This  thread is old but I had to add my 2 cents, for what it's worth.   

By intentionally covering up illegal activities, a person automatically violates the TRUST granted by the DOD clearance they seek in order to hold a given position.  It doesn't matter how innocuous that person believes the activities or behavior to be.  It doesn't even matter that the law might be considered unfair and unjust by those who choose to obey it.  The fact remains that the person violates the public TRUST, and therefore can't be trusted around information of a sensitive nature. 

Who cares, right?  Well lives are at stake here!  If you're willing to lie in order to get the job, and if you're willing to flagrantly break laws and rules, how are we to know that somewhere down the road you won't cross another ethical boundary by leaking or selling classified information?  Why should you be TRUSTED with acces to any kind of sensitive information?  Why should you be TRUSTED to work around information that, when leaked, endagers the lives of those serving our country?

Additionally, the deception doesn't end once you get your foot in the door.  There's a little thing called "adverse information."  Your coworkers and supervisors are obligated to rat you out if they get wind of alcoholism, excessive debt, extravagent spending, drug use, etc.   

In particular, suspected drug use results in immediate drug screenings.  You won't have the option to dry out beforehand.  In most cases, if you're caught, you're fired.   

If you do get your foot in the door, you'll have to make a choice.  Dry out, or continue deceiving your coworkers.  It's a safe bet that you won't find very many of your fellow employees showing sympathy or enthusiasm for your habit.  By all means, you'll never want someone on the white collar side of the business to get even the slightest hint that you're a stoner.  If so, then say goodbye.   So why did you want this job? 

You may be highly intellegent with a great personality, and it's true that no one is perfect.  However, if you're a doper, a drunk, or anyone of questionable moral character, then do us all a favor...  look for a job elsewhere.  Stay away from the DOD.  We'll all be better off.   

I agree with everything you said about the polly....government jobs go through these procedures for a reason and aren't meant for people who are crappity smacking around.  I know that its against the law and most people would consider smoking weed to be wrong.  However, my whole argument was me trying to say that just because you smoke weed doesn't mean you are an immoral person.  You might kill animals or something and to some people that would be considered immoral (not me).....but you really can't determine integrity based off of one habit.  Anyways, people can follow the law but still be immoral in committing a legal action(i.e. killing animals, speeding)....either way ive brought up all my points and people can buy them or throw them out.  This forum is meant for discussion and for people to throw around ideas and help eachother out.  Its fun seeing what other people have to say about certain issues.  A lot of it is opinionated rather than factual.  So...nice ideas on the polly, thanks for presenting them.

Brotha,

Although I often wonder myself about some of the seemingly bizarre employment suitability policies some government agencies employ, I've never really wondered about drug policies.  It makes sense to me.

Think about it this way - the agency obviously has a reason for these policies regarding prior drug usage (and I feel that these policies go beyond the fact that these drugs are illegal, by the way).  Here's one big problem - the government's view is that the use of these drugs could detract from an employee's ability to perform on the job.  Could the same be said about alcohol?  Yes.  That is why, during a background investigation, references are probably going to be asked questions about alcohol abuse.  If there's any question that the subject might have an abuse problem, that's it - done.  It's really a matter of liability.  Did you know that marijuana is generally considered to be a mild hallucinogenic drug these days?  It is.  Not necessarily on the level of LSD but nevertheless, a hallucinogenic drug.  Did you also know that in most of these law enforcement/intelligence/otherwise contract positions within these agencies that admitted use of LSD even once can very often be an automatic disqualifier?  It's all about liability - is this guy going to freak out one day on the job and get our agency in a bunch of trouble?  It's a long shot, sure.  But hey - it's the government we're talking about here and they are always going to be held accountable by a different standard than entities would be in the private sector.   

Also, if you're still around Ronald consider this - say you make it through the entire hiring process by lying and deceiving and you are awarded the position.  Do you realize that it doesn't end there?  If any new information comes to light at any point in time you WILL be terminated.  Does that sound like fun?  You'll most likely be subjected to RANDOM drug testing as well.  Are you ready to completely give up your habit?  If not, don't even bother - it's not going to work!

In any event, a lot of interesting points have been raised here but at the same time a lot of silly ideas have been thrown around about using drugs.  Justify it as you will - it's still against the law.  You've got to accept the fact that most people will NOT be convinced by your arguments and will continue to maintain that what you're doing is wrong.  That's just how it is.  Followers?  Sheep?  Groupthink?  Who knows?

Also note, Brotha, that the proper phrase is "in other words" rather than "anotherwords."  I will refrain from making any comments I might have concerning the effects of marijuana on learning

I am glad that you are done with this discussion.  Your thoughts are unwanted in this forum because you turn a series of intellectual arguments into disparaging comments.  If you wish to call me an idiot that is fine.  However, comments about me getting "high" and how it is responsible for my lack of intelligence is just completely  unnecessary.  This does not compensate for the ideas that you cannot come up with because you are just another internet user to me and I could really care less about any insults you have.  So I dont write paragraphs, what is this, a crappity smacking essay?  If you can call me an idiot for not knowing what a paragraph is, I could do the same and call you an idiot for not being able to read without spaces.  See, I wouldn't do that though because its a waste of crappity smacking time and its just something you would say if you can't think of anything else.  If you think I didn't make a reference to a single idea, why don't you go read my big PARAGRAPH that I wrote.  It contains plenty of ideas that are more intelligent than yours.  Yes, we as citizens do have the power to choose candidates to represent us.  Specifically, you have the power to send one vote for each type of representation.  Say that you voted for people that didn't happen to get elected.  In other words, the people that represented you had ideas that weren't parallel to yours.  Would you still consider yourself a person with integrity by following these laws?  That may be different than what you had planned on when the people you voted for weren't elected?  What if there was a new law, that everyone could smoke pot.  I could get high, you could get high, we could all get high and no crime would be commited.  Would you still consider youself a person with good morals?  This is exactly why people who follow the law aren't necessarily moral.  You said, if alcohol was deemed illegal tomorrow, you would stop using it because its illegal.  And for you, that is called integrity.  In other words, you are using the law to determine your integrity.  You say that I cannot interpret what I read, well look at yourself.  When I say that law determines integrity, its the same as saying a person with integrity will follow the law, by your standards that is.  So, my quotes that you posted, you basically said the same thing just in another way.  Don't try to escape what you have already said just because you know you're wrong.  From your experiences, you have apparently learned to hate drugs.  And you call this being moral.  Like I said earlier, if pot was legalized, you would think its ethical to follow the law.  But wait, since you've dealt with drugs first hand, and how it affects children, those two might conflict with your idea on integrity if pot was legalized? uh oh...problem here.  You quote "but to an idiot like you the worst part thing about drugs is a lazy workforce."  First of all, just because I used that as an idea as to why pot shouldn't be legalized, it doesn't mean I think its the worst thing about drugs.  Why don't you stop putting ideas in your head.  Even if I had said that it was the worst part about drugs, so what?  We can all have our own opinions about whatever the crappity smack we want.  You think you are God or something, your opinion is superior to all?  Oh also....please continue to make references to my drug habit....since you seem to know what drugs I do and how often I do them and how im going to become a poor victim.  Seems like someone close to you became a poor victim of drugs, don't use this person as a scenario for everyone.  I will continue to smoke as much as I want and do well in life because I have that kind of will power.  Its people like you who just make me want to smoke blunt after blunt all day long.

Brotha, are you in the habit of making things up to strengthen your argument?

You consistently say that I say the law determines integrity.  Could you please point out where exactly I said this?  What I said is a person with integrity follows the law.  Two completely different things.

Either way I believe that I am done with this discussion.  You stated that I should make an agrument against your ideas and not about your inability to properly use paragraphs; however, you had not made reference to a single idea, RONALD had.   In my book you will continue to be an ignorant druggie who is only making excuses for himself to get high.  Like I said earlier, perhaps if you weren't so busy getting "high" you might have learned what a paragraph is so that people could actually read your posts.  

In all your ramblings about how the Gov't determines morallity, perhaps one little thing escaped your comprehension in Gov't class because you were "high".  We are empowered to vote for whom we want to represent us,  and if we feel that they are not doing so then we can freely vote them out, this includes laws.  Integrity isn't based on laws, it is based on following them.  

Quote:


Quote:


Here's an idea, please tell me where exactly I said this.  I'm willing to bet you can't because your argument is full of holes, a lack of relevancy and your inability to interpret anything you read.  

Like I said before my great dislike for drugs comes from having had to deal with firsthand how it hurts and affects children, FYI that is  "morality", but to an idiot like you the worst part thing about drugs is a lazy workforce.  I guess this is why I get so much satisfaction out of busting people like you.  Because in your mind all you end up being is a poor victim, not an idiot who willingly broke the law. 

yes you are correct in saying that i have veered off topic a bit.   Polygraph tests don't really concern me because I am not in a position that requires one.  I am more interested in the whole integrity issues and the legalization of marijuana.  However, say ronnie did lie on the test.  I will agree with you that he is unethical in that aciton.  This doesn't mean he is an  unethical person in and of himself because everyone has made immoral decisions in their lifetime.  I understand why he would lie to get the job though.  I would too.  Sometimes life is a game and you have to play your cards right.  About getting the job for the DoD, it may seem unfair for a pot smoker to take the place of a person who might have never done anything bad in their lifetime.  However, what if ronnie is a much more qualified person that happens to have a side habbit of smoking weed?  and he doesn't get the job for that reason...and say another person comes along who hasn't smoked weed but aren't very intelligent?  Is that fair?  You can't call ronnie a liar either because if he told the truth there is no chance of getting the job.  He lies in hope to dupe the system and get the job, not because he is the type of person that tends to lie necessarily.  At least in my opinion, things you do in your free time away from the work place shouldn't concern your job, unless you are some mass murderer or something to that extreme.  If those habits don't affect the company in any way, and ronnie can still perfrom his job to the best of his ability, why not let him work for a DoD?

Brotha - seems the discussion might have gotten a bit off from the original issue of the thread.

Given all that you have said to this point, it seems that you feel that by smoking weed and thus breaking the law, you don't necessarily feel as if your integrity can be questioned because that's not what you base integrity on (I realize that is a very summarized version of your argument).

But, in the context of the original spirit of this thread, would you still feel the same about your integrity if you were to knowingly lie within an employment process (to include trying to CHEAT on a polygraph examination) and intentionally attempt to deceive an agency into believing you are within its employment suitability standards?

That's where my concern with Ronald comes in - I don't really care how much he smokes weed.  That's really for him and the local police to work out.  Would I necessarily question his integrity based on those actions?  No, probably not.  He's breaking the law, but based on your argument so does everyone else in one way or another (true to a point but I think it's apples and oranges that we're discussing here).  But, as soon as it comes to light that he is attempting to deceive the Department of Defense about his past drug use just to get a job - his credibility and integrity go out the window as far as I'm concerned.   

You can argue it as many ways you'd like - it's one thing to break a law you don't agree with.  You get caught, you suffer the consequences.  But, to break a law and then try to cover it up?  In this particular case, how do we know that this cover up won't affect more than just Ronald?  Just as there's a reason/reasons for laws, the same goes for employment policies.  I hate to see anyone lose out on a job but in this case I really hope the process works and finds Ronald to be unacceptable for employment.  And by process, of course I don't mean the polygraph - that would be stupid.  But it's virtually guaranteed that, as George stated earlier, he will be found out through a background investigation...

To answer your question, sluggo, laws aren't my basis for determing integrity.  That is why I can break laws, and still feel ethical.  For example, when driving in a 35 mph zone, it would be illegal to exceed that speed.  While driving 40 mph in a 35 mph zone, I still feel morally correct.  This is why I have no trouble smoking weed, and continuing to feel ethical.  By agreeing with dimas, like you said you did, you are saying that your personal definition of integrity for a certain action is irrelevant.  This is because dimas said that law determines integrity, and not because you feel its unethical.  It is impossible to be completely ethical while following these "rules" if you will, because you can't say that you dont speed or havn't sped in your life time.  For the most part sluggo, I am a follower of the law and I'm sure you are too.  However, no one is perfect, and people break laws.  In my last post I explained that everyone has their own definition of integrity.  Dimas' idea of integrity is following the law, and so is yours I guess.  However, my argument is that this idea is extremely absurd, and pretty much impossible to follow as I explained my reasoning why earlier on this post.  Not only did dimas say that this was his idea of integrity, but he also said that everyones should be.  And you seem to agree with him.  I do promote drug use, you are right, and I don't feel unethical in doing so.  Im not a druggie, everyone goes through their own phase.  Does this make them unethical simply because there is a law outlawing marijuana?  Statistics report high percentages of drug usage among teenagers but i still dont see these people as unethical.  why? because the people who make laws are people like you and me, like i've already mentioned.  By saying that I feel unethical if i break a law, whether I think its just or not, is the same as saying that I let congressman determine my integrity.  You even said:  and it doesn't so much matter what I think is ethical or unethical, that's found in oneself.........exactly, that is found in oneself.  If you use the law to determine your integrity, you aren't following your own beliefs.  So I guess I'm trying to say that everyone SHOULD abide by the law, and if you decide to break the law you shouldn't necessarily feel unethical because our laws are not perfect just like every other country.

Brotha;

Read some of your earlier posts; you were, indeed, condoning and promoting illegal drug use.

-- and it doesn't so much matter what I think is ethical or unethical, that's found in oneself.  What matters is if one breaks the law in support of what s/he considers is ethical.   

Be a follower of the law, and a leader for chng (this website uses that as its premise w/a petition for chng).

Since you are on the topic of ethics, I have a Q for you:
whether a law is right or wrong, wouldn't you consider breaking a law (any law) unethical?

That question should be a no-brainer, but my guess is you'll retort w/some elaborate response as to when law breaking is ethical.

Sluggo, your post is by no means invalid, however it really doesn't counter any of the ideas posted.  No one ever said that we shouldn't abide by the law.  The discussion was if the law determined integrity.  Dimas said that our ethical standards are based on the legal system.  It is obvious that if the law derived from our individual beliefs, America wouldn't be what it is today.  However, you don't let a governing body determine what is right and wrong.  Laws are created to keep our country in civil order, but it is simply impossible for all of our laws to determine our integrity.  Your integrity comes from the way you were brought up, such as the values instilled by your parents.  Another thing that determines our intergrity is our society, and the standards that it sets.  It is not illegal to kill animals or go up to a random person that is homosexual and call them a f*g**t.  However, to many people that would be considered unethical.  So, you may determine your own integrity, and if it's based off of our governing body, that is fine.  Let Bush control what you do for all I care.  It is impossible to say that everyone's integrity comes from the laws that are imposed, and in my opinion, it's kind of absurd.  Do you think our governing body, for example a group of congressman who create laws, base their integrity off the laws they create?  No, I guarantee they break certain laws and still consider themselves ethical people.  What if congressman decided they wanted to smoke pot one day, and legalized marijuana.  Would you then think its ethical to smoke pot?  Or instead not unethical to smoke pot?  It seems like you are a follower to me, try to make some decisions for yourself one time and see how that works out for you.

I've read this string, and am enjoying the debate.  

My position is probably a little long-winded, but I hope you’ll make the read.

Aside from the poly discussion (which I think we all agree that it's CRAP science), dimas IS RIGHT; if it's illegal, you don't do it, whether you agree w/the law or not.

Many yrs ago, I read the book, "Flight of the Intruder".  The novel is about a pilot, understanding the injustice of the war, breaks the political laws of the Vietnam War, and flies an unauthorized solo mission over Hanoi.  

The pilot becomes subject to court martial under the UCMJ.  He believes in his actions and is willing to stand by them, even at the risk of imprisonment or death.

The end of the book has a dialog from the Sr Officer (who has the greatest respect for the pilot and agrees the pilot's actions were righteous) who admonishes the pilot's actions, and will not tolerate the insubordination.  

The Sr Officer's dialog comes down to this: right or wrong, the law is the law.  WE ABIDE BY IT.  We have the right to challenge it by legal means.  If we disagree, we continue to abide, and we continue to challenge it for change.  

If we allowed our own individual beliefs to come before the law, our country would have met its demise at its beginnings through military coops; admirals or generals who believe that they can do a better job of running the country than our politicians can, would have taken action. However, due to the loyalty of our military to obey orders/laws (just or unjust) that come from our government, we remain united. 

We as civilians/citizens have the same obligation.

As I wish not to digress, I feel that I must.  You are correct in saying that I may call you whatever name that I please.  I believe this has already been mentioned earlier on in the forum.  If I couldn't use these words, I would have trouble describing my ideas on your intelligence.  So, let's be thankful.  Moreover, instead of discussing such trivial things such as paragraphs, why don't you try and refute some of my ideas?  Maybe you can't, and this is why you must bring up other "faults" in my writing.  Another great thing about this country is our freedom.  I may continue to write without paragraphs, and you really can't do anything now can you.  So, if you want to talk, let's talk.  I would rather not search for your spelling mistakes and use your method of rebuttal because this is a forum.  So, either find flaws in my ideas or leave.

Brotha,

The beauty of this country is that people like you no matter how ignorant or dumb can freely call people like me an idiot.

However, before you go about insulting others let me say just one thing. PARAGRAPHS  Learn to use them, maybe if you hadn't been so busy smoking pot in school you would know what they are.

Ronald, while you did indeed make some good points, they are only good depending on what context a person is accepting them.

For example, you state the one regarding alcohol and how if it was made illegal the same gang violence would continue, but now people would be distributing alcohol illegally.  While I have no doubt that this is true, the problem there lies in people such as you and Brotha that fuel the crime by purchasing the illegal substance.   

I completely agree that both alcohol and tobacco are very harmful drugs.  I partake in neither, with the exception of a glass or wine here or there on a special occasion.  The kicker here is that wine has actually been found to be good for a human when used in moderation.  I believe they are called "polyphenols".   

All in all, it isn't until you have worked with children whose parents used drugs while they were pregnant and while the child was growing up that you will indeed begin to have a great dislike for drugs, alcohol included.

Crack babies grow up, Fetal alcohol children grow up, and they become adults who cannot function in society.   

But hey, the real problem with drugs is a lazy workforce, yeah thats it, real smart conclusion there brotha.

Brotha - 

You do make some interesting points...I must agree on most of everything.

There are enough American companies that brew beer or sell alcohol to provide a wide variety of products and a significant level of customer attraction (Anheuser Bush ..jesus...)

Yes, I do agree with you that gang-related violence wouldn't completely subside, however I do feel that it would drop off a significant amount.  I guess my gripe is that weed is illegal in most countries, yet cigarettes aren't.  That's some ass-backwards logic if you ask me.  You're also right: how are we supposed to pick and choose which substances we should legalize?  If we legalize pot, why not cocaine, right ?  Well we've already done that: alcohol is legal.  I also agree: I wouldn't want a society run by a bunch of lazy pot heads.   I sure as hell wouldn't want a society w/a bunch of dead-beat alcoholics either, yet there are PLENTY of those people too.  It's unfair to say that ALL people who smoke pot are lazy and unproductive, yet only SOME people who drink suck at life.  This leads to my main point... it angers me that I will be outright denied a job if I've smoked pot >10 times in my life, yet if I drink regularly and continue to drink for the rest of my life (thereby killing my liver), I'll pass.

Just like you said, our country's congressmen (most importantly our founding fathers) have already determined what is ethical and moral... hell, they were all heavy drinkers, no wonder it wasn't outlawed.  If only they smoked herb...

Ronnie, I agree with some points you have made but dimas is an idiot.  Before I begin, let me inform you that I do happen to smoke and I do love it as much as you.  However, this doesn't mean i believe in legalizing it.  You say that allowing the government to control the distribution of marijuana would reduce prices and gang-related violence.  And you use alcohol as your main comparison.  However, there is a difference between the two.  The reason that alcohol is so well managed in the united states is because it is very abundant and legal in every country.  Because of this many different types of alcohol are imported and this creates an increase in customer satisfaction.  Because of this abundance, there is no need to find alcohol on street corners, and therefore I agree with that.  However, the case with marijuana is a bit different.  The difference is that weed is limited in the united states and couldn't be imported from other countries because in almost every other country weed is outlawed.  I know its a naturally growing plant but eventually the demand would exceed the supply without the help from other countries.  Yes, the price would be significantly reduced but gangs would find ways to get weed from other countries and sell it at even lower prices.  So in reality gang-related violence would be still be in full effect, maybe reduced a little at the most.  This little difference in gang-related violence would not be worth the corruption that legal marijuana would bring about.  As many experienced people know, while one is under the influence of marijuana, there is a lack of motivation.  Do we want to weaken our work force by legalizing marijuana?  Do we want a bunch of demotivated lazy asses? I am not saying that you cannot perform your job 100 percent because you might smoke a little bud in your free time.  However, you dont represent all cases, and the worst case scenarios must be taken into consideration ( someone gets a goverment job who smokes all the time and is lazy but luckily has some intelligence ).  And I have no trouble in saying that a lot of these types of cases would evolve if marijuana was legalized because people would take advantage of this possibility.  It is a secure feeling to know that government employees are throughly examined.  If weed was legal, this website would be of no importance to you because you wouldn't have to worry about this question on a polly.  Do you want the leaders of our country to be possible stoners? who dont get work done? Imagine the work ethic that would be imposed on teenagers, or  young people, the future leaders of our generation.  It is proven that marijuana is a demotivator....and since you smoke Im sure as hell you know what I am talking about.  In order for our country to succeed, we need a strong work force like we currently have.  Plenty of detrimental substances are already in existance and the legalization of another wouldnt add anything positive to our country.  IF weed was legalized, then another plant or mind-altering substance would be in question.  So should we keep on legalizing these substances jsut because alcohol is legal?  Why not legalize cocaine and all the other drugs that create gang violence? becuase like I said, that would corrupt our society and just because marijuana is the safest receational drug doesnt make it right.  There are still a lot of unproven facts regarding marijuana....such as long term effects.  However, where I do agree with you, and completely disagree with dimas, is integrity with relationship to our legal system.  Your example with Saudi Arabia is just.  There are plenty of things that are illegal in America but legal in other countries.  The people in other countries who practice these habits are by no means depraved simply because the same thing in america is illegal.  By saying that integrity is based on our legal system, you might as well say you let a group of congressman determine what is morally right and what is morally wrong.  Our government consists of these congressmen, and thats who you are basing your integrity off of.  People just like the three of us.  Now do you realize why you are stupid?  Shit, I love weed, and im all about beating the system.  This doesn't change my argument for making marijuana legal, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes.  I agree with your friends who say the machine is gonna blow up because your looking into it way too much.  When the question comes up, u will naturally hesitate.  My advice is to just try to forget about it and go on with your life. Continue to smoke weed if that is what you do and when the question is asked try not to use your brain.  The test is obviously inaccurate if someone who has done nothing "bad" in their life can still fail the test and not get the job.  IT is apparent that the test has no scientific basis and that anyone can mess it up.  All i have to say is good luck when the time comes around and....
-smoke weed every dayyy

Finally someone with intelligence...

However, dimas, naturally I still disagree.   

First of all, it's still a matter of supply and demand, the same lessons we all learned in basic economics our first year in college.  If the government were to control and regulate marijuana like they do alcohol (and should), you'd instantly see prices drop.  There wouldn't be any gang violence because you could get the stuff over the counter for a quarter of the current price.  Is there gang violence over the sale of cigarettes?  Alcohol? No, because they're readily available on every street corner in the US.  Beer and cigs are just as bad for your health, consumed by more people, and in my opinion, actually much worse for you (cigs are just awful).  Pot actually does have other uses, i.e. medical uses, although I will admit their medical use is limited to rare cases.  It's a load of crap when people rationalize the legality of alcohol simply because it's not a "mind-altering drug" or that you can still have a few beers and you'd be fine.  You'd be hard-pressed nowadays to find a single person who drinks that hasn't abused alcohol (i.e. getting drunk).  It's a loophole that allows the government to make billions, not to mention.  Did anyone actually go to college here?   

Ok, fine, aside from all that, it's still illegal right?  That's the entire point?  Well I'm tired of people saying "it's irrelevant, the fact remains it's still illegal."  YOU may stop drinking alcohol if it is illegal tomorrow, but the same gang-related violence and extortion/use of children to distribute marijuana would now happen for alcohol, literally overnight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but our current president is pushing to amend the constitution so it is illegal for gay/lesbian persons to wed.  Go tell a homosexual that they have no integrity simply because they're doing something "illegal" in the eyes of our government. 

In Saudi Arabia, it's illegal for women to work.  In most middle-eastern nations, most americans would agree, their islam-based legal system violates American human rights laws.  Does this make beating your wife acceptable for a muslim man simply because it isn't outlawed?  I know these topics may seem irrelevant, but my point remains: a governing body cannot fully incorporate every citizen's ethical or moral standards.  Every nation has their own perception of what is right and wrong; some values overlap, some don't.   The nature of something being illegal is not the sole focal point of integrity.

Ronald,

While I would love to avoid a didactic on the rights and wrongs of drug use, I believe I can state it best like this.  If alcohol were indeed outlawed the day of tomorrow, the solution for me is simple;  I WOULD STOP CONSUMING ALCOHOL  because it would be  ILLEGAL.  This is what people refer to as INTEGRITY.  

It is one thing for someone to fail/inconclusive a Poly and be innocent and then find this site and use the countermeasures to pass the test, but another for you to use them to hide your use of marijuana.  The difference being  someday, someone may just decide to black mail you based on their having proof of your drug use and you may just be dumb enough to give into it.  As you said, "it is a sweet job/interview"  and it probably pays way more than you have ever made. 

But I digress, and will get more to the point.  While pot may indeed be one of the least harmful recreational drugs, it is still illegal.  Recreational users like yourself live in this false little reality that you aren't hurting anyone but yourself (and some of you don't even say that much), but having worked in LE and specifically with gangs over the years I can tell you one thing that people like you help do.  You encourage gangs to sell, distribute and murder to increase their sales and profit, not to mention the extortion and use of children and teens to distribute their drugs.  

You may rationalize your drug use to make yourself feel better, but we aren't buying it.  

Well if the poly doesn't catch you, hopefully the UA will and if that doesn't, then lets just hope the BI is thorough enough and one of your friends, employers or associates lets your little secret out.

Yes, your last post is completely accurate.  Yet you seem to ignore why the law is implemented in the first place, and only look at the fact that it is illegal.  It's not the subject matter, MJ, that is at hand.  If there is law that is incredibly idiotic and I disagree with, I will not feel any remorse in opposing it.   

If something as arbitrary as littering was illegal and somehow asked on the poly exam (and if you were denied a job because you've littered) .. then yes, I would lie about how many times I've littered because that's absolutely absurd.  I feel the same way about pot.

My point is that our differences don't necessitate comments like "you're a jerk."

Quote:


It doesn't matter what you "feel".  The fact of the matter is that what you do is illegal and you intend to lie about it, and ask your friends to lie for you,  so you can get a job with the DOD.  That says more about you than anything else.  Fire up another doobie man, after all it's all about how you feel - so feel good man.   

Cop 

Imagine that tomorrow all consumption of alcohol is outlawed.  If I am correct, prohibition of alcohol was attempted in the past and failed misreably.  I'm not a "jerk" simply because I enjoy enhaling the fumes of a plant.  I could go on forever about this, but it's no wonder why alcohol is still allowed to be purchased: the US government makes a tremendous profit off of it.  The US has some of the strictest marijuana-related laws in the entire world.  Why? Because of ignorance, fear, and no immediate way to regulate the sales of it, like they do alcohol.   

I feel that I'm being forced to lie as a result of the system.  I have no problem openly admitting my habit; I feel as I've done absolutely nothing wrong.  That won't get me the job though, will it?  That's the true crime right there.

Great idea.  Get your pothead friends to lie for you.  That is if they can remember what you told them to lie about.  George, you really need to help this punk get a job with the DOD our country needs jerks like this.

George - 

The company is actually L0ckheed Martin.  Based on your knowledge, does this change the type of poly exam from the one you describe in your post?

How thorough are these background investigations?  Couldn't my friends simply lie for me?  Also, I wonder what they determine as "recent."  A few months?  Years?

I also have a polygraph test in the near future for a fire department. I have a friend that passed the polygraph test for this department who told the examiner he had sold marijauna in highschool. I am worried about two subjects, I smoked marijuana in high school and its been over 3 years since, and i have stolen some things throughout my life but none really recently. These are two things that i dont ever plan on doing again in my life. Are these things that could fail me from the process? What are acceptable amounts for these two subjects? I was also told by the friend to just be honest and those things wont fail me, is that good advice?

The DoD uses a counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination that does not include questions about drug use (although at least one DoD component, the NSA, uses a full-scope polygraph examination that does include such questions).

Note that while you might succeed in passing the urinalysis test and polygraph, your marijuana usage might still come to light in the course of a background investigation.

Your recent, regular use of an illegal drug would likely preclude you from holding a security clearance under Adjudicative Guideline H. See, "Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information":

http://www.fas.org/sgp/spb/class.htm

I must admit, I love pot.  I've smoked regularly for the past 2-3 years and I've loved every second of it.  Never did I expect to get a sweet interview for a DoD agency that requires a drug test and a polygraph.  I quit smoking about 3 weeks ago in hopes I'd pass the piss test, but my friends joke around that I might as well continue to smoke, because when I answer pot-related questions on the poly, the machine will "blow up."

I've never done any other drug, been arrested, lied, stolen, or done anything else that would lead to a failed exam.  And to be honest - I have no problem attempting to use contermeasures on the poly exam because I think it's BS that someone who drinks regularly (not an alcoholic) won't hurt his chances of getting a job, yet somone who uses pot a few times is screwed... but don't get me started on legal issues relating to MJ...

I've read the handbook - great read.  Any other words of advice?  Am I wrong in thinking that even if I fail the drug questions on the poly test, the passed drug test will back me up?