SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Security Clearance (Clarence) Question for Those Living in Recreational MJ States
Page 1 2 3 4 5 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Security Clearance (Clarence) Question for Those Living in Recreational MJ States Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
As an aside, marijuana is an mind altering compound no matter what schedule it ends up falling into. I don’t think it ever should have been a schedule 1 drug, but clearly it affects mental cognitive processes, and therefore has no place in the systems of people controlling top secret information, pushing buttons that unleash munitions, or fingers pulling triggers. I submit that if it was legalized tomorrow, police agencies and federal employers will still disallow its use by anyone wanting employment. And I happen to agree with that thinking. People are free to get jobs elsewhere with employers that allow it in ones system.


Then where should it have been placed? Schedule I are drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. You say it has no place in the bodies of these people, which to me would indicate you don't think it has an accepted medical use. Schedule II drugs are drugs with high potential for abuse but an accepted medical use. There are likely scores of people with clearances legally taking Schedule II drugs.
 
Posts: 2383 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DaBigBR:
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
As an aside, marijuana is an mind altering compound no matter what schedule it ends up falling into. I don’t think it ever should have been a schedule 1 drug, but clearly it affects mental cognitive processes, and therefore has no place in the systems of people controlling top secret information, pushing buttons that unleash munitions, or fingers pulling triggers. I submit that if it was legalized tomorrow, police agencies and federal employers will still disallow its use by anyone wanting employment. And I happen to agree with that thinking. People are free to get jobs elsewhere with employers that allow it in ones system.


Then where should it have been placed? Schedule I are drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. You say it has no place in the bodies of these people, which to me would indicate you don't think it has an accepted medical use. Schedule II drugs are drugs with high potential for abuse but an accepted medical use. There are likely scores of people with clearances legally taking Schedule II drugs.

It should have been a schedule II, with consideration for medical use. You misunderstand my comment about being in people’s bodies. THC is a psychotropic compound, and therefore does not belong in the bodies of people involved in the tasks I specifically mentioned, anymore than someone behind the wheel. My point is that even if legalized for medicinal use, it should still be a disqualifier for those professions. I don’t think anyone wants a cop showing up for a critical incident under the influence. I do think it has limited medical value, but agencies should still be able to use it as a disqualifier as a condition of employment.




NIKE- The Swoosh with a Douche
 
Posts: 8947 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
quote:
Originally posted by DaBigBR:
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
As an aside, marijuana is an mind altering compound no matter what schedule it ends up falling into. I don’t think it ever should have been a schedule 1 drug, but clearly it affects mental cognitive processes, and therefore has no place in the systems of people controlling top secret information, pushing buttons that unleash munitions, or fingers pulling triggers. I submit that if it was legalized tomorrow, police agencies and federal employers will still disallow its use by anyone wanting employment. And I happen to agree with that thinking. People are free to get jobs elsewhere with employers that allow it in ones system.


Then where should it have been placed? Schedule I are drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. You say it has no place in the bodies of these people, which to me would indicate you don't think it has an accepted medical use. Schedule II drugs are drugs with high potential for abuse but an accepted medical use. There are likely scores of people with clearances legally taking Schedule II drugs.

It should have been a schedule II, with consideration for medical use. You misunderstand my comment about being in people’s bodies. THC is a psychotropic compound, and therefore does not belong in the bodies of people involved in the tasks I specifically mentioned, anymore than someone behind the wheel. My point is that even if legalized for medicinal use, it should still be a disqualifier for those professions. I don’t think anyone wants a cop showing up for a critical incident under the influence. I do think it has limited medical value, but agencies should still be able to use it as a disqualifier as a condition of employment.


What about the literally hundreds, thousands even, of psychotropic drugs lawfully prescribed for depression, anxiety, sleep, pain, attention, and any number of other things? I don't think anybody is saying that those things should preclude a person from holding a certain job or receiving a security clearance. We all interact with people everyday who are prescribed things like benzodiazepines and amphetamines that, I'm some cases, are only able to succeed or only tolerable because of them. Why isn't marijuana any different?

That's the question that nobody can ever seem to answer. What makes this drug that is alternatively a "harmless plant" and a majorly impairing substance such a tremendous alternative to literally every other drug out there? I personally think that the legalization camp is driving the medical propaganda wagon on it. What about marinol? What about cannabidiol? Nobody seems to have any interest in cannabinoids that do not make you feel euphoric.

I admit that I'm kind of arguing both sides here. I think this whole movement is based on "wants" and not facts.
 
Posts: 2383 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
I suppose if it were pared down to the issue of being “under the influence”, any compound could arguably be considered psychotropic. And you you bring up a valid point about the cannabis derivatives- they exist and are effective in various treatments. Since they lack the euphoria inducing effects of THC, I wouldn’t have an issue with my afore mentioned position being altered.

But returning to marijuana, I have seen WAY too many folks too stoned to function in basic tasks, exhibiting a clear reduced mental state. Even if legalized, there are just some things people using marijuana should be limited from doing. If getting high is someone’s priority, I wouldn’t want them handling top secret information, personally.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gearhounds,




NIKE- The Swoosh with a Douche
 
Posts: 8947 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Armed and Gregarious
Picture of DMF
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I personally think that the legalization camp is driving the medical propaganda wagon on it. . .

. . . I think this whole movement is based on "wants" and not facts.
Yes, when asked about efficacy and safety data, the pro-legalization crowd has nothing to offer. Just anecdotes, and no peer reviewed scientific data. The pro-legalization crowed also cant address real questions about dosing control, and the dangerous use of pesticides/herbicides, due to the lack of any meaningful regulation in the "medical" marijuana industry. The reality is "medical" marijuana has been, and is, a red herring for those wanting to use marijuana for recreation.

Those who want to legalize marijuana for recreational use should simply admit that is their goal, rather than lying about "medical" marijuana.


___________________________________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Posts: 12403 | Location: Nomad | Registered: January 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I can't think of
anything though
Picture of zipriderson
posted Hide Post
quote:
The reality is "medical" marijuana has been, and is, a red herring for those wanting to use marijuana for recreation.


My brother is in the business here in Colorado, growing and operating a rec facility. It was medicinal before rec was legal.
I can say with 100% certainty that your assertion is not entirely true. There are many people who have ailments for which marijuana helps.

Now that CBD oil and other derivatives have become more viable, those seeking relief from injury, ailment, etc have in large part gone this route. The obvious reason being they don't get high, but get the relief.

That said, yes, when med is the only option, people are going to take advantage for rec use. But it's unfair to say there is no legitimate med use. At the end of the day, people are having better results with mmj products as opposed to narcotics for example.


______________________________
 
Posts: 5380 | Location: Denver, CO | Registered: September 16, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I can't think of
anything though
Picture of zipriderson
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:

But returning to marijuana alcohol, I have seen WAY too many folks too stoned drunk to function in basic tasks, exhibiting a clear reduced mental state. Even if legalized, While legal, there are just some things people using marijuana alcohol should be limited from doing. If getting high drunk is someone’s priority, I wouldn’t want them handling top secret information, personally.


see what I did there?


______________________________
 
Posts: 5380 | Location: Denver, CO | Registered: September 16, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of valkyrie1
posted Hide Post
The SF86 form and back ground check is very extensive and intrusive and if you want a career I would not mess with it even in Colorado where it's legal.Just stay off it or over zealous use of alcohol until your done, it's not worth it.
 
Posts: 1689 | Location: Colorado | Registered: March 01, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by zipriderson:
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:

But returning to marijuana alcohol, I have seen WAY too many folks too stoned drunk to function in basic tasks, exhibiting a clear reduced mental state. Even if legalized, While legal, there are just some things people using marijuana alcohol should be limited from doing. If getting high drunk is someone’s priority, I wouldn’t want them handling top secret information, personally.


see what I did there?



I see what you did there and I agree with you.

There needs to be consistency for all forms of "substances" when it comes to having those special clearances. There is so much at stake and it seems like almost anyone can get it and keep it forever.

For such a special privilege and high paying credential as national security clearance, it's ok to have higher expectations for those positions.

I get your comparison and you make a great point!
 
Posts: 63 | Location: South Texas  | Registered: August 28, 2018Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
quote:
Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
. . . and often the recruiters themselves fill out the SF-86 and don't list anything derogatory.
The recruit signs, certifying the contents of the SF-86/EPSQ are true and correct. If the recruit does not read the form, and insist on any errors/omissions being corrected, the recruit is both foolish AND dishonest. Even at age 18, it's not too much to expect them to be honest, both in their answers, and in certifying the form is true and correct.


I've talked to recruits who never even saw the SF-86. I'm a background investigator.
 
Posts: 2357 | Location: Baltimore | Registered: October 22, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by zipriderson:
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:

But returning to marijuana alcohol, I have seen WAY too many folks too stoned drunk to function in basic tasks, exhibiting a clear reduced mental state. Even if legalized, While legal, there are just some things people using marijuana alcohol should be limited from doing. If getting high drunk is someone’s priority, I wouldn’t want them handling top secret information, personally.


see what I did there?
Nailed it!
 
Posts: 981 | Registered: January 25, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Armed and Gregarious
Picture of DMF
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
quote:
Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
. . . and often the recruiters themselves fill out the SF-86 and don't list anything derogatory.
The recruit signs, certifying the contents of the SF-86/EPSQ are true and correct. If the recruit does not read the form, and insist on any errors/omissions being corrected, the recruit is both foolish AND dishonest. Even at age 18, it's not too much to expect them to be honest, both in their answers, and in certifying the form is true and correct.


I've talked to recruits who never even saw the SF-86. I'm a background investigator.
Never saw it? Then how.did they sign it? Even if only shown the signature page, they are foolish and dishonest for.signing a document saying something is true and correct, when they haven't insisted on reviewing it for accuracy. Recruiters doing this are wrong, but it doesn't absolve the recruit of their own culpability.

BTW, I've also done SSBIs, as an additional duty at my first Fed LE agency, and I have zero sympathy for those lying when certifying the SF-86/EPSQ as true and correct.


___________________________________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Posts: 12403 | Location: Nomad | Registered: January 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 1s1k:
quote:
Originally posted by zipriderson:
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:

But returning to marijuana alcohol, I have seen WAY too many folks too stoned drunk to function in basic tasks, exhibiting a clear reduced mental state. Even if legalized, While legal, there are just some things people using marijuana alcohol should be limited from doing. If getting high drunk is someone’s priority, I wouldn’t want them handling top secret information, personally.


see what I did there?
Nailed it!


Does anyone really think it matters when it boils down to the substance? An alcoholic that shows up to work is no more entitled to a top secret clearance than some stoner. The difference is, a drunk gives off a huge “fucked up” signature, where someone smoking weed may not. I still say regardless of what legalization becomes, agencies should still be able to keep it as a disqualifier despite people’s hurt feelings on the subject.




NIKE- The Swoosh with a Douche
 
Posts: 8947 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Never saw it? Then how.did they sign it? Even if only shown the signature page,


This only seems to happen with military recruits as the Recruiter creates the EQUIP Form from the military questionnaire the recruits fill out. The Recruiters have been doing this for years; they create an electronic signature without notifying the recruit. This is why there is a specific program geared toward Recruiter falsification.
 
Posts: 792 | Location: Windermere, Florida | Registered: February 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 1s1k:
quote:
Originally posted by zipriderson:
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:

But returning to marijuana alcohol, I have seen WAY too many folks too stoned drunk to function in basic tasks, exhibiting a clear reduced mental state. Even if legalized, While legal, there are just some things people using marijuana alcohol should be limited from doing. If getting high drunk is someone’s priority, I wouldn’t want them handling top secret information, personally.


see what I did there?
Nailed it!

No missed it completely.

If you get falling down drunk at a bachelor party on saturday, the alcohol will be out of your body by monday when you go to work.
Can the same be said for weed? No. It can take weeks. So on monday you are still "under the influence"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PeteF,
 
Posts: 497 | Location: North East Jersey | Registered: August 16, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
quote:
Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
quote:
Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
. . . and often the recruiters themselves fill out the SF-86 and don't list anything derogatory.
The recruit signs, certifying the contents of the SF-86/EPSQ are true and correct. If the recruit does not read the form, and insist on any errors/omissions being corrected, the recruit is both foolish AND dishonest. Even at age 18, it's not too much to expect them to be honest, both in their answers, and in certifying the form is true and correct.


I've talked to recruits who never even saw the SF-86. I'm a background investigator.
Never saw it? Then how.did they sign it? Even if only shown the signature page, they are foolish and dishonest for.signing a document saying something is true and correct, when they haven't insisted on reviewing it for accuracy. Recruiters doing this are wrong, but it doesn't absolve the recruit of their own culpability.

BTW, I've also done SSBIs, as an additional duty at my first Fed LE agency, and I have zero sympathy for those lying when certifying the SF-86/EPSQ as true and correct.


They aren't certifying it, the recruiter is (that's the whole point of what I was saying). I've had recruits tell me they provided the recruiter with the information over the phone and the recruiter submits the form. It's called recruiter falsification and I wouldn't say it's common but I get about 2 or 3 cases a year. It creates a lot more paperwork but I don't think the military really does anything about it.
 
Posts: 2357 | Location: Baltimore | Registered: October 22, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
Isn't this a catch 22 when the Federal Government does all it can to stymie research on medical uses of MJ and it's derivatives? I would like to see proper scientific research.

quote:
Originally posted by DMF:
quote:
Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I personally think that the legalization camp is driving the medical propaganda wagon on it. . .

. . . I think this whole movement is based on "wants" and not facts.
Yes, when asked about efficacy and safety data, the pro-legalization crowd has nothing to offer. Just anecdotes, and no peer reviewed scientific data. The pro-legalization crowed also cant address real questions about dosing control, and the dangerous use of pesticides/herbicides, due to the lack of any meaningful regulation in the "medical" marijuana industry. The reality is "medical" marijuana has been, and is, a red herring for those wanting to use marijuana for recreation.

Those who want to legalize marijuana for recreational use should simply admit that is their goal, rather than lying about "medical" marijuana.
 
Posts: 18324 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
I suppose if it were pared down to the issue of being “under the influence”, any compound could arguably be considered psychotropic. And you you bring up a valid point about the cannabis derivatives- they exist and are effective in various treatments. Since they lack the euphoria inducing effects of THC, I wouldn’t have an issue with my afore mentioned position being altered.

But returning to marijuana, I have seen WAY too many folks too stoned to function in basic tasks, exhibiting a clear reduced mental state. Even if legalized, there are just some things people using marijuana should be limited from doing. If getting high is someone’s priority, I wouldn’t want them handling top secret information, personally.


For what it's worth, I completely agree. I've been a police officer for 15 years, have focused on impaired driving enforcement for most of that, and have been a certified drug recognition expert (I evaluate suspected drug impaired drivers) for six of them. I have conducted just shy of 400 (39X) evaluations and would estimate that the better part of 300 of those included or were solely cannabis-related, including several crashes.

I think the American public is being sold a bill of goods on the so called benefits and lack of risks involved in legalization, decriminalization, medical use, etc. of marijuana. I think it's a message that is being carried on the backs of some legitimately very ill people. Without getting on the soapbox too much, just look at how pervasive weed culture is in Hollywood and Nashville.
 
Posts: 2383 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
Isn't this a catch 22 when the Federal Government does all it can to stymie research on medical uses of MJ and it's derivatives? I would like to see proper scientific research.



Some of that is occurring now in legal weed states. Quite a bit of it has occurred in medical marijuana states as well. I can only speak with any authority on the impaired driving front, but there is good data coming out of Colorado right now. None of it has been "good" news, though. And that doesn't touch on the other end of the scientific "benefits" of legalization: increased potency. Between substantially refined, genetically engineered growing practices to super high THC content edibles, they are seeing some really bizarre and frightening results.
 
Posts: 2383 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
At least here in CO you can still be fired for any use of medical or recreational cannabis, even if you have a medical card. See the case of Coats v. Dish Network. You can be randomly tested by any employer, at any time. The state laws provide no cannabis-related protection for conceal carry holders, employment, child endangerment or driving under the influence.

The way I see it if you're going into a career or position where cannabis use is prohibited...then you either follow the rules or pay the price. My dad enlisted in the AF in the mids 60s and had a troubled youth. They uncovered everything he did. He told the truth and stayed out of trouble and was honorably discharged after being tucked in a underground communications silo for 3-4 years. He was actually in a mission critical location only a select few made it to. And yet, despite the bad things done as a teen, he served his country admirably.

To me it's the truth that's the important thing, not the specific instance. If the instance or instances are enough to warranty a rejection...well that's just the way it is.
 
Posts: 4877 | Location: CO | Registered: October 11, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Security Clearance (Clarence) Question for Those Living in Recreational MJ States

© SIGforum 2018