I can't believe this place

[steincj]

Its not all about potheads tring to be cops.  There are some people out there who used to be potheads or experimented with drugs when they were younger but don't have the desire to Ever do it again.  Why should stupid mistakes they have made in the past ruin their whole life?  It's stupid to disquilfy them for this reason.  They should stick to random drug testing in the workplace.  If someone is doing drugs while there are a cop they shouldn't be there and random drug test will "scare" people into not doing them.  

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]

Are you aware that the National Academy of Science (2003), after being asked by government agencies to examine the efficacy of the polygraph as a tool to identify individuals who may be security risks, concluded that the test has NO VALIDITY WHATSOEVER.

Your post is an anti-intellectual embarrassment.  You are saying: "Don't reveal the truth - a bad person might use it.  Instead, let's perpetuate the lie and the let many good people suffer."  

Read David Lyyken's (1998) book, "A Tremor in the Blood."  This is the definitive statement to date about uses and abuses of the polygraph.  Dr. Lyyken, a real Ph.D., has spent 40 years of a distinguished career examining every aspect of the polygraph with meticulous scientific rigor.  He reviews virtually all known research, as well as his own.  His conclusions are consistent with those of the Academy, the most respected group of scientists in the world.  Check out their Web site for confirmation.

The polygraph is a scam, pure and simple.  Anyone who doubts this merely need examine the scientific literature and not that put out by the polygraph industry - a group that makes nearly $100 million a year perpetuating the myth of the "lie detector."

[steincj]

Your post is an anti-intellectual embarrassment.  You are saying: "Don't reveal the truth - a bad person might use it.  Instead, let's perpetuate the lie and the let many good people suffer."    

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

[George W. Maschke]

Chris, based on context, it seems to me that jhocking's post was most likely a reply to Porthos, the originator of this message thread.

[steincj]

Chris, based on context, it seems to me that jhocking's post was most likely a reply to Porthos, the originator of this message thread.

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