It doesn’t create users, but it and the absence of any decent jobs is definitely what creates convictions for drug dealers.

As the article states, it sounds like the Army is unconvinced “Has never smoked pot” is a sensible requirement either, given the rise of waivers. It’s hard to find an argument against pot that doesn’t apply to alcohol (except for “it’s illegal” which is only true because of the War on Drugs.)

Some 10-12 years ago, I used to teach a simple CompSci 102 course on a military base while in grad school. A drill sergeant taking this class was a veritable fountain of stories of military mishaps; one that he liked to repeat was that before Thanksgiving break, he would tell his new recruits that they would be tested for drugs when they came back on base, and encouraged them not to indulge. And when they came back, a non-trivial percentage would invariably be kicked out due to drug usage.

To me, this said more about how casual users think about drugs than about what they believe regarding Army regulations; a disparity between these outlooks that the Army (represented imperfectly by this drill sergeant) was unwilling to budge on.

Agree, it should be about substance abuse, not have you ever tried drug x (even for hard drugs). Like alcohol abuse should also make someone ineligible.

Less convinced about the absence of decent job in a country where unemployment is at an historical low. There might be an absence of jobs in a particular city, but people can (and should) move then.

You...know that moving isn't something you can just do at a whim, right? You need to find a place to move to, which takes time, money, and energy?

If you're unemployed and dirt-poor, moving is not likely to be something that's easy for you to do.

Sometimes the other way round; not just the extremes of the Nazis using methamphetamine to make blitzkreig possible ( http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2016/10/10/blitzed-the-thir... ), but the US army does have a history of both experimentation with performance enhancement and also the simple necessity of a lot of loosely secured morphine for field treatment.

> I am not convinced drug users and drug dealers should make it to the army

Throughout history, the strongest soldiers of the strongest armies have always been on a kind of permanent high. It's uncertain anyone can withstand the hardships of military life, and of wartime, for any serious length of time, without drugs.

Lots of people have done it, so no, it is actually completely certain.

That was at a time when the army was expected to walk up to the enemy and shoot them at short distance. The approach demonstrated its limits at WW1. I am no military expert but I do not believe this is compatible with modern warfare. Not to say that there wasn't drug abuse in later conflicts, but that these were probably not helping.

Methamphetamine was used for pilots on long missions at least from WW2 to Desert Storm.

Could you please clarify what you base this premise on?