Introduction
Substance abuse is defined as overindulgence in and dependence on a drug or other chemical that leads to effects that are harmful to the individual’s physical and mental health or the welfare of others. Often, this disorder is characterized by a pattern of continued use of medication, non medically indicated drugs or toxins that result in repeated adverse social consequences related to drug use, such as failure to meet work, family, or school obligations, interpersonal conflicts, or legal problems.
Military substance abuse, therefore, refers to the people working in the department of defense and in one way or the other are overindulging themselves in drug abuse or rather depending on a drug or chemical that might be detrimental to their physical or mental health.
Drug abuser takes the substances in most cases to have fun. Some of them are either stressed or have tension. It is believed that drugs are taken to make somebody forget the problem at hand for some time.
Main Body
Military personnel being human beings are not an exception altogether. They too face different kinds of stress. The nature of their training is not only physically demanding but mentally challenging. This is purposely done to make them tougher and ready to deal with any kind of situation hence deliberately put under strenuous training. Some even find it difficult to strike a balance between their families and job responsibilities.
As a result, many of them find solace in alcohol and other addictive drugs that they think will make them forget about their problems and relax their minds for a little bit. Consequently, since it is habitual, they end up becoming addicted to the substances.
Presidents Nixon and Reagan made it clear that the drug problem was a threat to our national security hence they initiated a drug counteroffensive program in 1971. According to them, drug abuse inhibits performance in many military functions: military training, troop morale, military readiness was greatly being affected. Moreover, there was impairment in memory, accuracy, coordination, and judgment. Unproductively and inefficiency was also recorded as being caused by the drugs. At times, they caused the illness that eventually led to death. (Midanik and Clark, 1994)
To counteract this problem, the Army Substance abuse came up strongly with its program. The purpose of this program was to provide up to date information on drug and alcohol trends affecting the military community, to provide training material and resources to the commander to utilize in the training the units about drug and alcohol, and provide the community a resource for drug abuse prevention products to the military. (Midanik and Clark, 1994)
In this respect, major changes in policies took place: the Army published a revision to Army Regulation (AR) 600-85, effective 15 October 2001. The most noticeable change was the name of the program; it changed from the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program to the Army Substance Abuse Program. In addition, the Army made several other changes to the program. One of these changes requires unit commanders to process for administrative separation of all soldiers identified as illegal drug users. There was some confusion in this policy change, as it did not comport with the policy in the enlisted separations regulations. The Department of the Army (DA) published a message clarifying that commanders would follow the policy outlined in the revised AR 600-85.
The new regulation changed Army policy on when commanders must initiate separation actions for drug abuse. The old policy did not require commanders to initiate separation for first-time drug use if the soldier was in the grade of E-1 through E-4 and had less than three years of service. Under the revised regulation, however, commanders did not have this discretion. The new policy required commanders to initiate and process the separation authority separation actions for misconduct on all soldiers involved in illegal possession, use, sale, trafficking, or distribution of illegal drugs. As an exception, commanders were not required to initiate separation if charges had been referred to a court-martial empowered to adjudge a punitive discharge, or if drug use was discovered through self-referral. The new policy mirrored other military service policies, generally calling for commanders to initiate separation of all service members who abuse drugs.
Mehay and Pacula, (1999) argued that workplace drug testing programs were becoming common. The military’s policy incorporated random drug testing of current employees and zero tolerance. Using data from various years of the department of defense Worldwide, they found illicit drug prevalence rates among military personnel significantly lower than the civilian rates in the year after the implementation of the program but not before suggesting a sizeable deterrence effect.
As a way forward, the army Centre for Substance Abuse programs prevention and Training came up with a special training program to assist the soldiers to overcome the problem of overindulging in alcohol. The program required that the soldiers receive a minimum of four hours of alcohol and other drug awareness training per year and civilian employees will receive a minimum of three hours of alcohol and other drug awareness training per year.
Additionally, under Military and Civilian Training, there were three required presentations available on the 84th Training Command Virtual University website which provided awareness training related to Alcohol Abuse, Other Drugs of Abuse, and Co-dependency. For students to access the Virtual University substance abuse awareness training, they were first to log on to the Virtual University utilizing their username and password.
Further still, the Army Substance Abuse Programme launched a website that was responsible for providing guidance and leadership on all non-clinical alcohol and other drug policy issues, developing, establishing, administering, and evaluating non-clinical alcohol and other drugs abuse prevention education and training programs overseeing the Military, Drug-Free Workplace. (Mehay and Pacula, 1999)
Conclusion
The Department of defense is a very sensitive area that calls for soberness all the time. This is because the security of the country is in their hands. Proper health is therefore paramount and soldiers should not mess around by overindulging in drug abuse. Proper and clear policies should be put in place and strict measures are put in position too so that everybody adheres to them. This does not only affect the individual soldiers but the family and the community at large considering the economy of the country too.
Reference
Williams, G.D. (1992): Debakey, S.F. Changes in levels of alcohol consumption: United States, 1983-1988. Br J Addict. 1992 Apr; 87(4):643–648.
Klatsky, A.L. (1999): Moderate drinking and reduced risk of heart disease. Alcohol Res Health; 1999; 23:15–23.
Mehay, S. L. and Pacula, R. (1999): The Effectiveness of Workplace Drug Prevention Policies: Does ‘Zero Tolerance’ Work: (October 1999). NBER Working Paper No; W7383.
Midanik LT, Clark, W.B. (1994): The demographic distribution of U.S. drinking patterns in 1990: description and trends from 1984. Am J Public Health 1994; 84:1218 – 22.
Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury, and W, Blakemore C (2007): Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse; Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–53.
Peele, S. and Brodsky A. (2000): Exploring psychological benefits associated with moderate alcohol use: a necessary corrective to assessments of drinking outcomes? Drag Alcohol Depend. 2000; 60:221–47.