5 ms·

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

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.

VeninVidiaVicii 3y 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.
- tough 3y 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?
  - awithrow 3y ago
    Nope, that's typically a deal breaker. It's the stuff they find out that you didn't want them to know that can get you blocked. The thinking is that if an adversary finds it out, they could use it as leverage against you. I've held clearances in the past and was forthcoming about marijuana use. It largely comes down to the judgement of the investigator. I'm really not surprised that some people have been bounced for drug use and some people haven't.
    - GenerocUsername 3y ago
      But the leverage is granted by the CIA being strict in the first place. If it wasn't a condition of denial it wouldn't be a condition of denial and wouldn't hold the leverage power it is meant to curb. Crazy
      - awithrow 3y ago
        Good point! I think in the past it would have been a much bigger deal to have past drug use revealed. Think Bill Clinton vs Obama. We've come a long way since, I'm not surprised the IC is just now starting to rethink things a bit.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisfosterelli 3y 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.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    To gather human intel you have to be willing to do things like drink in social situation and (gasp) sometimes do drugs with the people you're trying to collect intel from, to gain their friendship. In other words, you need to have a slightly adventurous personality.
    - chrisfosterelli 3y ago
      Most people I know who have an adventurous personality don't smoke weed. Drinking I can see a case for as it's so heavily embedded as a social activity. Just anecdotal data I suppose but I'm not seeing a similar connection for having done drugs. Perhaps for someone who is undercover and needs to fit in, sure, but I don't think that predisposes a personality to take drugs in their own time. For both alcohol and drugs I doubt it has any relevance to most intelligence roles.
      - jeffreyrogers 3y ago
        Yeah. And the people you network with in a HUMINT job aren't hanging around doing drugs for the most part. They are working in industry or government. Probably a fair amount of drinking but mostly no time for other drugs, or if they do them, keep it discreet.
        howinteresting 3y ago
        Huh, I'd imagine cocaine, Adderall and molly would all be very popular among that crowd.
        lstodd 3y ago
- meroes 3y ago
  I think it's because the CIA has been a very self-similar group for decades (Mormons). They have blinders of their own.
  - Teever 3y ago
    I thought it was the NSA that was all Mormons?
    - count 3y ago
      It's the entire IC.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      tis all of em mang.
gazby 3y 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.
jedberg 3y 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.
- jeffreyrogers 3y 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.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    That would be back in 2009, though. Things were different back then.
  - GuardianCaveman 3y ago
    Places like the FBI used to have a specific number like you can’t have used marijuana more than 5 times. And then they’d polygraph you. But yes I knew people as well with normal TS clearances who had disclosed hard drugs but some intel organizations have stricter rules beyond that.
- meroes 3y 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-adrenaline-a-staffer-remembers-obamas-white-house 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)."
jcrawfordor 3y 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 3y 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-Adjudicative-Guidelines-U.pdf 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 3y 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.

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.

VeninVidiaVicii 3y 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.

tough 3y 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?
- awithrow 3y ago
  Nope, that's typically a deal breaker. It's the stuff they find out that you didn't want them to know that can get you blocked. The thinking is that if an adversary finds it out, they could use it as leverage against you. I've held clearances in the past and was forthcoming about marijuana use. It largely comes down to the judgement of the investigator. I'm really not surprised that some people have been bounced for drug use and some people haven't.
  - GenerocUsername 3y ago
    But the leverage is granted by the CIA being strict in the first place. If it wasn't a condition of denial it wouldn't be a condition of denial and wouldn't hold the leverage power it is meant to curb. Crazy
    - awithrow 3y ago
      Good point! I think in the past it would have been a much bigger deal to have past drug use revealed. Think Bill Clinton vs Obama. We've come a long way since, I'm not surprised the IC is just now starting to rethink things a bit.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chrisfosterelli 3y 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.
- jedberg 3y ago
  To gather human intel you have to be willing to do things like drink in social situation and (gasp) sometimes do drugs with the people you're trying to collect intel from, to gain their friendship. In other words, you need to have a slightly adventurous personality.
  - chrisfosterelli 3y ago
    Most people I know who have an adventurous personality don't smoke weed. Drinking I can see a case for as it's so heavily embedded as a social activity. Just anecdotal data I suppose but I'm not seeing a similar connection for having done drugs. Perhaps for someone who is undercover and needs to fit in, sure, but I don't think that predisposes a personality to take drugs in their own time. For both alcohol and drugs I doubt it has any relevance to most intelligence roles.
    - jeffreyrogers 3y ago
      Yeah. And the people you network with in a HUMINT job aren't hanging around doing drugs for the most part. They are working in industry or government. Probably a fair amount of drinking but mostly no time for other drugs, or if they do them, keep it discreet.
      - howinteresting 3y ago
        Huh, I'd imagine cocaine, Adderall and molly would all be very popular among that crowd.
        lstodd 3y ago
meroes 3y ago
I think it's because the CIA has been a very self-similar group for decades (Mormons). They have blinders of their own.
- Teever 3y ago
  I thought it was the NSA that was all Mormons?
  - count 3y ago
    It's the entire IC.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    tis all of em mang.

gazby 3y 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.

jedberg 3y 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.

jeffreyrogers 3y 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.
- fragmede 3y ago
  That would be back in 2009, though. Things were different back then.
- GuardianCaveman 3y ago
  Places like the FBI used to have a specific number like you can’t have used marijuana more than 5 times. And then they’d polygraph you. But yes I knew people as well with normal TS clearances who had disclosed hard drugs but some intel organizations have stricter rules beyond that.
meroes 3y 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-adrenaline-a-staffer-remembers-obamas-white-house 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)."

jcrawfordor 3y 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 3y 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-Adjudicative-Guidelines-U.pdf 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 3y 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.