In addition, I doubt you'll find any polygraph examiner to comment on your posts and defend the policies of any agency.  I frequently get the impression that many examiners believe that no one should be admitted into law enforcement if they had EVER used ANY drug ANY number of times.  My examiner indicated that he felt this way, in fact.

Terry,

I continue to get the impression that you feel as though I'm trying to argue with you.  I'm not.  You asked a question and I gave you my opinion.

"What moral right do Agencies have to enforce their rules with polygraph testing (asking peolpe not to use countermeasures)when the policies in themselves are not reasonable? "

Do you not see that this is exactly why (at least part of your question) this website exists?  They DON'T have the right.  But its the federal government, they have thousands and thousands of qualified applicants and they will pretty much do whatever they want.  I once read a quote from someone:  "Who wants to sue the FBI?"  Not many.

Once again, I'm not saying you are wrong.  I'm just telling you that if an agency has a certain cut-off for drug use and you (or your friend) exceeded it, you're going to be disqualified if you admit to it regardless of where the usage took place.  That's just the way it is and I never said it was right.

Well Ok, I obviously exaggerated the number of uses, imagine it was whatever is the maximum + 10 - I think the result would be the same...   
   
I can therefore conclude that:   
Someone who has done nothing illegal, and is totally valid for the job has to use countermeasures because:   

Anonymous said..
However, as I mentioned before, the issue with employment suitability with these agencies is not necessarily based on what is legal or illegal.  It is simply policy. 

Well, I would think policies are dictated behind rationale and reasoning.    
What moral right do Agencies have to enforce their rules with polygraph testing (asking peolpe not to use countermeasures)when the policies in themselves are not reasonable?   
I now understand why people have their policies of doing whatever is needed (countermeasures) to pass ridiculous tests...   
I would still like some poly tester to give me their reasoning for this so I can see the other side of the coin... If there is any...

Terry,

I can't say that I really disagree with what you've said.  No, I don't necessarily find someone who used marijuana 'legally' in another country to be a bad person.  I would not necessarily judge him/her as unsuitable for employment simply because of the drug use.  I would also have great respect for someone in a firefighter position given that he/she WAS NOT using drugs at any point during his/her employment.

However, as I mentioned before, the issue with employment suitability with these agencies is not necessarily based on what is legal or illegal.  It is simply policy - e.g. the FBI states that you can not have used marijuana more than 15 times or within the last three years.  No mention of where it was used or if you were using it illegally.

Remember, there are thousands of people waiting to fill these Special Agent positions.  The FBI (or any other agency) collectively is not going to lose sleep or consider it a significant loss to disqualify one person because they indicated an extensive drug history (and I'm sorry, whether it was legal or not its pretty extensive).  This extensive drug history would absolutely bring about credibility issues.  Irregardless of legality, it would be difficult to enforce laws that you had broken in the eyes of a defense lawyer.  If you were testifying and had been asked about your drug history, you would not have time to rationalize and explain that you were in another country where it was legal.  It would be pretty difficult I imagine.

As triple_x stated, as soon as investigators found out where you lived they will focus on the drug issue immediately.  Good luck (to you or your friend, whichever).

Terry,

I would suggest that you [or your friend] prepare to be queried more than normal with respect to drug use, as soon as the background investigator and/or the polygraph examiner learns that you [or your friend] resided in Holland for an extended period of time.

Without question, the situation in which you describe is sensitive, and will encourage a Spanish inquisition between the polygraph examiner and examinee…

Please keep us posted as this saga unfolds.

Good luck.

Triple x

Lets make it a little bit more interesting,
Lets say this somebody came back from his "European Tour" 5 years ago, is a firefighter and has saved x lives in his now 5 years of service.  He can have access to Drugs (it is not that difficult) whenever he wants but has not tried them  - it is illegal in the US and he is not adicted.   
He is a nervous man and knows that if he lies in the drug questions he will screw up...

He is basically a good man, no?
Has he made something illegal? Nop, Blackmail/credibility issues? nop.   

Ok. Is he is still violating Drug policy? Looks like he is, 49x times more than allowed.. even if it was legal where and when he did it?
If this is true, the "reasoning" is VERY FLAWED... in fact, there is no valid reasoning for DQ him; just because it's policy seems to me a little fascist argument..

Something that also is bothering me:
How do polygraph procedures treat underage drinking compared to illegal drug use..
Alcohol is a Drug, drinking underage is illegal.  Therefore, if you have drinked underage you should be treated the same as a drug user.   
Does this happen?
I think not.. Why? My reasoning is that if they did there would be no one in these agencies (OK, I'll give you 10% of total population, being generous).   
Could someone please enlighten me?

If you are being polygraphed for pre-employment with a law enforcement agency, I'd say your only options are to lie and attempt countermeasures (which I don't believe is wise in your case) or just look elsewhere for employment.

While its true that you have not committed a "crime" as the possession, use, etc. was all in a country that allowed this to go on, as far as an agency's drug policy is concerned you are in violation.

The drug policy isn't all about the fact that you broke the law.  There are liability issues (not really for MJ but rather more potent hallucinogenic drugs) as well as blackmail/credibility issues.  If you are testifying in a LE position and you are asked if YOU have ever used drugs, as long as the judge allows it you'll have to answer honestly or perjure yourself.  Could look bad for whatever agency you're with.  You might have trouble with a background invesitgation anyway.  I wouldn't try it but good luck with whatever you choose to do.

What if someone had smoked pot, hash, both... in Holland- a country where it is legal to smoke these "Drugs"...
In fact, most of European countries allow personal use of these "drugs"...
That someone would have two options: lie and use countermeasures or plainly come out and say "Yes sir, I've smoked around 500 times, but it was always legal..."
I'm asking because the way I see it I would rather lie and use countermeasures than saying I have smoked 500 times, even if it was legal... 
Am I wrong?  Won't a Poly tester think "wow.. he's a drug addict... I'm going to get him even if it was legal wherever he did it- anyway, what the hell is Holland?"