???
Hi guys.  Great web site.  I've learned much about the polygraph through these posts, both pro and con.  I was thinking . . . wouldn't this topic make a great college course?  "The desireability of government employment screening with the polygraph"  Anyway, just a thought.

Getting to my question . . .:  I've been looking into the possibility of beginning a career with the fbi.  It's something I've considered a lot during my life (I'm 33 - practicing law in CA).  I'm somewhat familiar with the hiring process, thanks to sites like this one as well as fbi.gov.  I have a hard time believing that the fbi itself believes in the validity of the polygraph as a measure of a given person's truthfulness - for various reasons.   

In particular I'd like to hear your views on why the heck the fbi requires job candidates with a "conditional" offer of employment to undergo a urine drug screen.  To my understanding (which I'll admit is limited) the urinalysis takes place right before the candidate gets sent off to quantico, which is just a short period of time after the passing of the polygraph.  If the person just "passed" all the questions about prior drug use and current drug use, etc., what's the point in conducting a second test for drugs just a few weeks after?  What is the likelihood that a "clean" person has lived his or her life free of drug use, and then in the two weeks after getting a conditional offer of employment with the fbi, he or she decides to shoot up or smoke a bowl or something?  The only thing I can figure, is that the fbi truly does not believe in the validity of the polygraph as a measure of truthfulness.  (which is not to say that the polygraph might not be a useful screening tool for the fbi in other ways, i.e. encouraging confessions).

Any thoughts?