Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senate votes to let people who’ve used marijuana work at intelligence agencies

marijuanamoment.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 266 posts

Re: Senate votes to let people who’ve used marijuana work at intelligence agencies

#51

Post by chrisfosterelli »

jedberg wrote: post #46
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t see how someone can possibly be expected to have the personality to gather (human) intel, but somehow not ever have smoked weed. It's not clear to me how these would have absolutely any relationship at all.

To gather human intel you have to be willing to do things like drink in social situation and (gasp) sometimes do drugs with the people you're trying to collect intel from, to gain their friendship. In other words, you need to have a slightly adventurous personality.

Most people I know who have an adventurous personality don't smoke weed. Drinking I can see a case for as it's so heavily embedded as a social activity. Just anecdotal data I suppose but I'm not seeing a similar connection for having done drugs.

Perhaps for someone who is undercover and needs to fit in, sure, but I don't think that predisposes a personality to take drugs in their own time. For both alcohol and drugs I doubt it has any relevance to most intelligence roles.

Re: Senate votes to let people who’ve used marijuana work at intelligence agencies

#52

Post by Spoom »

speed_spread wrote: post #40
momirlan wrote: post #25

how can they detect that someone "used marijuana" once long time ago ?

They don't have to detect it, they'll ask as part of the security interview. The interview is very thorough and requires to be completely transparent and truthful in the given answer. The worse that may come out is that you don't get hired (unless you confess to murder, maybe?). Lying, hiding facts or getting whatever kind of crafty to get hired will lead one to MUCH MUCH bigger trouble if/when it gets discovered lat…

> Think _treason_.

That's hyperbole. According to the United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

It's narrowly defined for the very reason that prior history had tons of abuses of a much broader definition to silence political enemies.

Granted, lying to federal officials is almost certainly a crime, and not one you'd like to have on your record. But treason it is not.

Re: Senate votes to let people who’ve used marijuana work at intelligence agencies

#53

Post by Rebelgecko »

jedberg wrote: post #46
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t see how someone can possibly be expected to have the personality to gather (human) intel, but somehow not ever have smoked weed. It's not clear to me how these would have absolutely any relationship at all.

To gather human intel you have to be willing to do things like drink in social situation and (gasp) sometimes do drugs with the people you're trying to collect intel from, to gain their friendship. In other words, you need to have a slightly adventurous personality.

I don't think they're sending interns to gather HUMINT, and I'm skeptical of how many CIA employees are doing those things regularly (non-zero amount, sure. But there's a reason that the TLA's hire so many Mormons)

Re: Senate votes to let people who’ve used marijuana work at intelligence agencies

#54

Post by Scoundreller »

dekhn wrote: post #33
momirlan wrote: post #25

how can they detect that someone "used marijuana" once long time ago ?

The background checks for agencies often include going back and talking to high school friends and neighbors. They will ask about drug use.

Having friends and neighbours that will lie for you (or be unaware of your gravest moments of joint smoking) seems like a good level of trustworthiness.

Re: Senate votes to let people who’ve used marijuana work at intelligence agencies

#56

Post by meroes »

jedberg wrote: post #44
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #7

You could already get a clearance with past marijuana use (and other drugs) but I guess this would just make it so someone couldn't be denied a clearance solely for that reason.

A (very talented) friend of mine was supposed to work at the White House during the Obama admin. He got as far as signing documents and moving from California to Washington DC. That was when they told him that his offer was rescinded for past use of marijuana. They said there were no exceptions to the rule, but it was the only reason he was denied.

I tried finding it but I listened to someone on KQED/NPR who worked for Obama's White House and had to go through a security clearance. She said she used marijuana hundreds of times, and they let her get the job. Something doesn't add up. Or, for your friend's specific job they had different rules. She wasn't an intern or something very low level, but I can't remember her title. Edit: Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, so pretty high level.

Edit:

Found it https://www.npr.org/2018/03/30/598253244/i-basically-ran-on-...

"GROSS: (Laughter) Right. So I thought this was really interesting. You had to get national security clearance for your job.

MASTROMONACO: Yeah.

GROSS: One of the questions you had to answer was a kind of detailed list of your drug use. And you'd smoked marijuana.

MASTROMONACO: Yes.

GROSS: You had to say how many times (laughter).

MASTROMONACO: Yes. That was...

GROSS: Yeah. So you handled it by saying unknown. How did you come to the conclusion that that would be your answer, an unknown number of times?

MASTROMONACO: Because - well, because I really feel strongly about not lying. And so when the FBI agent asked me for a number of times and she said, you know, 20? And I was like, no. She said, a hundred? I said, no. And then when she got up to 500, I was like, I'm not saying - I'm not giving you a number because who knows if they're going to go try and prove the number? So I just said, unknown. And apparently from her reaction, nobody had ever said that before.

GROSS: You write that you had to get randomly drug tested almost every month. Is that because you'd said unknown or does everybody have to do that?

MASTROMONACO: No. Most people get drug tested, like, once or twice that first year. But I was drug tested quite often because I was very forward-leaning about my drug use, very open-kimono, as we would say. And so, yeah, every - just about every month, you'd get an email that said, you know, you have 24 hours to show up for your test. And I would. And it was fine because I wasn't. So I had nothing to hide (laughter)."

Re: Senate votes to let people who’ve used marijuana work at intelligence agencies

#58

Post by janalsncm »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #19
tracker1 wrote: post #15

Or... just decriminalize it altogether, including forgiveness of past use.

Nah, it's too hard a drug -- makes people too violent, and abusive... oh sorry. That's alcohol.

It’s ironic that the CIA may ask people to travel to countries where alcohol is illegal but don’t disqualify for it.

Re: Senate votes to let people who’ve used marijuana work at intelligence agencies

#59

Post by volkl48 »

standardly wrote: post #16
qbasic_forever wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it the drug use screening in a security clearance isn't so much because the government are squares but it's that illegal drug use is something that could be used to blackmail you. The worry is if the KGB learns about your cocaine habit they could confront you and demand you work for them as a double agent or they'll expose your illegal activities and ruin your life.

When it comes to cannabis, that obviously isn't much of a factor. How the hell could someone be blackmailed over weed? Most people that use, don't care who knows, certainly not enough to literally commit treason to your country to hide it. I think the major problem is just in principle: it's federally illegal so if you use it you are a criminal thus can't hold clearance

It being federally illegal and something you're prohibited from doing while employed with the federal government means it's at least usable as a mild form of blackmail/leverage if they have evidence you currently use it.

Current use = you're fired + lose your security clearance.

Sure, I don't think most people are going to pick "here's the nuclear codes Mr. KGB agent, just don't tell them about the weed!", but it's enough of an opening to convince some people to divulge some information that they shouldn't.

Add on a few more vulnerabilities - maybe they're struggling a little financially and their job skills don't translate well outside their current government role, and just the threat to their job security can be something significant.

-----

Obviously, federal legalization would basically solve this issue.

Re: Senate votes to let people who’ve used marijuana work at intelligence agencies

#60

Post by dragonwriter »

tracker1 wrote: post #15

Or... just decriminalize it altogether, including forgiveness of past use.

> Or… just decriminalize it altogether, including forgiveness of past use.

They kind of have done the first part, in effect, “marijuana” and “hemp” being legally distinct, and it being possible to get all the pharmacologically interesting bits for which marijuana is sought in forms that are legally “hemp”.

Post reply on HN