Hacker News Reader

Comment by anthomtb | Hacker News Reader

My first clearance interview, about 10 years ago, it was all going along just fine. I had the standard litany of "bad" things any early 20-something American guy gets into - a few mushroom trips, an alcohol ticket, friends from foreign countries. No deal-breakers so long as you are honest and I answered honestly.

The only stumbling block came when the interviewer asked "have you smoked marijuana?". I truthfully answered no. The interviewer suddenly changed from bored old lady to the hardened, ex-cop that I suspect she was, glared into my soul and asked again. "No", I answered once again. "Well, that does not check out with your background. We will have to ask around on that one." She did ask around, my friends corroborated my story and I got the clearance.

My background involved undergrad education at a #1 party school, in a college town where open marijuana usage was common well before being legalized. And I had casual experimentation with other drugs (the aforementioned shrooms) and plenty of alcohol usage. I was probably the only one in my college acquaintance circle that didn't smoke on a semi-regular basis. I sometimes think I could have lied and said "yes I smoked weed", and still gotten the clearance. It would have actually been less of a red flag for the investigator(s).

View on HN

I knew several guys in the military who had never smoked weed. Their recruiters had them lie on their applications and say they had smoked it because they feared nobody would believe them and their honesty would be questioned. This was such a common experience that it was almost a trope: the only people who have to lie about their marijuana history are those who have never used it.

On the other hand, I also never smoked weed and I said so on my application, and nobody ever gave me trouble about it. Maybe I just looked like enough of a square for it to be believable.

I don't understand why the US is so full on about marijuana. I've heard this is a major thing in federalinterviews but other much more scary drugs are not.

What's the hangup with this particular drug that's actually legal in many states?

Ps: I've been asked that question too in less formal settings and I always truthfully say no which does raise some eyebrows as I'm Dutch :) But I've really never done it. Not counting all the second hand smoke around me though.

A great deal of government positions involve carrying a gun. Having a gun and being a pot user is a felony with 10+ years in jail. It's one of the most serious non-violent offenses for mere personal use possession on the books.

It's also very easy to detect because pot stays in your system longer than about any other drug and the penalty for pot use by non-firearm owners is so weak and unenforced that people often forget it is a very severe crime for the ~40% of US that owns arms. People mistakenly get nonchalant about it.

The flip side is that someone hoping to prosecute a "pot user" for being such while obtaining a firearm would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was indeed a "pot user" at the time one answered the question.

I've submitted to no less than five background checks for purchasing firearms. My ID has also been scanned at multiple dispensaries in the same state as those background checks. Not once has the latter caused any issue with the former - in all likelihood because "I at one point set foot in a dispensary" != "I actually purchased something in that dispensary" != "I actually consumed something purchased from that dispensary" != "I was a user of something purchased from that dispensary at the time that I answered a question about whether or not I use federally-controlled substances".

Maybe if background checks included drug tests this would be a practical concern, but as it stands, unless you show up to the gun store stoned out of your gourd (hell, even then), there is little opportunity to demonstrate "the defendant lied about not being a user of illicit substances at the time one purchased the firearm".

The scan of your license does not leave the computer of the dispensary.

That is until they get ransomwared.

In that case I need to report that my identity has been stolen.

I can not give you legal advice but only tell you my personal understanding for entertainment purposes. And my personal understanding is that the same prohibition applies even for possessing it, not just when you acquire it. My non-lawyer mind it's pretty clear under 18 USC 922.

At the end of the day the feds got a warrant to drag me to the hospital and internally search my body for drugs because third party hearsay that an anonymous cop said an anonymous dog supposedly said I had drugs (there were none and their search was fruitless). If third party hearsay is good enough for a warrant why wouldn't video evidence or ID scan of you at the gun store and the pot shop? Sure you can claim "well the test at the hospital shows metabolites and the video shows buying weed and guns but hey you can't prove I actually used weed" but good luck with that.

The relevant bit(s) would be "It shall be unlawful for any person [...] who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) [...] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

So a prosecutor would need to prove that I was "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" at the time that I received a firearm or ammunition that has crossed my state's borders (which would presumably be nearly all the firearms and ammunition I own, but still). There's also the parallel prohibition on the seller's end (and another one involving the actual background check questions), with the same present-tense language of "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance".

> If third party hearsay is good enough for a warrant why wouldn't video evidence of you at the gun store and the pot shop?

A warrant != a conviction. The video evidence of me at both stores would not establish that I was "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" at the time that I took possession of the firearm.

Now, if there was video evidence of me smoking a phat blunt right outside the gun store before walking in and walking back out with a firearm, then yeah, that'd be a slam dunk case (assuming the prosecutor could convince a jury that it was indeed cannabis I was smoking). Likewise, if I was actually tested for cannabis in my system and the tests indicated that it was indeed in my system at the time I took possession of the firearm, then that would similarly be a slam dunk case.

(I guess even in the latter case I could maybe argue "yeah, I was an unlawful user, but I quit before buying the gun", but that defense is pretty weak if it's still in my system; I reckon it'd be stronger if I was sober for an actually-significant amount of time.)

Barring those? I ain't a lawyer, either, but my personal understanding is that the present-tense wording leaves a loophole big enough to drive a truck through it. Obviously the safest bet is to not rely on that being the case, but it's pretty easy to answer "No" to "Are you an illegal user of or addicted to any controlled substance?" without it being a felonious lie.

> or possess in or affecting commerce

Doesn't this mean that the prohibition of using such substances doesn't apply just to the moment of purchase, but to the whole period of time that you posses a firearm? I'm not a lawyer either and I'm not even American, but this is how I would interpret it. Also it would make little sense to have a law saying that you can't be a user of illegal drugs at the moment of purchase of a firearm, but you can start using such substances afterwards.

It would apply as it pertains to being "in or affecting commerce"; it'd be quite the stretch to apply that to possession outside the immediate context of a purchase/sale/transfer, though I suppose it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause. Maybe taking a gun across state lines while high would qualify?

> Also it would make little sense to have a law saying that you can't be a user of illegal drugs at the moment of purchase of a firearm, but you can start using such substances afterwards.

The law in question derives from the federal government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate and international commerce, which is (I would guess) why the language fixates on that aspect. The federal government doesn't otherwise have the power to infringe on the Second, Fourth, and (possibly) Tenth Amendments - as would likely be necessary to federally require gun owners to submit to random drug tests over something that one's state has made legal.

Meanwhile, my state (last I checked) has laws on the books separately prohibiting intoxication (be it via cannabis, alcohol, or whatever) while in possession of a firearm; to my knowledge, most (all?) states do.

So in the end using drugs while possesing a firearm makes it worse, it's just that those aren't federal laws but still apply.

Read up on Jeremy Kettler's attempt to avoid interstate commerce and also Wickard v Filburn. You probably know about the latter but not the former.

If growing your own plants with nothing but seed and material from the earth on your property, and then feeding it to your local animals is interstate commerce.... then it's hard to imagine any firearm even if made of iron pulled from the earth underneath you and machined on site and never sold to anyone or hell even fired could be considered to not have interstate nexus.

Those are what I was alluding to when I said "it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause" :)

Both those cases entailed the defendants manufacturing something, which would be where the Feds would claim jurisdiction via their jurisdiction over interstate commerce. It's harder to make that argument w.r.t. something after a retail sale has already concluded (i.e. after the interstate commerce has happened). I wouldn't doubt the Feds would try to assert that literally everything that ever happens is or pertains to "interstate commerce", but that'd be sufficiently broad as to invalidate all sorts of other judicial precedents if actually held up in court.

Wait until you read the gun free school zone act, which seemingly makes it interstate commerce merely to be on a public property proximal but not on school property, no matter you have no intent to interact with the school or the school property in any way.

I recommend you consult a lawyer. Always understand the difference between "the law can be flouted and probably safely gotten away with so long as I don't piss off anyone powerful" and "this is legal."

That's the thing: as written, the law puts everything short of "I was literally high at the time I took possession of the firearm" in the "this is legal" category.

This of course only pertains to federal law; states have their own laws, and said laws usually prohibit being armed while intoxicated - regardless of the legality of the intoxicating substance.

Once again, because I am not a lawyer I cannot give you specific legal advice for your situation.

I strongly, strongly believe you are overconfident in your interpretation, particular when I read the provisions regarding possession which may be a seperate crime from say what was written on the 4473 at the FFL.

But I'm not the one you have to convince. I pray you are never in a position you must do the convincing.

I do not believe I am an authoritative enough of a professional to convince you, even were it that I had time to type a more complete explanation. Again I recommend you consult a lawyer, and preferably one that has worked in this area. My opinion as a rando on HN has no legal bearing on the justice system.

> A great deal of government positions involve carrying a gun.

The vast majority do not; there are 137,000 that are authorized to carry a gun and/or make arrests, out of 2.85 million non-military federal employees.

By my reckoning the majority of clearances are DOD active or reserve/guard [0]. That alone pushing it to 50+% of the people need to be allowed to have guns even if they only shoot a rifle once during basic and then are supposed to be able to figure it out if shit hits the fan. Now consider 3 letter agencies etc.

I feel very confident saying being qualified to use a gun is essential to the majority of those with an active clearance, and thus highly relevant to the drugs question part of the clearance.

[0] https://news.clearancejobs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Se...

Thanks, that explains a lot.

I still wonder why the law is that way though. As drugs go, marijuana is probably the least worrying when it comes to gun possession. As it makes people docile and relaxed, it will help de-escalate conflicts.

As opposed to coke which makes people pumped up or even the fully legal alcohol...

It sounds like federal law should catch up to reality. Though as a European I am not in favor of widespread gun use anyway but that's another discussion.

Cocaine is schedule II. A doc can write a federally valid script for it. So someone could be using it and hypothetically not be breaking the law regarding illegal user with guns.

Asking for a friend: what should you do if you were a legal firearm owner before moving to an area with medicinal cannabis and then got your card? Sure don’t do it in the first place, but what options should so recommend to my friend in order to keep them out of trouble? Also, does the ATF trawl through state cannabis records to cross-reference gun owners?

This doesn't really answer the question though. "Why" is it looked on in this way?

This smells like a "war on drugs" thing where it's illegal because it's extremely convenient for law enforcement that this combo is illegal.

Security screening criteria doesn’t get updated often.

It wasn’t that long ago that marijuana was an illegal drug in every state. And as a schedule 1 drug marijuana gets lumped in with crack and PCP.

I have no doubt updating security clearance requirements is a massive bureaucratic mess nobody is interested in doing.

So the requirements remain, but everyone just “massages” the answers to fit current norms.

I haven't been in a federal interview, but I would say it gets more focus merely because it is the most popular of the illegal drugs by a landslide.

The government has to remind you it's illegal because well "everybody" does it and it really doesn't seem like it actually is and it sure as hell doesn't feel like you're doing something wrong or harmful. So somebody has to tell you that this drug is really bad because you'll go to jail for it for a long time.

The main reason pot is bad is because it will get you a jail sentence. The main reason you'll get a jail sentence is because it's bad. Hope that clears it up.

>it is a very severe crime for the ~40% of US that owns arms.

Only if you carry them with you, right?

No, any illegal use or addiction to a wide array of drugs makes it a crime for you to own, possess, buy, sell, transport, etc., a firearm, and separately a crime for anyone to knowingly sell or transfer one to you. Marijuana is included, and because it is a Federal Schedule I narcotic, all use is, by definition, illegal use, even state-permitted medical use (and even though there is a federal policy against direct enforcement of the federal prohibition of marijuana against state legal use, this policy does not extend to the criminal firearms exclusion tied to it.)

The quasi-legality of state-permitted and federally-prohibited-without-direct-enforcement is kind of an awful trap, and that’s even before you consider the risks if the federal enforcement pause – which doesn’t change the criminal law and thus would not raise ex post facto concerns for enforcement against acts that occurred during (or before, if the statute of limitations allows) the pause – were to be lifted.

> The quasi-legality of state-permitted and federally-prohibited-without-direct-enforcement is kind of an awful trap

Perhaps a trap that rises to the level of (HHOS) conspiracy to commit a crime: TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

disclaimer: The answers I give on form 4473 are absolutely truthful.

No. A single speck of pot + just being someone that owns guns at all is 10 years in jail. Look up "constructive possession."

AFAIK it's the feds position that even merely having a medical marijuana card (which doesn't mean you actually have ever even bought/consumed weed) and owning a gun makes you a felon.

Note: not a lawyer, not legal advice.

A medical marijuana card is a much stronger indicator of "I am currently a user of marijuana" than even current possession, let alone some past purchase. The whole point of such a card is to be prescribed marijuana, and the whole point of a prescription is for you to follow it.

Why? I've read a number of accounts of people who got the card just to buy/grow for their cancer stricken grandma or whatever. Sure maybe it's a lie but then again it's pretty believable and reasonable.

Usually it'd be the grandma getting the card, then, no?

Even assuming grandma is going to buy it herself, which probably isnt always practical, there's probably some people out there not thrilled about going to jail because grandma put pot in the console of the car or left it on the kitchen table and suddenly they have constructive possession without a card.

Right, but that's the thing: possession (even in the actual sense, let alone constructive possession) doesn't mean use. A card declaring (in effect) "I have been prescribed cannabis to use it as medicine" does mean use.

If anything, Grandma being the card-carrying pot user and not you would likely be evidence in your favor - to be presented and argued by a competent defense attorney in court, of course, not by you to some power-tripping cops interrogating you (the only correct response to a cop asking you anything for any reason at any time under any circumstance is for you to invoke your rights to silence and an attorney - and such a "shut the fuck up" strategy has indeed gotten people out of pot-related convictions, at least if these lawyers are to be believed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o).

When I had my wisdom teeth removed I received a legal prescription for opiates and had the prescription filled and took possession of them. Thankfully I was able to tough it out with just NSAIDS and never took them.

Was I an opiate user? If I just keep the script but never fill it am I more an opiate user than the guy on the street with a little baggy of white powder? People seek out and obtain scripts for stuff they never use, all the time.

> Was I an opiate user?

Given that they were prescribed to you, "yes" would be a reasonable assumption, barring you able to provide evidence introducing reasonable doubt (e.g. "I still have every pill I was ever prescribed").

In any case, "was" is the key word. You were given a prescription for a finite number of doses, whereas usually a medical marijuana card is more indefinite.

Whhhhaaat how do I not know this??? Thank you sir. I'm gonna be asking my lawyer some questions.

Even if you are a (legal) medical user?

There's no such thing as a legal pot user, but it does have a nice ring to it while the state tax man is collecting money to make people believe that.

I filled out DoD form for TS clearance years ago and answered honestly that I had smoked weed and done coke in college. That's what my boss said to do. He said if they caught you in a lie you were finished because that meant you could be blackmailed.

EDIT to add: Ironically he had gotten in trouble for phone phreaking as a teenager.

Yes, it is about blackmail. At the start of the 80s, smoking weed or being gay was OK with DISCO (Defense Industrial Security Clearance Organization) as long as you came clean about it and (for example) did not try to hide your sexual orientation from your friends & family. Because therein would lie the opportunity for blackmail.

This attitude of tolerance eroded later in the 80s. During the Reagan regime, they (DoD?) sent out a memo saying that marijuana use was "incompatible with national security goals". Not sure what the effect was out in the trenches though.

Interesting. This was mid 90's.

Anyone can be blackmailed.

If the thing you did was less bad than the penalty for treason or revealing secrets (life in prison and/or death) then the blackmail argument falls apart. It's just more irrational hocus pocus by self-important bureaucrats. Hell the thing you're blackmailing doesn't even have to be true, they can just find an ex lover and blackmail that person to say you raped them or whatever, and well even if you beat the charges your kids get tossed into DCS/foster care your life is ruined etc etc.

Yet another reason why I'll never work for the government.

I mean, I used to say that I'd never be able to run for public office because <thing that a lot of people do, but that I should be mildly circumspect about>. These days, have you seen the people in public office?!? If you can be elected President after some of the shit that last guy is on the record as having done, I think blackmailing me is probably hard.

The counter-example I'll mention is that if someone framed you for CSAM and could convince people you actually were doing that, blackmail might be effective. Not only is it fully beyond the pale, but just going to prison would be a death sentence.

For many people this isn't true.

It's not uncommon for people to _commit suicide_ over things they are being blackmailed about.

Plus people doing the blackmailing aren't stupid. They don't go "we know you lied on your clearance form about smoking weed once. Get us that top secret document!"

They start with something much lower risk and then leverage compliance into higher and higher value targets.

I don't see much functional difference between outcomes of committing suicide because you were blackmailed regarding a fake but believable rape accusation vs say blackmailed because someone found out you grew a bad plant. In the end though suicide seems like an honorable pick if the binary option is that or revealing life-or-death secrets to the enemy.

The US has such insane conspiracy laws frankly it isn't much effort for a few motivated individuals let alone a state actor to blackmail someone for the worst of false offenses using some corrupt "witnesses." Maybe before the war on drugs it was easier to blackmail someone with real offenses than fake ones but nowadays it's probably easier to manufacture them TBH.

I don't think you see what he's saying.

If you want top secret documents, you don't start by asking for top secret documents. You start by asking them to violate a relatively innocuous rule. Changing a date by one day on a file so it's no longer late or something like that. Doesn't matter what it is. The point is that it's not worth being exposed over. And the rule you're breaking would technically be worthy of getting fired over. Especially for the thing they're blackmailing you over. "It's changing a date by one day, no one would know, and it's not worth losing my job over."

It starts off "Hey man, I was cool about the weed thing, do me a solid here." Then it's "Hey, remember that thing you did, do you think you could do this slightly bigger thing?" If they refuse, you can bring up that first thing they did.

Then, a year or two down the line, you're fucking cooked. They come to you and say, "Look man, you've done this, that, and the other thing. If they find out, you are fired, in jail, life ruined. What I need now is this top secret document."

The idea is to build a list of escalating transgressions so in the end, the asset feels as if they have no choice but to comply with your requests. You don't need fabricated offenses. You just need a small issue you can use as a starting point.

If someone can be blackmailed to do ever progressively worse things over something minor, why couldn't you do the same thing and possibly even faster with something major?

There's no "one size fits all" answer here.

If someone has done something really bad (maybe murdered someone) then yes, directly blackmailing them to do something major might work.

But in general the things we are talking about are mostly things were someone lied on their clearance form and if they decided to they could get that cleared up and cause the foreign agent significant problems by reporting an approach.

So instead they escalate. They don't directly blackmail you - you just happen to meet a woman at a bar who happens to have pictures of you smoking weed at a party 5 years ago. So you are joking around about what a great party that was, and it just happens to turn out that this woman works at a defense contractor and they are waiting on this stupid proposal to be released so they can bid on it, and you don't happen to know when it will be released do you?

So you go look it up. It's not classified, maybe it's commercial-in-confidence at worst. But then this woman needs to know how long she should rent her apartment in town for, so exactly how big is the project? How many units are they ordering?

That's still not classified, but is need-to-know. But she's hot, so you tell her.

And now they have you. You might not actually realize yet you are being blackmailed, but as soon as they ask for classified info you realize she can ruin you.

Because dealing with experienced blackmailers is not something that most humans have good intuition and fully rational responses for.

> Hell the thing you're blackmailing doesn't even have to be true, they can just find an ex lover and blackmail that person to say you raped them or whatever, and well even if you beat the charges your kids get tossed into DCS/foster care your life is ruined etc etc.

Someone being falsely accused like this would most likely immediately report it to their boss in the government asking for help. It would be very unlikely that the person would hide it and become an intelligence asset for the blackmailer.

A rational person would immediately report it whether the blackmail was true or not. The penalty for revealing secrets is worse than about any crime except a few high level drug dealing or crimes involving death. If you get fired because you didn't admit to eating a scary mushroom or whatever so be it, the alternative is much worse.

> If the thing you did was less bad than the penalty for treason or revealing secrets (life in prison and/or death) then the blackmail argument falls apart.

I'm no expert on spycraft or anything like that, but this sounds overly reductionist. If they can threaten you to lose your career, then maybe doing one tiny little other thing that won't matter seems like it might be worth it. Now they can blackmail you further.

> they can just find an ex lover and blackmail that person to say you raped them or whatever

How do they find that person? How do they blackmail them? It becomes exponentially more complicated than just blackmailing one person. Additionally, someone finding themselves in the situation that they are being actively targeted with blatant lies is much more likely put up an indignant and active defense vs somebody who actually has a guilty conscience.

> How do they find that person? How do they blackmail them? It becomes exponentially more complicated

In a Hollywood movie, they would just locate an old acquaintance from your youthful years who is currently in debt.

> somebody who actually has a guilty conscience.

If working for a murderous government that sends drones to bomb kids overseas, invade vietnam and iraq, imprisons innocuous non-violent offenders for decades, funds nun-raping militias in central america, etc doesn't give one a guilty conscious I honestly have no idea what would. It's got to make you feel far more guilty than whether you put on a form you grew a bad plant or not.

>How do they find that person? How do they blackmail them?

Finding someone's ex is not complicated. We're talking about blackmailers so I think a blackmailer knows how to... blackmail. And the example I gave was just one of a million possible scenarios I can imagine an enemy using. The point was using something fake is likely as easy or possibly even easier than using a real crime for the purposes of the enemy, and thus the ratcheting effect you describe is immaterial to whether they start with the bad plant grown that wasn't listed on the form or because they told the compromised person that they'd reveal the false criminal allegations.

> etc doesn't give one a guilty conscious I honestly have no idea what would.

Most people care a fuck of a lot more about things that are close to them than things that are far, far away.

If you're wondering in good faith and not just trying to score stupid political points, all I can say is, uh, strongly recommend you Log Off.

Yes, I did not particularly enjoy the two and a half years with that division!

You're assuming a level of rationality on the part of the person being blackmailed which blackmailers will do everything to avoid. Look at the reports of people getting caught giving away secrets for and it's often shockingly little given the stakes. Remember the main issue with harsh punishments as a deterrent: people generally don't assume they'll be caught.

Not related to a security clearance, but a coworker at a summer job in high school was applying to be a police officer. He was told to answer "yes" when they asked if he had ever smoked pot, because anyone answering "no" was presumed to be dishonest.

Interesting, but not at all surprising, to learn how early cops are trained to lie for the "greater good."

"Power attracts the corruptable".

I had a somewhat similar experience with the polygraph portion of my clearance process - apparently its common to calibrate the machine to the subject by asking "have you ever smoked marijuana" and they expect you to lie and say "no" but then sometimes people have never smoked marijuana.

The polygraph is 100% pseudoscience - at best it's a prop to make interrogating people that don't know it's fake easier because they believe the interrogator can read their mind, but it falls apart when the person being taken knows that it's woo. So we shouldn't really use technical/scientific terms like "calibration" when talking about it...

It’s not like, thetans. It may not be reliable, but it’s not pseudoscience.

From Wikipedia:

>In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations "untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection". The review also warns against generalization from these findings to justify the use of polygraphs—"polygraph accuracy for screening purposes is almost certainly lower than what can be achieved by specific-incident polygraph tests in the field"—and notes some examinees may be able to take countermeasures to produce deceptive results

Now I'm curious. How had you never tried marijuana given that situation?

Vanity. Having lost significant body fat mid way through high school, I could not stand the idea of consuming a drug whose side effects included “the munchies”.

Investigators are required to find “derogatory information”. I wasn’t an investigator myself but knew some people who did it as contractors. They said they couldn’t turn in a package for adjudication without something negative. Weed was usually the check in the box for that, but if it wasn’t then they had to dig to find something else.

What is wrong with friends from foreign countries?

The chances of someone being a foreign agent increases significantly if they are from a foreign country. Meaning if you have foreign friends there is a small but non-zero chance that they desire, for their home country, the sensitive information you are being trusted to protect.

You are not going to lose or be rejected for a clearance because you have a few foreign friends. It is just another one of those things you have to report to the government (meaning the government issuing the clearance).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com