n4zhg

Correct. At some point look up the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum. Smoking weed is not malum in se. In fact, a hundred years ago there were no marijuana laws, and no marijuana problem, either. The drug war grew out of the need to keep the federal prohibition agents employed. In that, it was a jobs program much like TSA.

The Supreme Court knows where their paychecks come from.

It required a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol and another to rescind it. Without an amendment, the drug war is bogus.

And even without the amendment, we're seeing exactly the same effects today in this country that prohibition caused way back then. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Just look at all the horn tooting and back patting that came out of the confiscation of a home-brew battery pack, and that wasn't anywhere near a threat to aircraft safety (in fact it was within the FAR limits for such things).

And don't give me any guff about "voluntary surrender." When a sloped-forehead monobrow in a smurf suit snarls "do you want to fly today?" ain't nothing "voluntary" about it.

Deeg

One is wrong because it's inherently bad, and the other is wrong because it's prohibited. But either way...it's wrong.

(Finally...all those Latin classes paid off!)

halls120

So - are you saying that the disregard for obeying the law - even if it is a law you consider to be unjust - is not something to be taken into account when deciding to give someone a security clearance?

Funny, I always thought the measure of one's character matters.....

Combat Medic

I just Googled it. No Latin class needed.

Combat Medic

You do know that the biggest thing they are looking for with a security clearance is not if you have obeyed every law your whole life, but if you have something that can be used as blackmail against you. Right?

For instance, if you smoked a joint when you were in college they won't care so long as you admit it during the process.
If however they find it out on their own then it is a problem.

Deeg

To be complete, there are a few other factors that are considered. By Executive Order, those include:

-allegiance to the US
-foreign influence or preference
-financial considerations
-alcohol/drug use
-criminal behavior
-psychiatric problems

Blackmail is a big one. But espionage and simple greed also need to be considered. As well as the fact that people's inhibitions tend to be lowered by alcohol and drugs.

Very true. They did give me mine, after all.

ralfp

I was under the impression that committing enough simultaneous violations can result in arrest (AFAIK) in many states (one is the threshold in TX, upheld by the SCOTUS recently). Around here all I have to do is watch a police car drive to see such examples (e.g. last night driving down a one way street in the absence of an emergency, running a stop sign, and not wearing a seat belt).

Then Jesse White should change his website, which is very clear: "It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on Illinois highways with any trace of a controlled drug, substance, cannabis (marijuana) or intoxicating compounds in your blood."

halls120

That is only one part of the process.

If you smoked occasionally and it was at least 5 years ago, yes. Habitual use, you not only won't get a clearance, in many instances you won't get a job.

Deeg

Ah. If you're talking about the illegal use of drugs, then you are correct. Any amount will suffice. See 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(6):

...but you said anyone "legally taking a controlled substance". This section of law only applies to illegal use.

ralfp

What I quoted came directly from Mr. Jesse White's (sorry, the Illinois' Secretary of State's) office. It is quite unambiguous, yet incorrect (I will take you at your word), in saying that operating a car on IL highways with any "controlled drug" in your blood is illegal. "Controlled drug" includes legally prescribed controlled substances. It's sad that those entrusted with testing and licensing drivers cannot even correctly understand or describe the laws that apply to the actions that they license, yet be so proud as to put their name and face to the incorrect description of the law (laws that directly relate to TS/S).

I guess this puts the TSA screeners' all-too-frequent misunderstanding of their own rules into perspective.

RichardKenner

My view is that it's fine to "take it into account" as long as it doesn't result in an automatic decline in the sorts of cases we're talking about (responsible recreational use in the past).

mattm00se

The analogy is flawed anyway, copyright infringement is a civil matter.

(unless we want to debate wether TSO's can summon the RIAA and MPAA?)

ralfp

So are all those "FBI Warnings" on DVDs lies?

mattm00se

I guess I should've been more specific, straight possession of copyrighted materials is a civil matter.

I guess technically the tsa could think you were a MP3 mule and carrying ipods around for commercial distribution, which could be a crime.

pmocek

The Identity Project discussed this case in a recent post: "Courts and Congress finally start to rein in the TSA"