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

101–110 of 266 posts

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

#101

Post by fragmede »

monksy wrote: post #37
jonathankoren wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just blackmail. There's also the fear that addiction to expensive controlled substances will lead to money problems, and thus the desire to sell some of the valuable secrets you have.

One of the questions they ask is on alcohol (also with gambling): Have you ever suffered financial consequences as a result of your drinking. Being super honest I answered: Yes, I spend more money than I plan on when going out frequently. (Limiting to 20$ of drinks, and it ends up being 25..this was more than a decade ago and I was fresh out of school)

Financial consequences is so vague. Of course I suffered "financial consequences", I had to give them money in exchange for my drink in the first place! Of course they mean severe repercussions, but the way it's worded it, I just had to say yes.

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

#102

Post by cute_boi »

mrguyorama wrote: post #77
tracker1 wrote: post #15

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

As long as republicans continue to say no to that, it's impossible to do. Democrats basically never have actual control over the American Government, it's happened like 4 years out of the past 20, and that's not a new phenomenon. Even in the times they have had "full" control of all portions of government, republican senators are still able to "block" stuff through made up rules and "norms" that democrats don't want…

dems can do many thing, but they don't because they need something for next election.

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

#103

Post by footlose_3815 »

motohagiography wrote: post #28

Let me be the first to welcome people with more diverse substance abuse problems to our beloved secret police. My greatest regret is that I can only declare a mere hour of applause for their great personal sacrifices and worthily earned pensions. Tbh, I kind of liked the idea that decriminalization and liberal attitudes were starving them for talent.

Calling pot "a substance abuse problem" goes to show how politically you feel about this.

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

#104

Post by bozhark »

motohagiography wrote: post #28

Let me be the first to welcome people with more diverse substance abuse problems to our beloved secret police. My greatest regret is that I can only declare a mere hour of applause for their great personal sacrifices and worthily earned pensions. Tbh, I kind of liked the idea that decriminalization and liberal attitudes were starving them for talent.

That’s genuinely stupid. Do you apply the same to people that imbibe?

My goodness.

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

#105

Post by eikenberry »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #12
sparrish wrote: post #5

Yeah, cause those are the people we want most paranoid?!

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.

This justification only works if candidates lie about their drug use (which they might do if you disqualify on it). If they are honest about it there is nothing to blackmail them with. IE. this is a bullshit, circular justification.

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

#106

Post by solardev »

astrange wrote: post #85
motohagiography wrote: post #28

Let me be the first to welcome people with more diverse substance abuse problems to our beloved secret police. My greatest regret is that I can only declare a mere hour of applause for their great personal sacrifices and worthily earned pensions. Tbh, I kind of liked the idea that decriminalization and liberal attitudes were starving them for talent.

Spying prevents war. It's easier to get into a war if you don't really understand each other. Not to mention if you don't know who has missiles pointed at you.

Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine...

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

#108

Post by bozhark »

elmomle wrote: post #66
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are Mormons outside America?

They go on missions, very frequently outside of America, as a standard part of their early adult life. Learning the local language is pretty much a requirement.

It’s not spreading though.

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

#109

Post by geitir »

idjrgisjet wrote: post #88

I remember when I was in the Navy, running a nuclear power plant on a ship that carried nuclear weapons, and the Chief of the Boat regularly showed up to work so drunk he couldn't speak (having driven himself to work) and everyone ignored it and when juniors complained seniors threatened to fabricate charges against them to shut them up, and listening to that guy scream and yell about how anyone who smokes cannabis i…

[flagged]

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

#110

Post by insanitybit »

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.

> 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.

It depends. At least, it did when I went for clearance a decade ago.

a) I think recency as well as frequency mattered.

b) You had to be willing to stop.

I don't know how much (a) is still a thing but it was definitely back then. The other thing is it depends on your sponsor and who you get stuck with during the process - some people are going to care way more than others.

Post reply on HN