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

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.