Should I lie about smoking pot?

[Muse]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Muse
Really the OP has little choice at this point and the point's been made several times in this thread. The truth is out there no matter what he declares in the form and he'd be stupid to not be up front about it.

Its not saying that any individual person is bad just because they have used drugs. They are simply playing the odds, and the odds are that people who have used drugs are more likely to be unreliable employees. Also, last I checked you are usually only required to disclose the last 5 years or until you were 18. Its not like you can be screwed for something you did 15 years ago.

I don't believe that your assessment of the situation is accurate. They aren't playing any odds. I don't believe that studies have indicated that people who have used drugs are more unreliable than people who have not. You are saying they are. The question here, and this has been pointed out several times in this thread, is the applicant's integrity (can he be relied upon to be truthful) and is the applicant vulnerable to being coerced (i.e. "blackmail," as has been observed here).

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Muse
I don't believe that your assessment of the situation is accurate. They aren't playing any odds. I don't believe that studies have indicated that people who have used drugs are more unreliable than people who have not. You are saying they are. The question here, and this has been pointed out several times in this thread, is the applicant's integrity (can he be relied upon to be truthful) and is the applicant vulnerable to being coerced (i.e. "blackmail," as has been observed here).

That reasoning seems rather circular, if they didn't care about drugs then you couldn't blackmail anyone who had used drugs because it wouldn't be a big deal.

They don't want people who use drugs for several reasons. First off people who have used drugs in the past are obviously far more likely to use again then someone who has never used drugs, and if you are impared on the job then that can cause an accident which could cost lives. I know people like to think they have don't have a drug or alcohol problem and they are totally in control, but thats not always true. The fact is that people who do drugs or have done drugs in the past are not likely as reliable as those who have not.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Muse
Really the OP has little choice at this point and the point's been made several times in this thread. The truth is out there no matter what he declares in the form and he'd be stupid to not be up front about it.

Its not saying that any individual person is bad just because they have used drugs. They are simply playing the odds, and the odds are that people who have used drugs are more likely to be unreliable employees. Also, last I checked you are usually only required to disclose the last 5 years or until you were 18. Its not like you can be screwed for something you did 15 years ago.

I don't believe that your assessment of the situation is accurate. They aren't playing any odds. I don't believe that studies have indicated that people who have used drugs are more unreliable than people who have not. You are saying they are. The question here, and this has been pointed out several times in this thread, is the applicant's integrity (can he be relied upon to be truthful) and is the applicant vulnerable to being coerced (i.e. "blackmail," as has been observed here).

Forget studies. The fact of the matter is that someone who has used illegal drugs (note the modifier) has committed a crime. Whether you agree with the criminalization of recreational drug use is immaterial to that fact. Given the fact that the person in question has broken the law, laws which are more serious than traffic laws, it is not an unreasonable position to then question that person's adherence to laws regarding the safeguarding of classified information. Note that I did not say "compromise national security" -- I'm not implying that someone who has used drugs is more prone to divulging national security information to a foreign power (or even domestically).

What I mean is that the person broke a law he/she either disagreed with or disregarded, and one would not be out of line to question whether or not he/she would do the same with the various and sometimes asinine regulations regarding the safeguarding of classified information.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that reasoning, only that the argument can be made.

 

[Injury]

Sometimes in long threads, I like reading the first page and the last page and just try and consider on my own how the thread derailed.

Try it when you are bored some time for great fun!

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Muse
I don't believe that your assessment of the situation is accurate. They aren't playing any odds. I don't believe that studies have indicated that people who have used drugs are more unreliable than people who have not. You are saying they are. The question here, and this has been pointed out several times in this thread, is the applicant's integrity (can he be relied upon to be truthful) and is the applicant vulnerable to being coerced (i.e. "blackmail," as has been observed here).

That reasoning seems rather circular, if they didn't care about drugs then you couldn't blackmail anyone who had used drugs because it wouldn't be a big deal.

They don't want people who use drugs for several reasons. First off people who have used drugs in the past are obviously far more likely to use again then someone who has never used drugs, and if you are impared on the job then that can cause an accident which could cost lives. I know people like to think they have don't have a drug or alcohol problem and they are totally in control, but thats not always true. The fact is that people who do drugs or have done drugs in the past are not likely as reliable as those who have not.

I hope you are not a hiring manager.

Firstly, the reason that lieing on his application would make him susceptible to blackmail is not that he's a druggie but that he's got his previous drug experience in the closet and he's a verifiable liar on a sworn affidavit.

The point about reliability of people who have experimented with drugs is not the subject of this thread and I will not discuss it further here.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Muse
Really the OP has little choice at this point and the point's been made several times in this thread. The truth is out there no matter what he declares in the form and he'd be stupid to not be up front about it.

Its not saying that any individual person is bad just because they have used drugs. They are simply playing the odds, and the odds are that people who have used drugs are more likely to be unreliable employees. Also, last I checked you are usually only required to disclose the last 5 years or until you were 18. Its not like you can be screwed for something you did 15 years ago.

I don't believe that your assessment of the situation is accurate. They aren't playing any odds. I don't believe that studies have indicated that people who have used drugs are more unreliable than people who have not. You are saying they are. The question here, and this has been pointed out several times in this thread, is the applicant's integrity (can he be relied upon to be truthful) and is the applicant vulnerable to being coerced (i.e. "blackmail," as has been observed here).

Forget studies. The fact of the matter is that someone who has used illegal drugs (note the modifier) has committed a crime. Whether you agree with the criminalization of recreational drug use is immaterial to that fact. Given the fact that the person in question has broken the law, laws which are more serious than traffic laws, it is not an unreasonable position to then question that person's adherence to laws regarding the safeguarding of classified information. Note that I did not say "compromise national security" -- I'm not implying that someone who has used drugs is more prone to divulging national security information to a foreign power (or even domestically).

What I mean is that the person broke a law he/she either disagreed with or disregarded, and one would not be out of line to question whether or not he/she would do the same with the various and sometimes asinine regulations regarding the safeguarding of classified information.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that reasoning, only that the argument can be made.

OK, I hope you are not a lawyer. Because if you are, you will probably tangle and strangle yourself in reasonings, judging from your statements above.

I don't agree with your blanket statement that drug control laws are more "serious" than traffic laws. If Joe smokes a joint in his living room is he transgressing on society more than if he runs a red light and kills you or someone in your family?

If you tell me you (or anyone else) has/have never broken any laws, I suspect you/they are either a hypocrite or a liar or a fool, or all of these. Alan Watts noted in at least one of his many books that judges should have a sense of humor concerning their profession and acknowledge that if all the truth would out it would be seen that everyone is a criminal and has broken some laws. Thus, proof that an applicant is not completely lawful is no proof that he is more likely to break laws concerning security of information, etc.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Muse
The point about reliability of people who have experimented with drugs is not the subject of this thread and I will not discuss it further here.

How the heck is it not the subject? If people who did drugs were reliable then they wouldn't care about that and we wouldn't all have to take drug tests and sign contracts saying we never took drugs etc. The entire reason these practices exist is because drug users are more likely to do something which could endanger other peoples lives.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Muse
The point about reliability of people who have experimented with drugs is not the subject of this thread and I will not discuss it further here.

How the heck is it not the subject? If people who did drugs were reliable then they wouldn't care about that and we wouldn't all have to take drug tests and sign contracts saying we never took drugs etc. The entire reason these practices exist is because drug users are more likely to do something which could endanger other peoples lives.

Believe what you want to believe.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Should I lie about smoking pot?

Yes, unless you want them to trash your clearance request immediately.

wrong, you can definitely still get clearance with pot, I have friends that went through this.

Originally posted by: GRIFFIN1
What happens when they hook you up to the polygraph machine and all you can think about is how you lied about smoking pot?

ding ding ding, winner.

Originally posted by: UsandThem
When I enlisted and was filling out the forms, it asked if I have ever smoked marijuana.

I marked yes.

When the recruiter was reviewing it, he asked me about it, and then destroyed that form, and had me put down no a new form.

As he put it, if nobody else knew about it and you never were arrested or ticked for it, then just pretend it never happened.

You won't be getting a polygraph, he might.

 

[OUCaptain]

You won't be getting a polygraph, he might.

For a standard security clearance, no he won't. Very unlikely anyway. Only reason they would go that far would be if there was a major red flag elsewhere.

The first rule of security clearance is you don't talk about security clearance.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
It's just for a co-op, and I haven't touched anything since then. And that time was the first time in probably a year.

The security clearance is secret.

I hope you're having fun filling out the 30-ish page form .

EDIT:

Also, they'll probably not do much when it comes to Secret. No one on my form was contacted. However, if you're going for Top Secret, they will contact the people you put down (possibly even face-to-face meetings). Although, I pretty much had a boring form so I doubt they even got any tiny bit of a flag at all... other than maybe it was too boring and seemed fake!

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: OUCaptain

You won't be getting a polygraph, he might.

For a standard security clearance, no he won't. Very unlikely anyway. Only reason they would go that far would be if there was a major red flag elsewhere.

The first rule of security clearance is you don't talk about security clearance.

I know people who got a polygraph for secret and top secret, the most common clearances in EE nowadays.

 

[Muse]

One more no vote and it will be a dead heat at 148 each.

 

[ultimatebob]

Why is this topic still alive?!? This is becoming the ATOT "bulk beef" topic for 2008!

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Muse
One more no vote and it will be a dead heat at 148 each.

Too bad I turned it in weeks ago.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Muse
One more no vote and it will be a dead heat at 148 each.

Too bad I turned it in weeks ago.

So what did you end up doing?

 

[Alyx]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
The question asks if I've done any drugs in the past 7 years or since I was 16. The last time I smoked was about 13 months ago. So, for Secret security clearance, do they do just a urine test, or something that goes back a lot longer, like a hair folicle test?

I've got a couple military friends, they always do a hair test. I wouldn't lie just in case they do decide to do a hair test.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Muse
One more no vote and it will be a dead heat at 148 each.

Too bad I turned it in weeks ago.

So what did you end up doing?

Telling the truth. Like I said I was a couple hundred posts ago.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Muse
One more no vote and it will be a dead heat at 148 each.

Too bad I turned it in weeks ago.

So what did you end up doing?

Telling the truth. Like I said I was a couple hundred posts ago.

Ah, well you should update the OP or something... this thread is hard enough to comprehend without reading the whole thing heh.