Boeing faced ‘limited’ safety review from NASA while SpaceX got full examination

You don't think the behavior of a CEO can reflect company values?

And I'm not surprised they make less effort verifying that for a longtime aerospace contractor and instead focus on the rocket startup that had a bit of a PR mishap. Would have preferred this to not be an issue at all, but not sure this was an option after this kind of public event. Hope it doesn't unnecessarily push sending humans to the ISS further back.

If you have a federal clearance or your company requires it to do business you can’t smoke weed. If you were to tell the investigators you smoke legal weed they wouldn’t care, you’d get denied.

Culture starts at the top.

Company A: weed smoking 3-commas idiot upstart with habitual lying tendencies.

Company B: cultured and serious businessmen with habitual lying tendencies.

Imagine if Elon wasn't smoking pot, but mentioned he was just drinking a ton of coffee to work longer hours. Boss works 18 hours a day, which suggests that his workers might want to do the same. Employees also stop sleeping, make mistakes, suffer health problems leading to more mistakes, rockets crash.

The idea is that behavior at the top sets an informal company policy. There have been a lot of articles about how Enron can be understood as a culture problem [1]. I think it's less about pot per-se, and more about the cultural signals of the boss thinking it's a good idea to be recorded committing a federal crime[2]. Does that set a standard that breaking rules is ok if they're dumb rules? Does anyone at SpaceX think that safety requirements are dumb? It's worth saying that a lot of the reporting around Boeing's recent failures have been chocked up to culture change[3].

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=enr...

[2] Though I think it is very dumb, smoking pot is still a federal crime.

[3] https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/773675393/boeings-cultural-sh...

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, and he also owns Blue Origin, another rocket company vying for government contracts.

Despite being legal under local law in a number of states, possession of even small quantities of marijuana remains illegal under federal law[0].

In the words of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines[1]: "The illegal use of controlled substances... can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations."

Whether or not you agree with the policy, it's still the policy, and if it's enforced when non-famous people with security clearances use drugs (it is), it should be enforced when famous people with security clearances use drugs.

[0] 21 USC § 844: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/844

[1] the official policy defining the criteria by which security clearances are granted: https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sead-4.pdf

I have held several security clearances of varying levels over the years. During interviews for every single one, I was asked about past drug use, in particular drug use within the past 7 years. (Note that they also ask about all psych/therapy stuff- though family, grief and combat related PTSD counseling are off-limits.) Some of those interviews took place in locations where marijuana was legal at the state level, but it is everywhere in the US illegal at the federal level so they ask.

And while it wouldn't necessarily kill your clearance, recent use was definitely a black mark that would need to be analyzed and discussed with you and slow things down. Funniest moment in all my clearances: you need to provide a neighbor to be interviewed, having just moved and not knowing anyone well I picked the only neighbor I knew the full name of; turns out he was a registered sex-offender! Didn't kill my clearance, but did slow everything down and mean I got to spend a lot more time talking to men in suits than my colleagues did. Sounds similar to what is happening here, honestly.

>Why do you think this?

Because when you get a security clearance the feds explicitly ask if you've smoked weed in the last 7 years, and are especially interested in knowing if you've smoked weed while possessing a clearance (https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf).

> He was engaged in what was legal on a local basis.

Local jurisdictions don't grant security clearances on behalf of the federal government, FYI. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug and illegal to use for any purpose outside FDA approved research programs according to existing Federal law.

> Does the violation of any federal law or regulation disqualify someone from holding a security clearance?

If you did it they'd pull your clearance. This isn't speculation. It happens to little folk all the time[1].

As cynical as it might seem the parent isn't wrong in pointing out the obvious disparity in treatment of wealthy and influential people vs plebs. Musk has the contacts and the lawyers to commit a federal crime on video and keep all of his privileges in this life, and you don't. I can't fault anyone for concluding this sort of double standard is a great dysfunction.

[1] https://www.fedsmith.com/2019/05/30/revoked-security-clearan...

Yes, the violation of federal law general disqualifies you from holding a security clearance.

Back when smoking weed was more heavily stigmatized (and enforced with jail time), a drug habit was seen as handy blackmail material. That does make doing it publicly something that is less of a concern though; nobody can blackmail Musk for smoking weed because everyone knows he's done it.

Presumably, because it's (technically) breaking federal law, and someone who breaks federal law probably shouldn't have a federally-granted security clearance.

If you ever had a clearance, it isn't about sense. It's about "RULES".

Thing A and thing A' are moral equivalents. Thing A is a federal crime (we don't care why or if it's wrong). Thing A' is a not a crime.

You do thing A, a long time in the past. You get a couple strikes. Probably still get clearance.

You demonstrate you don't understand difference between thing A and thing A' (even if moral equivalents) which implies you don't understand "RULES" or that you have independent thought (worse). No clearance for you.

OK, but your idea worthiness isn't what gets a clearance.

It's "follow federal law" and "good judgement". Both of which, Elon, epic fail.

Yes, a lot of people with clearances probably smoke. But they do it on the DL, not TV. Bad judgement #1. Break federal law, on purpose, to make some point #2.

Dumb.

This is the hypocrisy I do not understand. They were drinking straight whisky for an hour before they lit the joint and there is not a peep from anyone about that.

> I had a TS/SCI for years but opted to not get it renewed. Why? I like to smoke weed and don't wish to cause issues with my employment if it were ever to be discovered or found out.

You're hiding something because you fear negative repercussions if it were revealed. Isn't that problematic behavior for security clearance, regardless of what you think about marijuana or what you're hiding?

The attitude that "I only follow rules that I personally think are justified" is also problematic for security clearance. Smoking weed despite its federal illegality clearly demonstrates that attitude. It's reasonable to assume such a person would be less likely to follow burdensome security procedures they (perhaps ignorantly and stupidly) don't understand or disagree with.

> Meanwhile a guy I know who still has a TS/SCI gets blackout drunk weekly.

People like that do lose their clearance. They don't know what they did when they were blacked out; they could have done something they could be blackmailed with or they could be convinced they did without too much effort by an adversary.

Here's proof:

This clearance denial is the first one I found with ctrl-f that goes into detail:

https://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2019.html:

> Case Number: 19-00733.h1

> Alcohol Consumption

> 09/26/2019

> Applicant has a substantial history of maladaptive alcohol use that has resulted in three alcohol-related arrests and convictions within seven years, with the most recent incident occurring in January 2019. By his own admission, Applicant consumed alcohol two times per week during the week and weekends at parties, and he drank to intoxication at every party. He also acknowledged that he has gone to work hung over on many occasions. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-00733.h1

Here's another that doesn't mention any arrests, just plain alcohol abuse:

> Case Number: 18-00767.h1

> Alcohol

> 05/23/2019

> Applicant continued to consume alcohol after being diagnosed with alcohol dependence in 2013 and after receiving inpatient alcohol-detoxification treatment in 2016 for alcohol use disorder, moderate. He continues to drink alcohol against medical advice. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00767.h1

This is apparently the clearance guideline that forbids alcohol abuse:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title32-vol1/xm...:

> § 147.9 Guideline G—Alcohol consumption.

> (a) The concern. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment, unreliability, failure to control impulses, and increases the risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information due to carelessness.

> ...

> (5) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment;

Clearance is another issue. One might be able to blackmail you for weed or your sexuality, but alcohol?