FBI ‘Grappling’ With Hiring Policy About Smoking Weed

Move the Cyber Crime Division to a state with legalized marijuana and get all your employees a "prescription." Problem solved, no laws broken.

No wonder our FBI is so far behind on everything, they can figure out simple shit like this. :D
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Nothing personal weed heads, but I wouldn't hire ya.

Stats are working against you. The very same stats that say you are more likely to cause an accident, work while under the influence, more likely to take more sick time off, more likely to be involved in other illegal activities, more likely to get into regular trouble at work.

Being a pot head is nothing to be proud of. It says you can't deal with the real world.
Click to expand...

Really? Again? Which stats and where are they located? Of course you are going to have bad apples that smoke and come to work, then just fire them like you would do to someone that comes to work on alcohol or vicodin. Is this information you guys just make up, or have been told it is true for so long you just don't argue or from watching Fox news? I'm honestly asking here.

Why did the secretary of health make cannabis a schedule 1 narcotic in 1970? Honestly, if you think there is a reason, I would honestly like to hear it. If you think there were studies done, I would like to see them, because there wasn't. Typically it is because your parents told you it was bad and their parents told them and so on. There is no science behind what you are saying.

Now maybe some people just smoke/drink/swallow more than they should. But does it mean that the ones who abuse a specific drug are worse than others? I submit to you someone who abuses vicodin or alcohol on a regular basis are just as bad or worse than someone who uses cannabis.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I dunno...its only personal experience, but the people I've seen who are willing to use that stuff just don't care at all about much of anything when they're brain chemicals are all messed up from it. It's sort of scary to watch.
Click to expand...

It's only personal experience, but I've never met a marijuana smoker that met the stereotype still obviously in use by most people. Every one I've met has had a job or has been in graduate school. When legalization finally arrives, those stereotypes are really going to collapse.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Nothing personal weed heads, but I wouldn't hire ya.

Stats are working against you. The very same stats that say you are more likely to cause an accident, work while under the influence, more likely to take more sick time off, more likely to be involved in other illegal activities, more likely to get into regular trouble at work.

Being a pot head is nothing to be proud of. It says you can't deal with the real world.
Click to expand...

Tell all that to the dozen or so smokers in my IT consulting firm. There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics. And where are you getting these statistics from, pray tell?
 
Stiletto said:
It's only personal experience, but I've never met a marijuana smoker that met the stereotype still obviously in use by most people. Every one I've met has had a job or has been in graduate school. When legalization finally arrives, those stereotypes are really going to collapse.
Click to expand...

They'll still exist. They didn't magically get invented in a vaccum. The stereotypes are underlaid with like 80 years of truth since there were Beetles and hipsters going to Woodstick and getting arrested for burning crates and living in those rusty Volkswagon vans. Even after legalization there'll be a lot of stigma and closed doors for many, many years and it'll be exciting and fun to see how society divides over it between the people who do it and have a hard time expressing thoughts about it while drugged up and eloquent speakers who are in their right mind most of the time.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
They'll still exist. They didn't magically get invented in a vaccum. The stereotypes are underlaid with like 80 years of truth since there were Beetles and hipsters going to Woodstick and getting arrested for burning crates and living in those rusty Volkswagon vans.
Click to expand...

I really hope you're in joke mode right now.

Even after legalization there'll be a lot of stigma and closed doors for many, many years and it'll be exciting and fun to see how society divides over it between the people who do it and have a hard time expressing thoughts about it while drugged up and eloquent speakers who are in their right mind most of the time.
Click to expand...

There was stigma heaped on alcohol for over a decade, plus the preceding years it was demonized. Didn't mean the majority didn't happily imbibe as soon as it was legal, as was exactly what happened in Colorado, and will continue to happen in each state. You're perceiving stigma pushed by politicians that has fallen on deaf ears for years now. With the spectres of things like heroin and meth having become the iconography of "drugs", few people give a shit whether someone smokes weed anymore. There are already millions smoking, we've been giving it out as medicine, and dumb shit like this still occurs because of the laws. The only people left who will push stereotypes will be the politicians, the media, the temperance groups and law enforcement. The rest of the country wants them to shut the fuck up and focus on shit that actually matters.
 
Stiletto said:
I really hope you're in joke mode right now.



There was stigma heaped on alcohol for over a decade, plus the preceding years it was demonized. Didn't mean the majority didn't happily imbibe as soon as it was legal, as was exactly what happened in Colorado, and will continue to happen in each state. You're perceiving stigma pushed by politicians that has fallen on deaf ears for years now. With the spectres of things like heroin and meth having become the iconography of "drugs", few people give a shit whether someone smokes weed anymore. There are already millions smoking, we've been giving it out as medicine, and dumb shit like this still occurs because of the laws. The only people left who will push stereotypes will be the politicians, the media, the temperance groups and law enforcement. The rest of the country wants them to shut the fuck up and focus on shit that actually matters.
Click to expand...

It wasn't really demonized. People watched other people do dumb things to each other while their brains were really messed up with weird chemicals and they decided that it was harmful to society to let irresponsible people have ready access to those substances. While I think there's a perfectly valid set of medical reasons for people to use a form of it that isn't smoked, I'm pretty sure people are already dumb enough without smoking something to make them stupider.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
It wasn't really demonized. People watched other people do dumb things to each other while their brains were really messed up with weird chemicals and they decided that it was harmful to society to let irresponsible people have ready access to those substances.
Click to expand...

You know very little about the establishment of Prohibition, evidently. It was primarily led by religious holy rollers who kept warning of the "devil alcohol". Usually when it was drunk by those savage negroes who would then prey on our innocent white women...the same thing marijuana would be blamed for a few decades later when they started the Reefer Madness. And no...they didn't decide to take away booze from "irresponsible people". They took it away from everyone. Just like every stupid fucking ban in the history of everything. It always affects way more people who aren't "part of the problem" than those who "are".

While I think there's a perfectly valid set of medical reasons for people to use a form of it that isn't smoked, I'm pretty sure people are already dumb enough without smoking something to make them stupider.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're not the best judge of that. At all.
 
Stiletto said:
You know very little about the establishment of Prohibition, evidently. It was primarily led by religious holy rollers who kept warning of the "devil alcohol". Usually when it was drunk by those savage negroes who would then prey on our innocent white women...the same thing marijuana would be blamed for a few decades later when they started the Reefer Madness. And no...they didn't decide to take away booze from "irresponsible people". They took it away from everyone. Just like every stupid fucking ban in the history of everything. It always affects way more people who aren't "part of the problem" than those who "are".



Yeah, you're not the best judge of that. At all.
Click to expand...

Nope, I never said I was which is why there's like a million years of evidence supporting all the feelings that are in society about how people who do that stuff without a good reason, meaning like just for fun, are being dumb. Why spend money on that when you can buy a nice pair of shoes or get a better home to live in or a more awesome fan to clip to your desk?
 
Smoking pot is an individuals choice, if you aren't willing to deal with the consequences, i.e. not getting a job with the FBI, then dont smoke pot.

It makes me laugh at all the stoners in this throwing out anecdotal evidence and statistics, just to bash others against pot that are throwing out anecdotal evidence and statistics. With that said, here is my experience, most of the people I know who smoke pot are burnouts, the successful ones all do it to try and hide from their problems because they are too chicken shit scared of manning up and facing reality.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I added a question mark to fix your error. Anyhow, the people who don't like it probably care, but I'm pretty sure just stopping to think about it a little would have made the answer obvious.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

It was meant as an indirect question.
 
darkstarcow said:
the successful ones all do it to try and hide from their problems because they are too chicken shit scared of manning up and facing reality.
Click to expand...
Why is it that if a successful person smokes pot they're a chicken shit but if a successful person drinks alcohol they're perfectly normal? Your logic is poor.
 
darkstarcow said:
the successful ones all do it to try and hide from their problems because they are too chicken shit scared of manning up and facing reality.
Click to expand...

*clink*

That's the sound of your Hershey's Kiss-foil balls hitting the pavement.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
They'll still exist. They didn't magically get invented in a vaccum. The stereotypes are underlaid with like 80 years of truth since there were Beetles and hipsters going to Woodstick and getting arrested for burning crates and living in those rusty Volkswagon vans. Even after legalization there'll be a lot of stigma and closed doors for many, many years and it'll be exciting and fun to see how society divides over it between the people who do it and have a hard time expressing thoughts about it while drugged up and eloquent speakers who are in their right mind most of the time.
Click to expand...

And these children, that you spit on, as they try and change their worlds, are immune to your consultations.......

They're quite aware of what they're going through.....

/You want to see what freedom really looks like? ->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDyoJV-s0BQ
 
Lith1um said:
And these children, that you spit on, as they try and change their worlds, are immune to your consultations.......

They're quite aware of what they're going through.....

/You want to see what freedom really looks like? ->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDyoJV-s0BQ
Click to expand...

What spit? That's just as disgusting of an addiction, you know. It might be more broadly accepted, but I'm pretty sure that it's not really very popular anymore as something that portrays the person doing it as rugged or an independent self-actualized idealist with two pugil sticks and a horse who wanders the desert, an outlaw hunting outlaws, a renegade.
 
Rizen said:
Why is it that if a successful person smokes pot they're a chicken shit but if a successful person drinks alcohol they're perfectly normal? Your logic is poor.
Click to expand...

Because alcohol & pot are different.

Your logic is poor.
 
darkstarcow said:
Smoking pot is an individuals choice, if you aren't willing to deal with the consequences, i.e. not getting a job with the FBI, then dont smoke pot.

It makes me laugh at all the stoners in this throwing out anecdotal evidence and statistics, just to bash others against pot that are throwing out anecdotal evidence and statistics. With that said, here is my experience, most of the people I know who smoke pot are burnouts, the successful ones all do it to try and hide from their problems because they are too chicken shit scared of manning up and facing reality.
Click to expand...

The first sentence could be said again, about any drug, legal or not. The only thing weed smokers/ingest are upset about is the double standard. More often than not, the opponents will be bashing weed while drinking or taking meds. There is no science, let me repeat that, there is NO science to suggest or show that it is any better or worse period. All of these statistics you speak about were done in a vacuum. It only took me about an hour to research and find out that our own country put this as a schedule 1 narcotic because of lack of science/studies. Even before that there were special interest groups that were worried about their lumber profits. The demonizing is purely made up is what I found.
 
ob1 said:
Really? Again? Which stats and where are they located? Of course you are going to have bad apples that smoke and come to work, then just fire them like you would do to someone that comes to work on alcohol or vicodin. Is this information you guys just make up, or have been told it is true for so long you just don't argue or from watching Fox news? I'm honestly asking here.

Why did the secretary of health make cannabis a schedule 1 narcotic in 1970? Honestly, if you think there is a reason, I would honestly like to hear it. If you think there were studies done, I would like to see them, because there wasn't. Typically it is because your parents told you it was bad and their parents told them and so on. There is no science behind what you are saying.

Now maybe some people just smoke/drink/swallow more than they should. But does it mean that the ones who abuse a specific drug are worse than others? I submit to you someone who abuses vicodin or alcohol on a regular basis are just as bad or worse than someone who uses cannabis.
Click to expand...

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/benefits.htm

Just because you may think yourself the rare exception to the rule (A functioning pot head) doesn't mean the overall trend is like yourself.
 
Rizen said:
Why is it that if a successful person smokes pot they're a chicken shit but if a successful person drinks alcohol they're perfectly normal? Your logic is poor.
Click to expand...

Because that successful person is willing to support a system that promotes violence and crime. It also supports drug dealers who will often sell other harder drugs which lead to addiction.
 
If I have to read another post about the "evils" of pot by people who have never tired pot and just constantly repeat the crap they hear on the news.

Let's look at how the "news" works in today's world. Advertising brings in the revenue for news organizations. What demographic generally follows the news? Middle age to older people. Who advertises to this demographic heavily? Pharmaceutical companies. What entrenched group is most threatened by legalized pot? Pharmaceutical companies.
 
Not to mention that there are many compounds in pot that actually repair damage in the brain. THC is just one of many active compounds, there is a non psychoactive compound in pot that can actually repair damages done by other pharmaceutical compounds.
 
m heisty said:
If I have to read another post about the "evils" of pot by people who have never tired pot and just constantly repeat the crap they hear on the news.

Let's look at how the "news" works in today's world. Advertising brings in the revenue for news organizations. What demographic generally follows the news? Middle age to older people. Who advertises to this demographic heavily? Pharmaceutical companies. What entrenched group is most threatened by legalized pot? Pharmaceutical companies.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't need to murder someone either to know it's bad.
 
m heisty said:
Are you seriously going to use a government agency to support your opinion? You do realize that you are quoting the same government that wants to keep pot illegal to keep the police and prison industry growing at the rate it has been for the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

I don't support government agencies. I support scientist who use sound methods of collecting and analyzing data.

Sign you are a pothead: Your head is so f'n damaged that you can't do basic reasoning based on simple facts.
 
m heisty said:
If I have to read another post about the "evils" of pot by people who have never tired pot and just constantly repeat the crap they hear on the news.

Let's look at how the "news" works in today's world. Advertising brings in the revenue for news organizations. What demographic generally follows the news? Middle age to older people. Who advertises to this demographic heavily? Pharmaceutical companies. What entrenched group is most threatened by legalized pot? Pharmaceutical companies.
Click to expand...

So you want people who live a clean, chemical-free life to try an addictive mind-altering narcotic substance in order to have perspective on how great the narcotic is to use? You know it's illegal to have or use that stuff in most places right?
 
If I was a business owner, I'd refuse to hire someone that smoked. I've had enough experience working beside people that smoke or have smoked, both occasionally and abusively, and all of them seem to exhibit the same traits - lazy and forgetful.

Furthermore, it's a telling character trait when someone willfully breaks the law for momentary satisfaction that could easily be obtained elsewhere and in a legal manner.
 
m heisty said:
Not to mention that there are many compounds in pot that actually repair damage in the brain. THC is just one of many active compounds, there is a non psychoactive compound in pot that can actually repair damages done by other pharmaceutical compounds.
Click to expand...

did you know the amount of carcinogens in pot is considerably higher then cigarettes? Did you know the pot you are smoking if obtained off the street might have other really nasty chemicals mixed in to give you a better high like Fermalhyde?

Pot heads aren't worth the problems they generate.
 
Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

The thing is, no matter HOW much evidence we point you pot heads to the dangers of pot, we can't stop you. You feel like you are being attacked. You aren't. If you want to get stupid and poison yourself, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.

It is also my right to say I wouldn't touch you or trust you with a ten foot poll. Don't blame me. You're the one who made the decision to engage in a risky practice.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
did you know the amount of carcinogens in pot is considerably higher then cigarettes? Did you know the pot you are smoking if obtained off the street might have other really nasty chemicals mixed in to give you a better high like Fermalhyde?

Pot heads aren't worth the problems they generate.
Click to expand...

I can't even argue with idiocy. You have seriously latched on to every talking point of the anti-pot crowd. Instead of actually listening to what people with different points of view have to say it is I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU THEREFORE I AM RIGHT. No scientist in this country can be considered neutral when they have to sign all sorts of NDAs. Not to mention the only ones that get grants and have access to the supplies for research have the same objectives at the DEA. No one can say there isn't a massive conflict of interest in any government grant research project. The government gives money to those that are looking for results that match the governments agenda. This is also true in a lot of research grants but most prevalent in government grants. Consensus =/= science.
 
Pot smokers are mostly just filthy grubs. I don't think the FBI would want them to be working for them either way. If your going to do drugs, at least do something worth dieing for.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/benefits.htm

Just because you may think yourself the rare exception to the rule (A functioning pot head) doesn't mean the overall trend is like yourself.
Click to expand...

I haven't used in over 30 years, so don't even think your comment to be cute. I also don't drink or use any prescription meds either. The point is that there is no science behind the bias. None at all. Not even at your department of labor site. I work with people every day who come to work smelling like alcohol and/or are so messed up on oxycontin they cannot even put sentences together properly but those are OK somehow? You keep sipping on that drink and calling the kettle black mmmmkay....
 
m heisty said:
I can't even argue with idiocy. You have seriously latched on to every talking point of the anti-pot crowd. Instead of actually listening to what people with different points of view have to say it is I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU THEREFORE I AM RIGHT. No scientist in this country can be considered neutral when they have to sign all sorts of NDAs. Not to mention the only ones that get grants and have access to the supplies for research have the same objectives at the DEA. No one can say there isn't a massive conflict of interest in any government grant research project. The government gives money to those that are looking for results that match the governments agenda. This is also true in a lot of research grants but most prevalent in government grants. Consensus =/= science.
Click to expand...

I call it the Fox news effect... doesn't matter if its true or not, if they heard it there or someplace similar, and shout it loud enough, it has to be true.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

The thing is, no matter HOW much evidence we point you pot heads to the dangers of pot, we can't stop you. You feel like you are being attacked. You aren't. If you want to get stupid and poison yourself, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.

It is also my right to say I wouldn't touch you or trust you with a ten foot poll. Don't blame me. You're the one who made the decision to engage in a risky practice.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol

You damn drinkers. You just love to trash a substance that isn't the one you love to consume.
 
m heisty said:
I can't even argue with idiocy. You have seriously latched on to every talking point of the anti-pot crowd. Instead of actually listening to what people with different points of view have to say it is I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU THEREFORE I AM RIGHT. No scientist in this country can be considered neutral when they have to sign all sorts of NDAs. Not to mention the only ones that get grants and have access to the supplies for research have the same objectives at the DEA. No one can say there isn't a massive conflict of interest in any government grant research project. The government gives money to those that are looking for results that match the governments agenda. This is also true in a lot of research grants but most prevalent in government grants. Consensus =/= science.
Click to expand...

Look,

I used to design and write analysis software for Gas Chromatographs, and Liquid Chromatographs as well as TOF MALDI Mass Specs, and GCMS. I've PERSONALLY analyzed samples. Yes, my results agree with general government findings with regards to chemical composition. And you know what, nobody paid me anything.

I'm also the one who helped develop a new sensitivity algorithm (Extremely low S:N ratio) for GCMS that more than doubles the amount of time certain illegal drugs can be found in your system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top