Commentary
With recruitment down in all branches of service and our nation’s military readiness a subject of national debate, there is a temptation to believe that lowering standards to keep up with the times will be a quick fix. A recent
op-ed online proposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Test,” arguing that “the Department of Defense should stop asking whether its members use marijuana, and the military should stop testing for it.” This is a reckless proposal that won’t enhance our readiness and ought to be swiftly rejected.
Let’s first appreciate what the author is suggesting, namely the encouragement of increased use of a psychoactive drug that medical and scientific studies, as well as government data, has conclusively linked with addiction, psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, suicidality, stroke, and IQ loss, among other impacts.
We already know what would happen if the military—or any industry, for that matter—were to stop testing for marijuana: Marijuana use would increase. That position is accepted by individuals on both sides of the debate. However, supporters of removing marijuana from the military’s testing requirements downplay the potential consequences of this reform.
Setting aside the fact that anyone using marijuana younger than the age of 18 is doing so illegally, if a recruit is already using marijuana at age 18 (or earlier), there’s a likelihood that this use has stunted their brain development. Regular consumption of THC reduces IQ. That’s like taking an ‘A’ student and turning them into a lesser academically fit student. So much for “Be all that you can be.” Besides the host of proven
mental health issues referenced above, approximately three in 10 users will develop cannabis use disorder or addiction to marijuana.
Recognizing that loosening the marijuana policy may help address recruitment shortfalls, the author argued, “Which pool of labor would more directly accomplish the mission: a distributed 30 percent of American cannabis users, or 20 percent of the empirically lowest ASVAB entrance test performers?”
While there is not perfect overlap between the two populations, he failed to consider that regular marijuana users are also the poorest performers on entrance exams. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that teens who use marijuana are more likely to drop out of high school and not go to college.
We should not lose sight of the overarching recruitment challenges. A staggering
77 percent of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 do not qualify for military service. However, this is not due to marijuana use as portrayed in the Military.com opinion piece. Only 8 percent are unqualified solely due to “drug abuse,” which was defined as “a history of drug (including pharmaceutical medications, illegal drugs, and other substances of abuse) and alcohol abuse.” The vast majority are unqualified because of obesity, medical conditions, mental health conditions, criminal records, and aptitude issues.
Few, if any, organizations concerned about the recruitment issue advocate for loosening the military’s drug policies. Instead, they favor programs focused on promoting
good nutrition and physical activity, which would promote health and well-being. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Test” would take us in the opposite direction.
Proponents of pot in the military also fail to acknowledge that many services already grant
waivers to potential recruits who test positive for marijuana. More marijuana use, especially today’s higher potency marijuana products, is more than just a vice. It has a more global impact on the readiness of the person to serve. Drug use of every kind isn’t recreation or an off-duty activity. Its effect is longer lasting, both physically and psychologically. The science is clear.
Tolerating more drug use will threaten the physical and mental health of our servicemembers. This drug in its newer, industrialized forms should continue to be tested for and prohibited. The military should not turn a blind eye to illegal drug use.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
