Hacker News Reader

Comment by bigtex | Hacker News Reader

I am surprised he just doesn't ignore the FAA and launch his rocket anyways. Not like anyone is going to do anything about it.

View on HN

He has done that of course: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/15/22352366/elon-musk-spacex.... And yes nobody did anything about it.

I mean he did before, I'm surprised he's not continuing to ignore them. Maybe the lawyers got through to the other investors in SpaceX.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-vi...

He got away with the weed thing which IIUC would have revoked someone’s security clearance. Maybe I’m misremembering.

You’d lose your security clearance over legally putting a marijuana cigarette in your mouth and demonstratively not inhaling, in the context of an interview made for entertainment purposes?

Yes. Possession of any amount is federal misdemeanor with fine up to $1000 for a first offense. Flagrantly violating the law tends to get your security clearance revoked, and rightfully so. You demonstrated you can’t be trusted to follow law.

https://www.criminallawyersandiego.com/california-marijuana-...

If you own a firearm and smoke weed it is a felony.

Yes; that's what a Schedule I drug is. Possession is a federal offense, and the intent does not matter at all. Violation of federal laws can and will get your clearance revoked, even if it's legal in the state where the offense was committed.

I think you're confusing the point of security clearances. There's no blackmail risk in that drug use, and so it doesn't interfere with the clearance.

Not even the lowest level employee with a security clearance could be blackmailed for smoking weed, but you can bet your ass they would get their clearance revoked for it if they did it.

I think you oversimplify the point of the security clearances.

Part of becoming an adult is learning that all laws, including hardline federal laws, are entirely subject to the discretion of the human enforcers, who are subject to their own game theory of survival.

Absolutely no law is enforced 100% of the time on everyone equally. There's always a political/social calculation being made and balanced. It's childlike naivety to believe that perfect enforcement ever could (or should) be the case. Akin to believing Santa knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake.

What you're saying is that it's childish to believe rich people should be subject to the same treatment as everyone else. If that's the case, then everyone that's not childish is kind of a shitty human being.

I know this. The rich people we as society worship get away. And the darker the skin or the thicker your accent or any other marginalized group you’re more likely to get in trouble.

"Legally" is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. It was not federally legal then and would not be today. (I think it should be and wish it was on behalf of others, but it isn't.)

The security clearance in question is federal.

Obviously nobody should be punished for that, the point is that most people would be, and he got special treatment. The solution is to change the law, rather than just not applying it to billionaires.

I don’t think I agree with this, as someone in the world of security clearances. It would probably just end up being something you need to explain and mitigate when it comes to your next reevaluation.

It is not legal. I disagree with the law but it is not legal at the federal level to have marijuana.

There's no legal weed in the US. Not when dealing with federal authorities.

As we learned from a certain governor "hiking the Appalachian trail", some people get treated differently.

The better question would be: Does he own any guns?

I only ask because a relative of a prominent political figure is currently having the book thrown at them for owning firearms and doing drugs.

(It goes without mentioning that the host of the podcast in question definitely owns guns, and definitely consumes illegal, Schedule 1 drugs. That's a five-year-minimum-prison-term felony, yet somehow, he's still on the air...)

That was an overstatement, as someone who currently holds and knows many people with clearances.

By the way, do you think a security clearance should be revoked for consuming marijuana?

Should a security clearance be revoked for consuming marijuana, ketamine, cocaine, meth? Where do you draw the line?

Marijuana. Same way its not revoked for alcohol unless you are dependent or abuse it.

One would think it would refer to federal law instead of personal ideas or local customs (what if a city said all of them were legal—could you do it then?).

Well I can tell you that most people wouldn’t have their security clearance revoked for using marijuana, instead likely rebuked or made to agree to abstain in the future. It would be more serious if illegally purchasing or distributing, of course.

Would you be making this argument if it was anyone else?

Since there’s no case of drug decriminalization or other substances in the USA, I don’t think this is particularly relevant. There’s a reason people are up in arms about MJ scheduling alongside these other substances. Additionally, I know this might sound very general, but the security clearance process is extremely subjective. There is no published set of circumstances for what gets a clearance denied or revoked and what simply gets addressed and mitigated. And I think that’s a good thing. In this case, I don’t think Elon’s partaking in any way indicates, jeopardizes or threatens his loyalty to the US, the likelihood that he could be blackmailed, or his ability to keep secure data secure.

Would you be making the same argument if it wasn’t Elon, but a close friend from school that hit a doobie on his buddy’s local team’s podcast?

Sorry for the ramble, but the clearance process is one I’m very familiar with, and I just see a lot of assumptions and misunderstandings in these threads.

I was tested for marijuana just to get a low job at a defense contractor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com