Zero Tolerance: Questioning the Ongoing Needfor Strict Substance Abuse Policy in the ADF

Abstract

On the surface, the ‘zero tolerance’ policy of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) on substance abuse appears to be overbearing and paternalistic—out of step and out of touch in an age when individuals feel that they should be able to make informed decisions about what they do and what substances they put in their bodies. Examination of media releases, official statements, policies and freedom of information documents available through Defence or in open media in relation to drug use in the military reveals one clear statement:

Defence does not condone the use of prohibited substances or the misuse of alcohol as it is incompatible with an effective and efficient Defence Force and can undermine health, safety, discipline, morale, security and reputation.

Is zero tolerance of substance abuse in a modern military still necessary, or is it a legacy of a moralistic, paternalistic, risk-averse past? This article will examine Army’s stance on substance abuse, and the underlying ethical, moral and disciplinary reasons for maintaining the status quo, against the backdrop of harm reduction or minimisation arguments which pervade civil society. The author concludes that the ADF should not reduce or relax its current policy of zero tolerance of substance abuse, regardless of changing societal norms now or in the future.

---

Introduction

The negative effects of drug use on the health and wellbeing of an individual are well documented. The purpose of this article is not to reiterate the effects of drugs on a person’s health but to ask leaders of all ranks in the ADF to examine the cost to the organisation and the effect on the Defence community.

On 23 January 2019 the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Rick Burr, released his Army in Motion strategic guidance. This document articulates his command philosophy, in particular, that:

The Australian Army is a national institution; a professional fighting force, a force for good, earning and sustaining trust of the society we serve. Army understands the unique responsibility to apply lethal force when required to do so. This demands physical, moral and intellectual standards of the highest order and continuous professional development.¹

The majority of modern militaries strive to maintain an ethical and professional mastery of arms. The Australian Army is no different. The desire to produce and maintain a world-class professional modern military is as much about modern weapons systems as it is about recruiting, training and retaining people of the highest physical, moral and ethical standards. Countless books have been written about ethics, and in particular military ethics. However, what is considered to be moral and ethical can, and does, change. Morality and ethics move with the prevailing societal norms of the nation from which a military is recruited. As such, modern militaries must be prepared to examine changes in society, question the effects they may have on military effectiveness and, if appropriate, move with the changes.

As the Army continues to modernise, we should question whether the current zero tolerance policy on drugs is necessary, whether it is effective, and what would realistically change if Army were more in line with civilian jurisdictions. Before we tackle the question of drug use, it is necessary to explore a number of embedded concepts within Army which would be affected by the change, and concepts in Australian society which contribute to our desire for discussion around drug use.

When Defence Says ‘Drugs, What Does It Mean?

A drug by definition is any substance which, when introduced into the body, has a physiological effect. This includes legal substances such as tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, over-the-counter medications, herbal remedies and legally prescribed substances. It also includes illicit substances such as cocaine, heroin and LSD. Rather than ‘drugs’, Defence prefers to use the term ‘prohibited substances’. This is defined by the Defence Determination (Prohibited Substances) 2019,² which allows the ADF to maintain a higher standard of fidelity when dealing with the issue of drug identification and to prohibit the use of substances it does not consider to be in its best interests. It draws on defined lists from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Poisons Standard 2019.³ By using lists from the Commonwealth and WADA, Defence can stay abreast of the increasing number of substances that can be defined as prohibited in a constantly evolving societal context. This allows the ADF to remain current with state and federal law enforcement agencies and not be completely reliant on the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, which is historically slow to adapt to required changes and the expectations of society.

The characterisation of what the ADF considers prohibited includes not just illicit or banned substances but any substance which has not been prescribed by the military health system, is suspected of being abused by an individual,⁴ or is suspected of being used to mask other suspected drug use.

Where Does the Military Member Stand When it Comes to Using Prohibited Substances?

Service in Defence is a matter of choice. A person can choose to serve as a uniformed member.⁵ Conversely, the ADF is selective in who it permits to serve. The result is an accord between ADF and the individual service member. Those who choose to serve in the ADF agree to follow the rules and policies that the ADF dictates. Members are not forced into service; nor are they conscripted. The ADF also has choices. It has decided that the individuals who are recruited to the ADF are to be volunteers; what the required standard of education for enlistment will be; that recruits are to be free of criminal convictions; that recruits are to be in good health; and that recruits are to be capable of willingly following policies, orders and directions which are given lawfully. Individuals who are being recruited into the ADF are thoroughly briefed on ADF policy in relation to prohibited substances, and each potential recruit signs an acknowledgement on the requirements of service before enlistment or appointment.⁶

Maintaining physical agility and fitness is an essential part of service in the Army, additionally training activities and operational duties carry an inherent risk of injury, which when serious enough, limit an individuals ability to serve. (Image courtesy Defence)

In order to carry out its own remit, the ADF needs to ensure that its members are physically and mentally able to carry out its mission at any time. To support this level of readiness, the ADF not only chooses to select individuals who meet its requirements at recruitment but also ensures that this required level of readiness is continued by providing its members with continuous support in the form of medical and dental services, psychological support, chaplaincy, policing, training and education. It facilitates the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle through access to gyms, trainers and sports facilities in its members’ places of work.

Work in the ADF is inherently dangerous for members, both physically and morally.⁷ The ADF is in the business of defending the nation, which includes actions up to and including the prescribed use of force to pursue, prosecute and neutralise a threat. Furthermore, it is called upon to assist in times of need through humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Both are complex activities requiring sound judgement and physical and mental stamina. In order to achieve this, ADF members need to maintain both physical and mental fitness. Involvement with prohibited substances is considered counterproductive to these requirements.

Balancing Change

Patterns of drug use and social attitudes to drug use have changed dramatically over time. The notion of making drug use illegal did not really emerge in Western societies until the late nineteenth century. Before that, in Australia, Britain, Europe and the United States, whether people used drugs was considered a personal decision— subject to social disapproval, but not illegal. Alcohol was of course the most widely used psychoactive substance.⁸

History suggests that changes in societal norms and ethics are to be expected and, to a large extent, are reflected in institutions such as the military. There is also, however, the expectation that such an organisation will uphold the highest standards of the society which it represents and serves, and that it will provide a solid and achievable framework in order to achieve this.

Attitudes, ethics and morals which exist in civilian society can vary markedly across the spectrum of that society. Morality and the sense of what is acceptable range right across the spectrum and are significantly shaped by our upbringing, culture and religious beliefs. As Australian society changes its attitudes towards moral law and policy and as it questions long-held beliefs and laws, institutions such as Defence are obliged to examine these changes and adopt those which may have a neutral or positive effect on the organisation, by eliminating unfounded, emotional, paternalistic or overly moralistic arguments and focusing on realistic arguments based on established facts. Significant changes in policy or legislation within the military are not made in isolation or without consideration of subsequent effects. While civilian populations’ attitudes towards drugs change, the military must be prepared to examine the arguments for change and decide whether that change will support its mission and possibly enhance it, or whether it will ultimately undermine it.

Normalisation of Drug Use, Decriminalisation and Harm Minimisation in Civilian Society

It is unfortunate that that popular media over the last four decades has helped to normalise drug use. As a result, the perceived risks associated with drugs may be minimised in the minds of the public. At the same time, active policing of drug use within the civilian population has reduced. There is a greater push for legalisation and decriminalisation of drug use, and for harm minimisation or reduction strategies rather than strict policing and enforcement, with a greater focus on policing the supply of drugs rather than targeting users.⁹

In 1985 harm minimisation began to be introduced into Australia as part of the National Drug Strategy. This was a ‘pragmatic mixture of prohibition and stated objective harm reduction’.¹⁰ Harm reduction or harm minimisation is defined by Harm Reduction International as ‘policies, programmes and practices that aim to reduce the harms associated with the use of psychoactive drugs in people unable or unwilling to stop’.¹¹ Its defining feature is that it focuses on harm reduction in using drugs and not on preventing individual drug use.

Whilst civilian jurisdictions in Australia support harm minimisation practices, the real trade-off for Australian states is the savings made in policing, detection, investigation and prosecution of drug users. Harm Reduction Australia claims that for every dollar spent on harm minimisation strategies, $27 is saved by not investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating drug users.¹² According to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2016, 12.6 per cent of Australians over the age of 14 have used illicit drugs and 4.8 per cent have misused pharmaceuticals. In comparison, the ADF’s positive test result rates have remained under 0.0654 per cent since 2009.¹³

There is no doubt that harm minimisation reduces the number of drug users facing the judicial system and reduces the amount of time spent by police in dealing with small-time users. What is often overlooked by some advocates of harm minimisation is the cost to families, the community and individual users. In 2007 the United Nations reviewed Sweden’s restrictive drug policy and came to the conclusion that Sweden’s ‘ambitious vision’¹⁴ may have been realised, noting that while drug use had increased in other European countries it had fallen in Sweden.¹⁵ Sweden has pursued restrictive zero tolerance not just of drug possession but of drug use as well. Harm minimisation strategies in use in the country are small in number, in favour of education programs and treatments which support abstinence. The downside of this approach is that over the last 20 years, Sweden has seen a rise in hepatitis C and overdose deaths amongst substance users.¹⁶ In comparison, the government of the UK ‘spends more than a quarter of a billion dollars each year on drug treatment … despite there being little evidence of any reduction in the number of addicts’.¹⁷

The debate within civil society on substance abuse demonstrates the depth and complexity of the issue. While the incidence of substance abuse in the military is significantly lower, the risks to the organisation and members is exponentially higher, given the nature of the work which members are required to carry out. The reported cost of harm minimisation strategies in the community, such as needle exchanges, pill testing and safe injection rooms is, on the surface, considerably less than the strict enforcement of zero tolerance, freeing up police time and caseloads in courts. What is harder to quantify is the long-term cost to the community not only of illicit drug use but also of the misuse of prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco. The cost of substance abuse is paid not only by the individual but also by his or her colleagues, family and friends, and ultimately the community.¹⁸

ADF Strategies

The ADF does not condone the use of or involvement with prohibited substances by Defence members. This is clearly articulated to every individual before enlistment and reiterated throughout service by various means, including mandatory training, education campaigns, official policies and testing regimes. For civilians, substance abuse is, at its very basic level, an issue for the individual. It may be a symptom of other issues, perhaps poor education, personal loss, mental health issues, boredom, peer pressure, addiction, physical pain or emotional pain. In relation to members of the military, issues which become causal factors in drug use can be addressed and managed without turning to substance abuse, by using the large number of resources available to members of the ADF at no cost to the member. These are resources which many people in the wider civilian community may not have access to.¹⁹

Members of the Australian Army and the ADF are drawn from the wider Australian society and, as such, arguably have attitudes and ethics drawn from and at times reflective of the wider community. What sets ADF members apart, however, is the concept of service. Members of the ADF volunteer to serve and are selected from a large pool of volunteers based on education, abilities, morals and ethics. It could be said that they are not average people and are held to higher standards by the country and by the ADF. It is this author’s opinion that we should strive to exceed that standard.

Despite the current zero tolerance policy, the ADF recognises that because its members are drawn from the wider Australian community, some members may be tempted to become involved in the use of prohibited substances. This has resulted in a number of strategies designed to support the policy being adopted by the ADF. These include annual mandatory prohibited substance education, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Program, random and targeted prohibited substance testing, and voluntary self-referral for prohibited substance user intervention. These strategies are designed to prevent the uptake of prohibited substance use and assist members who are at risk or who voluntarily admit using prohibited substances. In addition to these strategies, which are specifically designed to target prohibited substance use, the ADF provides clear guidance on ambiguous areas such as nutritional and dietary supplements, though policy and informed advice and support from ADF medical staff and physical training instructors (PTIs).

Morale, Discipline, Leadership—Sustaining Professionalisation

It is ironic that the freedoms and security that Australian society enjoys today are not always extended in the same way to the men and women who serve in the military. Military members are subject to a greater number of laws than any other group in society—civil law, military law and international law. They are not free to make the same types of choices about their bodies, their associates, where they live and where they travel, and at times they are restricted in what they may be allowed to say. This is, however, one of the costs of serving in a professional military organisation.

The task of maintaining a professional and modern defence force involves a wide and varied cross-section of activities, not all of them directly involved with the prosecution of a threat but all of them impacting on the force’s biggest resource: its personnel. Unfortunately it is a fact of life that any professional military needs a strong disciplinary framework. This includes suitable, effective legislation and policy with appropriate punishments as deterrents. This disciplinary framework is predicated on a long list of laws, policies, rules, offences and charges, which are designed to ensure that men and women whom the military arms and entrusts with the safety and security of the nation have the capability, willingness and motivation to conduct disciplined and legal military operations against the enemy. This disciplinary framework is an essential element of command and, when properly implemented, will support morale and ensure discipline within the ranks. The disciplinary framework will at times be skewed in favour of the collective need rather than supportive of individual freedoms or rights, but will always remain reasonable, necessary and proportionate.

The Path to Professionalisation

From the earliest days of the Australian Army, military leaders such as John Monash, William Bridges and Harry Chauvel²⁰ tackled the same issues in the profession of arms as modern leaders do today. They too lamented the effects of poor leaders and at times their ineptness, laissez-faire attitudes and autocratic or dictatorial styles, and how some less effective commanders affected the morale and discipline of the soldiers and the outcomes on battlefields.

As a result of this, Australian leadership determined that the process of disciplining Australian troops should reflect the ‘outlook in Australia’ and that punishments should not undermine ‘a man’s dignity’.²¹ Changes in 1917 resulted in Australian commanders maintaining greater control over the discipline of their men, and resulted in the removal of the death penalty and ‘Field Punishment No. 1’.²² The reforms made to the military justice system in 1917 and in the decades since are a result not so much of the Australian military’s soft approach to discipline as of pragmatism. The Australian military is a small, dynamic force. The discipline system is designed to ensure that its members are still capable of deployment and employment, both physically and morally, and that they are willing to execute orders which may place them or others in danger.

The delicate balance which exists between leadership, morale and discipline can be influenced not just by positive and negative changes in each area but additionally by numerous external factors that, if leaders are unable to identify and combat, can become extreme and affect the fighting effectiveness of a unit.²³ This is illustrated in the following example:

During Vietnam, the US was struggling with an increase in drug use and experimentation in their ranks, the number of men who had used drugs prior to enlistment was rising,²⁴ the comparative cheapness of the drugs, the purity and the ease at which they could be obtained in Vietnam contributed to the decreasing morale and discipline in the US ranks.²⁵ By 1967 the challenges faced by US and Australian militaries trying to maintain discipline and morale was reaching a boiling point. Increasing numbers of men were refusing to patrol, insubordination and even fragging²⁶ was on the increase. Morale within the US ranks was being hampered by the war being waged at home, the anti-war campaigners who derided not just the war but the men who fought, added to the malaise which was felt by servicemen and contributing to the reduction in morale and declining levels of discipline.²⁷

By comparison Australian combat units had very low levels of detected or reported illicit drug use,²⁸ but the use and misuse of alcohol was widespread and this was a contributing factor in much of the ill-discipline and violence which occurred away from combat, including four murders.²⁹ Alcohol was legal and socially acceptable, and easily obtainable both on and off base. It is not clear why Australian and New Zealand troops had fewer significant issues with drugs than their American allies; this is still a subject of speculation for veterans and historians. What is clear is that the soldiers’ own determination to behave professionally when patrolling and their apparent esprit de corps contributed to the maintenance of morale and discipline. In many ways this has not changed; alcohol has always been, and remains, one of the most common factors in discipline issues in the Australian military.

The Continued Professionalisation of the Australian Military

During the 1970s and 1980s, Australian society continued to change and mature and so did the military. It was a tumultuous period. With the newly formed ADF returning from what the public saw as a disastrous Vietnam campaign, the military moved into a long period of peace which saw reductions in personnel numbers and resources across the whole of the ADF. This period heralded a new era of professionalisation, accountability and modernisation that would begin changing the face of the military in general and the Australian Army in particular. Some of the most significant social changes for Army personnel over the next three decades were:

• the start of the modernisation of the military justice system, including the introduction of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982
   
• removal of administrative and military law sanctions against homosexual members
   
• integration of women into the wider Army and the eventual inclusion of female members in all trades, including combat roles
   
• recognition of single-sex relationships
   
• introduction of prohibited substance testing
   
• establishment of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce.

While many will point out that some changes are forced upon the military, sometimes as a result of incidents within the ranks, the military’s ability to adapt and change in response to the demands and expectations of Australian society demonstrates the Australian Army’s, and the wider ADF’s, respect not just for the society they serve but also for the people who serve in their ranks, regardless of gender, education, position, rank or trade. This new age of professionalisation of the Australian Army has continued to the present day and will endure. The desire remains strong for the ADF to move beyond the Anzac legend and the perception of Australian larrikinism and to continue to develop an armed force that will carry on providing government with appropriate options, domestically and internationally.

It can be argued that the use of prohibited substances by individuals is a minor problem in the Australian military and that one of the more significant contributing factors to discipline issues has always been, and still is, alcohol. From the days of the ‘Rum Corps’ in colonial New South Wales to the present day, this has continued to vex commanders dealing with discipline, for alcohol is not only legal but also socially acceptable. Even when a substance is legal, the misuse or abuse of substances that affect the performance or health of an individual is undesirable.

How Are Prohibited Substances Used in the Military?

Patterns of abuse and misuse of drugs and prohibited substances within the military fall into three broad categories:

• recreational/experimental drug use (where users are seeking an altered state of consciousness for pleasure or thrill)
   
• self-medicating (where users may be seeking an altered state to alleviate pain or stress, or to reduce symptoms of trauma or mental illness)
   
• attempts to address negative body image or performance fears (where users attempt to aid recovery from injury, improve perceived body image or enhance performance).

In some cases, drug use can cross all three categories.³⁰ Additionally, an extremely small number of personnel in the military are victims of drink or food spiking or other types of unintentional drug use.³¹

Detection of Prohibited Substance Use in the ADF

The use of prohibited substances in the ADF is not prevalent but is still problematic. Between 16 June 2005—when administrative drug testing was introduced—and 30 November 2018, over 231,000 drug tests for prohibited substances were administered in the ADF. Of these, 1,593 returned positive results and 1,189 resulted in the expulsion of ADF members.³²

According to statistics obtained from the Military Police Central Records Office, the illicit drugs most commonly detected by Military Police in the ADF are those which fall into the category of amphetamine-type substances.³³

Based on past interviews conducted with military drug users, these types of drugs are considered cheap and easily obtainable. Many are metabolised quickly, making many users believe that this reduces their chance of being detected in random urinalysis.

Since its introduction in 2005, the Prohibited Substance Testing Program (PSTP)³⁴ within the military has been a huge success. It has allowed Defence to reinforce its zero tolerance message through a program of random and targeted testing at unit level. It has permitted the removal of individuals who test positive, sending a firm message to users. The recent introduction of hair follicle testing and the introduction soon of saliva testing in the PSTP should increase detection of prohibited substances and reduce the chance of false positives in test results, as well as reducing the opportunity for members to employ deception methods such as synthetic urine kits to avoid detection.³⁵

Unseen Costs of Prohibited Substance Use in the Military

Whilst PSTP is undoubtedly a success in its ability to swiftly remove drug users from the military organisation,³⁶ it fails to uncover the unseen costs to the military. Just as in civilian society, the costs of substance abuse are borne not just by the individual user but also by those with whom the user works or associates. Effects include absenteeism, underperformance at work, workplace accidents, self-neglect, domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect. Not only does PSTP not target the criminal elements involved in the supply of prohibited substances to military members; it also fails to address the underlying reasons why an ADF member has been using drugs.

As prohibited substance use in the ADF is an offence,³⁷ it usually occurs in private and involves the use of deception to hide the activity from the chain of command and other members. This creates the perfect opportunity for members to be exploited and manipulated by others, due to the inherent illegality of the activity and the impact it could have on the member and his or her career if detected.

Simply to obtain many of the prohibited substances requires a level of deception. It also requires participation in illegal activities or socialising in groups or with individuals who may be classified as undesirable. These activities create increasing levels of risk to an individual and to the ADF as an organisation.³⁸

The Risks of Self-medication or Unsanctioned Performance Enhancement by Members

Part of winning the land battle must be the ability to field the best group of combatants possible. That means more than just strong, well-equipped soldiers. The Australian Army is serious about optimising the performance of its members, through superior training, education and medical support.³⁹

Occasionally members are caught using prohibited substances, self- medicating to deal with stress or injury or in some cases to attempt faster recovery from injury, improve performance or endurance. Some members feel under pressure to maintain their fitness, and struggle to keep up with the physical demands as their body ages or their lifestyle changes. A number are looking for a shortcut to obtain higher levels of strength and fitness or improve their body image. As a result, some may turn to supplements,⁴⁰ diet pills, steroids, hormones, diuretics, stimulants and other substances. Some of these substances may be legal (dietary supplements, herbal remedies and nutritional supplements). Others may be prohibited substances. In relation to enhancing performance, any authorised use of supplements or pharmaceutical enhancements needs to be conducted through informed and thorough research on the immediate and long-term risks both to the individual and to the organisation. 

Not all drug use or prohibited substance use in the military is recreational or experimental. In many cases use is linked attempts to address negative body image and performance fears and to self-medicate. (Image courtesy Pixabay by Ivabank)

Conclusion

The Australian military organisation is a small, dynamic volunteer force which needs to maintain a strong and mentally and physically healthy fighting force—a force that is able to perform a wide variety of complex and demanding tasks across the spectrum of conflict and national defence. In order to support a viable professional fighting force, I suggest, the ADF should not reduce or relax its current policy of zero tolerance for substance abuse, regardless of changing societal norms now or in the future. Rather, the Australian Army should continue to pursue individuals who choose to risk not only their own wellbeing but also the wellbeing of others by abusing drugs and alcohol and by those actions expose the organisation to damage to its reputation at best and damage to its security and the trust of Australian society at worst.

Leaders at all rank levels need to understand the underlying reasons why individuals may get involved with prohibited substances and to ensure that their peers and subordinates have the time and feel able to access the support they need to maintain both their physical and their mental wellbeing. This includes ensuring that the message of ethical and informed performance enhancement of our members is understood, by both commanders and members. Conversely, we cannot turn a blind eye to substance abuse in the military. Substance abuse affects more than just the individual user. As leaders in the military we have a responsibility to the organisation, the Defence community and the individuals with whom we serve. Service in the Australian military is completely voluntary, but the standard and quality of that service is neither voluntary nor negotiable. Individuals who cannot maintain the expected standard should expect to have their service terminated.

Endnotes

---

1. Australian Army, 2019, Army in Motion: Chief of Army’s Strategic Guidance 2019 (Canberra: Australian Army).
    
2. Department of Defence, 2019, Defence Determination (Prohibited Substances) 2019 (Canberra: Department of Defence).
    
3. Therapeutic Goods Administration, 2019, ‘The Poisons Standard (the SUSMP)’, at: https:// www.tga.gov.au/publication/poisons-standard-susmp
    
4. Full-time members of the ADF can only take medications/substances which have been prescribed by an ADF health practitioner, including health practitioners who are contracted by ADF health services. Substance abuse includes legal or prescribed substances which are misused—which could lead to addiction, cause additional medical complications, be used to mask other illicit drug use, or lead to impaired performance or judgement.
    
5. It should be noted that service in the military is not employment. Employment suggests a form of civil contract, were as service is conducted at the pleasure of the crown. Section 27 of the Defence Act 1903, states “service is not a civil contract”. This distinction, is important, and has in fact been tested in litigation, in the NSW Supreme Court (Searle v Commonwealth of Australia) The restrictions and responsibilities of military service being traditionally greater than those of normal employment. As such, those of us who serve the nation or public are held to a much higher standard, and not just during normal working hours.
    
6. AD304 Acknowledgement of the Requirements of Service in the RAN, Australian Army or RAAF.
    
7. While unstated directly in this article, the ADF is still required to maintain a safe working environment within the bounds of the activities which it carries out; this requires significant risk management. The working environment may be inherently dangerous, but this does not excuse the ADF from its responsibilities.
    
8. State Library of New South Wales, n.d., ‘History of Drug Laws’, at: https://druginfo.sl.nsw. gov.au/drugs-drugs-and-law/history-drug-laws
    
9. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2017, National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2016: Detailed Findings, Drug Statistics series no. 31 (Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare), at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/15db8c15-7062-4cde-bfa4- 3c2079f30af3/21028a.pdf.aspx?inline=true; Rachel Hedstrom, 2019, ‘Pot Policing’, WomenPolice Magazine, Feb–Apr: 16–21; Margaret Hamilton, Trevor King and Alison Ritter, 2004, Drug Use in Australia: Preventing Harm, 2nd edition (Melbourne: Oxford University Press).
    
10. State Library of New South Wales, n.d., ‘History of Drug Laws’, at: https://druginfo.sl.nsw.gov.au/drugs-drugs-and-law/history-drug-laws
     
11. Harm Reduction Australia, n.d., ‘What is Harm Reduction?’, at: https://www.harmreductionaustralia.org.au/what-is-harm-reduction
     
12. Harm Reduction Australia. n.d., ‘What is Harm Reduction?’, at: https://www.harmreductionaustralia.org.au/what-is-harm-reduction
     
13. Australian Defence Force Ministerial and Parliamentary Advisor, 2019, ‘Incidence of Drug Use in the ADF’, Question Brief QB19-000031 (Canberra: Australian Defence Force).
     
14. Miranda Devine, ‘A Smoking Gun in the Drugs Debate, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 May 2008, at https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-smoking-gun-in-the-drugs-debate- 20080508-gdscp4.html; Miranda Devine, ‘Harm Minimisation: Just Say No’, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 June 2008, at: https://www.smh.com.au/national/harm-minimisation- just-say-no-20080619-gdsij6.html
     
15. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2007, Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy: A Review of the Evidence (United Nations), at: https://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/ Swedish_drug_control.pdf
     
16. Transform, 2019, ‘Drug Policy in Sweden: A Repressive Approach that Increases Harm’, at: https://transformdrugs.org/drug-policy-in-sweden-a-repressive-approach-that-increases-harm
     
17. Shane Varcoe, 2011, ‘“Normalising” Drug Use?’ (Doncaster: Dalgarni Institute).
     
18. Collins and Lapsley attempted in 2002 to quantify this cost for the whole of Australia. It was calculated to be in excess of $34 billion. See DJ Collins and HM Lapsley, 2002 Counting the Cost: Estimates of the Social Costs of Drug Abuse in Australia 1998–99, National Drug Strategy Monograph Series, (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service).
     
19. The author acknowledges that the ADF health system and military policing capability could both be more responsive to individual and unit needs, in real time, in dealing with substance abuse.
     
20. Peter Pedersen, 2018, Monash as a Military Commander (Newport, NSW: Big Sky Publishing).
     
21. Glenn Wahlert, 1999, The Other Enemy? (Melbourne: Oxford University Press). Wahlert discusses the brutal and punitive punishments handed out under the British military, including the conditions at detention centres and the hated field punishments.
     
22. Glenn Wahlert, 1999, The Other Enemy? (Melbourne: Oxford University Press).
     
23. Max Hastings, 2019, Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy (London: Harper Collins Publishing). Hastings writes in Chapter 21 about how racial issues and drugs negatively influenced the will to fight and unit cohesion and discipline.
     
24. Max Hastings, 2019, Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy (London: Harper Collins Publishing). Hastings reports that a 1967 study estimated that one in five US servicemen had already used prior to enlistment and that by 1970 that figure rose to 50 per cent. In-country use was estimated to be two-thirds by 1971.
     
25. Robert Hall, 2000, Combat Battalion: The Eighth Battalion in Vietnam (St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin).
     
26. Fragging was a term coined by US servicemen to describe using a fragmentation grenade to kill or injure members of their own force.
     
27. Max Hastings, 2019, Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy (London: Harper Collins Publishing). Hastings writes at length about the discipline issues in Vietnam and the many causal factors. In Chapter 23 his outline of the events at FSB Mary Ann in 1971 highlights the impact of US morale and discipline.
     
28. Bruce Oswald and Jim Waddell (eds), Australian Army Legal Corps, 2014, Justice in Arms: Lawyers in the Australian Army’s First Hundred Years (Newport, NSW: Big Sky Publishing). Oswald and Waddell state that during 1962–1972 the Australian Army Legal Corps only heard three courts martial for drug offences; most drug cases were dealt with at unit level, but the instances were still extremely small in number. This is confirmed by discussion with veterans.
     
29. Bruce Oswald and Jim Waddell (eds), Australian Army Legal Corps, 2014, Justice in Arms: Lawyers in the Australian Army’s First Hundred Years (Newport, NSW: Big Sky Publishing).
     
30. Abuse of substances in order to cope with life stressors, including mental health issues; to relieve physical pain; and to aid recovery or attempt to enhance performance at work or enhance body image.
     
31. Use of over-the-counter sports supplements, herbal remedies and dieting supplements which can contain banned substances but are not taken intentionally by the member, as opposed to knowingly taking a substance to elicit an effect.
     
32. Australian Defence Force Ministerial and Parliamentary Advisor, 2019, ‘Incidence of Drug Use in the ADF’, Question Brief QB19-000031 (Canberra: Australian Defence Force).
     
33. Provost Marshal ADF, 2017, Annual Statistical Report 2017, Military Police Annual Statistical Report series (Canberra: Australian Defence Force Investigative Service). These are substances such as amphetamine, methamphetamine and MDMA.
     
34. Army Career Management Agency, 2019, ‘Army: Career Management—Prohibited Substance Testing Program’ (Army Intranet); Army Headquarters, ‘Directive 44/13: Prohibited Substance Testing Program (PSTP)’, Chief of Army Directives, 6 September 2013. [Army Intranet]
     
35. Military Police Intelligence Office, ‘Information Report: MPI1803’, 3 April 2019 (Canberra).
     
36. In comparison to Military Police investigations and subsequent legal proceedings.
     
37. Under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 and in many cases under civilian law as well, the user also risks termination of service.
     
38. A joint drug operation conducted by the New South Wales Police Force, the Australian Federal Police and Army’s Special Investigation Branch in 2006 uncovered an Army member who, in addition to using a number of prohibited substances to self-medicate, had started not only dealing drugs to civilians but also supplying drugs to other military members. He funded his drug use by stealing controlled items from the unit of which he was a member. He then sold these items to the criminal group who supplied him with drugs.
     
39. Directorate of Human Performance—Army, 2019, ‘Directorate of Human Performance: Army (Army Intranet) In order to do this the ADF and Army have invested in ethical and innovative programs and initiatives. Defence will continue to partner with other modern and forward-thinking organisations and explore, develop and implement human performance optimisation initiatives. The programs and initiatives are based on scientific research and ethical programs, and are managed and overseen by the Directorate of Human Performance—Army.
     
40. Defence Science and Technology, 2019, ‘Australian Defence Force (ADF) Supplement Use: Views of Health and Physical Activity Professionals. Research Paper’ (Scottsdale: Commonwealth of Australia); Department of Defence, 2016, ‘Use of Dietary Supplements and Complementary Medicines by Australian Defence Personnel’, in Defence Health Manual, Volume 2, Chapter 2: 2-0 to 2-3 (Canberra: Department of Defence). It is important to note that supplements are not regulated: there is no control over how they are produced or what they contain. Because of this, advice should be sought through ADF medical practitioners or PTI staff before using supplements.