Hacker News Reader

Comment by htag | Hacker News Reader

1. "Drug use" probably includes soft drugs like cannabis.

2. Basically any diagnosis of a mental health condition, like ADHD, will block military service. This is true even if symptoms are well managed without medication. The rise of diagnosis of these conditions combined with digital records means a lot of people are prohibited to join due to mental health that would have been overlooked in previous decades.

3. This serves as the official excuse for why recruitment numbers are down. IMO recruitment numbers are down because Iraq/Afghanistan was such a shitshow.

View on HN

Regarding #1, you can get a waiver for past cannabis use if you weren't a habitual user (by self admission) and never faced any legal action (distribution, possession, etc) in regards to cannabis. If you have ever distributed any drug (even so far as splitting the cost of drugs with a roommate) you cannot enlist. The enlistment screeners are surprisingly effective at getting people to admit things they did over a decade ago.

If you admit to ever using LSD or psychedelics, even one time, you will be automatically disqualified from serving in the military or law enforcement (go figure).

Oddly enough if you joined the British Army in days of yore you might have found yourself ordered to take LSD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziqpwkhqTRs

( Likely also true for other countries, eg: USofA, etc )

Interesting footage of US soldiers doing drills on LSD. It's really strange that someone learned about LSD and decided to see how well people can march in a parking lot while under the influence. Whoever designed the experiment really didn't understand LSD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbSEU8Hv4lA

The whole point of that experiment was to see how a military unit behaves on acid.

Why shouldn’t they be marching the soldiers?

Is this a thing that requires testing? Do they have units run drills on all common recreational drugs? I could see some merit in evaluating stimulants, but what is the expected gain from most anything else?

They considered using L.S.D. as an aerosol on enemy troops, but IIRC there were problems with using it, don't remember exactly what. It would also incapacitate friendly troops or some agreement was signed forbidding its usage. Long time ago since I went down this rabbit hole last time...

Right, but there are known agents that are incredibly legal. I am still trying to imagine the scenario in which making the enemy ineffective was a superior option to dead. I guess the non lethal option lowers the risk of friendly fire?

If nothing else, the double edged sword application of chemical weapons was well known at this point.

The ideal scenario for a weapon is immediate, non-lethal, incapacitation. The holy grail of weapons technology is the stun setting on the Star Trek phaser.

Making an incapacitated enemy dead: Easy.

Making a dead civilian/ally un-dead: Necromancy.

If it were used as an environmental toxin, would it cause the soldiers to begin shooting at each other?

No, they might start empathising with each other.

This is amazing, I cried laughing. “This man nearly succeeded in felling a tree using only a spade”

> If you admit to ever using LSD or psychedelics, even one time, you will be automatically disqualified from serving in the military or law enforcement (go figure).

Well how many hits do you need to understand that everything we do could be construed as a game?

>If you admit to ever using LSD or psychedelics, even one time, you will be automatically disqualified from serving in the military or law enforcement (go figure).

Is this documented anywhere? I have gone on a psilocybin retreat and have considered a career in the air force in the distant future.

A quick google search says the Air Force's max enlistment age is 39, so I don't know how distant in the future you mean, but it's probably something to be aware of.

I'd be curious about some documentation too, but I suspect it's one of those things where a person who enjoys the odd psychedelic now and again is a poor cultural fit for the military, though the Air Force is by all accounts the least militant branch of the military from what I can tell. Certainly my grandfather had a good career there and he was about the least disciplinarian or serious person (personality speaking I mean; he did a good job as an officer and electrical engineer by any account) you'd ever meet. He certainly spoke highly of the Air Force and said on a few occasions that it helped him to meet one of his major life goals; to make more money retired than working.

For 3 letter intelligence agencies I think it was 10 year statute of limitations... This may have changed

Anecdotal from reliable sources, but it sounds like a holistic evaluation. If you’re a strong candidate otherwise, they will overlook drug experiments but not drug addictions.

You still need a waiver.

Just don’t tell them.

Please don't give advice like this. Everything people publish on hackernews stays online forever and it's not that hard to associate with real people.

GPT5 or 6 can just get this data with a simple question in the near future.

Otoh if you want to avoid the forever war meat grinder, keep some pictures of yourself at an LSD, mushroom, and weed party on standby.

I think the decade long wars in the middle east are a huge part PR wise, but theres more to it.

The military is a shitshow. The messaging alienated it's core recruitment base, namely white and black teenagers and young men. It alienates young American men in general, but those demographics in particular are historically the core of America's fighting force. Having to balance domestic recruitment PR to be politically correct while also wanting to reach tough young men and entice them is an impossible task.

It's a giant jobs program. People in the military can tell you, it's devolved from just being rules/procedures based chain of command, to being a full blown Brazil-esque (the movie) busybody bureaucracy.

For what it's worth, the software industry is also a shitshow.

> Having to balance domestic recruitment PR to be politically correct while also wanting to reach tough young men and entice them is an impossible task.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I feel like you're referring to something obliquely but I don't have the context.

Military service people are killers first and foremost. They're put through grueling test and training processes. It doesn't matter what kind of world you wish this was, those people are primarily going to be aggressive men. When you target other groups of people with your advertising, when you make such an environment that those type of men aren't welcome in the military, the military suffers, it's that simple.

i assume he's saying people who join the military are racist misogynists and because the military can't appeal to this anymore, people don't want to join anymore

You seem upset, as if what you said is blatantly false.

I wouldn't say racist (?? Black and white men fighting together are racist?) mysoginists, but tough men that aren't posterboys for your designated driver would probably be a good description.

If you want a competent fighting force, you have to appeal to tough young men. You don't do that by putting a dude in a dress on your promo material, to put it crassly. Men don't want to go into an environment supposedly to "get shit done" only to have to file paperwork and tippytoe on eggshells with everything they do or say. You don't have to like it but these are the facts. The military gets weaker when you alienate the most able bodied in your society, it's pretty straightforward.

Have you ever served? In combat? I have, USMC infantry. I want a professional fighting force with smart of professional fighters and support. Yes, you need mental toughness. But if you are so mentally weak that you can't handle a course on sexual harassment then you are not mentally tough. You need a "non-woke" safe-space.

What you describe is what Russia wants and needs. Look how well that is working out for them.

The military gets stronger by having a disciplined, smart fighting force. Not some frat-house where being "manly" is the only requirement.

I love this response

2 has never mattered that much I don’t think. I enlisted in the Air Force in 2005 with an adhd AND depression diagnosis and I went in as Aircrew. I’m sure it required a waiver but it wasn’t an obstacle at all during the process. I got cleared at MEPS with no issues.

So many people I knew had waivers for random things I think it’s kind of a joke they’re saying they have to “lower” standards now or whatever.

Number 2 is also putting a dent in the supply of airline pilots. The FAA has a very large list of mental disorders it considers disqualifying, and ADHD is one of them. It’s nuanced, in that it depends on things like whether you require medication or not, but if you ever in your life had any kind of diagnosis, even mild anxiety, you need to disclose it on your medical application and they will dig in to it.

It is completely understandable IMO. As someone with severe ADHD I would not want to be entrusted with the operation of sensitive military machinery in a situation in which I may run out of medication. I won't even drive my car if I don't have adderall or at least the ability to self medicate with a high caffeine dosage.

I think this kind of screening is probably a good thing. Do you really want to entrust hundreds of lives to a pilot who struggles to concentrate? Or one who has depression and might be looking at that nearby mountain and thinking “I could just crash this plane into it and it would all be over”. I’m not sure these things ever really get cured, all it takes is a few bad life events (e.g maybe their spouse dies and they stop taking medication) and you’re at risk of a relapse

There is nothing particularly “soft” about cannabis. As mounting modern evidence shows, it suppresses REM sleep (and by extension the consolidation of procedural learning undertaken during the day) and it lowers executive function, concentration and motivation. These effects also persist for some time after use is stopped, even if they are eventually reversed.

Minus the concentration and motivation parts, so does does coffee, tea and other caffeine based products but you don’t see anyone clamouring to ban those.

Throughout history there were many coffee bans, so it's not like nobody thought about it.

I worked as a barista for years so I know a fair amount about coffee but the historical legality and prohibition of it is actually something I know very little about. Think I am going to do some Wikipedia browsing this afternoon!

I'm not particularly up to date on the literature, but it seems soft compared to other popular recreational drugs like illicit cocaine, methamphetamine, benzodiazepines and opiates. On the legal side it's clearly softer than alcohol, and probably less harmful than smoking tobacco.

For cannabis specifically it's worth also mentioning in many places you can consume it without interacting with criminals or being at risk of negative law enforcement interactions. This makes it socially softer than the illegal drugs.

It's "soft" relative to stuff like cocaine, heroin, crack, meth etc which muck you up more. It's probably kind of a par with alcohol in terms of problems caused.

On par? I mean, alcohol will literally kill you if you drink too much or have prolonged exposure. Alcohol makes you sick and fat.

If anything, alcohol is far worse than cannibas. Time will tell what effects it has on the wider population, but keep in mind cannibas use has been pretty wide spread for centuries and has been legal in many places in the US for over a decade.

Re: #2 that’s ridiculous. Diagnosis like ADHD might as well be diagnosable personality traits.

ADHD is the weirdest diagnosis out there in my opinion. I know I can certainly concentrate better when I'm taking amphetamines of one sort or other. Does that mean that I have ADHD or does it just mean that that's what amphetamines do?

My belief is that amphetamines help everybody focus and the powers that be needed a story that’s just so to rationalize giving drugs to kids. But the benefit for people with ADHD is greater than the benefit to people with normal amounts of concentration/executive function.

What I want to know is do people “without adhd” also feel the sense of peace and calm with a cessation of the need to constantly fidget and move?

Still, China is in much better shape, if you compare general population.

doesn’t really matter when you have nukes

Also, China doesn’t consider mental illness a thing (depression, bipolar disorder and so on)

And they are not transparent

I can agree about the nuke. Physique doesn't really matter

Does "drug use" include coffee? Alcohol?

Coffee: no

Alcohol: It includes a level of alcohol abuse, but I'm not sure how they draw the line.

Good question. I'd say if you're drinking during work, it's a problem. If you're not, hopefully they have some way of proving you're abusing it rather than making unfounded accusations. It seems like people will believe anything these days.

Drinking during work in the military?

Yeah, I think you'd find that to be a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com