Government clearance and marijuana

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any role which requires, or which may require in the future, a polygraph will reveal dissembling on the application, which will be disqualifying even if the nature of the prior drug use would not have been in itself. It doesn't matter that some people lack faith in polygraph results; the government uses the tool and relies on the results, which is all that matters.

With respect to the field component of the background investigation, investigators are often retired professional federal law enforcement officers pursuing a little extra income in retirement. They know what they are doing. And, listing only "reliable" friendly references won't save you from so-called developed (as opposed to listed) references - people you did not list but who were interviewed after being independently identified by the background investigator as potentially having relevant information to share. Those can include current/former neighbors, classmates, employers, co-workers, social acquaintances, and others.

Background investigations are not infallible, but it would be a mistake to dismiss them as superficial and ineffective.

Polygraphs are extremely easy to beat.

Retired officers are (even) dumb(er than they used to be at their peak).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No they don't talk to your neighbors and to all your previous jobs etc, at least not for a secret...but it's always better to be truthful. And no, you can't continue use if you're a fed.

For a Public Trust, which is most feds, they mail out forms and make some calls. No one is “developing” unlisted references for this crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does taking gummies count?

Um, yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I smoked occasionally in college (maybe once every few months at a party) and had no issues getting a TS a couple of years after (graduated 2015). I was honest about it and they didn’t seem to care much.

Correct, they don't care as much if you are honest.
They care more if you lie about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does taking gummies count?

It depends what's in them. But even the kind you get on amazon that are 100% federally legal, you should stop taking because you might get drug tested and you don't want to go through that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't disclose use something years ago. I'd just answer that I never have. There is zero proof you did.

Though, this will make the nerds and old fogies here lose their sh*t.

Dishonesty is a much bigger deal than marijuana use in the distant past. And I will assure you that this “There is zero proof that you did” stuff is nonsense. You clearly have not been through a background investigation.

—neither a nerd nor an “old fogie”

Oh, you think my freshman roommate from College will say "Yeah, I remember Bill smoking weed at a frat party in 1988." and you'll be shut down?

Why did you list someone from 35 years ago as a reference?

Not that PP, but you aren’t listing “references” on a background check. The investigators will talk to someone from every school, from every job, and someone who knew you at every address. And they will often branch out from the people you list.

You have to list names and contact info for prior neighbors at each address you’re ever lived at in last 7 yrs, so in that sense you are providing “references”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does taking gummies count?

Technically yes, as do all CBD products (including topical). Seems extreme, but those are the rules

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does taking gummies count?

Technically yes, as do all CBD products (including topical). It’s arbitrary and irrational, but those are the rules

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about drug testing for fed jobs and marijuana use?

Yes, you are not allowed to continue marijuana as a fed. The OP asked about prior usage. You can be fired if it's found during a random drug test.

Most feds aren't drug tested and don't have a security clearance, though, just a public trust clearance. Those feds can do whatever they want.

This is incorrect. You may not be drug tested in a public trust role, but current use automatically disqualifies you for the role, and / or you would lose your job if caught using while employed as a fed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about drug testing for fed jobs and marijuana use?

Yes, you are not allowed to continue marijuana as a fed. The OP asked about prior usage. You can be fired if it's found during a random drug test.

Most feds aren't drug tested and don't have a security clearance, though, just a public trust clearance. Those feds can do whatever they want.

This is incorrect. You may not be drug tested in a public trust role, but current use automatically disqualifies you for the role, and / or you would lose your job if caught using while employed as a fed.

How are you going to be caught if not tested?

Also it’s not true that you’ll automatically lose your job. They have all this stuff nowadays about drug treatment diversion first.

[Anonymous]

Can we all agree that policing adult marijuana use is a massive waste of time and energy? This needs to end already. It’s ridiculous. Find some real problems to fix, federal government. They’re everywhere!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does taking gummies count?

Technically yes, as do all CBD products (including topical). Seems extreme, but those are the rules

If you're a service member, this stuff is flat-out banned. And even if you're not, if you test positive, "but it was the legal kind" is not a fun path you want to go down. But if have done federally legal CBD products, you do not need to report them because they are federally legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any role which requires, or which may require in the future, a polygraph will reveal dissembling on the application, which will be disqualifying even if the nature of the prior drug use would not have been in itself. It doesn't matter that some people lack faith in polygraph results; the government uses the tool and relies on the results, which is all that matters.

With respect to the field component of the background investigation, investigators are often retired professional federal law enforcement officers pursuing a little extra income in retirement. They know what they are doing. And, listing only "reliable" friendly references won't save you from so-called developed (as opposed to listed) references - people you did not list but who were interviewed after being independently identified by the background investigator as potentially having relevant information to share. Those can include current/former neighbors, classmates, employers, co-workers, social acquaintances, and others.

Background investigations are not infallible, but it would be a mistake to dismiss them as superficial and ineffective.

Polygraphs are extremely easy to beat.

Retired officers are (even) dumb(er than they used to be at their peak).

Good discussion here on polys:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SecurityClearance/s/mN9vIRXCmk

As others stated in that Reddit, it’s a form of gate keeping. People who are shady don’t want to sit for it, which is exactly the point of the poly.

[Anonymous]

A lot of my fed colleagues lied on their sf-85 (or whatever number that form is)

They smoked weed nonstop until the day of their application submission. Who is really gonna check for the truth as long as your drug test comes out clean