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

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/senate-votes-to-let-people-whove-used-marijuana-work-at-intelligence-agencies-like-cia-and-nsa-as-part-of-defense-bill/

by pseudotrash • 3 years ago

295 224 3 years ago

marijuanamoment.net

sparrish• 3 years ago

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

qbasic_forever• 3 years ago

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.

standardly• 3 years ago

When it comes to cannabis, that obviously isn't much of a factor. How the hell could someone be blackmailed over weed? Most people that use, don't care who knows, certainly not enough to literally commit treason to your country to hide it. I think the major problem is just in principle: it's federally illegal so if you use it you are a criminal thus can't hold clearance

jonathankoren• 3 years ago

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.

TomK322• 3 years ago

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.

eikenberry• 3 years ago

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.

jeffreyrogers3• 3 years ago

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.

VeninVidiaVicii2• 3 years ago

I got denied an internship at the CIA for my past drug use, which was entirely trying marijuana after it became legal in my home state. I don’t see how someone can possibly be expected to have the personality to gather (human) intel, but somehow not ever have smoked weed.

tough3• 3 years ago

Maybe the CIA expects you to be smart enough to lie to them about not breaking the rules to hire you in the first place?

chrisfosterelli2• 3 years ago

I don’t see how someone can possibly be expected to have the personality to gather (human) intel, but somehow not ever have smoked weed.

It's not clear to me how these would have absolutely any relationship at all.

meroes2• 3 years ago

I think it's because the CIA has been a very self-similar group for decades (Mormons). They have blinders of their own.

gazby• 3 years ago

In addition to the rules being applied fairly indiscriminately, "past" is doing some pretty heaving lifting here. Last I knew six months was the most recent it could have been used if you were extremely lucky/valuable.

jedberg3• 3 years ago

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.

jeffreyrogers3• 3 years ago

I know multiple people with clearances who have used marijuana and significantly harder drugs as well and were honest about this on their clearance paperwork. I obviously don't know the specifics of your friend's case but it is not true in general that intelligence agencies (White House may be different or maybe was in the past) must deny you for past marijuana use, particularly if you admit to it early on.

Edit: marijuana use is now common enough that investigators will actually grill you and accuse you of lying if you say you've never used marijuana.

meroes2• 3 years ago

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 Operations, so pretty high level.

Edit:

Found it https://www.npr.org/2018/03/30/598253244/i-basically-ran-on-...

"GROSS: (Laughter) Right. So I thought this was really interesting. You had to get national security clearance for your job.

MASTROMONACO: Yeah.

GROSS: One of the questions you had to answer was a kind of detailed list of your drug use. And you'd smoked marijuana.

MASTROMONACO: Yes.

GROSS: You had to say how many times (laughter).

MASTROMONACO: Yes. That was...

GROSS: Yeah. So you handled it by saying unknown. How did you come to the conclusion that that would be your answer, an unknown number of times?

MASTROMONACO: Because - well, because I really feel strongly about not lying. And so when the FBI agent asked me for a number of times and she said, you know, 20? And I was like, no. She said, a hundred? I said, no. And then when she got up to 500, I was like, I'm not saying - I'm not giving you a number because who knows if they're going to go try and prove the number? So I just said, unknown. And apparently from her reaction, nobody had ever said that before.

GROSS: You write that you had to get randomly drug tested almost every month. Is that because you'd said unknown or does everybody have to do that?

MASTROMONACO: No. Most people get drug tested, like, once or twice that first year. But I was drug tested quite often because I was very forward-leaning about my drug use, very open-kimono, as we would say. And so, yeah, every - just about every month, you'd get an email that said, you know, you have 24 hours to show up for your test. And I would. And it was fine because I wasn't. So I had nothing to hide (laughter)."

depereo• 3 years ago

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.

rincebrain• 3 years ago

I have been told, though I have never personally applied for a clearance, by some people with clearances, that they cared a lot more in at least some agencies about you lying about having done it than they did about you doing it.

jcrawfordor• 3 years ago

It depends on the actual adjudication policy, which differs by agency. For example, for years it was a well-known but unwritten policy that DoE considered marijuana use within the past 12 months to be exclusory but greater than 12 months ago to be acceptable. There seem to be restrictions on putting this in writing (I think because the actual adjudication manuals are classified) but clearance adjudicators themselves would refer to it as the "12-month rule." The FBI at least used to be notorious for considering any drug use at any point to be exclusory, and I think the CIA generally fell into the same camp. On the other hand some organizations, especially in the IC, seemed to be much more lax about it (but often stricter about things like polygraphs).

It is useful to explain a bit about the bureaucracy here: the clearance process consists of the investigation and the adjudication. These are two separate steps and often performed by different agencies. The investigation is often performed by OPM, but DoD switched to doing their own, the FBI always has, and it's acceptable to use private contractors (usually retired insurance investigators) up to the S level in some agencies. The adjudication is much more often performed by someone directly in the issuing agency, and agencies publish their own manuals to which adjudicators work. Although the general grounds for denial of a clearance are in statute, the exact rules of what conduct amounts to what grounds (in other words, the real rules of adjudication) are contained in these manuals.

jasomill• 3 years ago

For a bit more background, the general adjudication guidelines established by the DNI are both unclassified and surprisingly succinct:

https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/SEAD-4-...

In the present context, see "Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Abuse," page 17 ff.

insanitybit• 3 years ago

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.

tracker13• 3 years ago

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

gremlinsinc• 3 years ago

Nah, it's too hard a drug -- makes people too violent, and abusive... oh sorry. That's alcohol.

janalsncm2• 3 years ago

It’s ironic that the CIA may ask people to travel to countries where alcohol is illegal but don’t disqualify for it.

dragonwriter3• 3 years ago

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

They kind of have done the first part, in effect, “marijuana” and “hemp” being legally distinct, and it being possible to get all the pharmacologically interesting bits for which marijuana is sought in forms that are legally “hemp”.

mrguyorama3• 3 years ago

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 to break, because that gives republicans cart blanche to break those same rules in a way that can do a lot more harm. Also like 4 of the democrats that are part of the "majority" for various reasons like to be contrarians to the rest of the party, meaning even the few times there have been a majority of democrats in the senate, there has not been consensus in the party for basically anything since probably FDR.

lowbloodsugar• 3 years ago

Oh sweet summer child. The Democrats have absolutely been in a position do this, but they did not, because they would lose that voting block. They need the issue. It will become legal once big pharma and big tobacco have decided they want it to happen, regardless of who is in charge.

cute_boi• 3 years ago

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

throw109202• 3 years ago

Please keep partisan politics off of HN.

tracker13• 3 years ago

You mean the couple times that D had super majority of both houses and the WH for 2 years never happened?

pythonguython2• 3 years ago

I agree, but these are two separate issues. Clearances can be denied for a variety of reasons. Something being considered a “security risk” is not necessarily related to its legal status.

RyanAdamas• 3 years ago

It requires the approval of the United Nations Economic and Social Counsel's Commission on Narcotic Drugs to remove a schedule 1 item from a member countries drug schedules provided the World Health Organization approves any uses as medicinal.

They schedule drugs through Article 6 of our Constitution which makes treaties law of the land. Our ability to change drug laws in the US is outsourced to the UN. It's not a "Republican or Democrat" issue specifically. Though, the prison system that is increasingly private which makes money hand over fist on drug users and pushers certainly is an issue either political party could champion and change.

tracker13• 3 years ago

Congress ratifies treaties, they can un-ratify or override them.

momirlan2• 3 years ago

how can they detect that someone "used marijuana" once long time ago ?

hyperbovine• 3 years ago

They can't, of course. But then your only option is to lie to a federal agent.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2016/04/02/consequences-lying...

tough3• 3 years ago

If it's a CIA interview don't you get a pass if you lie to the liars?

dekhn2• 3 years ago

The background checks for agencies often include going back and talking to high school friends and neighbors. They will ask about drug use.

Scoundreller2• 3 years ago

Having friends and neighbours that will lie for you (or be unaware of your gravest moments of joint smoking) seems like a good level of trustworthiness.

speed_spread• 3 years ago

They don't have to detect it, they'll ask as part of the security interview. The interview is very thorough and requires to be completely transparent and truthful in the given answer. The worse that may come out is that you don't get hired (unless you confess to murder, maybe?). Lying, hiding facts or getting whatever kind of crafty to get hired will lead one to MUCH MUCH bigger trouble if/when it gets discovered later on. Think _treason_.

The main idea is to assess the ways in which an asset can get corrupted by outside influence. Agencies can work with people's various deficiencies and vices, after all it's what they do all day long. But they need to be able to qualify the risk represented by each of their people vs the other agencie's people.

dragonwriter3• 3 years ago

Lying, hiding facts or getting whatever kind of crafty to get hired will lead one to MUCH MUCH bigger trouble if/when it gets discovered later on. Think _treason_.

No, don’t think “treason”, because lying on (even a national security related) job-related interview is nothing close to treason.

OTOH, lying to government officials about a matter within the jurisdiction is a felony even without invoking weird flights of fancy about treason.

Spoom• 3 years ago

Think _treason_.

That's hyperbole. According to the United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

It's narrowly defined for the very reason that prior history had tons of abuses of a much broader definition to silence political enemies.

Granted, lying to federal officials is almost certainly a crime, and not one you'd like to have on your record. But treason it is not.

Scoundreller2• 3 years ago

Depends how long your hair is.

pengaru• 3 years ago

I thought part of getting anything like a security clearance involves their interviewing people from your past. So all it takes is one of those people admitting they smoked pot with you under the bleachers in high school, for example.

cafard• 3 years ago

It really depends on the level of security clearance, I think. I had a secret clearance years ago, and never heard from friends or acquaintances that anyone had asked about me.

motohagiography• 3 years ago

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.

astrange10• 3 years ago

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.

solardev6• 3 years ago

Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine...

pests• 3 years ago

I don't think spying is the only thing these agencies do. Try asking Guatamala, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, the list just goes on.

bill_joy_fanboy6• 3 years ago

The United States is constantly at war.

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

throwaway104782• 3 years ago

lmfaooo, "weapons of mass destruction" anybody?

footlose_3815• 3 years ago

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

bozhark2• 3 years ago

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

My goodness.

euroderf2• 3 years ago

Marijuana use was mostly OK until Reagan came in. Then DISCO announced a policy change.

drewcoo• 3 years ago

Nixon started the "war on drugs."

About marijuana activists, he said:

I want a Goddamn strong statement on marijuana, I mean one that just tears the ass out of them. You know, its a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish.

CameronNemo• 3 years ago

Wait... I'm Jewish?

alistairSH• 3 years ago

Pre-Reagan.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

-- John Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic policy advisor, from an interview in 1994

euroderf2• 3 years ago

Yes the war on droogs predated Reagan, but marijuana use was not a disqualification for getting a clearance until Reagan's crew changed the rules.

crmd• 3 years ago

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

HeyLaughingBoy2• 3 years ago

There are Mormons outside America?

dmoy• 3 years ago

Yes, in fact a majority of Mormons are outside the USA

elmomle• 3 years ago

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.

tomrod• 3 years ago

Yes and no. It's very minor outside of the US except for some island nations in the Pacific.

Mormon membership numbers of actual adherents are likely 20% to 40% of membership claimed based on "inactivity" rates (and people leaving).

yardie• 3 years ago

Big church right in the middle of Paris. On prime, riverside real estate. That can't be cheap and last time I passed by it was missionaries and exchange students coming in and out.

whymauri• 3 years ago

Central America is their largest growing sector IIRC.

joker_minmax3• 3 years ago

Most of the Mormons at my (US) high school were Mexican immigrants to the US, anecdotally.

bognition2• 3 years ago

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.

beefok2• 3 years ago

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...

joker_minmax3• 3 years ago

Did you use the bee reference because of the Beehive as a Mormon symbol or is that a coincidence?

cushychicken• 3 years ago

Missionary work is great training for intelligence operations.

Has been throughout history!

Aaronstotle• 3 years ago

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.

dirtyid2• 3 years ago

Always stood out to me how Mormon expats in PRC had unusually good mandarin skills. They're mainly there to sell farm equipment, but seems hard for teetotalers to do cover work. Hilariously I think ex CIA mormon got busted for selling secrets to PRC.

jeffrallen• 3 years ago

Frankly, I'd have to be high to accept a job in the intelligence community. I was recruited once in college, got a bad feeling and never regretted it for a second.

Democracies shouldn't have giant unaccountable spy orgs.

imchillyb• 3 years ago

Democracies shouldn't have giant unaccountable spy orgs.

All governments on the planet have giant unaccountable spy orgs.

Why should a democracy forgo one of the most effective tools the world has ever seen? Accountability is a strange word to use with any government agency. Most government bodies are only accountable to themselves.

red-iron-pine10• 3 years ago

to paraphrase a former boss:

"Everybody [all countries] plays the Great Game. You don't get to not play. Choosing to not play just means when you play you always lose."

Same is true for office politics, market research, academic publishing, etc.; "publish or perish" -- you play the game or you're not an academic.

vsareto• 3 years ago

Democracies shouldn't have giant unaccountable spy orgs.

They don't but there are definitely some bad, unaccountable people and parts to it though.

Individuals are generally accountable but it's going to look unaccountable when the nation also wants to do the things the spy org is doing.

chrsw• 3 years ago

I'm assuming this is only because it's getting harder and harder to find qualified people and adding on unreasonable constraints is only making the situation worse.

alphabot314• 3 years ago

*qualified people who are willing to accept the GS pay band

red-iron-pine10• 3 years ago

lotta people would, esp. if you can get outside of the greater DC area, and can do "cool sexy spy things".

speaking pashto ain't gonna get you to SME L6 at a FAANG but could get you doing cool stuff as a contractor or full-on Fed.

and hate on the GS band but it's at least adjusted for inflation

idjrgisjet• 3 years ago

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 is a fucking loser, a total garbage piece of shit, not even a real human being, and genuinely having difficulty not laughing and/or screaming. What a fucking joke that place was.

Friends in the intelligence community have told me they have as many extreme, extreme alcoholics as the Navy does, and that's just fine, part of the "culture", but oh boy, cannabis is not acceptable. Not sure if it was always like that, or just recently because they have recruiting problems.

I also have friends at national labs watching this very enthusiastically, hoping it spills over to their sector, because they have difficulty recruiting PhDs who are willing to get randomly piss tested.

bratgpttamer• 3 years ago

I'd love to see a comparison between the amount of whiskey and blow consumed by people who get drug tested and the amount of weed smoked by people who don't.

antisyzygy3• 3 years ago

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.

cyberax3• 3 years ago

I can tell you right now if any job required a drug test, I wouldn't work there.

Airline pilots? People operating dangerous machinery?

Fatnino• 3 years ago

I worked at a California startup that got aquired by a huge east coast corporation. At the all hands where the east coasters were introduced, one of them announced that we would all have to get drug tested within 2 weeks. We just looked at each other and then slow rolled them for the next month, lol. Eventually we all went and got tested together and no one got fired.

bill_joy_fanboy6• 3 years ago

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?

sshconnection• 3 years ago

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.

Chernobog• 3 years ago

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).

saulpw• 3 years ago

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).

andylynch2• 3 years ago

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!)

krisoft• 3 years ago

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?

rapjr9• 3 years ago

I worked for a while in the military industrial complex. The only legal outlets for modifying your reality were alcohol and sex. So there were lots of people who drank heavily and swapped wives. They were quite open about it, because keeping it a secret could cause you to lose your security clearance (it made you blackmailable). They were also very accepting of whatever your skin color was, because the military demanded it. It was something of a shock moving to an industry job and discovering that racism still existed.

dirtyid2• 3 years ago

it made you blackmailable

Is wife swapping like less blackmailable escape than prostitutes? Clearance life hack.

red-iron-pine10• 3 years ago

they definitely have recruiting problems

slashdev• 3 years ago

Great to see the government tackling those thorny, nuanced problems that threaten the livelihood, security, and future prospects of the average citizen.

bastardoperator• 3 years ago

Dude, no way!

mrandish• 3 years ago

There's probably a heckuva natural experiment enabled by this change. By surveying pot usage and comparing it with earlier responses during lie detector exams, it may be possible to tease out about how many people were confident they could consistently beat the polygraph (probably because they knew or suspected polygraphs don't work).

It could generate more data to finally help prove that polygraphs, which largely rely on subjects believing they work, are pointless because so many people already know they don't.

oh_sigh• 3 years ago

People who previously lied about usage probably won't admit it now, because lying in itself, regardless of reason, is grounds for losing your security clearance.

pulketo• 3 years ago

time have demonstrated that people working at Intelligence Agencies, lacks of Intelligence, so i don't get the point to avoid or not to avoid maryjane

lampshades• 3 years ago

What if I still do it though? I would seriously consider applying if they could just ignore my usage entirely.

Anyways, good on them for a step in the right direction.

myko4• 3 years ago

Such a bizarre time in the US, just today folks I grew up with were raided by helicopter/dogs/cops on dirt bikes for growing personal use marijuana in their own home (8 plants). Meanwhile everyone knows marijuana crimes are a complete joke.

pythonguython2• 3 years ago

I’ve talked to a lawyer who does govt clearances, and the reality is that clearances are rarely denied for past use of marijuana. Especially if a year or two has passed since last use. Lying during the investigation about your drug use is what will get you denied. Unless the bill allows people use marijuana while holding a clearance, this changes almost nothing IMO.

stevehawk• 3 years ago

i'm just curious what this means for all of us that lied about it, got cleared, and now don't have to lie about it...

joker_minmax3• 3 years ago

If the government actually fired all their subcontractors and clearanced employees with a weed pen in their desk they'd have almost nobody left. I can't help but feel like worker shortage is why they're doing this.

LargeTomato• 3 years ago

I applied to the CIA in college. I had a great chat with the recruiter and he told me to apply online and come in for an interview the following morning.

I filled out the app and they asked "How many times have you consumed marijuana in the past year?" I answered honestly, "150 times".

They did not call me back.

lowkey• 3 years ago

The primary purpose of the CIA is to maintain a continuous pipeline of endless wars to fuel the military industrial complex. All other goals are secondary. This has been true since the CIA and LBJ assassinated John F Kennedy in a coup to overthrow the US government.

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

Related Stories