Quote:



Zoe,

I agree that drug testing is an integral part of maintaining a professional workplace, but I have to disagree with you on one point.  When you make the argument that experimentation in the past should have no bearing on the present, I am brought back to my personal views on hiring standards.  When you make exception to the standard, you ruin the entire system.

If the standard is that you not have smoked pot in the last 3 years, and you had smoked it  2 yrs 10 mos prior, it is not up to you to say that you are acceptable or not.  Unless the agency makes exception to the standard, you are not acceptable.

If an agency uses a polygraph to gather that information, I think they are worng to do so.  The polygraph is completely unreliable in determining such information.  To me, the better way is to have an investigator find people who knew you 3 years ago and see whether or not you were into anything "funny."  When the investigator is comfortable that you are clean, you are acceptable.

I think it is too easy to skew the purpose of polygraph countermeasures so that they fit an individuals needs.  As you all may or may not know, I am opposed to the use of countermeasures, because they further corrupt an already corrupted system.  I only enlighten others to the existence of countermeasures in an effort to completely ruin the reputation of the polygraph, in further hopes that the polygraph system is removed (or at least, the pre-emplyment screening "probable-lie test").

To those of you who call this site a joke:

I am not a pothead-cop-wanna-be.  I am a former Military Intelligence Officer who applied for a position of Special Agent with the FBI.  During my polygraph, I was accused of being a spy.  I had no ulterior motive other than to serve my country once again. 

All of you who blanket this site and its users as "facilitators of criminals,"  ask yourself this:  Is Antipolygraph.org guilty of teaching others how to manipulate the polygraph, or are the government and some local agencies guilty of blind faith in a machine that is easily susceptible to inaccuracy and countermeasures?

Don't blame a product of the system when the system itself is to blame.

Chris

jhocking wrote on Apr 18^th, 2003 at 7:04am:


jhocking,

Who are you talking to with your post?  You immediately followed my post, but did not address any one person.  Am I to assume you are addressing me?

Chris

Quote:


Well, George, I hope he was referring to Potrhos.  That would make more sense -- although it wouldn't have been the first time that my postings were labeled as an "anti-intellectual embarassment."

Chris