# When is prior drug use OK in a post-Obama world?



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

*Not a fan of illegal drug use, but I also do not think it should be penalized when it is prior use and the president himself admits such use. 
*

*Since our President and Commander-in-Chief admits to having used drugs in his past, should it be held against people applying for jobs in the government anymore? http://tinyurl.com/ybxs88c*



> Griffin completed the online application for the U.S. Marshals Service and honestly answered he had tried recreational drugs. Griffin is a man of integrity. He is a Marine. He could have lied, but he is no longer the kid he was at age 19 who got in with the wrong crowd. He felt compelled to tell the truth, because it was the right thing to do. It is what we expect from all of our service men and women. It is what we would expect from a member of the U.S. Marshals Service.
> In response to his application, he received a form letter with a stamped signature of a human resource specialist informing him he did not meet the requirements of the U.S. Marshals Service because *he did not meet its drug policy guidelines. How ironic and how bitterly hypocritical.*
> The current president of the United States has publicly acknowledged he used recreational drugs as a young man, and he is our commander in chief. His predecessor, in the position of president and commander in chief, simply refused to answer any questions about recreational use of drugs, and the president and commander in chief before him said he used marijuana, but he "did not inhale."


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2009)

The whole stigma is BS.  How many people out there smoked a joint in their youth?  How many people now work for the government?  The former soldier should send the letter to the White House and see what happens.  Maybe put a sticky note on it describing the back story.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> The whole stigma is BS.  How many people out there smoked a joint in their youth?  How many people now work for the government?  The former soldier should send the letter to the White House and see what happens.  Maybe put a sticky note on it describing the back story.



I had no problem with government agencies requiring no prior drug use, up until we had a president who admits to it.  Now it is a bit hypocritical.  And I guess that's my point.

PS - He was a Marine, not a soldier.  Not to pick nits, but there is a difference.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 1, 2009)

President Obama is not the first to hold that office who wouldn't have qualified to be any sort of law enforcement officer, nor will he be the last.

I don't know the US Marshal service's policiy off the top of my head, though I recall them being stricter than many.  However, the general practice in law enforcement is to assess recreational or experimental use of any illegal drug on a case-by-case basis.  Extent, frequency, and how long ago it was are general topics of consideration.  (And some drugs are absolute nos...)


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Nov 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I had no problem with government agencies requiring no prior drug use, up until we had a president who admits to it. Now it is a bit hypocritical. And I guess that's my point.
> 
> PS - He was a Marine, not a soldier. Not to pick nits, but there is a difference.


 
I agree completely with the comment..
I would have thought drug use would end a presidential run... and was surprised it did not.. After having our highest most honored position filled with a "previous" drug user, I have to think that all policies should be looked at... maybe having random drug testing would be a better deterent to all government positions rather then a question and a one time drug test for applicants...


----------



## James Kovacich (Nov 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I had no problem with government agencies requiring no prior drug use, up until we had a president who admits to it. Now it is a bit hypocritical. And I guess that's my point.
> 
> PS - He was a Marine, not a soldier. Not to pick nits, but there is a difference.


George Bush used cocaine in the 80's.
http://www.progress.org/drc12.htm


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Nov 1, 2009)

James Kovacich said:


> George Bush used cocaine in the 80's.
> http://www.progress.org/drc12.htm


 
I think the difference is Obama freely admits his usage..
Bush still denies it as far as I know of, and there has been no proof that he used as far as I know of... a left leaning website article bent on making a man look bad is not proof... and last I looked that does not mean someone in fact did soemthing or not.

I still stand by my comments about truely random drug tests as a requirement of all government positions.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

James Kovacich said:


> George Bush used cocaine in the 80's.
> http://www.progress.org/drc12.htm



He didn't admit to it.  Now we have a president who admits to it.  It makes things different from the point of view that you can't really say _"No, we won't take people who have done this into federal service"_ when the boss of the whole shebang admitted to doing just that.

It's not what who did when, it's about now that he's admitted to it, it's hypocritical to pretend that it's a disqualifier.
_
"Hey, sorry, you can't be a federal agent.  Now, if you want to be president someday, that's a different story."_

Right.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> President Obama is not the first to hold that office who wouldn't have qualified to be any sort of law enforcement officer, nor will he be the last.



First one to be head of the executive branch (as is federal law enforcement, by the way) who admitted to drug use besides mister _"I didn't inhale."_

If the boss can do it, so can the rank-and-file, or what kind of double-dealing crap is this?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I agree completely with the comment..
> I would have thought drug use would end a presidential run...



That's what they said about divorce with Ronald Reagan. It was still sufficiently taboo that people though he wouldn't be electable on a national run.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I think the difference is Obama freely admits his usage..



Honesty from Barack Obama, dishonesty from George Bush...a pattern is beginning to emerge!

This is what you get with popular election* of the president. He who gets the most votes wins. The public has made a statement with the past three presidents that they're not as hung up about drug usage as the media portrays them to be.


*Yes, of course I know about the electoral college. Sheesh!


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First one to be head of the executive branch (as is federal law enforcement, by the way) who admitted to drug use besides mister _"I didn't inhale."_
> 
> If the boss can do it, so can the rank-and-file, or what kind of double-dealing crap is this?


The President has no arrest powers and is not entrusted with enforcing the laws except as an organizational head.  In some agencies in the US, you can have a police commissioner who is not a sworn officer because his job isn't to arrest people -- it's to administer the agency where the folks who arrest work.  My chief has made traffic stops... I believe 3 of them in the 10 years he's been chief.  He's made NO arrests.  It's not his job...

Obama isn't a LEO except in the most broad interpretation of his duties.  Even then, based on his statements, he'd probably be able to be hired by many agencies, since the drug use was many years ago, and probably qualified as experimental.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 1, 2009)

So the fact that Obama is an unrepentant drug criminal, by published admission is a good thing?
I don't care if Obama snorted coke with the Pope and the Queen of England, it was illegal when he did it, it is illegal now, the fact that he did it does NOT make anyone's use of ILLEGAL drugs OK.


----------



## Steve (Nov 1, 2009)

I think that a better, more consistent position would be to legalize marijuana and then apply the same standards for use as we apply currently for alcohol.  It would certainly end te long standing hypocrisy.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 1, 2009)

Big Don said:


> So the fact that Obama is an unrepentant drug criminal, by published admission is a good thing?
> I don't care if Obama snorted coke with the Pope and the Queen of England, it was illegal when he did it, it is illegal now, the fact that he did it does NOT make anyone's use of ILLEGAL drugs OK.


Never said it was a good thing.

Simply that it is what it is... and doesn't justify the argument that denying a person a job as an US Marshal (or many other positions) because of prior drug use is untenable.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I had no problem with government agencies requiring no prior drug use, up until we had a president who admits to it.  Now it is a bit hypocritical.  And I guess that's my point.
> 
> PS - He was a Marine, not a soldier.  Not to pick nits, but there is a difference.



I think it's hypocritical also.  I'd like to see a more liberal drug policy in general, so I think that it's entirely appropriate to send the letter to the CIC who admitted doing the exact same thing many many others did in their youth.  

Thanks for the point of etiquette.  A Marine Base is situated very close to my house and I'd like to avoid getting mashed to a pulp.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Nov 1, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> I think that a better, more consistent position would be to legalize marijuana and then apply the same standards for use as we apply currently for alcohol. It would certainly end te long standing hypocrisy.


 
LOL
I just came back after a few month break from this place, and I remember having this conversation with you before too lol..
I agree with legalization... I consider Marijuana less harmful then alcohol or cigarettes.. besides just think of all the taxes that can be raised..../sarcastic laugh....

I also always laugh when something bad is brought up about Obama every Obama supporter completely ignores it and brings up something bad about Bush....
NEWSFLASH... Bush is an ex president... he has no political power to run our country anymore other then asking for favors.....
Obama on the other hand...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Obama isn't a LEO except in the most broad interpretation of his duties.  Even then, based on his statements, he'd probably be able to be hired by many agencies, since the drug use was many years ago, and probably qualified as experimental.



If you read the article...(apparently you didn't)... the Marine in question admitted his drug use, which was MANY YEARS AGO and EXPERIMENTAL and was disqualified for it.

He served his country in wartime and served in combat as well - which our president did not bother himself to do - and was decorated as well as being given an honorable discharge.  And yet, he is still not qualified to even be considered for a federal law enforcement position due to something our president did as well.

And you can dance around it all you like, President Obama is head of the Executive branch, which all federal law enforcment agencies report to.  He is the head of their chain of command, every single one of them.  If the boss can have smoked the ganga in the past and be OK, then so can the troops.  Or it's double-standard ********, IMHO.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Thanks for the point of etiquette.  A Marine Base is situated very close to my house and I'd like to avoid getting mashed to a pulp.



No problem.  Marines and soldiers have some, uh...history between them.  Soldiers don't like to be called Marines and vice-versa, although they're of course used to it.  Now if you want to get some exercise in running away quickly, say to those Marines, _"Hey, aren't you guys in the Navy?"_  That'll be good for at least a couple mile sprint.


----------



## Carol (Nov 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No problem.  Marines and soldiers have some, uh...history between them.  Soldiers don't like to be called Marines and vice-versa, although they're of course used to it.  Now if you want to get some exercise in running away quickly, say to those Marines, _"Hey, aren't you guys in the Navy?"_  That'll be good for at least a couple mile sprint.



Heh.  My old director came to work with a Marines sticker on the back of his truck.  I asked him if he had served in the Marines (a lot of people in telecom are from the military).  He said no, he had served in the Navy, it was his son in the Marines.  He described a conversation like this:

Director:  "You know son, the Marines are a department of the Navy"

Director's Son: "Yeah dad, the _Men's Department_"

:roflmao:


Back on topic...

I'll admit, I'm not a fan of recreational drug use.  But I do think experimental use many years ago is not a huge sin in my book.  Then again, I've never been in LE either....


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I had no problem with government agencies requiring no prior drug use, up until we had a president who admits to it.  Now it is a bit hypocritical.  And I guess that's my point.
> 
> PS - He was a Marine, not a soldier.  Not to pick nits, but there is a difference.



Didn't the previous president use cocaine in his younger years?
If it wasn't a problem then, don't make a problem out of it now.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 2, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Didn't the previous president use cocaine in his younger years?



Common wisdom says yes, but he never admitted it.  There is a difference.  One could not point at President Bush and say _"He admitted using drugs, so why can't I get a job interview due to my prior drug use?"_



> If it wasn't a problem then, don't make a problem out of it now.



Tell that to the Marine who cannot get a federal job due to his admitted former drug use, which was prior to even his military career, and which our own president admits to doing.  Tell him _"don't make a problem out of it."_


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Common wisdom says yes, but he never admitted it.  There is a difference.  One could not point at President Bush and say _"He admitted using drugs, so why can't I get a job interview due to my prior drug use?"_
> 
> Tell that to the Marine who cannot get a federal job due to his admitted former drug use, which was prior to even his military career, and which our own president admits to doing.  Tell him _"don't make a problem out of it."_



I'm with you on this, Bill. What bothers me about this story is that the young former marine might have gotten the job had he lied. I'm sure people have said this to him. Instead he suffers for being a stand-up guy who tells the truth.

Interesting that President Obama's past marijuana use has come up in your analysis. Of the many reservations that have come up regarding his candidacy for the Democratic nomination, the presidency, as well as his first controversial months in office, his past "toking" doesn't seem to have been a deal-breaker. It seems to me his admission got less ink than when Governor Clinton acknowledging having tried it -- without inhaling or enjoying it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 2, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Interesting that President Obama's past marijuana use has come up in your analysis. Of the many reservations that have come up regarding his candidacy for the Democratic nomination, the presidency, as well as his first controversial months in office, his past "toking" doesn't seem to have been a deal-breaker. It seems to me his admission got less ink than when Governor Clinton acknowledging having tried it -- without inhaling or enjoying it.



I took it to mean that times had changed.  From the last days of pot-smoking being a show stopper (Bork) to the "didn't inhale" of Bill Clinton, to the alleged coke use by George Bush, and finally to the new President who openly admitted both pot and coke use in his book.

However much I disagree with drug use, I put that to one side - if society has changed, it has changed.  Since it was not an issue in the campaign or election, it should not be an issue.

But this Marine can't even be considered for a job that an admitted former pot-smoker is the boss of, for doing exactly what the boss did.

What's up with that?


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But this Marine can't even be considered for a job that an admitted former pot-smoker is the boss of, for doing exactly what the boss did.
> 
> What's up with that?



The Marine doesn't get his job by popular vote.  The boss does.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> What bothers me about this story is that the young former marine might have gotten the job had he lied.



He might have gotten a medical license if he had lied about having gone to medical school. So, lying can get you things? Is this news?

There's nothing in the constitution to prevent a convicted murderer from being elected president. If that happened, would we want convicted murderers working as federal LEOs?


----------



## Steve (Nov 2, 2009)

FWIW, my opinion on this topic is that the marine got screwed by hypocrisy.  Not, however, by the hypocrisy of having a CiC who admits to having smoked pot in the past.  Rather, it's the hypocrisy of a society where people can self righteously talk about how bad pot is over a beer at the local watering hole.  

Until we stop this irrational prohibition on marijuana, we're going to continue to have these ridiculous scenarios play out.  According to the NIDA, about 98 million Americans over age 12 have tried marijuana and 14 million within the month before being asked.  If you speculate about how many lied about it, you come up with a higher figure. 

Other sources put marijuana use at about 40%, which I'd say is very believable. 

Point being that many people use it.  While many of those kids will go on to lives of mediocrity, a significant percentage will rise to positions of responsibility, power, or influence.  To suggest that they be disqualified for expirementing with marijuana is ridiculous.

Abuse of any substance, whether it's alcohol, marijuana, gambling or MMORPGs is bad, and THAT should be the standard by which we qualify or disqualify otherwise viable candidates for positions in law enforcement.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 2, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> The Marine doesn't get his job by popular vote.  The boss does.



Technically, no.  The boss got his job by Electoral College votes.  However, I take your point.

I still see it as hypocrisy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 2, 2009)

arnisador said:


> There's nothing in the constitution to prevent a convicted murderer from being elected president. If that happened, would we want convicted murderers working as federal LEOs?



If that happened, all bets would be off.  There are few things that would make me rethink my desire to remain in the USA as a loyal citizen - that might be one of them.  What ya'll do after that is your bidness - I'd be in tall timber and gone.  Come get me, at that point, because America is over.


----------



## zDom (Nov 2, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Honesty from Barack Obama, dishonesty from George Bush...a pattern is beginning to emerge!
> 
> This is what you get with popular election* of the president. He who gets the most votes wins. The public has made a statement with the past three presidents that they're not as hung up about drug usage as the media portrays them to be.
> 
> ...



A) You REALLY think Obama is honest, eh? Interesting.

B)

Bush vs Kerry:

Popular*vote:
62,040,610 Bush (50.7%)
59,028,444 Kerry (48.3%)

Obama vs McCain

Popular*vote
69,456,897 Obama (52.9%)
59,934,814 McCain (45.7%)



So.. what was your point again? Oh wait  are you bringing up the Bush vs Gore thing from 2000? STILL? Really?

While we are hijacking threads, I'm wondering: how many of those additional 10.4 MILLION voters the Democrats found are actually living, breathing voters who are citizens of the United States and only cast a single vote 

Bah, nevermind. Raving Democrats are bad losers and worse winners. You Dem-Obama worshipers now RUN the country: think you can put your Bush bashing sticks up already?

And don't bother launching an anti-Repub missle at me: I'm neither Repub NOR Dem *I realize they are ALL crooks and ALL liars.


----------



## Steve (Nov 2, 2009)

So, Scott, I hope I don't come off as raving, but what do you have to say about the actual topic of the thread?  I mean, if you have time in between anti Obama rants.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> FWIW, my opinion on this topic is that the marine got screwed by hypocrisy. Not, however, by the hypocrisy of having a CiC who admits to having smoked pot in the past. Rather, it's the hypocrisy of a society where people can self righteously talk about how bad pot is over a beer at the local watering hole.
> 
> Until we stop this irrational prohibition on marijuana, we're going to continue to have these ridiculous scenarios play out. According to the NIDA, about 98 million Americans over age 12 have tried marijuana and 14 million within the month before being asked.



The comparisons to alcohol are on target, but the point that a near-majority of Americans have tried it is the bigger one to my mind. Criminalizing that behavior, esp. in light of the alcohol issue, is unworkable.



zDom said:


> I'm neither Repub NOR Dem *I realize they are ALL crooks and ALL liars.



Same here, dude. Don't blame me: I voted for George Bush (the senior, not the junior). But while I agree with Kaith (on another thread) that Ronald Reagan's presidency worked out better than expected, George Bush the Younger was a disaster.


----------



## zDom (Nov 2, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> So, Scott, I hope I don't come off as raving, but what do you have to say about the actual topic of the thread?  I mean, if you have time in between anti Obama rants.




I think disqualifying someone for a job based on having Touched the Great Taboo is wrong. Lotta hypocrisy woven into the fabric of the War on Drugs.

I don't find fault in Obama for having tried used pot  and like that he doesn't deny or downplay it like Bush and Clinton.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Nov 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If the boss can have smoked the ganga in the past and be OK, then so can the troops. Or it's double-standard ********, IMHO.


 
The man did cocaine, by his own admission, not just marijuana. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 3, 2009)

arnisador said:


> The comparisons to alcohol are on target, but the point that a near-majority of Americans have tried it is the bigger one to my mind. Criminalizing that behavior, esp. in light of the alcohol issue, is unworkable.



Half the population? Really?
A percentage perhaps. But I find it hard to believe that near half of all living breathing americans have tried it. Are there official numbers?


----------



## cdunn (Nov 3, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Half the population? Really?
> A percentage perhaps. But I find it hard to believe that near half of all living breathing americans have tried it. Are there official numbers?


 
From the US Dept. Of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: 

Aged 12 or Older, Percentages, Lifetime 2008:

Marijuana and Hashish: 41.0% (102,404,000 persons)
Cocaine: 14.7%
Hallucinogens: 14.4%
Rx Pain Relievers: 13.3


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 3, 2009)

The FBI will kick you out or not let you in if you've ever have even been arrested for a DUI, convicted or not. The last pres had several DUIs. The same standard could be applied here as with the pot. Course then the government looks bad when an agent in an FBI car goes out drinking and then crashes said government car.

Illegal is illegal, I don't care if you are a stupid kid of not, don't care if someone else in the chain of command has done it or not. Good for the Marine for serving his country, I will gladly admit he did things to keep this country safe that I did not and could not, but I am also fine with him getting turned down for the US Marshals. And consequently on he could have just lied, he would have been caught and the consequences worse for lying, either during his background investigation or his poly. There are other equally as important jobs he can get even with his past drug use.


----------



## Steve (Nov 3, 2009)

Ping898 said:


> Illegal is illegal, I don't care if you are a stupid kid of not, don't care if someone else in the chain of command has done it or not. Good for the Marine for serving his country, I will gladly admit he did things to keep this country safe that I did not and could not, but I am also fine with him getting turned down for the US Marshals. And consequently on he could have just lied, he would have been caught and the consequences worse for lying, either during his background investigation or his poly. There are other equally as important jobs he can get even with his past drug use.


You ever jaywalk?  Go 10 or more mph over the speed limit?  Are you suggesting that you have never broken a law in your life?  I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 3, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> You ever jaywalk? Go 10 or more mph over the speed limit? Are you suggesting that you have never broken a law in your life? I find that hard to believe.


 
Nope and I never suggested I did. I have paid the price for every illegal offense I've ever done that I've been caught at or needed to own up to, as this guy needed to and did on his application.

More specifically my actions, even from the time I was just a stupid kid, as people keep saying this guy at 19 was, were done with the full recognition that there may be consequences I don't know of in the future. So everytime I get asked in an investigation or in a poly about alcohol and drug use, I have no issues, because with respect to what my employers ask about, I have never done anything outside the bounds of the law.


----------



## geezer (Nov 3, 2009)

[_quote=Ping898;1236163]Nope and I never suggested I did. I have paid the price for every illegal offense I've ever done that I've been caught at... quote_]

Ping, I think this gets to the heart of the matter. You paid what you accept as a fair price for any illegal acts you did (or at least were "caught at"). But sometimes our _legal_ system gets out of synch with changing social mores. Sometimes "the consequences" no longer fit the illegal act. Imagine a year in jail fo jaywalking or capital punishment for a dui. Or, returning to the real world... some of our drug laws today. Many would say that the laws need changing... and in time I think they will get changed.

To Bill, I would say that of the last three presidents, all of whom apparently used drugs, Obama earned my respect when, like the Marine in question, he was honest about this mistake of his past. He spoke the truth on this issue and threw the matter to the voters. _Like the marine, being open on this matter could have cost him his job_. But unlike the marine, the commitee responsible for approving the President, that is to say _the electorate_, approved him for the job. Sorry if that bugs you.

Anyway, it all just points out that we, as a society, are still going through changes of attitude on this and other social issues. I expect that in another decade or so we will find that our collective position on drugs will have changed quite a bit. In the meantime, if you are looking for instances of hypocracy and injustice and the military, how about _"Don't ask, don't tell"._ A lot of gays have lost their military jobs _without doing anything illegal._ At least Obama has said he _plans_ to redress that wrong. We will see.


----------



## Steve (Nov 3, 2009)

The implication is that the laws that you broke are okay. You're also implying that you, at 19 and continuing, considered all of the possible ramifications of your actions. Once again, I have a hard time believing that. I don't know what you've actually done, but I'd wager that you did some things in your past that you regret... maybe even made a mistake or two. I know I have. Or maybe you haven't. 

The key here is that you have no issues because you've been lucky enough that all of your acts of stupidity happen to have been things that your employers have either not asked about or not cared about. At some point, that might change and then... you WOULD have issues.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 3, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> The key here is that you have no issues because you've been lucky enough that all of your acts of stupidity happen to have been things that your employers have either not asked about or not cared about. At some point, that might change and then... you WOULD have issues.



You are correct that I am lucky and they don't care about my acts of stupidity.  No where in anything I've said have I implied that I am perfect or have made no mistakes or implied the laws I broke were ok.  What I said and I adhere to, is I have accepted the consequences related to my actions, every ticket and fine, for anything I have done.  I also accept that tomorrow if someone I work for says, I will no longer employ anyone who has gotten a speeding ticket, then I will look to find a new employer.  It'll suck for sure, and I won't be happy about it, but there are consequences to anything you do and sometimes you don't know what they are or will be until years have gone by as this Marine is now finding out.  



geezer said:


> But sometimes our _legal_ system gets out of synch with changing social mores. Sometimes "the consequences" no longer fit the illegal act. Imagine a year in jail fo jaywalking or capital punishment for a dui. Or, returning to the real world... some of our drug laws today. Many would say that the laws need changing... and in time I think they will get changed.



I agree, but also think that until the laws change you shouldn't expect special treatment just cause it was something that happened in the past, and in this instance compared to the stick that all are held too (or should be held to) to get into the Marshals service letting this marine in would be giving him special treatment

I don't think this means that the laws maybe shouldn't be changed or even that maybe the standards within the Marshals and elsewhere in the federal government need to be changed to accommodate past acts that have no current bearing on the current situation, but I don't know what the line is, is 1 year long enough, 5, 10?....what happens if you make it 10 and then a marine in the same situation comes along and his transgressions were at 9 years?  does it get changed then?  The reality of it is that we are not there at this point, and I still go back to, I don't have a problem with this man being rejected because of past recreational drug use.


----------



## Steve (Nov 3, 2009)

Ping898 said:


> You are correct that I am lucky and they don't care about my acts of stupidity. No where in anything I've said have I implied that I am perfect or have made no mistakes or implied the laws I broke were ok. What I said and I adhere to, is I have accepted the consequences related to my actions, every ticket and fine, for anything I have done. I also accept that tomorrow if someone I work for says, I will no longer employ anyone who has gotten a speeding ticket, then I will look to find a new employer. It'll suck for sure, and I won't be happy about it, but there are consequences to anything you do and sometimes you don't know what they are or will be until years have gone by as this Marine is now finding out.


I sincerely hope it doesn't happen to you, but should it ever happen, I will be among those who would call BS on it just as I do now for what happened to this guy.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 3, 2009)

zDom said:


> I think disqualifying someone for a job based on having Touched the Great Taboo is wrong. Lotta hypocrisy woven into the fabric of the War on Drugs.
> 
> I don't find fault in Obama for having tried used pot  and like that he doesn't deny or downplay it like Bush and Clinton.



By the time Senator Obama answered "the question" about pot, times, as Bill suggested above, had changed. It had been the better part of 20 years since Governor Clinton was asked the same question. The optics were also different: Clinton had been of age to serve in Vietnam but did not. Admitting to using herb came with the risk of being labeled a draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippie pinko type.

Obama was far too young to have served in Vietnam and thus couldn't be cast as a draft-dodger because the draft had been eliminated when he was a teen. He was also smart enough to know, like Clinton, that if he lied about drug use, someone would appear from his past to set the record straight.

Admission of past experimentation with drugs does not carry the social stigma that it once did. I think that's the point of Bill's thread -- Why is an apparently accomplished young man with a record of service paying a price for (1) a youthful indiscretion and (2) an indiscretion which so many people see as so minor, it didn't keep a African-American Democrat from becoming Commander in Chief?

Someone pointed out above, "Illegal is illegal," and that's never been in dispute. People do illegal things all the time that they are never asked about and thus could never seriously impede their careers. Why is this issue of pot smoking still so important? The answer, I think, is that a peculiar morality is applied to the use of certain substances, but not others

Why has no one ever refused to hire me on the basis of the fact that I am a cigarette smoker? Realistically, I'm a bigger risk (health problems, time off work, lost productivity) than some guy who tried pot in high school.


----------

