pre-poly jitters

[compilot34 (Guest)]

Well, the time has arrived later this week. I have read everything in "The lie behind the Lie Detector" several times. I have no intentions of being deceptive unless they plan on getting over technical on marijuana usage dates. In that regard, I will need to fudge a bit as I miss their "window" by a year or two. Is the info on countermeasures adequate enough in the articles, or do I need to purchase something like Doug Williams "Sting" product? Also, if sweat is measured, wouldn't it make sense to be a little dehydrated when taking the test?

[Fed-up Fed]

So what you are saying is you don't plan to lie unless they ask you about your drug use - which you admit would disqualify you - and then you will have to "fudge" a bit.  

[compilot34 (Guest)]

Well that probably sounded bad, didn't it. Poor choice of words, but to a point, I guess you nailed it. I'm facing an age cut off for this position. The five years will be up after I 'm too old to re-apply. My point is that this is the only thing I've ever done in my life that I would have to be less than truthful about. I could be screwed by waiting or screwed by admitting the actual dates. I have no problem with the "less than 10 times" standard, I just made a bad decision about 4 years ago that I would love to be able to re-live. We are not given that option, however. Smoking pot about once every 3.33 years does not make one a bad person. Many people have more than enough good morals to outweigh that in my opinion. It's an unfair standard. Once a person admits that their past decisions have been pretty stupid, they can change their future so that it won't include those bad behaviors. I have no intention of ever using the stuff again. I feel like I'm between a rock and a hardplace here.

[compilot34 (Guest)]

I was going to just let this rest, but something bothers me here. Lying about polygraph knowledge and the use of countermeasures seems to be generally accepted, if not condoned, on this board. Who then wants to be hypocritical by attempting to make me feel guilty over my situation. Is a lie not a lie? Is the chance of a fulfilling career, knowing that it's the last chance,  not worth lying about something as insignificant as smoking pot in a given timeframe? Everyone has skeletons. Fortunately for some, there are many moral issues that cannot be brought up.

[Batman]

Compilot34,

You are stuck between a rock and a hard place simply because of your own actions.  You were the one who chose to smoke a little of the funny weed a few years ago, so how does that make the standard unfair?  What would be a fair standard?  Should it be two years, one year, one month, one day?  Should the standard be whatever fits the individual applicant's needs and desires?

I'm sure you have no intention of using illegal drugs ever again.  I'd bet you had that same intention just after you used drugs prior to this last time.  I've sat across from many a criminal who swore they never intended to commit a crime again.  Intentions are a funny thing, they seem to change like the weather.

Here's a rather novel idea, why don't you just go in and tell them that you screwed up, that you used illegal drugs within their cut-off, however you want to be totally honest and hope that your other qualifications will override this one mistake, that maybe they will consider waiving the standard?  What is the position you are applying for?

One last thing, you mention that there is an age cut-off for the position you are applying for.  Does your signature indicate your age, 34?  If so, that made you about 31 when you made your "bad decision".  If that is fairly accurate, don't you think that is rather old to be making "bad decisions" regarding the use of illegal drugs?  Maybe the agency you are applying with has set their standards in such a way as to weed out individuals who are so immature they make "bad decisions" such as the one you made.

Bottom line is you made one "bad decision", do you really want to compound it with another?

Batman

[steincj]

You are stuck between a rock and a hard place simply because of your own actions.  You were the one who chose to smoke a little of the funny weed a few years ago, so how does that make the standard unfair?  What would be a fair standard?  Should it be two years, one year, one month, one day?  Should the standard be whatever fits the individual applicant's needs and desires?

compilot34,

As painful as this is, I have to agree with Batman on the issue of standards.  It should not be the world's fault that you smoked pot, and now you aren't eligible for the job you want.  I am a firm believer in standards, whether they be for admissions, security, etc.  The moment the standardis compromised, the system is weakened.

That being said, Batman's suggestion is probably the best for you -- be honest with the time frame.  Perhaps there is an unwitten rule behind the satndard which allows for such a situation.  But if you don't get the job, please don't blame the world for your mistake.

I'm not saying that you are a "bad person," but I disagree with your claiming this is an unfair standard.   It is unfair in your eyes.  If this standard were "unjust," I'd be on your side.  But this is your mistake.

If this job was that important to you, you should have known the admission stadards and lived accordingly.   You could still have a life in politics - it worked for our last president.

Chris

[PeterFonda]

Batman,

Just a little reflection on your comments!! The public has the right to expect police and others in authority to live by what they now preach...Can a police officer "Bust" a person for drugs, when they themselves abused drugs just two years ago?? I say not! I have a company and some years ago I hired an  old friend that was a cop for many years..Called a lot of people scum bags. He carried the rightous flag! After a few years of employment and the smoke cleared.. I found he had embezzled my company out of tens of thousands of dollars. Point being, I think that if a person has been a criminal, he has no right applying to be a cop..Finally..do we want thieves, and former drug abusers..enforcing our laws??? Do you think when they catch a person with drugs, who claims that this was their first time, and they are sorry, they won't be arrested???  I think not.  They will be arrested.  The officer will care less if this is their first time, kind of ironic, isn't it?  As most of us agree the machine is bogus and the results of the machine should NEVER be a determining factor for employment or a crime. Can we not agree, that if by intimidation a person confesses to previous
or current wrong doing that the end result has indeed been achieved?

[compilot34 (Guest)]

Could a cop arrest someone for beating their kids or hitting their wives if they have done this in the past themselves?  Can a cop give someone a ticket for an open container when they know they have done the same in their past? DUI,
Pissing in public, keeping incorrect change from the cashier, hitting someone, adultry, pornography, alcohol abuse(why is this legal?)verbal abuse,Speeding? (They break that law 100 times a day, sure it's technical, but nonetheless). That being said, where do you propose we find a couple million saints to do this job across the country? How many of those law virgins are going to work for $25K per year?

There are good and bad just like everything else in life. I know some that are as good as it gets, I know others that couldn't practice what they preach if their lives depended on it. The past is the past, it can't be changed. There are plenty of places that have a 2 year rule. Some folks can change their whole life in 2 years, some shorter, some longer.

I used to run with the party crowd at an old job I had. I drank too much one night and took a hit off of a joint. Alcohol was involved in every time I ever did it. I got home late that night and needless to say, my wife wasn't a happy camper. It caused marital problems which in turn made me very aware of my priorities needing to be put back in order. I chose not to partake in that kind of behaviour from that point forward, haven't partied it up since! I believe that alcohol was the root cause of it all, so I contend it should be illegal as well as pot. It's mere politics that differentiate between the two anyway. Either way, my life is better now as a result of doing away with all of that crap.

My point was that almost everybody has done something that could effect how a polygraph turned out. Mine was a few uses of pot. It's all my fault, I blame no one else. I served more than long enough in the military to know about taking responsibility for my own actions. I wasn't looking for a sermon. If you guys are going to tell people it's ok to lie about polygraph knowledge and countermeasures then you can't tell someone not to lie about something else in the next breath. You tell that to the ones you "believe" are honest, yet you have no way of knowing they are. So is it ok for "honest" people to lie about the poly knowledge and countermeasures?
If many of them truly had nothing to hide, why would they be coming here looking for advice?  I know I'm a good person and could honestly answer everything but that one question. It's the only thing I've done wrong in my life.

The bottom line is that this bullshit shouldn't be used for hiring, period. If these weren't used for hiring, none of us would ever have to come here looking for ways to circumvent our past transgressions. The problem "users" would be eliminated through hair strand analysis and other measures. All other crimes would be discovered through a thorough background investigation. Potential employees are not criminals and the fact that so many honest people fail these damn things sickens me. I'd be here even if I believed I didn't have to tell a lie.

[Fair Chance]

Dear Compilot34,

I have always advocated treating your application as if the polygraph never existed.  I agree with you that alcohol is a drug as bad as any.

Regardless of what the rest of the world says, you create your own standards when you look in the mirror.

The best way to start off a new career is knowing that you did not need to make any personal compromises in order to attain it.

Pursue the other employment opportunities that you can without a doubt qualify for.

Regards.

[Batman]

Mr. Fonda,

I loved you in Easy Rider dude!  

I know that by living in caves and hanging upside down I can get a bit disoriented, but your post down right confused the hell out of me.  I read it over a few times and my headache got worse with each reading.  

What are you talking about as it relates to my response to Compilot34?  Help me out here, please!


Compilot34,

Easy bud, I see a heart attack or worse coming on here!  Just go in and lay down the truth on whomever you're dealing with.  If they can't live with it, tough shit, but at least you won't continue to got through what you're putting yourself through right now.


Steincj,

Wow!  Does this mean I can call you Robin?

Batman

[steincj]

If you guys are going to tell people it's ok to lie about polygraph knowledge and countermeasures then you can't tell someone not to lie about something else in the next breath. You tell that to the ones you "believe" are honest, yet you have no way of knowing they are. So is it ok for "honest" people to lie about the poly knowledge and countermeasures?
If many of them truly had nothing to hide, why would they be coming here looking for advice?

compilot34,

Be careful how you paint a picure of those of us on this website.  Your broad brush of accusations may splatter paint where it not need be.

Many on this site do believe in countermeasures, and some don't.  Some of those are for the polygraph and some are against.  Not everyone who comes to this site has something to hide.  Some come here after hearing the horror stories of the falsely accused, and some choose to protect themselves during the polygraph test with countermeasures, even though they have nothing to hide.  So be careful where you aim your anger.  

All other crimes would be discovered through a thorough background investigation. Potential employees are not criminals and the fact that so many honest people fail these damn things sickens me. I'd be here even if I believed I didn't have to tell a lie.

I think you are still new to this whole polygraph thing, because as you may or may not know, background investigations are not done when an individual fails a polygraph.  They are only done when an individual passes, and little entusiasm is given to the investigation under the guise of "they must be truthful if they passed a polygraph."

Again, these are more reasons why people come to this site.  Please don't judge eveyone while in anger over your own situation.

Chris

[compilot34]

First of all, I apologize if someone chose to take it personally. I came to ask a simple question, which, after much reading through other posts, I see has been answered already. I am not "angry" at anyone. I just don't like self-righteous sermons.
While there may be a few true saints on this forum, I am quite certain most people here are just as human and imperfect as myself. I just choose to be forthcoming about my past misdeeds and current intentions. If I thought for a second that the truth would prevail in this situation, I wouldn't have asked in the first place. My problem with this whole fiasco is that it seems people want to judge which lies are bad and which are ok. In a perfect world, none are ok. It's either black or white in Utopia. So someone tell me what justifies a lie?  If  the majority of people were completely honest with the control questions, wouldn't most of them fail? So we are told to lie because the polygrapher wants us to/expects us to, but these lies are only acceptable for the presumed "honest" people! That's the message I'm getting here. If I had been pointing fingers, I would surely have mentioned names. It wasn't personal.

I think you misunderstood my statement about background investigations. I was referring to their use, and that of drug testing, to weed out applicants in lieu of the poly. I don't believe in the polygraph for employment screening, never have.

No hard feelings intended guys!

[PeterFonda]

Batman,

Sorry, got a little of the point on that!!

[Seeker]

compilot34

I believe that any applicant should be totally forthcoming in his or her attempt to acquire a job. This includes any DQ factors that may be painfully or embarassingly a part of one's history.  

I do not find fault with anyone who is honest on their application using countermeasures to ensure the results of the polygraph exam.  I would have trouble with someone who was deceitful on their application, and then used countermeasures to further skew the results of the poly.

So long as Americans are subjected to this type of luncay and witchcraft, I believe that those who are knowledgable, intelligent, and desire to further the good of our way of life here should not be denied employment paid for by my tax dollars.  The polygraph does, in fact, disqualify many honest people and in effect, robs this country of greatly needed assets.

Ultimately the choice to use countermeasures or not is yours.  

Best,

[Boy1der]

To All,

compilot34 raised a question that has been raised here before and has only been answered in the veil of selfrightiousness.  You advocate the circumvention of a legal, acceptable form of investigation (polygraph).  It does not matter to those "anti" persons if they assist potential or real spies and terrorist, as long as they can "save one more innocent victim of a false positive examination."  They do not care that a child molester may victimize another innocent child, as long as they didn't unzip his pants.

compilot34, you should be absolutely honest on your application as everyone here has stated.  However, if you take advice to use countermeasures, remeber where you got it from and who they have undoubtably assisted.  You made a mistake when you were a few years younger because you were not thinking clearly.  Think very clearly about this!