5 ms·

Saying "it's okay to do something bad" (smoke weed) because "someone else did something worse" (drink booze) is hardly an argument. Both are not ideal for peop

Saying "it's okay to do something bad" (smoke weed) because "someone else did something worse" (drink booze) is hardly an argument. Both are not ideal for people in positions of public trust. I don't want my intelligence officers drunk OR high. Is that too much to ask?

sshconnection 3y ago
Nobody is saying they should be high on the job. People are saying we shouldn't fire employees for having a beer or a joint a week ago on vacation. The status quo endorses the former and demonizes the latter.
Chernobog 3y ago
I don't interpret neither OP nor the first comment this way. What is brought up is the hypocrisy of talking down on any cannabis user while being drunk at work yourself, and positive drug tests that are not related to actual intoxication at work (since cannabis can be detected for a while after coming down).
saulpw 3y ago
Ever? Like they go on vacation to visit their families, and they shouldn't be allowed to drink or smoke? I could maybe see this for the highest leadership--the President, 4-star generals, people who are politically or functionally on-call 24/7. But for everyone else, the rule should be, don't show up to work impaired, either drunk or stoned or hungover. (Though I'm not sure how to deal with chronic pain conditions in that case).
- bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
  For an intelligence officer, I would say, yeah, you should probably never be high or drunk. Maybe "never been high/drunk" is too strict. If you're mopping the mess hall, you can probably go home and have a six pack if you want. Just not on the job...
  - tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
    What!? That’s absurd. Have you considered the practical implications of that for even a moment? Who takes that job?
    - gorlilla 3y ago
      Puritanical nutcases would be my guess.
      - bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
        Or, we could call them non-degenerates. You can call them whatever you like, I suppose.
    - andylynch 3y ago
      Mormons, apparently. They also tend to have good foreign language skills and a willingness to serve. But they represented in the FBI etc to the point it's slightly problematic. The drawback GP is missing is that selecting too heavily from one group can have unintended adverse effects since you lose out on diversity of ideas and approaches - I would absolutely expect many intelligence officers to drink and do other things people might frown upon, because very often the people they need to know and talk to _won't_ be teetotallers or care much about such things.
    - bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
      A lot of people would probably be willing to give up a minor drug or alcohol habit to have/keep a high-paying intelligence job. I would certainly accept being "always sober" as a condition of employment if the job was one I really wanted. I can't find the study, but I seem to remember that alcohol consumption follows the 80/20 rule. A small amount of alcohol consumers consume basically all the alcohol, with non-alcholics consuming very little. If you consume very little, it's probably not a big deal just to go without completely.
- NegativeLatency 3y ago
  I think I might prefer a high president than a drunk president if a surprise ww3 broke out.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    I wouldn't. Hard-drinking military leaders have a good track record, e.g., U.S. Grant, whereas the world has little or no experience AFAIK with high leaders.
    - tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
      You mean to say that there isn’t as big a public record of leaders consuming illicit substances?
      - hollerith 3y ago
        Good point, but regardless of the reason, there remains the lack of a publicly-documented track record.
andylynch 3y ago
Wait till you hear about politicians. I don’t know what the US Capitol is like in this regard but the Westminster parliament for instance is notorious for the number of bars onsite, and the amount consumed in them by its members (all subsidised!)
krisoft 3y ago
> I don't want my intelligence officers drunk OR high. Is that too much to ask? On the job? I agree with you. Off the job? Do you mind if an inteligence officer who is not on duty let’s say on a fourth of july, bbq-s some burgers with his friends and family and then drinks four beers? Enough to be considered as impaired if they were to drive. But they don’t drive. They don’t babble about secrets. They talk about sports and then they sleep it off. Would you mind that? And would you mind the same if it were a canabis joint instead of the beers?

sshconnection 3y ago

Nobody is saying they should be high on the job. People are saying we shouldn't fire employees for having a beer or a joint a week ago on vacation. The status quo endorses the former and demonizes the latter.

Chernobog 3y ago

I don't interpret neither OP nor the first comment this way. What is brought up is the hypocrisy of talking down on any cannabis user while being drunk at work yourself, and positive drug tests that are not related to actual intoxication at work (since cannabis can be detected for a while after coming down).

saulpw 3y ago

Ever? Like they go on vacation to visit their families, and they shouldn't be allowed to drink or smoke? I could maybe see this for the highest leadership--the President, 4-star generals, people who are politically or functionally on-call 24/7. But for everyone else, the rule should be, don't show up to work impaired, either drunk or stoned or hungover. (Though I'm not sure how to deal with chronic pain conditions in that case).

bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
For an intelligence officer, I would say, yeah, you should probably never be high or drunk. Maybe "never been high/drunk" is too strict. If you're mopping the mess hall, you can probably go home and have a six pack if you want. Just not on the job...
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
  What!? That’s absurd. Have you considered the practical implications of that for even a moment? Who takes that job?
  - gorlilla 3y ago
    Puritanical nutcases would be my guess.
    - bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
      Or, we could call them non-degenerates. You can call them whatever you like, I suppose.
  - andylynch 3y ago
    Mormons, apparently. They also tend to have good foreign language skills and a willingness to serve. But they represented in the FBI etc to the point it's slightly problematic. The drawback GP is missing is that selecting too heavily from one group can have unintended adverse effects since you lose out on diversity of ideas and approaches - I would absolutely expect many intelligence officers to drink and do other things people might frown upon, because very often the people they need to know and talk to _won't_ be teetotallers or care much about such things.
  - bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
    A lot of people would probably be willing to give up a minor drug or alcohol habit to have/keep a high-paying intelligence job. I would certainly accept being "always sober" as a condition of employment if the job was one I really wanted. I can't find the study, but I seem to remember that alcohol consumption follows the 80/20 rule. A small amount of alcohol consumers consume basically all the alcohol, with non-alcholics consuming very little. If you consume very little, it's probably not a big deal just to go without completely.
NegativeLatency 3y ago
I think I might prefer a high president than a drunk president if a surprise ww3 broke out.
- hollerith 3y ago
  I wouldn't. Hard-drinking military leaders have a good track record, e.g., U.S. Grant, whereas the world has little or no experience AFAIK with high leaders.
  - tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
    You mean to say that there isn’t as big a public record of leaders consuming illicit substances?
    - hollerith 3y ago
      Good point, but regardless of the reason, there remains the lack of a publicly-documented track record.

andylynch 3y ago

Wait till you hear about politicians. I don’t know what the US Capitol is like in this regard but the Westminster parliament for instance is notorious for the number of bars onsite, and the amount consumed in them by its members (all subsidised!)

krisoft 3y ago

> I don't want my intelligence officers drunk OR high. Is that too much to ask? On the job? I agree with you. Off the job? Do you mind if an inteligence officer who is not on duty let’s say on a fourth of july, bbq-s some burgers with his friends and family and then drinks four beers? Enough to be considered as impaired if they were to drive. But they don’t drive. They don’t babble about secrets. They talk about sports and then they sleep it off. Would you mind that? And would you mind the same if it were a canabis joint instead of the beers?