Comment by Quarrelsome
16 hours ago
I adore that this guy had security clearance and I doubt I'd clear that bar. Last time I looked at the interview there was a question:
> have you ever misused drugs?
and I doubt I'd be able to resist the response:
> of course not, I only use drugs properly.
also I wouldn't lie, because that's would undermine the purpose. Still sad I can't apply for SC jobs because I'm extremely patriotic and improving my nation is something that appeals.
FWIW I have held a security clearance during my career, and telling them I smoked weed was not a dealbreaker. What they are ultimately looking for is reasons why you could be coerced into divulging classified information. If you owe money due to drugs/gambling, etc, that's where it becomes a dealbreaker.
The general rule is not to lie to them, because they will interview all your friends and someone somewhere will rat you out. It’s pointless to try to hide anything during these interviews, and, if you do it, then it’s a dealbreaker.
You can see an archived list of industrial security clearance decisions here [0] which is interesting, and occasionally entertaining, reading. "Drug involvement security concerns" usually involve either actively using drugs or, worse, lying to cover up drug use, both of which are viewed as security concerns and grounds for rejection.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20170218040331/http://www.dod.mi...
wait, so I can apply and be honest? Sick! I just poorly misassumed they had classicly archaic interpretations of drugs.
I don’t have a clearance so someone can correct me, I believe you still have to have not used drugs in the prior year.
3 replies →
Current use is still a problem AFAIK (not sure on weed).
That said I can confirm that a few years back a friend who had previously used/experimented with a wide variety of substances (EDM scene, psychs), had no trouble getting a clearance.
They disclosed all of it, said they weren't currently using it and wouldn't for as long as they were in the job role, passed the drug test, and that was fine.
That said, to add to the "lying is a bad idea" point: I believe some of their references were asked about if they'd ever known that friend to have a dependency + if they were aware of any current/very recent use.
1 reply →
You would not get a security clearance, and the admin would make a note on your IQ. The correct answer is simply
> no
and keep the rest of it in your head.
how is it low IQ to be honest? People have to make decisions and if the decision is "no", I can handle that. Empowering the person making the decision to the fullest extent is something I'd still be interested in, even if it is to my detriment. Its like when middle-management ask me to lie or withold information from the COO or CEO, its just a no. If they're shit then its on the organisation to sort that out. Second guessing everything leads to even worse dysfunction.
We're not talking about sneaking into a concert or something low-stakes, the security of our nation is the foundation of our very civilization. I have dual citizenship of a nation that borders Russia and was once the USSR, so I appreciate the stakes of worst case scenarios because one of my nations was under that boot rather recently.
A smart person seeking a security clearance would not volunteer information that wasn't asked for, that causes him to be denied the clearance.