4 ms·

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 t

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 3y 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
- robotnikman 3y ago
  I could imagine it would have been a problem many decades ago in the past when social norms were different. But yep, nowadays it's really no big deal and pretty normalized.
- monksy 3y ago
  > How the hell could someone be blackmailed over weed? Legal in your state, eh who cares. Working for FBI/CIA/NSA.. most people don't care for state level repercussions. But KGB threatens (oh they would for funsies) to reach over to talk to CIA that you're in violatoin.. bang loss of job, questioning of your prior work, legal consequences (you lied to get the job), etc... That's the threat.
- volkl48 3y ago
  It being federally illegal and something you're prohibited from doing while employed with the federal government means it's at least usable as a mild form of blackmail/leverage if they have evidence you currently use it. Current use = you're fired + lose your security clearance. Sure, I don't think most people are going to pick "here's the nuclear codes Mr. KGB agent, just don't tell them about the weed!", but it's enough of an opening to convince some people to divulge some information that they shouldn't. Add on a few more vulnerabilities - maybe they're struggling a little financially and their job skills don't translate well outside their current government role, and just the threat to their job security can be something significant. ----- Obviously, federal legalization would basically solve this issue.
jonathankoren 3y 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.
- monksy 3y ago
  One of the questions they ask is on alcohol (also with gambling): Have you ever suffered financial consequences as a result of your drinking. Being super honest I answered: Yes, I spend more money than I plan on when going out frequently. (Limiting to 20$ of drinks, and it ends up being 25..this was more than a decade ago and I was fresh out of school)
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Financial consequences is so vague. Of course I suffered "financial consequences", I had to give them money in exchange for my drink in the first place! Of course they mean severe repercussions, but the way it's worded it, I just had to say yes.
    - monksy 3y ago
      yep, I think they're looking for "have you ever drank yourself homeless where you were doing zjs in the alley for a shot of malort"
TomK32 3y 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.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  That works up until they realize you're leaking false information and you wind up having a bunch of polonium accidentally show up in your bloodstream.
  - TomK32 3y ago
    I have no idea how drug users work mentally, but overdose is overdose, just fine, right? /s
- fragmede 3y ago
  I think that makes you a triple agent.
eikenberry 3y 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.

standardly 3y 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

robotnikman 3y ago
I could imagine it would have been a problem many decades ago in the past when social norms were different. But yep, nowadays it's really no big deal and pretty normalized.
monksy 3y ago
> How the hell could someone be blackmailed over weed? Legal in your state, eh who cares. Working for FBI/CIA/NSA.. most people don't care for state level repercussions. But KGB threatens (oh they would for funsies) to reach over to talk to CIA that you're in violatoin.. bang loss of job, questioning of your prior work, legal consequences (you lied to get the job), etc... That's the threat.
volkl48 3y ago
It being federally illegal and something you're prohibited from doing while employed with the federal government means it's at least usable as a mild form of blackmail/leverage if they have evidence you currently use it. Current use = you're fired + lose your security clearance. Sure, I don't think most people are going to pick "here's the nuclear codes Mr. KGB agent, just don't tell them about the weed!", but it's enough of an opening to convince some people to divulge some information that they shouldn't. Add on a few more vulnerabilities - maybe they're struggling a little financially and their job skills don't translate well outside their current government role, and just the threat to their job security can be something significant. ----- Obviously, federal legalization would basically solve this issue.

jonathankoren 3y 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.

monksy 3y ago
One of the questions they ask is on alcohol (also with gambling): Have you ever suffered financial consequences as a result of your drinking. Being super honest I answered: Yes, I spend more money than I plan on when going out frequently. (Limiting to 20$ of drinks, and it ends up being 25..this was more than a decade ago and I was fresh out of school)
- fragmede 3y ago
  Financial consequences is so vague. Of course I suffered "financial consequences", I had to give them money in exchange for my drink in the first place! Of course they mean severe repercussions, but the way it's worded it, I just had to say yes.
  - monksy 3y ago
    yep, I think they're looking for "have you ever drank yourself homeless where you were doing zjs in the alley for a shot of malort"

TomK32 3y 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.

kmeisthax 3y ago
That works up until they realize you're leaking false information and you wind up having a bunch of polonium accidentally show up in your bloodstream.
- TomK32 3y ago
  I have no idea how drug users work mentally, but overdose is overdose, just fine, right? /s
fragmede 3y ago
I think that makes you a triple agent.

eikenberry 3y 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.