Poly test soon: advice please!

[brotha]

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 faggot.  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.

[Sluggo]

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.

[brotha]

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.

[Anonymous]

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...

[brotha]

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?

[dimas]

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.  

Dimas said that our ethical standards are based on the legal system.

This is because dimas said that law determines integrity, and not because you feel its unethical.

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.

[brotha]

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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fuck 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.  

[Anonymous]

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

[brotha]

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 fucking 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.

[Techie]

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.