quote:

Originally posted by OMCHamlin:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Anyone here believe that partaking in weed in states where its recreational use is legal should disqualify them from having a DOD clearance (Clarence)?

Walking through a few things and The question arises; where a "kid" who's 22 years old and living in Colorado (first state to legalize recreational use) wants to become an officer in the military for a position requiring a TSSCI yet did buy some state-legal stuff - would they be nixed from a clearance, Clarence?

The whole idea where a state legalized a schedule 1 drug, and a very smart and very patriotic young-n-dumb partake then goes for a federal clearance... sounds like legalization pretty much kills the states' youth from classified military positions. Maybe there should be big warning signs at the vendor's entrance?

Game over for DOD, even DOD contractor, no clearance, no employment. States can make it as "legal" as they want, Uncle Sam says "nix-nein, porcupine!"

But taking that one step or the further, because of a bunch of America hating, vote centric, politicians, our country may be preventing many brilliant and patriotic souls from serving in the best position for them all because of the debbil's weed.

It's all about context.

If he smoked in HS/college, was just experimenting or, wanting to be cool around the cook kids, that's one thing. But, if it comes out he was living in a house full of dopers or, he & his friends were hot-boxing every weekend, different story.

The investigators know that kids will do stupid stuff and peer pressure at that age is pretty powerful, what they're looking for is a developed pattern of poor decision making. Talking to his family and friends will reveal who this person is, and does it match-up to the person they've interviewed.

Interesting twist...It's not just young people. The Air Force is in the process of deciding what, if anything, to do about Elon Musk smoking weed. The AF uses SpaceX and obviously they have to share TS data with them.

Report: Air Force Not Sure What to Do About Elon Musk Smoking Weed

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk added yet another wearying episode to our multi-month-long Musk news cycle this week by smoking weed on camera with podcast host Joe Rogan, sending Tesla’s stock tumbling and triggering yet more speculation about his capacity to serve as CEO. But the episode may have bigger ramifications over at SpaceX, which is a federal contractor and privy to classified information like the details of government satellites.

Initial reports suggested that the Air Force, which uses SpaceX technology for launches, had launched an official investigation. But according to a report in the Verge, the Air Force actually has no idea what to do about Musk toking up and is still looking for an “appropriate process to handle the situation.”

However, an Air Force official tells The Verge that those reports are premature and that the military hasn’t figured out what it’s going to do.

“It’s inaccurate that there is an investigation. We’ll need time to determine the facts and the appropriate process to handle the situation,” an Air Force spokesperson told The Verge.

No worries, Air Force. I know there’s a lot riding on this, so I’ll tell you exactly how to manage this situation: Just relax and enjoy the ride. Dim the lights, order something cheap and greasy on Seamless, and put on Pink Floyd’s The Wall, or maybe Sigur Rós. If the cops show up, do not let Musk answer the door. And no matter how much he begs, don’t let him fly any jets (or tweet) until morning. Problem solved.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Anyone here believe that partaking in weed in states where its recreational use is legal should disqualify them from having a DOD clearance (Clarence)

We can believe anything we want but it’s all about the feds. A kid who experimented in high school is not automatically disqualified. A kid who partook in a weed lifestyle probably won’t get the nod.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
I'm not a pot user so this question is hypothetical.

If a security clearance applicant had used pot in the past, would it be better to admit the past pot use and roll the dice as to whether the clearance was denied, or would it better to simply not apply for the clearance until the previous pot use was sufficiently in the past that it wouldn't impact the clearance?

Here is the thing. They are going to need to talk to A LOT of people that know you VERY WELL. They are going to ask all of those people A LOT of questions.

Maybe people who know that at one time you smoked some reefer. So maybe they are actually truthful and mention that they knew you smoked once or twice (and yes, they'll be asked all that and more).

quote:

Or, another way to phrase my question, does a previously denied security clearance impact a later re-application for clearance?

I don't know all the ins and outs of the investigation process, but I would bet some sort of integrity / lying found on a previous investigation would not be viewed favorably on future attempts.

Also, falsifying information on an SF-86 (security paperwork) is a felony. Its unclassified and available on the internet, several sections ask about illegal drug use.

Sure, they likely don't charge & convict people often (like how they fail to charge people for 4473 lies), but still.

A security clearance is a position of trust so honesty is required.

Rhino thanks for the post and for the statute.

In my hypothetical there is NO LYING, NO FALSEHOODS, NO FAILING TO REPORT PAST DRUG USE...I'm just trying to get a handle on whether an applicant who previously used pot risks more by admitting to it and possibly a clearance denial (based on the pot use) which might affect a future application, or is it simply better to work in another field that doesn't require clearance and then, once the 7 years has passed, make the initial security application with no previous clearance denial on your record.

Years ago I was listed as a reference for two people that I know that were applying for security clearances. I wasn't contacted by investigators in either of their applications (although one of them was laid off from the defense contractor in the middle of their clearance background check).

Come to think of it, I have an old flying buddy who works for a private outfit contracted by .gov to conduct security clearance background investigations. I haven't talked to him in a while but the next time I do I'll pose my hypothetical to him.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
So regardless of federal law(s), how many high school seniors and college sophomores know that what is sold in a local store is actually against the law?

The point is, these recreational states are, in effect, screwing over its youth from clearances. Kind of like hosing over those who hand over id to buy some edibles from owning a firearm.

Your job is to know the law

Another thing to consider is he'll have to disclose the pot usage before joining up - ie, completely separate from the security clearance issue - so depending on how the wind is blowing, he may / may not be given the chance to be an officer or enlist (things seem to change depending on how bad the service needs warm bodies).

I'm of the opinion that if it was a couple of times, recreational / experimenting, he would likely have a decent chance at getting approved / in the service and the same with a clearance.

If he was a pot head for a year in high school / while taking a year off from school, that's a bit different (or at least I think the military would view it that way) and I think his chances would be nearly zero.

From our northern neighbor:

https://montrealgazette.com/ne...cc-8c46-2e121e7e965c

Strict restrictions on pot smoking expect Canadian military personnel to make 'responsible choice', says defence chief

The new restrictions are more stringent than those governing the use of alcohol and include a blanket requirement that all military personnel abstain from using marijuana at least eight hours before going on duty

THE CANADIAN PRESS
Updated: September 8, 2018

OTTAWA — The Canadian military has unveiled new restrictions on when service members can use recreational marijuana — and warned those in uniform could face disciplinary action or charges if they fail to comply.

The restrictions and warning are contained in a new policy released Friday, in which defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance says military personnel will be expected to “make responsible choices” when it comes to using the drug.

The policy comes just weeks before weed becomes legal next month and follows a year of internal deliberations as officials sought to balance that new reality against the need to ensure the safety and security of personnel, equipment and missions.

The new restrictions are more stringent than those governing the use of alcohol and include a blanket requirement that all military personnel abstain from using marijuana at least eight hours before going on duty.

There is also a complete ban on marijuana use by personnel deployed on overseas missions or training as well as on military aircraft and ships.

There is also a 24-hour restriction on service members who plan to handle or maintain a weapon, ammunition or piece of equipment, and a 28-day restriction on the military personnel who are about to serve on submarines and military aircraft, or who are planning to operate a drone.

Those who break the rules or are otherwise suspected of “misusing cannabis” can face a variety of disciplinary actions as well as charges, and service members who suspect a colleague of such misuse are required to report the matter.

Supervisors have also been given directions to help recognize whether their troops might be under the influence, including to look for red or glassy eyes, slow reaction times, anxiety and unusual talkativeness.

Drug tests can be ordered in some situations, and commanders can ask Vance to impose more restrictions based on individual unit needs and requirements.

Set to take effect on Oct. 17, the same day recreational marijuana becomes legal, the policy represents the first of its kind in the federal government, though the RCMP is finalizing its own version.

It will apply to all 100,000 uniformed members of the Canadian Armed Forces as well as the roughly 25,000 civilians currently employed by the Department of National Defence.

The fact the military has moved to restrict the use of marijuana by those in uniform shouldn’t be a surprise given a current six-hour restriction on alcohol use, said Royal Military College professor Christian Leuprecht.

And while some may argue about the new time limits, he said, “I don’t think it’s asking too much for people not to have smoked dope within 24 hours before handling a weapon system.”

Alcohol has also been banned from Canadian naval vessels since 2014.

Still, the new policy, especially the 28-day restriction on those preparing to serve on submarines and aircraft, does mean that, unlike alcohol, certain members of the Canadian Forces will be effectively banned from using marijuana.

That did not sit well with some military personnel, who questioned that restriction on online forums, although others supported the limit given research suggesting it takes that long for the substance to leave a person’s system.

The Department of National Defence did not immediately respond when asked how it arrived at the different time limits.

Other organizations such as commercial airlines have been waiting for the military to release its marijuana policy, Leuprecht said, and he suspects their own directives will look similar.

“So it will be drilled into people as part of pilot selection,” he said.

“And other entities in Canada are going to look to the military to see what’s a reasonable policy that they could also defend in court if challenged by an employee. And the military will have thought about this.”

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
I'm not a pot user so this question is hypothetical.

If a security clearance applicant had used pot in the past, would it be better to admit the past pot use and roll the dice as to whether the clearance was denied, or would it better to simply not apply for the clearance until the previous pot use was sufficiently in the past that it wouldn't impact the clearance?

Or, another way to phrase my question, does a previously denied security clearance impact a later re-application for clearance?

Absolutely must disclose. Lying about it means instant firing without any other recourse. That means if it is discovered 10 years down the road, regardless of being clean all that time, the lack of discretion is the disqualifier, not necessarily the usage. Even if the feds were to legalize (don’t hold your breath), failing to be truthful about previous usage would be poison.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, but that isn't quite the question I'm asking.

My question: is the better strategy in applying for a security clearance to apply for it and answer honestly about previous pot use and risk a possible denial OR is it better to take another job that isn't impacted by the pot use for several years until the 10 year period has been reached and then apply for the job and security clearance?

I'm curious if a past security clearance denial impacts a later clearance application.

Passing the hallmark period would certainly give you the ability to answer the questions honestly about usage, but bear in mind that agencies are not implicitly bound by the time frame. You will have an application process, and and interview. If they were to ask you if you EVER smoked and you answered dishonesty (and they will check references... and ask those people for other references that might have known you that you don’t list). Those other unnamed references might give conflicting answers that even though you don’t answer a question on your BI paperwork dishonestly could keep you from getting a job based on a false answer.

I guess to answer your question on which is more preferable, I cannot say...depends on the agency, time frame, the number of positions vs. applicants, etc. I know officers that disclosed past usage that ended up getting jobs, and I know of one specific case where disclosure was a disqualifier regardless of timeframe simply because there were limited positions and the agency could afford to be extra picky and choose only those that had never done (or admitted doing) partaking. I can’t say which of your scenarios would definitely be better due to variables that may be underlying unknown disqualifiers.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Anyone here believe that partaking in weed in states where its recreational use is legal should disqualify them from having a DOD clearance (Clarence)?

Walking through a few things and The question arises; where a "kid" who's 22 years old and living in Colorado (first state to legalize recreational use) wants to become an officer in the military for a position requiring a TSSCI yet did buy some state-legal stuff - would they be nixed from a clearance, Clarence?

The whole idea where a state legalized a schedule 1 drug, and a very smart and very patriotic young-n-dumb partake then goes for a federal clearance... sounds like legalization pretty much kills the states' youth from classified military positions. Maybe there should be big warning signs at the vendor's entrance?

Limited "experimental" use of illegal drugs is not necessarily disqualifying for a security clearance. Will it be considered? Yes. Is it automatically a disqualifying? No.

However, lying about anything is disqualifying.

Use, possession, and distribution of marijuana is still illegal based on federal law. Further, just because a state has legalized it under state law, does not change the fact that it's still illegal. When state and federal law are in conflict, federal.law trumps state law (see Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, which includes the "Supremacy Clause." )

He should apply, and take.his chances.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by OMCHamlin:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Anyone here believe that partaking in weed in states where its recreational use is legal should disqualify them from having a DOD clearance (Clarence)?

Walking through a few things and The question arises; where a "kid" who's 22 years old and living in Colorado (first state to legalize recreational use) wants to become an officer in the military for a position requiring a TSSCI yet did buy some state-legal stuff - would they be nixed from a clearance, Clarence?

The whole idea where a state legalized a schedule 1 drug, and a very smart and very patriotic young-n-dumb partake then goes for a federal clearance... sounds like legalization pretty much kills the states' youth from classified military positions. Maybe there should be big warning signs at the vendor's entrance?

Game over for DOD, even DOD contractor, no clearance, no employment. States can make it as "legal" as they want, Uncle Sam says "nix-nein, porcupine!"

But taking that one step or the further, because of a bunch of America hating, vote centric, politicians, our country may be preventing many brilliant and patriotic souls from serving in the best position for them all because of the debbil's weed.

Relax, this isn't 1962, and smoking weed a couple of times s few years ago, isn't "preventing many brilliant and patriotic souls from serving."

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
If they were to ask you if you EVER smoked . . .

Not if, when. The SF-86, which is now done electronically via the Electronic Personnel Security Questionnaire (EPSQ), has a seven or ten (TS) year scope for many questions, but many questions, including those about drug use, have a lifetime scope. The question WILL be asked.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
ok, so let me see if I get this right

a federal job requires a TS clearance and will lead to a good high paying job and a nice career

smoking weed gets you wasted...and possibly costs you your career...

tell me again why doing drugs is OK?

Typical 16 - 20 year old kids do not understand their full potential nor understand "it's not against the law except per the feds." IMHO - they're being set up for failure because the state will not explain all the ramifications of handing over the ID to [legally] purchase weed.

Maybe I misunderstood what you are trying to say, but for the record...

There are zero states that I'm aware of where a Typical 16 - 20 year old kid hands over the ID to [legally] purchase weed.

not to drift this thread too much, but where are local PD's and Sheriff's departments at these days with weed use among their LEO's and even non-LEO's who work at the department (dispatch, records, support roles, etc).

I'm talking Cops and support staff who are Presently smoking for recreation, those who use Medical Cannabis and past use.

I'm obviously talking about departments in the so called "4:20 friendly" states.

I have a friend who is 20+ year Retired Air Force and now works at a National laboratory here in the Bay Area in IT. Like he has system admin rights to the entire facility so he has clearance. I asked him about it and he said no way. They will yank his clearance if he partakes so he doesn’t. I guess the clearances get reviewed periodically? Interestingly his wife uses for a chronic pain issue but he doesn’t. Hasnt been a problem for him yet.

I would advise any young person wanting to go into a military position to just not do dope period.

As many have already mentioned, FEDERAL level does NOT allow the use of marijuana (recreational or medical). We are subjected to random drug test at any given time and can be terminated on the spot if we test positive.

On a side note, I just renewed my CCW here in NV. I asked the question of using marijuana "WITH" medical order from doc (not even recreational). It is a NO GO.

I recently had my background check renewed for a civilian level five clearance. I believe it is equivalent to a secret clearance

The background check required a 7-year background check, they actually went back 25 years.

Any prohibited drug use within that 7 years would have been disqualifying. The feds don't care about state law.

As many have said if it is experimental then he will not have a problem as long as it was in the past. Now if it was last week, or within the last few months then it could be a problem. I know you stated that he bought it, and he is 22 years old. So that in itself could be a problem.

I did security clearance investigations for two years. My investigations ranged from active/reserve/NG military personnel, defense contractors and individuals who were already employed or were attempting to be employed with a federal agency.

I always say be honest when it comes to background investigations. It is amazing what people will divulge when I was interviewing the listed references. Most of the time, the individuals were trying to be really helpful and not malicious when I was interviewing them. People just get comfortable and start talking and talking.

Right now the government is starting to crack down on items such as this, along with school loans, bankruptcies etc.. All will be asked, and will have to be explained. Especially for a TS/SCI clearance.

The big question is, did he buy it just to buy it, or did he buy the item and use it. If he did was it a one time try and then he said I don't like this stuff.

I know this sounds like I am being nit-picky but he will have to articulate it for an investigator, who will type up the answer and send it to an adjudicator who will have the final say.

There are a list of questions on the Sf-86, and depending on the answers, can come up as flagged. If that happens a second interview will have to be conducted to address any and all questions that come back as flagged.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
not to drift this thread too much, but where are local PD's and Sheriff's departments at these days with weed use among their LEO's and even non-LEO's who work at the department (dispatch, records, support roles, etc).

I'm talking Cops and support staff who are Presently smoking for recreation, those who use Medical Cannabis and past use.

I'm obviously talking about departments in the so called "4:20 friendly" states.

I imagine a defense lawyer could have a field day with an LEO who popped positive for illegal drugs.

We don't need so many officers that we should have to accept pot-heads.

If they are smoking under 21, they are breaking state and federal law. If they are an over 21 pot-head (still breaking Federal law), just how patriotic and just how good is their judgement anyway?

As others have said, experimentation, trying it a few times etc. is not a disqualifier anyway.