Blue Seas
Well-Known Member
There is the usual problem here in that some people think that alcohol reduction initiatives are 'The new way forward' and reflect 'Modern thinking' in a new world order when a bit more knowledge of history shows that they are nothing more than re-inventing the wheel.
The UK Armed Forces attitude to alcohol is often considered to be behind the times and not up to speed with other industries - nothing could be further from the truth!
The RN first started 'managing' people, at sea, with alcohol in 1546! It invented management systems that went on to build and operate one world's largest empires - that is an awful lot of cumulative management experience.
The alcohol policies of say the last five decades have never been ignorant or lax - they are very deliberate and well thought through policies that are being continually modified.
In May 1981, a US congressional subcommittee charged that marijuana use was a contributing factor in the crash of an EA-6B Prowler on the flight deck of the USS Nimitz.
Fourteen men died. Autopsies of six showed traces of marijuana in the blood system, which can retain cannabinoids up to 30 days after marijuana is used. Just two months before the fatal crash, a Department of Defense study had reported that 47% of the sailors in paygrades E1-E5 surveyed had used marijuana within the previous 30 days. Yes, 47%!
USS Nimitz, like every other major US warship of the period, went through a 20-30 year period where onboard drug-taking was commonplace and huge 'no-go' ghetto areas existed onboard that hadn't been inspected or visited by any senior officers for years.
1980/1 also saw Jimmy Carter's disastrous operation 'Eagle Claw' in the Iranian desert (IRCG!) with multiple helicopter failures later attributed to poor maintenance. It cost Carter the Presidency and Reagan took over. One of Reagan's first orders was to 'sort out the drug problem in the forces' and they did so - ruthlessly.
At the time I took part in many contest exercises against the USN - More often than not we beat them comfortably and went home early (that would not happen today).
UK Forces observed all the above and used the information to formulate its own drug / alcohol policies - there was a great deal of deep thinking.
Result? The RN concluded that,
1. It had almost 450 years experience of managing alcohol at sea but virtually zero experience with drugs (in the 1970/80's).
2. Unlike drugs, Alcohol could be legally sold onboard and hence monitored.
3. Alcohol testing was becoming available, drug testing was not.
3. Alcohol is bulky! How do you smuggle enough spirits let alone beer onboard a submarine to last a heavy drinker for a 60 day patrol? Where do you stow it undiscovered? How do you hide the smell from 123 shipmates who are cooped up alongside you 24 hours a day? When and where do you drink it all?
4. Beer sales are controlled by 'coupons' - spirit sales (for senior rates and officers) by mess bill. How do you do that with Opium or Coke?
In short, they chose (at the time) the lesser of all evils (not Weevils).
I have already stated that alcohol and duties do not mix (end of) - but this is not the simple subject that some people make it out to be.
The UK Armed Forces attitude to alcohol is often considered to be behind the times and not up to speed with other industries - nothing could be further from the truth!
The RN first started 'managing' people, at sea, with alcohol in 1546! It invented management systems that went on to build and operate one world's largest empires - that is an awful lot of cumulative management experience.
The alcohol policies of say the last five decades have never been ignorant or lax - they are very deliberate and well thought through policies that are being continually modified.
In May 1981, a US congressional subcommittee charged that marijuana use was a contributing factor in the crash of an EA-6B Prowler on the flight deck of the USS Nimitz.
Fourteen men died. Autopsies of six showed traces of marijuana in the blood system, which can retain cannabinoids up to 30 days after marijuana is used. Just two months before the fatal crash, a Department of Defense study had reported that 47% of the sailors in paygrades E1-E5 surveyed had used marijuana within the previous 30 days. Yes, 47%!
USS Nimitz, like every other major US warship of the period, went through a 20-30 year period where onboard drug-taking was commonplace and huge 'no-go' ghetto areas existed onboard that hadn't been inspected or visited by any senior officers for years.
1980/1 also saw Jimmy Carter's disastrous operation 'Eagle Claw' in the Iranian desert (IRCG!) with multiple helicopter failures later attributed to poor maintenance. It cost Carter the Presidency and Reagan took over. One of Reagan's first orders was to 'sort out the drug problem in the forces' and they did so - ruthlessly.
At the time I took part in many contest exercises against the USN - More often than not we beat them comfortably and went home early (that would not happen today).
UK Forces observed all the above and used the information to formulate its own drug / alcohol policies - there was a great deal of deep thinking.
Result? The RN concluded that,
1. It had almost 450 years experience of managing alcohol at sea but virtually zero experience with drugs (in the 1970/80's).
2. Unlike drugs, Alcohol could be legally sold onboard and hence monitored.
3. Alcohol testing was becoming available, drug testing was not.
3. Alcohol is bulky! How do you smuggle enough spirits let alone beer onboard a submarine to last a heavy drinker for a 60 day patrol? Where do you stow it undiscovered? How do you hide the smell from 123 shipmates who are cooped up alongside you 24 hours a day? When and where do you drink it all?
4. Beer sales are controlled by 'coupons' - spirit sales (for senior rates and officers) by mess bill. How do you do that with Opium or Coke?
In short, they chose (at the time) the lesser of all evils (not Weevils).
I have already stated that alcohol and duties do not mix (end of) - but this is not the simple subject that some people make it out to be.
Last edited:
