It really isn't that complicated.

What if the question was, "Are you now living in or have you ever lived in Florida?" 

Would you not know how to answer that?  If you live there now or have lived there in the past you should answer "yes", right?


If you are using drugs now or have ever used drugs than your answer should be, "Yes."

c12man5 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2007 at 6:05pm:



What is defined as using an illegal drug? Hmmm. How competitive is this internship program at USMS? I would think the Marshal's could do better. To answer the question, use of an illegal drug is USE OF AN ILLEGAL DRUG. It's a simple question and calls for a simple, yet HONEST, answer. You either used it, or you didn't. There is no "in between" unless the question stipulates that there is. And it doesn't.  Based on what you've admitted, the answer has to be yes. If you can't do that, then maybe you need to look at a different type of work. Clintonian tactics will get you nowhere. While we all make stupid mistakes in our lives, the distance we create from those mistakes, and the lessons we learn from them are most important to employers. However, once your integrity has been compromised it's nearly impossible to restore it in one lifetime.

c12man5 wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2007 at 6:39pm:



As I said in my previous post, we have all made mistakes and errors in judgment. Next time READ what someone writes, instead of trying (and failing) to "see right through them."  The POINT, my friend, is that your drug use is not the issue here. Your HONESTY is.  You just don't get it.  You admitted to illegal drug use. The answer to the question is yes. You seem to be forever trying to circumvent being honest about what you've done in your life. If you can't be honest with yourself, why should you be in a position of trust? Admit to your illegal use of drugs and move on with your freaking life! Nobody is saying your pot use should be held against you! In fact, if it is what you say it is then I doubt the USMS will hold it against you. However, your seeming lack of an ability to get honest with yourself is much more troubling than the recreational pot use! With that said, who the hell is recruiting interns for the USMS? I thought those slots went to the "best and brightest."

I see that some folks engage in selective reading techniques here. 

Where in any of my posts did I say that his integrity would be compromised because of his pot use???? Do tell.

Is your argument that if a prospective intern in a law enforcement agency is asked a simple question as to prior use of illegal drugs  (whether or not a polygraph is involved) they should lie? 

If someone uses pot once and are then asked in an official process  "did you ever used an illegal drug" does that one pot use not constitute ever using an illegal drug? I guess it's much better to lie about it, get caught lying, and then be regarded as someone who can't be trusted to be forthright on anything, right?

I'm a lifelong Democrat who actually voted for Clinton. However your kind of moral relativism could be one reason why the stupid polygraph doesn't go away! 

If a prospective LEO has to lie to himself about what he's done in his past that's the real problem, not necessarily what he's done. When its time for that person to take the stand and swear out a complaint or an affidavit for a warrant to circumvent someone's constitutional rights, his freaking word has to MEAN something.  I guess he should then decide which facts work for him and which facts he should creatively reconstruct to obtain the end result he is looking for?

Do you get it? I don't think you do.

Clintonian tactics didn't work for Clinton and they certainly won't work for others. Please learn how to read for comprehension before insulting someone you don't know. NOWHERE in any of my posts did I even imply that his integrity would be compromised "because of his pot use." 

This forum is a great place to kick around issues re: polygraph. It's unfortunate that, for some, it's become a place to advocate being less than truthful in your application process. People like you provide cover for polygraph proponents and use the legitimate merits of the anti-polygraph crusade to push your advocacy of moral relativism and dishonesty.

If anybody is a "BillyBob" it's you. Get with the program, please.

Quote:

Circular arguments? You mean like your assertion that I claimed the applicant's integrity would be smeared by his use of pot? Again, where did I make such claim? You are the kind of person who, when he doesn't like the rules in any given situation, decides to make up his own. 

While I don't know the owner of this board, from what I've seen him write I am convinced he is a patriot who feels strongly about the abuses associated with polygraph, and who wants to see polygraph use in employment ended. This site was created toward that end. Based on what I know about it, I support that goal as well.

  However, I think I can be safe in saying it was not created to support dishonesty, which is what your goal apparently is. While I don't support polygraph use for employment, I do support truthfully answering questions that are posed to me about my past. (whether I like the answer or not) 

Again, I'll say,. it's a shame that this board has collected a a following of people who have merely tagged along on the anti-polygraph bandwagon in order to find ways around the truth, engage in moral relativism, and decide for themslves which part of their past is relevant and which part is not. That's not the way it works, and people like you only hamper the the otherwise legitimate anti-polygraph debate.

As for relationship problems, I would suggest you spend more time engaging in introspection. You seem to have a problem being honest with yourself and are on a crusade to support this character flaw in others.

Just because the polygraph isn't reliable, doesn't mean you are entitled to create your own truth.

2525 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2007 at 11:07pm:



Obfuscate all you want. I've stated my position on the polygraph and we all agree that it's unreliable.  My points were related to being truthful about your past. Did you care to comment on that? If you can't be honest about your past, regardless of whether it involves a polygraph, then you don't deserve to be in a position of public trust. Especially when at some point you will be in a position to state true facts for the specific purpose of gaining lawful permission to circumvent someone's constitutional rights. You and your comrades issues are apparently not limited to use of polygraph but include not liking the fact that you need to truthfully answer certain questions that you don't think you should have to answer. That sounds more like a personal problem, than a policy problem.

I should add that any life-experienced adult who comes here and encourages young people entering intelligence or law enforcement to be less than truthful on their applications or in their interviews, ought to be ashamed of themselves and begin to rethink their own moral compass. That is if they even have one. You are setting those people up for a life of FAILURE......perhaps like your own FAILURE which may help to explain your behavior. Misery loves company, as the old adage goes. With that said I leave all the truly honorable people here carrying on the good fight to eliminate use of the polygraph......as well as all you spineless cowards who love to dance with the truth. Unfortunately, the latter seem to be in higher abundance here now.

Hey 5Fed

Why don't you spew your moral diatribe to your comrades at the CIA, whose failure to relay their information cost N.Y. City the twin towers and 3,000 lives, and the FBI, NSA, etc. Spew it toward the congressional chambers in D.C. Hell, you might even need to look in the mirrow. Who knows. Make your efforts worthwhile instead of assuming the worst of someone on these boards.