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

131–140 of 266 posts

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

#131

Post by bill_joy_fanboy »

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?

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

#132

Post by bill_joy_fanboy »

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.

The United States is constantly at war.

If spying prevents war, it's not working. LOL...

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

#133

Post by depereo »

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 That was when they told him that his offer was rescinded for past use of marijuana.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 heard interviews with Obama white house staff who mentioned that they had to disclose weed use in their clearance forms but that it didn't prevent them from getting a position.

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

#135

Post by sshconnection »

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?

Nobody is saying they should be high on the job. People are saying we shouldn't fire employees for having a beer or a joint a week ago on vacation.

The status quo endorses the former and demonizes the latter.

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

#136

Post by solardev »

astrange wrote: post #112
solardev wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine...

Yes, the first two were caused by Cheney ignoring CIA advice and the third was caused by Putin doing the equivalent. Are you claiming the US shouldn't help Ukraine know where the missiles being shot at their civilians are coming from?

I'm saying spying doesn't really seem to prevent war in the modern era. When inconvenient, intelligence gets ignored. When it lines up with the party narrative, it gets exaggerated and used to fan the flames, then thrown back under the bus after the dust settles.

Meanwhile all that capability gets turned against us, surveilling US citizens instead.

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

#137

Post by Chernobog »

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 interpret neither OP nor the first comment this way. What is brought up is the hypocrisy of talking down on any cannabis user while being drunk at work yourself, and positive drug tests that are not related to actual intoxication at work (since cannabis can be detected for a while after coming down).

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

#138

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

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.

I know that they go on missions. My question was regarding the "Mormon-American" framing which suggests that Mormonism exists in other countries, which I was not aware of.

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

#139

Post by saulpw »

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?

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 that case).

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

#140

Post by beefok »

bognition wrote: post #83
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.

Mormonism is perfect for raising little worker bees. Mormonism deeply values work ethic and breeds a strong trust of authority. You're taught at an early age questioning authority is a sin and doing what your leaders tell you is the right thing to do. The end result is a group of people who are hard working, don't question leadership, and do what they are told.

That sounds dangerous as hell. No one should live that way.

If you aren't allowed to question leadership and are instead expected to do "what you are told", then all the experiments and horrors studies on group think are a reality at a dangerous level [1][2][3] What if you think an order is dangerous and have good reasons why?

Good leadership needs to know what the ground-level knows, they need good input and questioning. Stalin killed anyone who opposed or questioned him, so all of the input and feedback was only positive feedback/intel to avoid being killed. Even when they were setting up one of the worst famines in recorded history [4].

Healthy societies aren't cults, and that is definitely a description of a cult.

I hate a Godwin-Law argument, but the damn Nazi's "did what they were told" [5], and those 'hard-working'-don't-question-leadership lemmings had a blind-eye to/assisted and/or murdered millions of people because they didn't have to deal with the burden of questioning and thinking for themselves. Fuck that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[2] https://www.prisonexp.org/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#Deaths_in_Jonestown

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%93...

[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-the-nazis-defense-o...

Post reply on HN