is what I originally stated.
I do not require your assumption that the web page I cited is true. That link is for for the benefit of those who did not experience it. Finding official references to 32 year old DOD policies on the internet is difficult, but if you want to impugn the veracity of the San Diego Navy Historical Association, that is up to you. I started this series simply to assert my own experience. It was only after you called me a "liberal propaganda disinformation spreading clown" that I was motivated to track down a reference which specified drug testing as a 1972 DOD program for all the military services.
That being said, I'm still not going to assert anything about drug testing and any other service, because I personally don't know. I'm not going to assert anything about the Air National Guard and drug testing, because I personally don't know. I only know about my own personal experience, and that is all I am going to assert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romani ite domum
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Navy_Navy_Navy wrote: | | Romani ite domum wrote: | | Campenni is wrong. I have absolutely no idea why he's quoting the eighties, but he's wrong. |
Campenni is not wrong.
"Random urinalysis" as begun by Zumwalt is not what you might think it was. I'm sure he had good intentions, but for several reasons, it did not have the effect desired.
1. The tests were unreliable.
2. Evasion of the test was easy. A vial of someone else's urine could be carried into the privacy of the restroom and dumped into the sampler. (Having monitored one of these random line-up-and-pee exercises in 81 or 82, I remember holding a cup out to my co-monitor to mark and asking her, "Why is this pee so cold?" Shortly thereafter, it became part of the "Zero Tolerance Policy" that the "submission" of the sample had to be fully witnessed.)
3. The tests were too expensive to put into broad use.
4. Samples taken were often discarded in the lab, without any testing done on them at all.
Now, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Air Force was doing routine urinalysis for marijuana in the early '70's. The AF has traditionally been better funded, especially in the areas of health and welfare, than the other services - maybe they could afford it.
The Navy cited cost as having been a historically prohibitive factor as late as 1979, when the newer, cheaper tests were being field-tested. |
Adm. Zumwalt was Chief of Staff for the Navy then, and any policies he implemented would only have affected the Navy. Gen. John D. Ryan was Air Force Chief of Staff from August 1969 to August 1973, and he was the implementor of drug testing policies for the Air Force.
Efficacy and cost have both been argued as reasons against drug testing, and I don't dispute either cost or efficacy, since neither of those were within my purview. We were simply told to do so, and followed orders.
You believed that I was mistaking the ordinary urinalysis of a flight physical for a drug test. I assure you I was not. We had a required morning briefing which the briefing room doors were closed and locked precisely at 6 AM. You had better be inside the briefing room when those doors closed and locked, because the consequence of being outside that room after 6 AM was an Article 15 and a $225(2004 dollars) fine. Two guys had been selected from each squadron prior to the briefing, and they were notified after the doors locked and before the briefing began of their selection. The briefing then proceeded as usual. Once the briefing was complete, the doors were unlocked, and those men selected had exactly a maximum of 30 minutes to appear at the base hospital and provide a urine sample for drug testing. I have no idea what the penalty was for failing to do so in the specified time, because it never occurred to my knowledge during the time I was in.
When Campenni speaks for the Air National Guard, I must respond that I don't know, because I wasn't in the Guard. When Campenni speaks for the regular Air Force, then I know he is wrong because my experience contradicts him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The bandit
Commander
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Romani ite domum wrote: |
That being said, I'm still not going to assert anything about drug testing and any other service, because I personally don't know. I'm not going to assert anything about the Air National Guard and drug testing, because I personally don't know. I only know about my own personal experience, and that is all I am going to assert. |
Lemme ask you this, were you a officer in 1972?
What did you fly and where were you stationed?
Who was your commanding officer?
What base were you one when you had this test?
This drug test you claim to have participated in, was it random? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrEzell
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 2
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 3:31 am Post subject: Another thread way off on tangents |
|
|
Hist/Student: I am very knowledgeable about drug testing having performed it for over 12 years during various assignments. In those 12 years not only did I perform the tests but was also responsible for researching emerging technologies for possible purchase and adoption.
You are partially correct in that detecting cocaine use in probationers is difficult. I say partially because it depends on methodology, if you use hair samples it is good for 60-90 days since last use. However urine samples 2-5 days since last use. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/175661.pdf
To everyone who thinks Bush ducked a physical because he was afraid of being popped for cocaine find another smoking gun. There was no commercially available test for cocaine untill the late 70's. Now for anyone that wants to rebutt me about GCMS (gas chromotography mass spectrum) and throw out that it can detect any drug and was introduced commercially in 1970. I have just this to say: It has never been any laboratory's policy to screen with gcms then or now. GCMS is extremely expensive even today. All DOD drug testing laboratories (and civilian ones) employ cheaper screening tests before confirming positive screen tests with GCMS from 1970 to present day.
DoD wide drug testing was instituted in mid 71. Just because you were in the Air Force doesn't mean your test went to Brooks AFB to be tested in 1971 or now. Each service branch had an area of responsibility and processed all samples from every base in that area regardless of which branch of service the pee pee came from 
For those that need confirmation of my above statements. http://navydrugscreeninglabsandiego.med.navy.mil/
The topic is: did Kerry deserve his Star? In my opinion I would have to see the after action report to form an opinion on whether he did/didn't deserve it. His tendancy to grossly overexagerate facts (lie) would also prejudice my view of the after action report if it was written by him with no sustaining testimony from other boat captians out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colmurph
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 74
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Romani ite domum wrote: | | Navy_Navy_Navy wrote: |
Routine urinalysis has been part of the flight physical (like most other full physicals) "forever." Urine samples were tested for sugar, albumin, blood, infection and other markers for general health. |
You can speak from your experience in the Navy. I am speaking from my experience in the Air Force. They were doing drug testing starting in the summer of 1972, including as I mentioned earlier, the monthly random selection urinalysis.
Costs apparently were not a concern for my unit. (The yearly budget for fuel for three Hueys we had was $12,700,000[2004 dollars])
The Air Force had something called the "Human Reliability Program", and people in my unit were under it. |
The Military did not start doing random drug testing until 1984......not 1972. There wasn't even a reliable test in place in 1972. Your premise is fallacious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanVCC
Ensign
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 55
Location: Lutherville, MD, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 2:58 pm Post subject: Post shift |
|
|
| Unless I misread this posted topic and its replies, it began with whether or not Kerry cheated to be awarded a citation but shifted to whether or not President Bush was a druggie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colmurph
Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 74
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: Post shift |
|
|
| DanVCC wrote: | | Unless I misread this posted topic and its replies, it began with whether or not Kerry cheated to be awarded a citation but shifted to whether or not President Bush was a druggie. |
You are correct in your observation. This is a typical Liberal ploy (quibbling) to shift the topic away from one that they do not wish to answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanVCC
Ensign
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 55
Location: Lutherville, MD, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Post shift |
|
|
| colmurph wrote: | | DanVCC wrote: | | Unless I misread this posted topic and its replies, it began with whether or not Kerry cheated to be awarded a citation but shifted to whether or not President Bush was a druggie. |
You are correct in your observation. This is a typical Liberal ploy (quibbling) to shift the topic away from one that they do not wish to answer. |
[list=]
The liberal ploy part was my point. Thank you. Now for a small prediction. The next step is to name call.
[/list] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romani ite domum
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colmurph wrote: | | The Military did not start doing random drug testing until 1984......not 1972. There wasn't even a reliable test in place in 1972. Your premise is fallacious. |
Interesting that you speak for "The Military" when I speak for myself in the regular Air Force.
Special Forces may not have been doing drug tests in 1972. I don't know, because I wasn't Army and I wasn't Special Forces. The regular Air Force was because I took them in my flight physical, and my unit randomly selected guys between flight physicals for tests.
"The tests weren't reliable" Maybe so, but they never told us that. They simply ordered us to do it. The entire program may have been window dressing to impress Washington and scare the troops into compliance. For all I know they could have been pouring the cups into the toilet after we left. I don't know. I didn't make policy, I didn't interpret results, I did what I was ordered to do.
| DanVCC wrote: | Unless I misread this posted topic and its replies, it began with whether or not Kerry cheated to be awarded a citation but shifted to whether or not President Bush was a druggie.
...
The liberal ploy part was my point. Thank you. Now for a small prediction. The next step is to name call. |
Regarding your observation. We'll see what names The bandit comes up with, because he raised the Bush=druggie issue. All I have ever said is that I was taking drug tests in flight physicals starting in 1972 in the regular Air Force.
I never mentioned Bush at all.
While we are on the subject, as USAF retired, perhaps you could tell The bandit what the false assumption is he's making when he poses those questions.
I don't feel like posting my personal information on the internet at any time, but especially in response to someone who has posted nothing about himself. That doesn't mean I am challanging him to post personal stuff. I never ask personal questions to other people on the internet. If they want me to know it, then they will tell me.
You see, colMurphy the internet never forgets, and like once you've pulled the trigger, like a bullet in flight the information cannot be called back. That's why I don't fill out profiles, (btw, if you've also called The bandit on that issue, then I apologise in advance, because I have not seen it) that's why I don't release personal information. Any one item may not be sufficient, but when you start putting lots of little pieces together, you'd be surprised what can be ascertained.
The bandit and probably a few others don't believe I'm really a vet.
Do you remember why the end of October, 1973 was significant? I don't know what Special Forces did. I know what we did, although from the outside, it was just business as usual, no different from any other time. My understanding was that the nation learned about it from around Ft. Campbell. I don't know if that was true, but it was what the news people were reporting.
I know that was when I myself learned the wisdom of Frederick Nietzsche's words "And when you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you."
And BTW I guess if a soldier reported to you, and wasn't accurate in his report, then you'd have no problem with that, because it was just quibbling. The colonel who was running my unit would have somebody's a$$ for that. He was cut right out of the Gen. Curtis E. LeMay pattern, right down to the cigar he always seemed to have. If somebody outside the unit had a problem with one of his troops, then they would have to go through him first. He might ream you a new one afterward, but nobody from outside the unit could chew on his troops, not as long as he was commander. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tigerflyboy
Former Member
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 50
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 9:35 pm Post subject: well said Romani ite domum |
|
|
It seem that anyone that does not share bandit's view is automaticly questioned about his status as a veteran. I was suspended for a couple of days and had to email proof to the administrator. Again today Big Kahuna questioned my status, when I asked for a fax number to send him proof I got not reply.
Just because your're in the military you don't necessarly fall in march step with the administration, that's what's great about this country we can agree to disagree.
I too retired from the Air force, though probably quite a few years after you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The bandit
Commander
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: Another thread way off on tangents |
|
|
| BrEzell wrote: | Hist/Student: I am very knowledgeable about drug
The topic is: did Kerry deserve his Star? In my opinion I would have to see the after action report to form an opinion on whether he did/didn't deserve it. His tendancy to grossly overexagerate facts (lie) would also prejudice my view of the after action report if it was written by him with no sustaining testimony from other boat captians out there. |
Don't think Kerry intends to give you the opportunity to ever see the offical un-edited after action reports and especially reports from the other two boats OINC's.
Wonder if George Elliot could help us out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jalexson
PO3
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 272
Location: Hutchinson, Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am Post subject: AFter Action Reports |
|
|
Guenter Lewy was allowed access to after action reports as well as Phoenix program, etc. as a "qualified researcher" for his 1978 book "America in Vietnam." I don't know whether the after action reports were considered "classified" at that time although I'm sure the Phoenix program material and intelligence reports were. He had access because of Eisenhower and subsequent Nixon admin regs. At the time of his book CArter was redoing the regs so I'm not sure of status.
If it isn't possible to have them released to the public, it should be possible for someone with appropriate qualifications to view them. I wouldn't think these particular after action reports would still be classified, but you never know with the military.
_________________
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
-- Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougReese
Former Member
Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 396
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 4:14 pm Post subject: Re: Another thread way off on tangents |
|
|
| The bandit wrote: | | BrEzell wrote: | Hist/Student: I am very knowledgeable about drug
The topic is: did Kerry deserve his Star? In my opinion I would have to see the after action report to form an opinion on whether he did/didn't deserve it. His tendancy to grossly overexagerate facts (lie) would also prejudice my view of the after action report if it was written by him with no sustaining testimony from other boat captians out there. |
Don't think Kerry intends to give you the opportunity to ever see the offical un-edited after action reports and especially reports from the other two boats OINC's.
Wonder if George Elliot could help us out? |
The other two boat OINC's were Dan Droz (KIA 6 weeks later) and William Rood, who works for the Chicago Tribune -- he isn't speaking to anyone about any of this, citing the fact that he's a journalist himself.
There were a few other officers present -- three Army advisors, and one (two?) UDT guys.
Doug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
