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

151–160 of 266 posts

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

#151

Post by andylynch »

bill_joy_fanboy wrote: post #131
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…

Saying "it's okay to do something bad" (smoke weed) because "someone else did something worse" (drink booze) is hardly an argument. Both are not ideal for people in positions of public trust. I don't want my intelligence officers drunk OR high. Is that too much to ask?

Wait till you hear about politicians. I don’t know what the US Capitol is like in this regard but the Westminster parliament for instance is notorious for the number of bars onsite, and the amount consumed in them by its members (all subsidised!)

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

#152

Post by matwood »

RajT88 wrote: post #96
meroes wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Operat…

Clearance is a funny business. They want to weed out things which can be used as leverage against people with clearance. So - financial stuff is their number 1 clearance issue I've heard. If you're deep in debt, or otherwise demonstrate poor control over your financial life. Next up is being part of the LGBT community - if you're in the closet. I've heard they don't care about people being gay per se, just the secret…

Anything that can be used as blackmail and/or show lack of good judgement/trustworthiness. Different agencies have different requirements, but past drug use is usually not an issue as long as it's disclosed.

The FBI/DEA has/had stricter rules on drug use likely because part of the job could entail dealing with drug seizures.

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

#153

Post by bill_joy_fanboy »

saulpw wrote: post #139
bill_joy_fanboy wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "it's okay to do something bad" (smoke weed) because "someone else did something worse" (drink booze) is hardly an argument. Both are not ideal for people in positions of public trust. I don't want my intelligence officers drunk OR high. Is that too much to ask?

Ever? Like they go on vacation to visit their families, and they shouldn't be allowed to drink or smoke? I could maybe see this for the highest leadership--the President, 4-star generals, people who are politically or functionally on-call 24/7. But for everyone else, the rule should be, don't show up to work impaired, either drunk or stoned or hungover. (Though I'm not sure how to deal with chronic pain conditions in…

For an intelligence officer, I would say, yeah, you should probably never be high or drunk. Maybe "never been high/drunk" is too strict.

If you're mopping the mess hall, you can probably go home and have a six pack if you want. Just not on the job...

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

#154

Post by astrange »

throwaway104782 wrote: post #150
astrange wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

lmfaooo, "weapons of mass destruction" anybody?

US intelligence did not support Bush's wars, which is why they had to go and make up new intelligence in order to start them.

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

#155

Post by squeaky-clean »

ttfergfrdT55rrd wrote: post #125
antisyzygy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you right now if any job required a drug test, I wouldn't work there. I use cannabis sometimes but it's more the principal of it. It's a privacy violation and positive results don't actually mean you're intoxicated on the job. What people do in their free time is nobodies business so long as it's not harming other people.

[flagged]

Try opening a restaurant and requiring your staff to pass regular drug tests. Good luck.

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

#156

Post by TomK32 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #73
TomK32 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work as a double agent then: make the FSB think they got you and feed them false information. Your own service obviously has to keep a no-drugs policy front to make your situation more legit.

That works up until they realize you're leaking false information and you wind up having a bunch of polonium accidentally show up in your bloodstream.

I have no idea how drug users work mentally, but overdose is overdose, just fine, right? /s

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

#157

Post by NegativeLatency »

saulpw wrote: post #139
bill_joy_fanboy wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "it's okay to do something bad" (smoke weed) because "someone else did something worse" (drink booze) is hardly an argument. Both are not ideal for people in positions of public trust. I don't want my intelligence officers drunk OR high. Is that too much to ask?

Ever? Like they go on vacation to visit their families, and they shouldn't be allowed to drink or smoke? I could maybe see this for the highest leadership--the President, 4-star generals, people who are politically or functionally on-call 24/7. But for everyone else, the rule should be, don't show up to work impaired, either drunk or stoned or hungover. (Though I'm not sure how to deal with chronic pain conditions in…

I think I might prefer a high president than a drunk president if a surprise ww3 broke out.

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

#158

Post by Aaronstotle »

crmd wrote: post #57

Marijuana (along with multi-lingualism) is a big reason why the Mormon-American community is significantly over-represented in the US intelligence community.

I also heard that one of the side effects of this is that when you're in a foreign country and offer Americans tea/coffee and of them refuses, you can be assured they're a Mormon working for the CIA.

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

#159

Post by krisoft »

bill_joy_fanboy wrote: post #131
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…

Saying "it's okay to do something bad" (smoke weed) because "someone else did something worse" (drink booze) is hardly an argument. Both are not ideal for people in positions of public trust. I don't want my intelligence officers drunk OR high. Is that too much to ask?

> I don't want my intelligence officers drunk OR high. Is that too much to ask?

On the job? I agree with you.

Off the job? Do you mind if an inteligence officer who is not on duty let’s say on a fourth of july, bbq-s some burgers with his friends and family and then drinks four beers? Enough to be considered as impaired if they were to drive. But they don’t drive. They don’t babble about secrets. They talk about sports and then they sleep it off. Would you mind that?

And would you mind the same if it were a canabis joint instead of the beers?

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

#160

Post by hollerith »

NegativeLatency wrote: post #157
saulpw wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever? Like they go on vacation to visit their families, and they shouldn't be allowed to drink or smoke? I could maybe see this for the highest leadership--the President, 4-star generals, people who are politically or functionally on-call 24/7. But for everyone else, the rule should be, don't show up to work impaired, either drunk or stoned or hungover. (Though I'm not sure how to deal with chronic pain conditions in…

I think I might prefer a high president than a drunk president if a surprise ww3 broke out.

I wouldn't. Hard-drinking military leaders have a good track record, e.g., U.S. Grant, whereas the world has little or no experience AFAIK with high leaders.
Post reply on HN