Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Marijuana is causing more problems in the military today than ever...no, use of pot is not up, up a complete set of unique issues has popped up...

Marijuana use is still illegal in the military, because marijuana is still illegal on the federal level. But more and more states are legalizing or decriminalizing its use...

So, the military has stepped up anti-drug briefings and testing...telling the young troops that just because their state has legalized or decriminalized pot, it’s still illegal for a military member to use cannabis...

I recently had a talk with an Army Command Sgt Major...he said after the Christmas mass leaves at his base, they will drug test everybody from the lowest Private up to the Commander because of marijuana...

And now, Pot Stocks are starting to cause serious concerns for people with security clearances...there is a growing debate among various factions that simply owning pot stocks can be a reason for someone losing their security clearance...

Someone deep in the Defense Department has offered clarification that if you own stock in a “marijuana company” you could jeopardize your security clearance. The idea has ignited quite a debate.

This clarification concerns the DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility. You won’t find it at the DODCAF web site but as Federal News Network’s Scott Maucione reported, it came from an email cut and pasted into a Facebook page for Air Force officers. But the approach to clearance and stocks was confirmed by a Defense spokeswoman, Army Lt. Col. Audricia Harris, who vigorously quashed the idea that any new policy has come out.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/tom-temi ... ks-debate/

In this commentary, the writer goes through the various positions, which range from those who say there is no written policy specifically banning military members from owning pot stocks...to those who feel current policy is enough to threaten getting or keeping a security clearance...

A reader commented on our story, pointing out that the relevant policy found in DoD Manual 5200.02 states that illegal or inappropriate involvement in drugs is out of bounds. With respect to personal use of illegal drugs, Section 7B.2 of the April 2017 revision is clear: “… agencies are prohibited from granting or renewing a security clearance to an unlawful user of a controlled substance, which includes marijuana. Legislative changes by some states and the District of Columbia do not alter federal law or existing national security guidelines.”

Fair enough. That’s the policy, and people decide at some point whether they’ll be law abiding or not, or how badly they want a security clearance.

But just above that, section 7B.1 states, as the reader noted, “Improper or illegal involvement with drugs raises questions regarding an individual’s willingness or ability to protect classified information.”

Illegal involvement strikes me as something people could reasonably agree on. If you import, manufacture, distribute, or sell, for example, like the badasses on “Breaking Bad.”

But what is “improper involvement?” For that matter, what does “raising questions” mean? Extend that to stock ownership in legal enterprises, and the latest interpretation, in my view, becomes so distantly derived from 5200.02 as to be indefensible.

One last interesting questions...if marijuana is legalized on the federal level...how will the military handle it?




Discuss.

If pot is legalized nationally but the military says you can't do it, then you can't do it.

That being said...

There was a time where a dude couldn't suck dicks in the military, then a time he could suck dicks but not talk about it, then a time where he was allowed to brag about it, then a time when he could get the military to pay to get his dick removed: https://www.armytimes.com/news/2017/11/ ... n-surgery/

Had a 2nd class P.O. (E-5) Boatswain’s Mate who worked for me. He’d already been in 16 years at that point and had been an E-6 1st class P.O. twice. Been busted back to E-5 twice for pot. This was prior to the “zero tolerance of the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. Never made E-6 again and retired after 24 years as an E-5.

Just legalize it at the Federal level. Same old same old. Alcohol is legal. Marijuana should be. The effort to curtail its use is doing way more harm than its use ever would. Just leave people the hell alone and let them get high if they want to.

The military is an employer. Employer's are allowed to hire and fire based on testing for illegal (and legal in some cases) drug use.

AshevilleApp wrote:The military is an employer. Employer's are allowed to hire and fire based on testing for illegal (and legal in some cases) drug use.

This...there are employers who will fire you for smoking tobacco, a legal substance...due to a clause in their health insurance

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/busi ... 26460.html

On my first day of retirement it is going to look like a Cheech and Chong movie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AZGrizFan wrote:Had a 2nd class P.O. (E-5) Boatswain’s Mate who worked for me. He’d already been in 16 years at that point and had been an E-6 1st class P.O. twice. Been busted back to E-5 twice for pot. This was prior to the “zero tolerance of the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. Never made E-6 again and retired after 24 years as an E-5.

The AZ school of employee development!!

SeattleGriz wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Had a 2nd class P.O. (E-5) Boatswain’s Mate who worked for me. He’d already been in 16 years at that point and had been an E-6 1st class P.O. twice. Been busted back to E-5 twice for pot. This was prior to the “zero tolerance of the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. Never made E-6 again and retired after 24 years as an E-5.

The AZ school of employee development!!

All that shit happened to him BEFORE he worked for me.

JohnStOnge wrote:Just legalize it at the Federal level. Same old same old. Alcohol is legal. Marijuana should be. The effort to curtail its use is doing way more harm than its use ever would. Just leave people the hell alone and let them get high if they want to.

Should all drugs be legal?

89Hen wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Just legalize it at the Federal level. Same old same old. Alcohol is legal. Marijuana should be. The effort to curtail its use is doing way more harm than its use ever would. Just leave people the hell alone and let them get high if they want to.

Should all drugs be legal?

AshevilleApp wrote:The military is an employer. Employer's are allowed to hire and fire based on testing for illegal (and legal in some cases) drug use.

The time of the nooner has been over for a long time. If you appear drunk at work, you can get tested and if positive, fired or reprimanded at many companies. Pot and any legal recreational drug, should be administered the same.

89Hen wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Just legalize it at the Federal level. Same old same old. Alcohol is legal. Marijuana should be. The effort to curtail its use is doing way more harm than its use ever would. Just leave people the hell alone and let them get high if they want to.

Should all drugs be legal?

I personally think so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

89Hen wrote: Should all drugs be legal?

I personally think so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Create the old opium den scenarios for users of hard drugs? Really don't want crack house next door.

Gil Dobie wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I personally think so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Create the old opium den scenarios for users of hard drugs? Really don't want crack house next door.

What’s keeping it from happening now? Do you think the usage of herioin has to up once it’s legalized. Are zoning laws forbidden there?

Gil Dobie wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I personally think so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Create the old opium den scenarios for users of hard drugs? Really don't want crack house next door.

You already have meth dens and crack houses next door- you just dont know it

I’m not planning on visiting an opium den but I don’t concern myself with what other people do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote: Should all drugs be legal?

CID1990 wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Create the old opium den scenarios for users of hard drugs? Really don't want crack house next door.

You already have meth dens and crack houses next door- you just dont know it

I’m not planning on visiting an opium den but I don’t concern myself with what other people do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can usually tell a crack house from other houses in the neighborhood. You don't have to be part of the polica for that.

kalm wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Create the old opium den scenarios for users of hard drugs? Really don't want crack house next door.

What’s keeping it from happening now? Do you think the usage of herioin has to up once it’s legalized. Are zoning laws forbidden there?

Is there anyone that uses heroin, the doesn't become addicted? If you are going to use drugs that can make you a danger to others, you probably shouldn't be using drugs, alcohol included.

Gil Dobie wrote:

kalm wrote:
What’s keeping it from happening now? Do you think the usage of herioin has to up once it’s legalized. Are zoning laws forbidden there?

Is there anyone that uses heroin, the doesn't become addicted? If you are going to use drugs that can make you a danger to others, you probably shouldn't be using drugs, alcohol included.

You're avoiding the question and there are different problems for different drugs. Dr. Dean Adell used to cite a study from the early 1990's where if you assembled a panel of heroin addicts that got clean and consistent product and compared them with a group of alcoholics, the Dr's couldn't tell the difference and often mistook the alcoholics forthe heroin addicts.

I don't want them living next door either and they don't have to. It's a healthcare problem, Gil.

AZGrizFan wrote:Had a 2nd class P.O. (E-5) Boatswain’s Mate who worked for me. He’d already been in 16 years at that point and had been an E-6 1st class P.O. twice. Been busted back to E-5 twice for pot. This was prior to the “zero tolerance of the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. Never made E-6 again and retired after 24 years as an E-5.

I got through E-5 and 16 years and thought, "WTF was this guys problem"

kalm wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Is there anyone that uses heroin, the doesn't become addicted? If you are going to use drugs that can make you a danger to others, you probably shouldn't be using drugs, alcohol included.

You're avoiding the question and there are different problems for different drugs. Dr. Dean Adell used to cite a study from the early 1990's where if you assembled a panel of heroin addicts that got clean and consistent product and compared them with a group of alcoholics, the Dr's couldn't tell the difference and often mistook the alcoholics forthe heroin addicts.

I don't want them living next door either and they don't have to. It's a healthcare problem, Gil.

Tell me what you are asking first.

What’s keeping it from happening now? Do you think the usage of herioin has to up once it’s legalized. Are zoning laws forbidden there?

Of course usage will go up if a drug is legal, if that is what you are asking. I've ridden in vehicles operated by drunks and druggies. I don't have a preference of which one I never want to ride with again. Addiction is addiction, plain and simple. Not only are there different problems for different drugs, but there are different problems for different individual addicts. Heroin is perceived as the most addictive drug. Legalizing drugs, might also lead to a better public understanding of the disease.

Gil Dobie wrote:

kalm wrote:
You're avoiding the question and there are different problems for different drugs. Dr. Dean Adell used to cite a study from the early 1990's where if you assembled a panel of heroin addicts that got clean and consistent product and compared them with a group of alcoholics, the Dr's couldn't tell the difference and often mistook the alcoholics forthe heroin addicts.

I don't want them living next door either and they don't have to. It's a healthcare problem, Gil.

Tell me what you are asking first.

What’s keeping it from happening now? Do you think the usage of herioin has to up once it’s legalized. Are zoning laws forbidden there?

Of course usage will go up if a drug is legal, if that is what you are asking. I've ridden in vehicles operated by drunks and druggies. I don't have a preference of which one I never want to ride with again. Addiction is addiction, plain and simple. Not only are there different problems for different drugs, but there are different problems for different individual addicts. Heroin is perceived as the most addictive drug. Legalizing drugs, might also lead to a better public understanding of the disease.

Do you think legalizing heroin noticeably increases the chance of an opium den opening up next door?

kalm wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Tell me what you are asking first.

What’s keeping it from happening now? Do you think the usage of herioin has to up once it’s legalized. Are zoning laws forbidden there?

Of course usage will go up if a drug is legal, if that is what you are asking. I've ridden in vehicles operated by drunks and druggies. I don't have a preference of which one I never want to ride with again. Addiction is addiction, plain and simple. Not only are there different problems for different drugs, but there are different problems for different individual addicts. Heroin is perceived as the most addictive drug. Legalizing drugs, might also lead to a better public understanding of the disease.

Do you think legalizing heroin noticeably increases the chance of an opium den opening up next door?

No, I think they would be in the same area as bars.

Gil Dobie wrote:

kalm wrote:
Do you think legalizing heroin noticeably increases the chance of an opium den opening up next door?

No, I think they would be in the same area as bars.

That was my original point.