3 ms·
An agency whose reason for existing is enforcing the law can't really be expected to flout the law with its own personnel. It's not like the FBI itself legislat
by vacri 10y ago
An agency whose reason for existing is enforcing the law can't really be expected to flout the law with its own personnel. It's not like the FBI itself legislated against marijuana.
- kmonsen 10y agoThey don't really have to do drug tests though. Should they for example install monitoring in employees cars to make sure they never speed?
- vacri 10y agoI don't mean to defend the FBI's activites, I just mean to note that if your reason for being is "opposing X", then it's reasonable that you check your employees for X. The FBI opposes drugs big time. It doesn't care about people speeding in cars.
- wolfgke 10y ago> The FBI opposes drugs big time. It doesn't care about people speeding in cars. First: If the FBI opposes drugs: then they should at least as strongly oppose nicotine and (in particular) alcohol, too. Oh, you mean drugs that are by some historic accident illegal. Second: Do the cybersecurity jobs one does at the FBI have any property that will prevent former pot smokers doing them? If not, it's simply a discrimination.
- vacri 10y agoIsn't the management of alcohol and tobacco in the US hived off to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?
- digler999 10y agoNot necessarily. They have a lot of "privileges" (such as being able to carry a loaded gun on an airplane) that are against the law for the rest of us. They could simply change the law and write themselves in the "privilege" of being able to toke up.