4 ms·

Boomer norms aside, is smoking weed really that bad compared to say, a CEO who likes to drink socially? It's not like he was caught hotboxing in his model 3 bef

Boomer norms aside, is smoking weed really that bad compared to say, a CEO who likes to drink socially? It's not like he was caught hotboxing in his model 3 before his workday started.

eloff 7y ago
It's funny how alcohol is objectively the far more dangerous and destructive drug, yet weed gets treated more harshly. Disclaimer I drink but don't smoke, so if anything I'm biased against my point.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Alcohol had a very long history and entrenched industry behind it where (as far as I know) weed didn't have any thing of the sort. Old shitty things that people are used to often get overlooked and a big enough portion of the population were already drinkers so when there was a push to prohibit alcohol similar to weed there was a bigger push back.
  - eloff 7y ago
    Yeah, I agree that's the reason. Alcohol is common place enough that people don't even regard it as a drug. And it goes back thousands of years, so it's long been part of society. Still it's a blatant example of how illogical us humans are.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      To be a bit fairer back when weed was demonized then scheduled alcohol was going through a similar attack. It was just way more popular than marijuana which was mainly introduced as a recreational weed in the beginning of the 20th century according to this PBS [0] piece. [0] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron...
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > It's funny how alcohol is objectively the far more dangerous and destructive drug, yet weed gets treated more harshly. There's also the angle that weed is federally illegal, so smoking it demonstrates an attitude that compliance with rules is optional and subject to personal judgement. Someone with that attitude is probably more likely to choose to not comply with security procedures or secrecy commitments.
  - eloff 7y ago
    There's probably something to that.
  - blamarvt 7y ago
    If a CEO posted a video on their way to work and breaking the speed limit would it have the same effect?
    - fargle 7y ago
      It definitely would. It would display some kind of arrogance and rule-flaunting. Not just regular-joe speeding. So yes, it would be viewed very negatively by both clearance and wall-steet. It's just poor judgement. To have a mistress is fine. To get caught in a public spectacle is bad judgement.
dfxm12 7y ago
Considering the context of weed being illegal according to the US federal government and the fact that we're talking about a review from a US federal government agency, yes.
- z3ncyberpunk 7y ago
  Which just shows how backwards the Federal government is
- hef19898 7y ago
  Maybe totally unjustified, like the problem LGBT people had back the day, with regards to any security clearance. But as of now it is like that, so yeah kind of "normal". If general audits regarding EHS and security would be done to different standards things would be different all together. EDIT: Regarding the maybe, replace that with "NIL". In my opinion a lot of the security concerns are coming from blackmail risks. In turn a lot of blackmail risk comes from the clearance process itself, so a home made issue Just where do you draw the line? Tricky question.

Boomer norms aside, is smoking weed really that bad compared to say, a CEO who likes to drink socially? It's not like he was caught hotboxing in his model 3 before his workday started.

eloff 7y ago

It's funny how alcohol is objectively the far more dangerous and destructive drug, yet weed gets treated more harshly. Disclaimer I drink but don't smoke, so if anything I'm biased against my point.

rtkwe 7y ago
Alcohol had a very long history and entrenched industry behind it where (as far as I know) weed didn't have any thing of the sort. Old shitty things that people are used to often get overlooked and a big enough portion of the population were already drinkers so when there was a push to prohibit alcohol similar to weed there was a bigger push back.
- eloff 7y ago
  Yeah, I agree that's the reason. Alcohol is common place enough that people don't even regard it as a drug. And it goes back thousands of years, so it's long been part of society. Still it's a blatant example of how illogical us humans are.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    To be a bit fairer back when weed was demonized then scheduled alcohol was going through a similar attack. It was just way more popular than marijuana which was mainly introduced as a recreational weed in the beginning of the 20th century according to this PBS [0] piece. [0] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron...
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> It's funny how alcohol is objectively the far more dangerous and destructive drug, yet weed gets treated more harshly. There's also the angle that weed is federally illegal, so smoking it demonstrates an attitude that compliance with rules is optional and subject to personal judgement. Someone with that attitude is probably more likely to choose to not comply with security procedures or secrecy commitments.
- eloff 7y ago
  There's probably something to that.
- blamarvt 7y ago
  If a CEO posted a video on their way to work and breaking the speed limit would it have the same effect?
  - fargle 7y ago
    It definitely would. It would display some kind of arrogance and rule-flaunting. Not just regular-joe speeding. So yes, it would be viewed very negatively by both clearance and wall-steet. It's just poor judgement. To have a mistress is fine. To get caught in a public spectacle is bad judgement.

dfxm12 7y ago

Considering the context of weed being illegal according to the US federal government and the fact that we're talking about a review from a US federal government agency, yes.

z3ncyberpunk 7y ago
Which just shows how backwards the Federal government is
hef19898 7y ago
Maybe totally unjustified, like the problem LGBT people had back the day, with regards to any security clearance. But as of now it is like that, so yeah kind of "normal". If general audits regarding EHS and security would be done to different standards things would be different all together. EDIT: Regarding the maybe, replace that with "NIL". In my opinion a lot of the security concerns are coming from blackmail risks. In turn a lot of blackmail risk comes from the clearance process itself, so a home made issue Just where do you draw the line? Tricky question.