> That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionab

> That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionable. I don't think that's the right interpretation here. If you demonstrate an attitude that you feel you don't have to follow regulations you disagree with, what's to stop you from disclosing secret information that you don't think should be secret? Getting a security clearance is all about showing the authorities that you can be trusted to follow their regulations. Willfully violating federal law for recreational purposes casts doubt on that. Security clearance isn't a right. > One could argue that pot usage is ... perhaps even beneficial ... to one's security risk profile. How so?