White House staffers ousted due to marijuana policy

politico.com

5 points·undefined1··6 comments

It's hard to juxtapose this with the rumors of incoming federal legalization. Seems more like business as usual.

I suspect it has to do with the fact that it's still federally illegal, and that's incompatible with some positions.

Doesn't the president have the expressed authority to reclassify a drug by way of the Attorney General (who serves at his pleasure)?

Seems like thats an easy issue to solve, and one a lot of republicans wouldnt really scream about.

Again, it's the language of the background check that is prohibitive. Changing that language would require the agreement of ALL originators of classified information.

Just an aside, when they turned the background check into an online affair, the form asked: "Name of parent": I answered my mother's name Jane Doe (which prompted) "Is Jane Doe a US citizen?" No (which prompted) "Date of first contact with Jane Doe (my mother)?" I had an existential moment while I wondered the what the answer should be.

It's not necessarily the legality but the requirement, for access to some tiers of classified information, to be drug free for a certain period. The background check required for this access asks, "Have you used [insert contraband] at any time 5/3/2/1 years prior to this application?" The period of prior required abstinence may differ from agency to agency. If I recall, it was 5 years for my IC agency. Of course untruthful answers in the background check, if discovered, would prohibit future federal employment.

"Tough on crime" you know who. The War on Drugs prohibition continues to arbitrarily destroy people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com