×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

FBI Need Potheads To Fight Cybercrime

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the government-dorito-budget-not-up-to-snuff dept.

Crime 319

An anonymous reader writes "The rate of cybercrime is growing and growing, and law enforcement is struggling to keep up. The FBI is in the process of beefing up its headcount, but they're running into a problem: many of the hackers applying for these jobs have a history of marijuana use, and the agency has a zero tolerance policy. FBI Director James Comey said, 'I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview.' However, change may be on the horizon: Comey said the FBI is changing 'both our mindset and the way we do business.' He also encouraged job applications from former pot users despite the policy."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good idea (-1, Troll)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 6 months ago | (#47051317)

Big government always likes people that have physical and/or psychological dependencies. Easier to manipulate.

Re:Good idea (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#47051701)

Do you mean as they do by all the way you can be charged with a felony, and even more controlled afterward ?

Re:Good idea (2)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#47052123)

History is NO liar (provided it is not a govt. approved textbook)

Re:Good idea (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 7 months ago | (#47052839)

History is merely subjective, and thus biased, interpretation of past events.

Re:Good idea (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#47052149)

Only if they also controlled the substance totally that these people are dependent on. If they wanted that, making the stuff legal would be the first step.

Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (5, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about 6 months ago | (#47051349)

Wait a second, I thought potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

Looks like one bullshit stereotype driven war is affecting our ability to fight another bullshit stereotype driven war.

The irony is fucking killing me.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (-1, Troll)

johnsie (1158363) | about 6 months ago | (#47051371)

I've never seen a pothead do anything useful with a computer.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051443)

Yes you have, you just don't know it because they aren't advertising that they smoke.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051467)

This is true

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 6 months ago | (#47052139)

Six figure salary in IT here. Can confirm.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052443)

Oh look at me I smoke pot I smoke pot I smoke pot everybody I smoke pot!!! Look at me! Look at me! ME MEMEMEMEMEMEME dreamchaser!!! I smoke pot!

Oh, I earn six figures! ME ME ME MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME DREAMCHASTER MEMEMEMEME LOOK AT ME!

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (4, Funny)

DeathElk (883654) | about 7 months ago | (#47052503)

At least he doesn't smoke crack, unlike you...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054897)

I knew an AS400 programmer who smoked crack, but wouldn't touch pot due to the simple fact that it's detectable by drug tests for so much longer.

Hooray for drug testing!

(He didn't smoke crack all the time)

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053457)

A financially successful pot smoker admits to smoking pot on an article about pot smoking in which other people claim that pot smokers aren't useful to society. Yet you are implying that somehow his comment is out of place and unwarranted.

I think you're the one being unreasonable.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (2, Insightful)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 7 months ago | (#47054419)

Being financially successful is not the same thing as being useful to society. In fact, often enough people who are harmful to society are financially successful.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 7 months ago | (#47055233)

In the modern world, only those who are harmful to society are financially successful. Sad, but true.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 7 months ago | (#47071919)

welp, have fun trying to fuck with the murican public and the world without us.

most of us looser burn out lowlifes live quit comfortably.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052699)

Six figure salary in IT here. Can confirm.

ditto

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054707)

Since you say you can, confirm it.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054297)

Well go on then, confirm it...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054477)

Ditto that. 6 figure UK salary here also. Its more about the person.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (5, Funny)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 6 months ago | (#47051497)

Smoke from what? Too much current? Its pretty hard to make a pothead [wikipedia.org] smoke!

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051801)

Com'on, assholes. That shit was hilarious.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052237)

I thought it was the funniest shit that I have come across all day.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055423)

Com'on, assholes.

Heheh. Heheh. Heheh.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 6 months ago | (#47051963)

Pump enough current through and just about anything will smoke, shorting out a 200 amp mains feed will do it PDQ.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Ambient Sheep (458624) | about 7 months ago | (#47058069)

Smoke from what? Too much current? Its pretty hard to make a pothead [wikipedia.org] smoke!

Wonderful! Despite being interested in electrical distribution, I'd never heard that usage before here in the UK, that's just too funny... "Two three phase electric circuits in a residential neighborhood terminated with potheads", brings wonderful visions to mind...

And no, I don't smoke it...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051479)

I've never seen a pothead do anything useful.

FTFY.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051547)

Wow! How'd you manage that?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (2)

dcollins (135727) | about 6 months ago | (#47052115)

Maybe you were too drunk to notice.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#47052275)

Are you kidding? CAD/CAM drove desktop computing for a long time in the early days.
Lets not forget UNIX either....
I guess you haven't looked....
Put down the bong, go outside and interface....

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 7 months ago | (#47058903)

Have you ever: used a computer?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 7 months ago | (#47071917)

so why does the FBI have trouble recruiting people that don't smoke pot to work their computers?

I mean if potheads can't do anything useful with computers it'd be a non-issue right?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 months ago | (#47051383)

So... is this whole situation good or bad?
It's a moral infinite loop.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051555)

When has admitting that you smoke pot to a law enforcement officer ever turned out to be "good" for you? Seriously, if you hack and smoke pot, don't work for the FBI. Not until pot becomes legal everywhere in the US.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 6 months ago | (#47051897)

Occasionally (depending on the individual LEO, the circumstances, and your flawless delivery) you can use a truthful response to your advantage during a roadside interview.

Believe you me, the cops don't get blunt honesty a great deal, and some find it quite refreshing.

Caveat: YMMV. There would be a much greater probability of a positive outcome if you were admitting to some minor marijuana use versus having a body in the trunk.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052147)

That's funny, when I was honest with them I was arrested for possession, and the time I lied, they didn't find anything and I drove off scott-free. My advice is to travel with edible amounts and down that shit as soon as you see the lights. Even if you looked suspicious, if they don't find anything, they're out of luck.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053435)

For every one person who sucks up and admits to a crime to a cop and gets away with it, nine others get arrested or cited.

Cops jobs are to enforce the law; they get favorable reviews if they make a lot of busts, those who don't get passed over for promotions and get stuck on shitty assignments.

If you admit to a cop that you have recently smoked marijuana, you're inviting yourself to an involuntary search.

Shut up, give the cop basic identification, and demand a lawyer if you are asked any questions outside of that scope. After identifying yourself, ask if you are being detained or free to go. You cannot be held unless there is reasonable suspicion of a crime.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (3, Informative)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about 7 months ago | (#47053447)

Occasionally (depending on the individual LEO, the circumstances, and your flawless delivery) you can use a truthful response to your advantage during a roadside interview.

Anything you say can and will be used against you. Keep your trap shut.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Agripa (139780) | about 7 months ago | (#47058601)

Anything you say can and will be used against you. Keep your trap shut.

This is the literal truth. Anything you say which can be used in your defense is hearsay.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054879)

It's worked for me a couple of times, but it is risky.

It probably helped that I'm white, have never been arrested, was employed and polite and respectful, They still wrote tickets for the reason they pulled me over but tickets aren't (usually) that big of a deal.

This will probably come as a surprise to many, but a lot of cops in Texas (at least in Houston and Dallas) don't care about a little pot.

I know this is just anecdotal, but I can think of 3 people who got caught with a little pot in their cars (one on multiple occasions) and they didn't care about that.

One got let off with a verbal warning about a burnt out headlight. The other 2 were busted for DUI. In light of their DUIs, a little pot just didn't even matter.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

dataspel (2436808) | about 7 months ago | (#47059517)

This will probably come as a surprise to many, but a lot of cops in Texas (at least in Houston and Dallas) don't care about a little pot.

Don't try this in Williamson county.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | about 7 months ago | (#47059629)

In Chicago, they passed a law a few years ago saying the cops can just write a ticket for small amounts of possession. In practice, most people are still arrested and sent to trial.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (5, Informative)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 7 months ago | (#47055839)

No, no and double no. You will never, ever get out of an arrest for drug possession by admitting to possessing drugs. It doesn't matter if the nice police officer man says he'll "go easy on you if you just admit it," he won't. He's lying to you, because he's allowed to lie to you. There is no reward system in place for "how many honest drug users did you let off the hook today?" There is only a reward system for "how many violators of the law did you apprehend today?"

Do. Not. Talk. To. Cops.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47064047)

I have actually gotten out of it by being honest. Cops came to crash the party, smelled the pot, we admitted to all of it, they left after telling us to keep it quiet. YMMV but it's far from the way you paint it.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Calydor (739835) | about 7 months ago | (#47056819)

blunt honesty

I see what you did there.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47057939)

Nope. Anything you say can and will be used against you and it cannot be used to help you.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47058193)

...and you don't already fit the profile of people they think should be going to jail for some reason anyway.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 7 months ago | (#47054025)

Yes, otherwise you get end up working for the FBI incredibly cheaply (job payment scale, clerical 'LOSER' grade) and the failure to perform job performance analysis could have an incredibly painful sting (suspended sentence unsuspended, years of imprisonment to follow).

Not that smoking grass would be all that bad for the initial pattern analysis. The ability to fracture the personality and brings specific elements to focus helps in that data drift and selection, to spend hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks, months and months, years and years, sifting the global internet for spikes of interests and cross correlation. Just the job for stoners but the FBI don't play nice, in fact really, really not nice unlike corporate security.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054333)

Had a friend stopped by the police on a night out, the searched him, found his weed, took him to the mini popup booking station, gave it him back and told him to be on his way.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | about 7 months ago | (#47059583)

Don't you know the laws don't apply to the guys running things. If the FBI want to hire a stoner, they can hire a stoner and nobody can stop them.

Let's simplify that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47064497)

if you hack and smoke pot, don't work for the FBI

If you have even the slightest amount of moral integrity at all, then don't work for the FBI.

Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051393)

Or maybe it is unrelated to conspiracy theory bs?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051399)

Wait a second, I thought potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

Exactly right. You'd better start snorting coke if you ever want to amount to anything, you worthless piece of shit.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 6 months ago | (#47051453)

Wait a second, I thought potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

Well, Eric Holder is the Attorney General . . . and any time he opens his mouth . . . I think he's tripping his balls off on LSD.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051463)

potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

Considering I've never heard directly of anyone in this industry using it, I think the stereotype is correct. Personally I didn't see it in college (BS in Comp Sci in 1989) nor have I seen it in the twenty-five years since. Pot use just doesn't happen in this industry.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051505)

You must be smoking the reefer then.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#47051713)

Pot use just doesn't happen in this industry.

...and there are no gays in Iran. Right. :-)

Forgot one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055765)

There are no prostitutes in Japan.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

drpimp (900837) | about 6 months ago | (#47051863)

If a hacker smoke pots in the woods and no one is around, does that mean it didn't happen? I am sure if you dug deep enough many of your neighbors are doing it at least occasionally; you just don't know about it. The mere fact that it's illegal most people don't go around with a blunt lit up promoting their usage.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | about 7 months ago | (#47059749)

Yeah, if you are in the scene you will see a lot more usage, no matter what it is you are looking at. Even driving a model of a car, once you get a new car you start seeing them everywhere on the road. As for people smoking, plenty do, they just don't advertise it. I have even seen friends of a friend light up a hitter right at the table in a bar. Plenty of people smoking cigarettes in the room and if you blew the smoke up high, people didn't really notice. Or if they did, nobody cared.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47061213)

Pot smokers are like vegans, if they are one, they'll tell you.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

sfcat (872532) | about 6 months ago | (#47051939)

potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

Considering I've never heard directly of anyone in this industry using it, I think the stereotype is correct. Personally I didn't see it in college (BS in Comp Sci in 1989) nor have I seen it in the twenty-five years since. Pot use just doesn't happen in this industry.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, I hope that was sarcasm...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052037)

What industry? Software development? Engineering? I would say a very large percentage smoke pot. Probably a majority of the good ones...

RF Engineer here. I like to smoke after work.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#47052241)

Or they all detected your attitude and so didn't mention it.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (5, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 6 months ago | (#47052247)

More likely you're a straight-laced prude that no professional who smoked would reveal themselves to for fear of being turned in to the authorities. If I were to guess from my own experiences I'd say somewhere around 20-40% of computer professionals I've known smoke at least on the weekends - more among the creative programmer types.

Ask yourself this - how many computer professionals would you estimate drink alcohol? Now, how many of those would you be able to guess if they never mentioned the fact around you? And how many do you suppose would mention the fact in your presence if it were illegal? The fact is you can't tell what drugs somebody uses just by looking at them, unless they are heavy addicts. A stoner, drunk, etc. is obvious, but they're never going to make it in the professional world anyway. The responsible users who have a glass of wine or smoke a bowl after dinner look just like everyone else once they sober up.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (4, Interesting)

rgbatduke (1231380) | about 7 months ago | (#47053211)

When I was much (decades) younger (and still smoked) I wrote code all of the time when high. In fact, it was one of life's pleasures -- the concentration focus was fantastic. And yes, the code was very complex, was thousands of lines long (when finished) and ran perfectly when I was done as far as I was ever able to tell.

With that said, not everybody could do what I did and work effectively high. But I knew a fair number who could and did, and of course I knew a few who were useless when high. Of course, I knew a fair number or people who were useless coders stone cold straight. This isn't terribly surprising -- the world is full of functional alcoholics too. Pot is different from alcohol, though, in so many ways. Alcohol eventually puts you into a stupor, then kills you. Pot at worst puts you to sleep and has no known fatal dose. It is considerably safer than aspirin or caffeine -- the former you can easily overdose on or it can kill you outright with e.g. Reyes' Syndrome. Caffeine is lethal at doses somewhere between 2 and 20 grams (depending on your metabolism and weight) -- not easy to ingest in coffee, easy to ingest if you put a couple of spoonfuls of legal, over the counter caffeine powder onto your morning post toasties. Cigarettes, don't get me started -- a single cigarette can kill a small child if accidentally ingested, and nicotine makes a dandy insecticide even when highly diluted.

In addition to being amazingly safe compared to almost anything humans consume outside of brocolli, pot is basically a non-prescription (openly illegal in many states) antidepressant. Lots of people who smoke (or drink, for that matter) are self-medicating or compensating for the fact that their lives suck for reasons utterly beyond their control. Is it a good medicine compared to SSRIs or other prescription medicines? I don't know. I do know that drug companies don't want you to have the choice. I do know from bitter experience that the law enforcement industry from police through the lawyers and the courts make a living from pot. I know that the biggest single risk for pot smokers isn't anything associated with pot itself -- it is being arrested, charged, jailed, forced to pay thousands of dollars for bail, forced to pay thousands more for lawyers, forced to pay fines and court costs, forced to endure probation, forced to pay for "rehabilitation". It is being fired, not being hired, not getting into college not because of your grades or intelligence (both of which can be just fine) but because of your "police record". And the penalties scale up enormously for the poor and stupid who often smoke weed because life as a janitor or store greeter or one of the dudes who has to put on a costume and wave at passing cars to get them to file their taxes or patronize a failing store sucks, but weed makes the menial and mindless jobs you can get a bit more tolerable without ruining your liver.

If pot has a flaw as a recreational substance, it is that it can, by making a shitty situation tolerable, act as an ambition suck. Hamlet on pot:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? Or just get high
And suffer no more; and by suffer to say we end
The head-ache of the thousand natural schlocks
That life is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. So don't bogart that joint,
My friend, pass it on over to me...

Sometimes, though, it really is better to take arms against the sea of troubles and by opposing end them. Pot can make it a bit too easy to suffer the slings and arrows and end up trapped in a life that consists of little else. Or not. Or it can do so for a while, and then people grow up. Ultimately, it ain't nobody's business but your own, and it certainly isn't a positive predictor of failure -- or success. Like anything, for some people (especially some of the mentally ill) it is probably a serious mistake. For others it is harmless. For still others, it is probably beneficial. Given its very low risks, its moderate benefits, and its popularity, we should legalize it. We should never have made it illegal. Then police can go back to dealing with actual crimes like rape, robbery and murder, many lawyers can get a real job, the governments (state and federal) can set a few hundred thousand people free from jail, the courts can decongest to where cases can be heard in days instead of months, neighborhood drug lords can join the lawyers in looking for actual work, drug companies can deal with the horrors of self-medication without a prescription or profit to them, and society -- will never notice, otherwise. Somewhere between 10% and 20% of the population at least occasionally smokes pot (10.8% in a 2009 poll admitted at occasional use, and this likely under-reports usage given that it is illegal and given that several states have legalized it in the intervening years).

rgb

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 7 months ago | (#47054089)

And yes, the code was very complex, was thousands of lines long (when finished) and ran perfectly when I was done as far as I was ever able to tell.

Wow, that's... uh... inspiring, I guess? Maybe it would have been quite simple, verifiable, and twenty lines long if you weren't stoned out of your fucking mind while writing it. ;-)

I'm mostly kidding. Personally, drug use (apart from copious caffeine, occasional nicotine, and very rarely amphetamines) has never helped me with any of my technical efforts, but I know many friends and colleagues who do quite well with pot or even, in a few cases, massive doses of hallucinogens!

Still, this anecdote as you tell it isn't very compelling evidence for your point.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054141)

I once was very ill and I was so ill that I couldn't even think that I should not work, one hour earlier I wasn't even able to understand any word in a newspaper I was that ill (quite scary actaully).

Any I did go to work and wrote a piece of python code that translated an xml file into a binary cobol record (and in reverse) based on a xml-template. Which required two trees to be walked in parallel. The (short) piece of code worked. Then I was brought to to the hotel by a co-worker who thought I was way to sick to be working.

That piece of code ran in production for half a year without failure. But when I looked at the code I could not understand it, in fact in my non-altered state I would swear that the code should not been able to work at all.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (2)

careysub (976506) | about 7 months ago | (#47055689)

I know that the biggest single risk for pot smokers isn't anything associated with pot itself -- it is being arrested, charged, jailed, forced to pay thousands of dollars for bail, forced to pay thousands more for lawyers, forced to pay fines and court costs, forced to endure probation, forced to pay for "rehabilitation"

The way they put it, back in the day was: "Pot is dangerous to your health because it can cause your body to get thrown in jail."

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47069677)

I know 3 computer types who have never smoked pot. That's 3 out of about 200. I can see where the FBI might be having trouble recruiting computer types. Assuming all 3 wanted to work for the FBI, they's still have a very low percentage of people wanting to work for them. And only one of those 3 is good at what he does.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#47052273)

In case that's sarcastic, it was too subtle for internet use.

Look around you at work. Look left. Look right. If there's more than 5 people in the room, one of them is a regular user. If not, things are VERY different in your home country than in mine (and no, this here ain't the Netherlands where stuff like that would be legal).

I don't, I noticed that stuff doesn't do jack to me but making me incredibly sleepy. If I wanted that, I'd go to more meetings, they have quite the same effect on me, are not only cheaper but I'd even get paid for it. But some people enjoy it as a way to unwind. Personally, I don't care. There's no drug tests in my department. Mostly 'cause I know how they'd end...

The ONLY thing I care about is whether someone can do his work and is sober when he's on the clock. If you can accomplish that, why should I care what you smoke, sniff or snort in your spare time? If it affects your work, your ability to do it or your efficiency, we have to talk. The same applies to everything else, btw, if your pastimes cut into your work, if you're injured every other week 'cause of a high risk sport, we are also going to have a problem.

Else... have fun.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (3, Insightful)

mrxak (727974) | about 7 months ago | (#47053529)

This whole "problem" the FBI has would be solved by legalization. It would solve a lot of other problems, too, like our overcrowded prisons and a fair bit of untaxed organized crime.

I've never smoked marijuana, and I don't think I've ever even smelled it. If it was suddenly legal tomorrow, I probably wouldn't become a major pothead (and neither would anyone else who isn't already). I still support legalization. It is such a waste to keep marijuana illegal. It should just be like alcohol or tobacco, both of which are more dangerous and addictive than marijuana.

We all know how alcohol prohibition turned out. Everybody can see how marijuana prohibition is turning out. Everyone who wants to can still get their hands on it, and it's only encouraged a black market largely run by organized crime. The FBI complaining they can't hire any good cyber security experts is just the latest in a long line of absurdities resulting from this nonsense.

Can we please get whatever equivalent to the twenty-first amendment it'll take to end the madness over reefer?

Yes, I went there.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 7 months ago | (#47052987)

Considering the lack of a sense of humour among Slashdot moderators these days, the parent post might even be serious.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055877)

Dude, do you work on the moon? wtf! I worked at a place where the dev team would smoke together... that, I will admit, was a little weird. I'm in Seattle, btw.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47056875)

I don't understand why you got voted down because I've worked as a developer for twenty-one years for AT&T, cisco, and nine start-ups, and I've never heard a technical employee talk about smoking marijuana. I've never even seen it. I'm taking a job soon with Amazon in Seattle so I assume I'll see it soon, but I haven't yet. A keg at work on a Friday afternoon is the worst I've seen so far.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47103503)

Pot use just doesn't happen in this industry.

I'd guess smart people who enjoy illegal drugs/hobbies/what-have-you don't speak about those things casually to fellow co-workers. So, you might never have noticed before, but there are many "potheads" all around you... school, market, street... everywhere. They just keep it to themselves

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051595)

> potheads...never amount to anything

That is true. I'm a Senior Director of Product Development, and out of the (wild guess) six hundred guys I've hired that made it past our screening process, I've only lost one to the drug test. Drug addicts just don't make good developers. Also while I've fired quite a few guys for DUIs or other alcohol-related charges, I have never had a developer arrested for a drug-related charge(well, that I know of) On the other hand, I've probably had 5% of the QA candidates washout because of failing the drug test and quite a few that had been fired due to drug-related arrests. A drug addict might be able to do QA, but I have never seen one that could do development.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051749)

i'm sure slamming caffeine and nicotine doesn't count as "drug addicts" on your delusional pedestal.

you're not a senior director of anything. you are NOTHING, coward.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051773)

Or maybe...just maybe...they're avoiding you on purpose and are going for greener pastures instead? You'd make a lousy statistician.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052759)

Perhaps the Senior Director of Quantitative Research was the pothead that flunked the drug test.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 7 months ago | (#47054105)

That's okay, there's a new revolutionary field of "data science" which solves all of these pesky statistical issues (survivor bias, sampling bias, hell even false positive rate) by... just ignoring them outright! Clap your hands if you believe!

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051847)

I'm an accomplished software developer, i smoke pot, i make 6 figures have a family and kids. I have many friends who smoke pot, they include directors of large telecommunications companies, several engineers of different disciplines, and of course other developers. We all have nice houses, cars some of us have boats, yachts and horses. We all hang out and smoke pot together, work on recreational software/hardware projects some private some public, some open source some closed.

We have an uncanny ability to find our own kind like most other subcultures and like many we don't advertise it.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052043)

We have an uncanny ability to find our own kind like most other subcultures and like many we don't advertise it.

To be fair, it's really not that hard to spot the coder covered in Cheeto dust...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

tragedy (27079) | about 7 months ago | (#47053969)

That might be funny if you weren't talking about coders, who _also_ have a stereotype about eating cheetos, completely independent of the stoner one.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052073)

wish I could mod this up.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053307)

Drug-testing software developers is idiotic. What do you think they might do â" crash their computer into a crowd of sprites?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

jcr (53032) | about 7 months ago | (#47054151)

I don't smoke anything myself, but I know first hand of many world-class engineers who smoke up at parties.

-jcr

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 7 months ago | (#47054653)

We all hang out and smoke pot together, work on recreational software/hardware projects some private some public, some open source some closed.

Cool story, bro.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1, Troll)

jandersen (462034) | about 7 months ago | (#47054755)

... i smoke pot, i make 6 figures have a family and kids. I have many friends who smoke pot, they include directors ...

Ah, yes, this is something I have been meaning to talk to you about. You see, one of the terrible, terrible consequences of smoking The Evil Weed is that you get these vivid delusions ... If you didn't do that, you would realize that you actually lying on a filthy rag in a basement somewhere, while rats eat away your shrunken genitals.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051927)

It's likely that those developers are avoiding working for companies that do drug testing. In fact, I'm surprised that your company has it. I've worked at 3 different Fortune 1000 companies over the last 17 years, and not one required drug testing for developers or IT workers. Maybe I just got lucky.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 6 months ago | (#47052001)

You are forgetting the possibility that your sample may not be representative. They may self-select against jobs that drug test, or they may be good at passing drug tests through various means.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052381)

Passing a drug test is easy. It's called quitting the drug a month before going on job interviews. Pot isn't addictive, can be quit at any time. After you secure a new job, you can start back up again if you want.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055051)

Yup. I've been drug tested for 2 jobs and passed both times.

What sucked was that the first one didn't test me until my first day on the job and I went to Jazz Fest in New Orleans the weekend before I started. I have never turned down so much pot in my life. I dropped acid instead.

The 2nd time, I quit about 6 weeks in advance of the test, ordered home test kits off the internet to be sure. Clean as a whistle. They made the offer "pending background check and drug test", which kind of sucked because I had to give notice at my old job before those were complete.

It's never been a problem for me to quit pot. Quitting alcohol and cigarettes were a complete nightmare for me though.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 7 months ago | (#47059055)

See this is the most annoying part.

Not to say that acid is any more harmful than pot, but if you went to your employer and asked: "would you rather I smoked pot or dropped acid?" I am pretty confident they'd vote for pot.

And yet we test for pot because (1) it's "evil" and (2) it's super easy to test for, it sticks around in your system for far too long to be indicative of ANYTHING.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 6 months ago | (#47052009)

Marijuana is nothing more than a condiment, a spice if you will.

It doesn't encourage it's users to rob liquor stores or eat the face off each other, and unlike it's completely legal cousin alcohol, it is not a leading cause of family violence... I will bet a lot of the children of abusive alcoholics wish their dads would've smoked a little reefer.

On the negative side of the list, weed does take a few points off of the old IQ in exchange for a helping of spontaneous creativity, and truth be told, it's not healthy to inhale the fruits of any burning matter.

There is indeed an occasional Spiccoli Peak if you catch that lightning in a bottle, and that's when you can Melange up and fold space. Yes, creative people seeking innovative solutions might be on the watch list.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053511)

On the negative side of the list, weed does take a few points off of the old IQ in exchange for a helping of spontaneous creativity, and truth be told, it's not healthy to inhale the fruits of any burning matter.

Umm, [citation needed]

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 7 months ago | (#47054113)

well, smoke inhalation is never good for you, though the harm is mitigated when the drug is not addictive enough to make you smoke 20+ grams per day. as for IQ, who knows?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052071)

Like most drugs "smoking pot" != "drug addict" anymore than "drinking" == "alcoholic". I know plenty of people who use pot, hash, coke, or molly recreationally and still produce top notch software, chances are you have used some of it. On the other hand, I've seen people washout because they couldn't handle the combination of freedom and alcohol. The ones who would fail the drug test just "get other offers" once you mention the test or don't imbibe while doing a job search.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053473)

Addition implies a heavy physical dependency. Marijuana does not have a particularly high propensity for physical dependence. Marijuana users often go days between sessions. True, there are "chronic" smokers who do it several times daily, but these aren't the typical pot smoker.

Could you at least attempt to get to know the demographic you are trying to teach others about?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1, Interesting)

koreanbabykilla (305807) | about 7 months ago | (#47053505)

failing a work drug test just means you are stupid in general. They cant watch you so using someone elses piss and some handwarmers works great. You can also buy THC test strips at the dollar store to calibrate drinking water till the weed line says no but the "is urine" line still says yes. Passing a drug test while using drugs is trivial.

Re: Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055067)

Many places can and will watch you these days, for precisely the reason you stated, at least in Texas. It's still doable but way more difficult than it used to be. Surprisingly enough some parole offices won't watch you piss. Go figure.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053635)

Or maybe your lumping pot in with the wrong things. Being around weed smokers for a very very long time Ive never met a single one that was addicted, at least in my experience just because someone smokes pot in no way makes them a drug addict. The vast majority are just fine with quitting for a month or two while job searching and taking pee tests, then once they start at a stable job they can start again. It is very much equivalent to alcohol (alcohol being more addictive though) in that there is absolutely no harm in doing it on the weekends or even a little during the week. Of course they are going to have issues if they show up to work high, but then again does everyone who drinks alcohol show up to work drunk and non-functional? No, of course not, and its the same with pot

Id be willing to take a good educated guess that at least of the under 35s at my office of ~200 devs at least 1/4 smoke

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

jcr (53032) | about 7 months ago | (#47054163)

Interesting. What does your girlfriend, Morgan Fairchild have to say about it?

-jcr

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47058969)

There is a reason you're posting this as AC: it's a lie.

There is a reason I'm posting this as AC: you don't deserve a fair conversation.

Re: Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052035)

Potheads boycott FBI and NSA...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (2)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#47052199)

As one of the top 4% of minds in the world, I have smoked an average of two oz. of cannabis a month for the last 38 years. Ive blow it all off over time,designed everything from military weapons to consumer electronics, interviewed more celebrities than youll ever meet in a lifetime,received two bullshit doctorates from Ivy league Universities and have the gall to offer my top of the line archtop guitar for a cool $35k U.S. This is only from my hobbies.
What have you done lately?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053477)

i fucked yo bitch

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 7 months ago | (#47054831)

Considering my bitch is a chihuahua, you must be tiny.....

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053839)

I think what impresses me the most is your modesty.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 7 months ago | (#47054835)

Modesty, like manners is for people with nothing better to do.
I AM the guy who will answer the door naked, if I happen to be, for anyone.
Philosophically, if you dont blow your own horn, no one else is likely to...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47069565)

Well, you might be top 4% for mental ability, but definitely bottom 4% for personality.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (4, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | about 7 months ago | (#47054489)

Top 3%, designed everything from anti-matter weapons to consumer teleportation devices, been an a-list celebrity, received 3 doctorates from Oxford universties, all on the subject of bovine defecation and have the gall to offer my top of the line Theramin for $35,000.25

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#47056059)

Bah. I'm in the top 1%, and I've invented artificial gravity, designed and constructed FTL starships, and also invented time-travel machines. I just like to post in Slashdot of the past to amuse myself.

Bottom 100% (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 7 months ago | (#47062725)

And I wrote the virtual machine you three are simulated on. :-)

Dang that time travel bug again; I thought I had fixed that...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47062241)

Is that anything like a Theremin?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47095955)

Top 2%. That's "theremin."

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055971)

Cool story, bro.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47057915)

If you were one of the top 4%, you wouldn't be on Slashdot spouting off this garbage. Who in the world modded this up at ALL?!

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 7 months ago | (#47064309)

If it were garbage, I would post as Anonymous Coward. hmmmmm

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47059241)

I 've learned to use the apostrophe.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 7 months ago | (#47064287)

My keyboard has a problem with that and quote marks, go figure.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Threni (635302) | about 7 months ago | (#47052493)

Let's talk about this over a drink!

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052557)

Mental illness is common amongst programmers, and self medicating with marijuana and booze are the most common ways of handling mental illness in lieu of very costly treatment and medication. If you've read Slashdot for any length of time, you know many of the best minds have struggled with depression, suicidal thoughts, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other issues for long periods of time. We're smart, and we're troubled -- as others have has said, there is a very fine line between genius and insanity, and we straddle both sides.

This article amounts to saying "The best hackers are the most troubled, so to hire them we need to overlook that they are self-medicating with drugs to cope". That's it. It in no way reverses or negates any of the stereotypes of marijuana use which are now matters of medical fact:

- Marijuana inhibits motivation
- Marijuana increases paranoia
- Marijuana increases the risk of having psychotic episodes
- Marijuana worsens depression and schizophrenia

Instead of pushing marijuana as a harmless "cure-all" (which it is absolutely not for the facts listed above, and many more), I wish we'd put our funding into diagnosing and helping people who are mentally ill, and educate the public to be tolerant and understanding of us. In the context of this article, the FBI should be putting effort into helping their hackers instead of turning a blind eye to their drug addiction.

Just pushing more drugs onto the populace at large is a worthless gesture that helps nobody, other than enabling dangerous self-medicating behavior which is ultimately self-defeating and leads to a decline of productivity and mental health. We need to actually help people instead of telling them to get high, especially programmers who are highly at risk in this regard.

I realize you are an advocate of drug use, but you need to think about what drugs actually do to people, and look at facts instead of gut feelings and anecdotal evidence. It should be readily apparent that something is amiss when the number of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals that support marijuana use are greatly outnumbered by those that do not.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#47052721)

Marijuana increases the risk of having psychotic episodes...Marijuana worsens depression and schizophrenia

Is there any actual evidence for this? Since all I've seen was mostly contradictory and inconclusive.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 7 months ago | (#47053007)

Here's some research [medicalnewstoday.com] , at least on the schizophrenia. However, all the studies show that 1. everyone that had schizophrenic issues where already pre-desposed it having it 2. it only to be caused from teen usage, not in adults.

Basically, if you have a genetic pre-disposition to this kind of mental illness already, AND use for at least 2-3 years WHILE your brain is in it's formation period, you MIGHT have your schizophrenia triggered early. The research doesn't indicate this happens with adults (ei, post brain pathway solidification), so the real warning should be stay away from any and all brain-altering substances until your brain is done forming.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (4, Informative)

rgbatduke (1231380) | about 7 months ago | (#47053353)

...contradictory, inconclusive, and (as even Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN finally came to realize and stated in public when he changed his stance on pot) the result of decades of research funded for the sole purpose of finding something wrong with pot. If 96% or more of all research grants are titled "Investigating Marijuana as a risk factor of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia", and the only way to have a grant renewed is to find some positive (that is, negative) effect, it is hardly surprising that 96% of all research results turn up something negative about pot. What is really interesting is that in spite of subjecting it to a microscope far more demanding than we have ever applied to any other substance under similar circumstances, so very little has been double-blind confirmed as a "risk" to pot smokers. It "interferes with" (but certainly does not "prevent") the formation of short term memory -- for the duration of the time you are high, with no long-term effects. It is indeed used as self-medication for lots of different kinds of dysphoria, and can by preventing or ameliorating dysphoria keep people from making beneficial life changes. Sometimes one does need to take action instead of endure when life sucks. Other times, its gonna suck regardless of what you do, and then sure, pot can help make it suck less.

The other really interesting thing about pot is the number of myths straight out of the War on Drugs are still being perpetuated by people who heard some pithy thing about it twenty or thirty years ago and never thought to doubt the veracity of their government or question its interest in the whole matter.

http://www.drfranklucido.com/p... [drfranklucido.com]

http://medicalmarijuana.procon... [procon.org]

The government itself is pretty schizophrenic on the issue. There are several places one can get to (compilations of) original papers on pot, and (allowing for the confirmation bias that is rampant in medical science these days, especially when reporting anecdotal "evidence" rather than double blind, placebo controlled studies) it really is pretty benign compared to ever so many other things that are quite legal. The same cop who arrests you, the judge who sits on your case, and the lawyer who gets you off can easily be functional alcoholics. I'm guessing alcohol and bipolar disorder or schizophrenia don't mix real well either -- but that is never mentioned or discussed, for some reason...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055883)

...If 96% or more of all research grants are titled "Investigating Marijuana as a risk factor of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia", and the only way to have a grant renewed is to find some positive (that is, negative) effect, it is hardly surprising that 96% of all research results turn up something negative about pot. ...

Indeed - what you have is a vast research industry operating on 'survivor bias'. Huge numbers of studies (many billions of dollars of them to date) are funded to find something wrong with cannabis (the DEA controls access to the material used in research), there is a strong publication filter keeping negative results out of view (studies showing no ill effects never show up in any government report), and an even stronger funding bias - only by showing 'bad things' do the funds keep flowing.

To a large extent the cannabis research industry really does operate in the manner that right-wingers fantasize about with climate science - but only because the drug warriors in the Federal government explicitly control it (if the DEA does not like your study, you cannot legally do it).

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

dead_cthulhu (1928542) | about 7 months ago | (#47055997)

My personal anecdotal evidence is that I can't even go to a rock concert without having to taking clonazepam beforehand and immediately heading to the bar for booze, just to prevent the serious crazy that happens if I even get a whiff of second-hand weed smoking. That's right, even a contact high fucks me horribly. However, on the other hand, I know scores of people who smoke the stuff regularly, either for recreational reasons or medicine, and either benefit or have neutral effects. It's a drug, and like other drugs, it causes varying reactions amongst various people.

I think it should be legal, but I don't know whether it's better to regulate it like medicine, or like other recreational drugs like alcohol or tobacco, both of which are more harmful.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#47056113)

I had a psychiatrist tell me that THC can trigger psychotic states by means of messing with the dopamine levels. Then, I found out an actual study where they gave people THC in recreational doses (equivalent 1 joint per day) and found out that the dopamine changes were apparently statistically insignificant compared to the changes necessary to induce psychosis. So much for qualitative reasoning in psychiatry.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053541)

So you start this off by stereotyping programmers as being mentally ill with no supporting data, then you follow up with some of the most popular urban myths about marijuana, again with no supporting data.

Look, I agree that not all marijuana use is noble, but your information is not based on any credible psychological or sociological studies of IT workers nor are your claims about the effects of marijuana accurate and reflective of the weighted opinion of the medical community.

Re: Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053747)

WTF!!? (No addt'l text needed)

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (2)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 7 months ago | (#47052729)

Call me silly but shouldn't we always want to hire people who obey the law before any consideration is given to people who do break the law?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (2)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 7 months ago | (#47053035)

actually, no. You want people who can understand the people their chasing...and this is the FBI basically admitting that it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, and their missing out on thousands of highly effective hackers because of duPont Chemical's need to protect their profits against hemp paper and the racist policies of the past. Hire a criminal to catch criminals!

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#47056229)

Congress should pass a law preventing the FBI from hiring these people. If they're flouting the drug laws, then they have no business working for the government which enforces those laws and refuses to rescind them. If the FBI can't fill their staffing needs as a result, and cybercrime goes unpunished, then that's the price they need to pay for their bad policies.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 7 months ago | (#47126743)

what really gets me is how this would work in relationship to security clearances. One of the major points is to make sure that you can't be compromised by "bad things" in your past. Seems like the FBI doing this destroys that entire idea...

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053039)

Call me silly but shouldn't we always want to hire people who obey the law before any consideration is given to people who do break the law?

Well Silly, some follow the rules because they fear the smack (you) not because they recognise the rules as right. There's a difference but you don't/can't understand that, instead you observe the rules which you fear being caught breaking, and break the rules you believe you won't be caught breaking, and you spend you worship the lawmakers.

So.... some people (you) follow rules because they fear punish more than they care about being right, and will happily take a job with the FBI where they'll be required to break the law. Unfortunately not all the work the FBI wants to do can be done by idiots. You can see the problem right there.

Ok - you can't see the problem. That's a do-it-yourself-eye-surgery conundrum.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055081)

Very few undercover cops (or agents, I guess) are anything close to law-abiding citizens. How would you expect to infiltrate (say) a drug dealer's organisation without maybe taking a few drugs along the way, possibly driving home after having done so?

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 7 months ago | (#47056261)

They don't care if you break the law, you just have to be honest to your supervisor about it.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (1)

rea1l1 (903073) | about 7 months ago | (#47057607)

The law is not == what is morally right. If you want a truly creative type working for you, find someone who does not consider boundaries so black and white. Test them with moral scenarios and see if you like their answers instead of asking them questions about your own life decisions and casting them aside when they've come to a different, more open minded conclusion.

Selection bias. (1)

westlake (615356) | about 7 months ago | (#47052805)

Wait a second, I thought potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

You'll see only success stories posted here. Not a word from those whose careers were crippled or cut short by alcohol or drugs.

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052897)

That, and who would want to work for a bunch ignorant fucks who has made your and your friends life hell either you are a pothead or a hacker or both. Just because they now might take a turn on their view does not excuse all the misery they've caused, and I get really fucking offended by the whole "pot users" term. We are humans, who enjoy life, just like everyone else. Why don't you go a head and legalize federally and pardon all the potheads you've put in jail and ruined the lives of? Perhaps then we can have a chat. My team doesn't judge me over silly stereotypes. Stop offending us (geeks, hackers, potheads, "crazy ones", you know: people not like yourselves) each time you open your mouth about us: You clearly need and want our help and while we are not unreasonable, our help comes with strings attached, just like yours.

$0.02

Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054027)

There's no irony, just desperation.

Simple solution (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 6 months ago | (#47051413)

Outsource them. Not to India, but a private company. Do it like NSA.

Re:Simple solution (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 6 months ago | (#47051557)

Still won't work. Vendors/contractors for the federal government are required by law to do pre-hire drug testing and random drug tests.

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051885)

No they are not.

Re:Simple solution (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 6 months ago | (#47052025)

Care to cite that law? Also, random drug tests are often not all that random. People often know a week in advance that they, or at least someone is going to be tested.

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054387)

I can't state the law, but I can say that as being a federal contractor personally, at least at all the companies myself and my co-workers have worked for, it's true.

Re:Simple solution (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about 7 months ago | (#47055265)

I can't state the law, but I can say that as being a federal contractor personally, at least at all the companies myself and my co-workers have worked for, it's true.

Of the 3 companies I have worked for where I was being "paid" by the federal government (i.e., my hours were billed to the government by the company), only one required me to take a drug test.

And, one of the companies that didn't test had a "no alcohol or drugs at any company function" that literally required us to do things like not wear company-logo'd swag if we had a beer in our hand. So, it's not like drugs and alcohol were accepted there...they just didn't test for them.

Depends on the agency and contract (1)

billstewart (78916) | about 7 months ago | (#47054227)

While the Reagan Administration really wanted to get most of Corporate America doing that, as a tool in the War On Drugs, it was hardly universal, partly to allow companies to go way overboard without the government having to take responsibility.

Cygnus Solutions, a company that did open-source gcc and other GNU work, had a contract supporting the state of California with compilers, so they were required to have a corporate drug policy and have it posted up on the same board as the minimum wage notices, etc. There was no requirement for the policy to be anything specific, including testing, and the company eventually decided on an official policy that if you bring illegal drugs to the workplace, you have to offer to share them with your coworkers, and posted it. I'm not sure how often the policy was actually followed, but I know some obvious people to ask :-)

Re:Simple solution (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 7 months ago | (#47057337)

No. You are definitely wrong.

buzzkill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051419)

Mr. Comey also issued a more serious warning about the long term impacts of the Syrian civil war on global terrorism. He warned that when the Syrian conflict starts winding down, it would produce an outflow of hardened militants that poses a far bigger global terror threat than the outflow of militants that followed the Afghan war against the Russians in the 1980s.

Gosh, maybe all those foreign countries (like the US, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, France, Britain, Turkey, Qatar, Israel, Kuwait) should stop funding and giving weapons to those guys.

Interview on Weed?! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051423)

If you have to smoke weed just to make it to the interview I seriously doubt you'll be able to do the job. Some recreational usage might be fine but it you need it to just get out of your apartment to go to a job interview then you have issues and problems that should disqualify for most any job out there.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051477)

... aren't you nervous when you get to an interview?

its not "get out of your apartment", they perhaps will to help prosecuting their friends if they get the job.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 6 months ago | (#47051521)

Why the hell would you be nervous at a job interview if your qualified for the job?! I've never had a job interview where i was nervous. Even the last one I had for my current position 8yrs ago being interviewed by 3 people from management and two other network admins that were higher on the ladder.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (5, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | about 6 months ago | (#47051661)

Unrelated to the topic, but being qualified for the job and being qualified for the interview is 2 totally different things in the IT and software development field, since there's so many bad interviewers out there.

I wish I could screen for the interview before agreeing to do it. Would save me a lot of trouble.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051741)

Well aren't you special.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051919)

One could for example be a schizoid, or otherwise bad at dealing with people in course of non-technical communication.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 6 months ago | (#47052079)

Because in some cases, there is someone else qualified for the job, perhaps a significant number of someones applying for only one position. The interview may be the deciding factor, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point in having it (other than perhaps negotiating your pay, which is itself something that may merit concern). Also, you don't seem to be producing a great example here. If your relative strength for the position is stable, you would be more nervous with less experience interviewing, so your most recent interview probably wouldn't be the best example.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052105)

>Why the hell would you be nervous at a job interview if you're qualified for the job

Youth, and lack of self-confidence. I remember being nervous in job interviews in my 20s, in the American Midwest, despite being very qualified. It wasn't until my 30s that I realized how much value I brought to an employer based on my own record of helping business people make millions of dollars in profit with software I designed and built.

That said, showing up for an interview while high shows VERY poor judgement. We need better mental heath care for people who are struggling.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (1)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 7 months ago | (#47059175)

Why the hell would you be nervous at a job interview if your qualified for the job?! I've never had a job interview where i was nervous.

Cool.
Thanks for the fun post!

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051933)

heaven forbid someone is nervous during a job interview. Show a little self-discipline, after all, when you have a job, you'll be expected to do actual work... even with a government job.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 7 months ago | (#47053043)

Some drugs would help with that. I'm not sure I would pick marijuana though. The decreased anxiety going into the interview is outweighed by the increased paranoia when the interviewer starts questioning you.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (1)

entrigant (233266) | about 6 months ago | (#47051541)

"have to"? I believe the exact wording was "want to". It's hyperbole meant to demonstrate the level of "tolerance" some of the candidates demand, not to demonstrate their crippling inability to get out of bed.

I do quite well in the private sector, but government is full of "zero tolerance" requirements from recreational drug use to the exact level of college education completed. Combine that with the pitiful wages and I'm amazed they end up with any technology related work force at all. If they'd compete I'd at least consider them. Now I don't even bother looking at them.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (2)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 6 months ago | (#47051615)

If you have to smoke weed just to make it to the interview I seriously doubt you'll be able to do the job. Some recreational usage might be fine but it you need it to just get out of your apartment to go to a job interview then you have issues and problems that should disqualify for most any job out there.

A good point. if you can't stop long enough to pass a drug test for which you know the date, you likely have a problem. One issue is that the FBI loves to do polygraphs. Even though they're not reliable enough to be used in criminal proceedings, they use them for employment screening all the time.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (2)

_merlin (160982) | about 6 months ago | (#47051943)

THC accumulates in fat cells. It can be detected up to three months out if you're a regular user. One of my friends, who was fucking smart but also a serious stoner and a bit of a womaniser, stayed of the whacky tobacky for six weeks before trying to get into the Royal Australian Air Force, but still failed the drug test. A few years later he successfully got into the army after not smoking weed for about six months.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 6 months ago | (#47052391)

THC accumulates in fat cells. It can be detected up to three months out if you're a regular user. One of my friends, who was fucking smart but also a serious stoner and a bit of a womaniser, stayed of the whacky tobacky for six weeks before trying to get into the Royal Australian Air Force, but still failed the drug test. A few years later he successfully got into the army after not smoking weed for about six months.

I am aware of how THC works and how long it remains in the body, depending on how frequently it is used. My point still stands. If you know you're going to have a drug test and you can't stop long enough to pass it, you likely have a problem.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054193)

If you get asked to go to interview with a drug test next month it is to late to stop using drugs now; where at the moment you are allowed to take drugs.

There are a few jobs even in the Netherlands where you are not allowed to fail a drug test; except for the poppyseed bagel/sandwhich test.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053155)

THC accumulates in fat cells. It can be detected up to three months out if you're a regular user. One of my friends, who was fucking smart but also a serious stoner and a bit of a womaniser, stayed of the whacky tobacky for six weeks before trying to get into the Royal Australian Air Force, but still failed the drug test. A few years later he successfully got into the army after not smoking weed for about six months.

Just as well he didn't try for submarining with the Navy. If you can't demonstrate how to smoke a spliff through a roll of tumble-drier-antistatic-cloth (so there's no odour) they won't let you in (I've yet to meet a submariner that wasn't a pothead). So yes - THC leaches out of your fat and, if you are a long-term heavy smoker, may still be leaching testable levels 3 months later. Or - you can drink 1 litre of water last thing at night, and during the night drink a large glass of water after every piss, followed by another litre of water for breakfast with half a glass of vinegar. The Armed forces test in the morning. If you piss clear your levels of THC in the urine are too low to test.

18 years in the Army (NCO Special Forces), 4 years in Defence and DFAT. Never ever failed a piss test. Now a grandfather and self-employed IT Consultant earning 7 figures. Second generation pot smoker (that I know of). My grandfather called it "goofing off" - a term learnt in India as a merchant marine. My grandmother called it "irish linen".

When you smoke you are endlessly surprised by who else smokes. When you are a non-smoker you only see the extreme stereotypes. In the 18-90 age group in my community the pot smokers far out-number the cigarette smokers.

Don't confuse "I smoke pot" with "I smoke pot all the time". Most of us are very selfish about our pot - we prefer the best and only smoke when we can enjoy it without work and other things compromising the stone. Not only do we not conform to the stereotyped stoner profile but we're generally the first person the non-smoker comes running too to voice their "concerns" that one of their colleagues "might" have a "cannabis problem".

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054717)

My sister stopped smoking a week before the test, and she passed. That's a second data-point for you.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051949)

Heavy user here as AC. I went 3 months without even being in the same room as second-hand smoke. I failed a litmus strip/instant-cup test at a third party lab. Luckily,the job was for a small business owner and he didn't care about THC positive, after I had to awkwardly explain what THC meant. That's 3 months. That is a pretty long time.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 7 months ago | (#47052411)

Heavy user here as AC. I went 3 months without even being in the same room as second-hand smoke. I failed a litmus strip/instant-cup test at a third party lab. Luckily,the job was for a small business owner and he didn't care about THC positive, after I had to awkwardly explain what THC meant. That's 3 months. That is a pretty long time.

No judgement from me. I have no issue with marijuana use. In fact, I think it should be completely legal. Three months (as another poster pointed out) is generally the outside range for removing THC from the body. Presumably there's some variability in that three month window.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47056337)

If it is only a pre-employment screen, it can be beaten reliably with a week or two of notice.

Key facts: the metabolite levels drop quickly in the first week of absention to a lower (but easily detectable level) due to gradual release from fat stores. You can then pass a test with the following protocol:

  • Five hours before consume a B-complex vitamin (this doesn't do anything to affect the test, but it does make the specimen look a normal yellow).
  • During the period 2-4 hours of the test do salt loading (using lite salt that is half potassium) 20-40 grams with 2 liters of water.
  • Three hours before the test consume 75 g of a high-glycemic carbo (glucose and maltodextrin are best) with 0.5 liters of water, this shuts down fat metabolism for a few hours, thus reducing metabolite release.
  • One hour before the test consume 10 g of creatinine*, and consume 2 liters of water for the next half hour.

What this does is dilute the metabolites below the statutory level of a positive test, while still keeping the sample from appearing over-dilute (they can reject samples that appear over-dilute). Over-dilution can be judged by color (defeated by the B-complex), specific gravity (salt loading offsets this), and low levels of creatinine (consuming creatinine creates a huge spike). Test procedure these days place a lot of emphasis on the creatinine concentration as a marker for dilution, but this is actually the easiest feature to spoof by consuming several grams an hour before.

Also get a bunch of drug tests (they are cheap ordered in bulk on-line) and give this procedure a trial run before hand, and always test yourself before going in for the test, make sure you test negative before going in. Get the multiple strip tests that measure specific gravity and creatinine levels also, not just the drug strip.

*Creatinine is easy to make. Just simmer 20g of creatine powder (used in body building) with 2 oz of lemon juice and 8 oz of water for 45 minutes.

If you think you can 'spike' the sample with an eyedropper of liquid, then preparing clear salt solution with a tiny amount of creatinine can avoid the salt loading and creatinine consumption part, but in that case you need to do a bit of research to figure out the appropriate amounts.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051665)

Yah, smokin' weed is crutch. More better to get a Xananx prescription to handle job interview jitters.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#47051843)

Fortunately for us, Pal Erdos didn't need a job to reshape modern mathematics while on drugs.

Re:Interview on Weed?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47060987)

Paul Erdos. amphetamine

Colorado Attorney General (4, Interesting)

TJ_Phazerhacki (520002) | about 6 months ago | (#47051439)

When Colorado passed the recreational Marijuana law last year, the AG stated that he expected to review employment-discrimination cases by the end of this year. It's going to be interesting when it comes to companies that do business in Colorado and other states, since current doctrine allows companies to have policies dependent on individual state laws, but I don't believe any of then conflict with national policy.

Regardless of your stance on the morality of it, maybe we just start treating one drug (MJ) like another (Alcohol or Tobacco) from a legal perspective? Contrary to Mr. Christie, Denver is a fantastic place to live, and I genuinely believe the recreational industry has improved it even more.

Re:Colorado Attorney General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051711)

We've been tackling this issue in California for a long time now.

Northern California is home to what is literally the best outdoor pot growing land in the world. THC is plant sunscreen and we've got more sunny days than anywhere else that isn't a dried up dessert.

There are a LOT of poor as fuck rural counties here where the logging industry has gone away. Guess what the primary industry in this counties is? You guessed it. And it's skyrocketed with pot's semi-legal status.

As a consequence, in these counties, a gross majority of the employable population won't pass a piss test for pot. (Hey. At least they aren't doing meth. That and oxy are the real scourge of the rural poor)

If you want to setup shop, be you a local business, tourist destination, or even a national chain fast foot place you simply can't drug test. If you do, you won't have any employees to man the counters. That, and you have to compete with the industry itself. Why work some shit retail job when trimming pays twice as much and you get some free product to enjoy when you go home?

Re:Colorado Attorney General (1, Redundant)

Pax681 (1002592) | about 6 months ago | (#47051817)

Contrary to Mr. Christie, Denver is a fantastic place to live, and I genuinely believe the recreational industry has improved it even more. --

Colorado, specially Denver is fantastic.. I go regularly to visit friends and for a wee bit of work. The state is happy as it's got massively increased tax revenue and the people are happy as they no longer are victimised for having a wee smoke. Police are happy as they can get on with other more serious stuff... and i mention the police as one of my friends over is a policeman and he and his colleagues much prefer it this way.

Re:Colorado Attorney General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052051)

Do you ever have a wee while you're in Denver? Maybe a wee wee that comes out of your wee-wee?

Re:Colorado Attorney General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052515)

You arn't born high. You don't get high from an accident. Discrimination is fine.

Re:Colorado Attorney General (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 7 months ago | (#47052583)

Enjoying my Carbondale Kool-aid Cush as I write this ;)

Re:Colorado Attorney General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053935)

Best part is, random drug tests are illegal in Boulder city limits...

Re:Colorado Attorney General (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 7 months ago | (#47054667)

Best part is, random drug tests are illegal in Boulder city limits...

Don't make them random, schedule them daily and cancel most of them on the day.

Frito-Lay Inorporated loves this! (0)

Hartree (191324) | about 6 months ago | (#47051441)

Imagine what this will do to sales of Doritos from the vending machines at the FBI.

Re:Frito-Lay Inorporated loves this! (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 6 months ago | (#47051509)

It's all about the Twinkies and snowballs...

Re:Frito-Lay Inorporated loves this! (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 6 months ago | (#47051535)

Fuck that! I'll be across the street at the burger joint ordering fries!

Re:Frito-Lay Inorporated loves this! (1)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | about 6 months ago | (#47051689)

I've always said, if I get wind of a national legalization of marijuana, I am going to buy a ton of stock in Frito-Lay.

Re:Frito-Lay Inorporated loves this! (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 6 months ago | (#47052223)

I've always said, if I get wind of a national legalization of marijuana, I am going to buy a ton of stock in Frito-Lay.

Statistics from Colorado suggest that legalization has not increased consumption, and consumption has actually dropped among teenagers. So Frito-Lay may not be a good investment after all.

Drunk (4, Insightful)

dickplaus (2461402) | about 6 months ago | (#47051461)

Look I'm all for allowing them to smoke on their own time, but I don't show up to interviews or work buzzing off of a couple bloody marys. Relax the drug screenings yes, but showing up high? That's just immature IMHO.

Re:Drunk (5, Insightful)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#47051489)

About as immature as all those people showing up to work buzzed on caffeine.

Different bodies function differently. Just like the majority of people need something to speed them up, some people need something to slow them down.

Re: Drunk (1)

dickplaus (2461402) | about 6 months ago | (#47051517)

And I work better with a couple beers too but that won't fly at a job.

Re: Drunk (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#47051699)

Works well enough for bartenders... and executives.

You must be a drone.

Re: Drunk (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#47052185)

Find a better place to work. When I was an apprentice mechanic almost 20 years ago, the shop I was at had a beer fridge with beer in it! Shock! And the guys who worked there would actually drink a beer or two during work.

Re: Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054075)

I regularly drink a glass of wine at lunch and nobody is bothered. In some projects we had real booze on some occasions albeit I consider teq. drinking at work a bit ott. Beer or two is ok tho and ever since company scrapped prohibitiin on premises I drink one once in a while if weather is good.

Re: Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052933)

And I work better with a couple beers too but that won't fly at a job.

Flying while drunk is easy. The problem is landing without spilling the beer..

Re:Drunk (0)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 6 months ago | (#47051561)

Apparently you've never been high or drunk. Those two have a vastly different effect than pussy ass caffeine.

Re:Drunk (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#47051723)

I've been both, and caffeine is the only one I can't deal with or do any work on.

Did you even read the second line I wrote? Try understanding it.

Re:Drunk (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052097)

Really? Here is a study about the effects various recreational pharmaceuticals have on how spiders construct their webs:

http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm

There is no picture for alcohol - probably because it would have killed the spider. However, Marijuana did far better than Caffeine. In fact, all the webs were far better than Caffeine except sleeping pills but that's only because the spider didn't get far enough to complete anything.

I'm not suggesting the hyper-perfect structures of the tripping spider's webs means we should trip at work (or at all for that matter). What I am suggesting is that to a rational person, the legality of a substance isn't directly correlated with its effects on people making decisions in the work place. Caffeine seems to create a state of ADHD and that is the last person I'd want making complicated decisions such as network design, risk management, corporate strategy, company policy, etc.,... You know, things that need to be well planned, stable for long periods of time because they are not easily changed - things that require a commitment.

One of the senior managers where I work is like this. Its amazing how much havoc her energy drinks cause on a daily basis. I know it's the Caffeine - she went cold turkey for a while and was drinking green tea instead. She was all of a sudden rational, could hold complicated thoughts could follow things through multiple cause/effect trees, etc.,... Then back on the Caffeine and she was once again like the scatter brained Caffeinated (redundant) spider.

A cup of joe in the morning is one thing just like a single beer at lunch - probably not really an issue as far as job performance. However, with both Alcohol and Marijuana, someone doesn't cause MORE havoc the more they take. Instead, they pass out or space out. I'd much rather have someone produce nothing than produce pure chaos.

Re:Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053927)

Here is a study about the effects various recreational pharmaceuticals have on how spiders construct their webs

Amanita Phalloides also have no effect on rabbits and slugs. Conclusion: it is far safer to eat Ammanites Phalloides than to smoke pot. It tastes better too as multiple people said before they died.

One of the senior managers where I work is like this. Its amazing how much havoc her energy drinks cause on a daily basis. I know it's the Caffeine - she went cold turkey for a while and was drinking green tea instead. She was all of a sudden rational, could hold complicated thoughts could follow things through multiple cause/effect trees, etc.

Green tea contains caffeine.

Re:Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051677)

Are you a fucking moron?

Re:Drunk (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 7 months ago | (#47052593)

Ah, one of the drug addicts on state approved drugs.

Re:Drunk (1)

NIK282000 (737852) | about 7 months ago | (#47052655)

It is insane how much caffeine some people run on. Seeing people drink 2 XL coffees an hour for a 12 hour shift makes my weekend pub crawl look like the church picnic.

Re:Drunk (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 7 months ago | (#47053047)

bah, I moved beyond adulterated caffeine many years ago. Coffee? Takes too long, just open up the Jet-alert and slam 2-3 pills!

Re:Drunk (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 7 months ago | (#47053173)

Of course then you get the geeks/programmers/hackers who prefer to get their caffeine in carbonated form (and become obese or diabetic as a side-effect thanks to all that HFCS they drink)

Re:Drunk (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#47051627)

It used to be fairly common to have a couple drinks at lunch.

ended pretty much by the end of the 80s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051793)

A combination of forces has pretty much made the liquid lunch history(at least in technical fields). Neoprohibitionists (MADD, which is no longer about driving, but about drinking, per se), employer paranoia about "impaired employees", etc. But the biggest factor is "internet time". There's no time for a long lunch and slow afternoon any more. Used to be, you'd get the stuff done in the morning, get it to the mail room, and the absolute soonest you'd get comments back would be a week, because it had to travel through gloom of night on the courier's appointed rounds, then they'd have to type their responses (no word processors in the early 80s: runoff and all caps on greenbar doesn't hack it for real business communications) and send them back. Now, though, you get text messages during your (working) lunch asking for a response "soonest", and somehow I think that if you texted back "sorry, getting a couple pints with the guys, get back to you tomorrow", the next text would be "we'll ship your stuff to you at the last address you had on file with HR".

I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "go out to lunch and get beer and pizza" type thing, and I'm thinking mid 80s. There might be a Friday afternoon "we got the proposal in on schedule" every 5-6 years but that's end of workweek not expected to toil afterwards.

A friend blames it all on couriers and FedEx (work all day, FedEx carries through the night, delivering in the morning at the other end), but in the 80s you still had to type the stuff out, which was generally NOT done by the engineer or technical person, but by clerical staff.
I blame more of it on the Internet and cheap PCs, which made it possible to disintermediate the whole transaction: no courier service, no typist, no graphic artist. This is BAD: most engineers are lousy copy editors and lousy graphic artists,and sorry, clip art help from Powerpoint and Word's grammar/spell checker are a bad substitute, and slower than people who are good at it.

Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051929)

> ended pretty much by the end of the 80s

It really didn't. Pub lunches are common in London to this day.

Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s (1)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#47052059)

The funny thing is, everyone spins faster but it's just spinning in place. No more of worth gets accomplished. For all that talk about internet speed, real accomplishments move slower than ever.

Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s (4, Insightful)

TrekkieGod (627867) | about 6 months ago | (#47052347)

A combination of forces has pretty much made the liquid lunch history(at least in technical fields). Neoprohibitionists (MADD, which is no longer about driving, but about drinking, per se), employer paranoia about "impaired employees", etc.

Not really. I have a beer at lunch once in a while. I do so in plain view of my boss. The way some of you guys describe jobs, I really wonder why you don't leave. You're in a technical field, jobs really aren't that hard to find. Take a pay cut, go work for a startup, get more freedom. Still a ton of work and insane hours, but you're not going to get your boss writing you up for an official warning from HR because you had a beer during lunch.

Now, though, you get text messages during your (working) lunch asking for a response "soonest", and somehow I think that if you texted back "sorry, getting a couple pints with the guys, get back to you tomorrow", the next text would be "we'll ship your stuff to you at the last address you had on file with HR".

Holy shit, tomorrow?? Yeah, I wouldn't blame them for firing you in that case, I would too. The guy you're responding to said a couple of drinks, not get plastered and blow the afternoon off. Somehow I think if you instead texted back, "sorry, I'm currently at lunch. I'll get to it as soon as I'm back in the office," it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It's still a workday, dude.

Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052675)

How the fuck can you have a couple of drinks and carry on any work?

I worked with a guy who would drink beer at lunch. He never seemed to do anything productive in the afternoon. One day I copied his folly, and returned to the office with the same now explicable inability to do anything productive.

People who say they can drink beer at lunch and still get work done in the afternoon, are in denial. They simply aren't productive and are having their coworkers pick up the slack.

I can work on caffeine, but even then I'm far less productive. The best thing to do is keep it to sandwiches or sushi at work, and enjoy your recreational drug of choice after work.

Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055561)

you sound like a bitch so maybe you have a bitch tolerance for alcohol?

Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 7 months ago | (#47054085)

Some of this depends on what field you're in. I know some sales guys who do 90% of their business over martinis at a posh bar. They're more likely to get to go enjoy a liquid lunch, with management approval.

However, in other parts of the world this is not uncommon. It all depends on where you work and what the culture is

Re:Drunk (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 6 months ago | (#47052207)

It still can be. I have a tech friend who used to work for a company (about 4 years ago) that brought in kegs at lunch.

Re:Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052401)

It used to be fairly common to have a couple drinks at lunch.

It was common yesterday. It doesn't seem to be taking on today - but we might see a reversal of the lunch drinks decline by the end of lunch.

(Yes, I'm being literal).

Re:Drunk (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 7 months ago | (#47052753)

It used to be fairly common to have a couple drinks at lunch.

And smoke a pack of cigarettes at your desk. And only hire people of the correct religion or race. And fire the secretary for not putting out.

Re:Drunk (1)

swb (14022) | about 7 months ago | (#47052775)

We've stopped doing all those things and now look at the mess we're in.

Peggy, get your skirt back on, get me some ice and pour me a drink.

Re:Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47056231)

We've stopped doing all those things and now look at the mess we're in.

Peggy, get your skirt back on, get me some ice and pour me a drink.

I think you're doing it wrong.

Re:Drunk (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#47052883)

So if we bring even one thing back, we automatically have to have all the others?

Besides, the drinks at lunch continued well after the other things went away.

Re:Drunk (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 7 months ago | (#47053781)

Quite true. Should we bring back other practices from that bygone, golden era, such as sexually harassing women in the workforce and refusing to hire blacks for decent jobs? Or are we still waiting for those other bad ideas to come back in style?

(quick aside: apologies if you're merely making an interesting historical observation, without intending to use it to lend credence to the notion that it's fine to show up high for an interview)

Re:Drunk (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#47055407)

It's isn't particularly bright to show up to an interview at less than 100%.

At the same time, I wouldn't consider someone having a couple drinks at lunch (one if you're a lightweight, and none if work involves dangerous machinery) to be such a bad thing in most cases. As with everything, not all old practices were bad and not all were good. Baby and bathwater, etc.

As others have pointed out, it's still common practice in many places.

Re:Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055623)

Yes it did, even in the Air Force on active duty before the influx of religious fanatics and corporatists.

One or two brews with a meal is relaxing, especially if you start the day with strong coffee as is common. Civilized nations retain the custom.

Re:Drunk (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about 7 months ago | (#47056401)

It used to be fairly common to have a couple drinks at lunch.

Still is in many countries outside the US, especially in Europe. My husband works for a major IT company in France and they often have drinks with lunch. On friday they have company provided champagne (and other drinks).

Re:Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051915)

Literally nobody is showing up to interviews high; the guy who they quoted is presenting total hyperbole as truth to try to give his otherwise-untenable position a bit of weight.

Re:Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052815)

Ermm. Speak for yourself, but every job interview I've gone for in the past 10 years, I've been pretty high on marijuana. It makes me chatty, which is good for job interviews, which is sure better than my usual self which doesn't really care for talking to people so much....

Some people do use pot for things like social anxiety and it actually works pretty darn well for that.

Re:Drunk (1)

dcollins (135727) | about 6 months ago | (#47052145)

I'm sure that FBI Director James Comey has specific case files he can point to of this actually happening, and wasn't engaging in hyperbolic BS like he normally does.

Re:Drunk (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#47053681)

Look I'm all for allowing them to smoke on their own time, but I don't show up to interviews or work buzzing off of a couple bloody marys. Relax the drug screenings yes, but showing up high? That's just immature IMHO.

Imagine you're going to throw your morals under the bus. Wouldn't you be plastered or stoned in your FBI interview? The shitty thing is, aside from my anti-war and anti-spying activism, shitfaced or not they'd hire me on the spot after seeing my resume.

The people that could protect this country, wouldn't agree to work with the NSA and FBI anyway, that would be counter productive to said goal. Look, if they wanted to end cybercrime then our guys would be discovering exploits and patching them. We'd be buying up vectors on the black market and submitting patches or reports to the OS vendors, not leveraging them with some automated exploit deployment framework -- That's the opposite of security.

Maybe you've got the wrong idea about the FBI. [wikipedia.org] Better wise up. [theguardian.com] The FBI and NSA preserve "National Security", that means shit like spam-shilling online forums with state propaganda and manufacturing false evidence against anti-war activists.

The context of this whole discussion is way off. They're looking for more goons to follow flow charts and deploy automated spying tools or troll facebook, twitter and 4chan threads. Not even joking. You want to not sound like an idiot then: s/(FBI|NSA)/KGB/gi and re-read the story.

Re:Drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053983)

Ethanol and Cannabis have similar effects because they are frequently consumed in similar contexts??

I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051469)

I've been programming professionally for just over thirty years, and in that time I got a BS in Comp Eng in 1993 and a MS in Comp Sci in 2001. I have never even seen pot. I can't remember ever hearing anyone in this field mention using it. It just isn't common in our field. Of course when I was hiring for a new janitorial position here, I couldn't find a single male that could pass the drug test so it appears to be only the uneducated that use it.

Re: I call BS (3, Insightful)

dickplaus (2461402) | about 6 months ago | (#47051485)

Must be true. You are statistically significant.

Re: I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051635)

Not as if you have any data to back your speculation. If someone tolerates cannabis usage well on a day-to-day basis, it's no different from going to work on Prozac for your crazy or Vicodin for your wisdom teeth. It's just a (self-)medication for a lot of people.

In environments where everyone has to have optimal situational awareness and response time, all psychoactive substances should be scruitinized. Operating heavy equipment or moving control rods is a whole lot different from writing code or doing IT ops work, where situational awareness and response to imminent physical danger aren't generally relevant.

If someone can't do their job because they're too stoned, fire that person; chances are they're just lazy and would fuck off regardless.

Re: I call BS (1)

dickplaus (2461402) | about 6 months ago | (#47051951)

Well like I said before I can drink and handle it just fine but I don't because that's not 'professional'. Hell I'd probably work better with others if I could snag a couple brews around lunch.

Re: I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052691)

Last office I worked in had a keg, and for the first couple years it was kept full with company money. The rule was no fills till after 2PM, and it never caused a problem.

Re: I call BS (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#47054067)

You let humans operate heavy machinery on this planet?! That's insane!

Re: I call BS (3, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#47054001)

Must be true. You are statistically significant.

At a young age I learned to read beyond the words of humans. Frequently the ignorant will have valid points when they talk on subjects even if they are unable to speak on the pertinent issue with the nuance it requires.

I wrote my first wireframe 3D game while stoned. I hadn't been taught trig yet so I invented vector math independently after discovering what you'd call the "unit circle" by drawing a radiant diagram of line slope ratios represented in decimal form; Ultimately I ended up creating the equivalent to sin(), cos() and dot() functions because I didn't know what those were useful for (seriously 'online' documentation sucks sans Internet). It was one of the most productive nights of my young life. I doubt I'd have come to the conclusions about connectedness between the mathematic properties in geometry with just a knowledge of linear equations, a glorified graphing calculator, and no mind expanding chemicals. The next school year I realized there was no such thing as Genius. I couldn't understand the reverence my teacher had for these dead dudes: If a stoned kid could discover in a single night much of what took Pythagoras decades to do when confronted with the same problem spaces, then maybe we're just teaching kids wrong... I digress.

We do have a bit of research which found that downers are less common among Hackers. [catb.org] We typically don't like things that make us stupid or slow. Today's Marijuana is very potent compared to the 70's or even 90's, so many Hackers tend to shy away from what I would call an overdose (meaning above recommended, the term does not imply lethal). IMHO, a brownie shouldn't put you out of commission; Eat herbal confections responsibly. However, for those that Marry Jane doesn't dance with in 'detrimental' ways it's not uncommon to do some light buzzed hacking sometimes with surprisingly clever results (especially for harder problems). Indeed, after I woke the next afternoon I was refreshed and amazed at my output. I was only confounded by a single block of dense hand optimized code with only the comment, // Refactored symbiotic slope system to remove branching. Whether such "here be dragons" comments in code should be taken as quite literal statements or if they arise from the ceremonial chemistry itself is still a great mystery each code-fu master must overcome for themselves. Mine turned out to be matrix math sans matrix idiom.

Think about it: Hackers like exploiting systems for interesting or clever results; Drugs are the tools we hack organic computers with... Well, that and tDCS, but the latter may blow your fuses before our stem-cell and n.net replacements are ready. As with even alcohol, caffeine or self modifying instructions: Moderation is the key when dealing in any form of computer altering substance.

Now reconsider the GP's post: Here is someone who has since the early 90's never heard of anyone enjoying recreational mind expanding chemicals in programming. However, when we polled Usenet via trial balloon that's not what we found at all among hackers. Consider that the corporate-clone workplace strongly filters against non-authoritarian approved drug use with the help of the state. The environment itself even hackers find somewhat hostile. Consider that many people sacrifice their pleasures if these are made to cause their livelihood risk. Consider that Hackers do have ways of defeating many unjust social systems such as these. Consider that we may be letting some great minds slip through the cracks for no other reason than a form of Orwellian thought control. Even consider that GP is posting AC and propagating anti-drug propaganda, just as we've seen since the 60's and 70's. With a bit of context even a seemingly dumb comment can stir up the probability matrix quite well. The trick is not to assume anything absolutely or concretely, but to consider the meaning of the whole situation at once. With closer inspection the waveform may collapse to many different points of observation, but what's more important is the general sentiments and governing dynamics one can identify.

To me it's a waste. Many new ideas are stumbled upon when disconnected parts of the brain fire off at once due to external stimuli: X-rays were discovered by one such accident. Humans are pattern matching machines that focus on interesting and relevant oddities in experience: Our cognition filters chaos into order as all life does, thus introducing a bit of entropy is often essential to make new discoveries. That which facilitates internal stimuli to discover the same chaotic and connected ends shouldn't be outlawed in the least, nor should it be abused (for too much chaos is insanity). We are a tool using species and it would not surprise me in the least if certain authoritarians forbid the use of certain tools that worked against their method and apparatus for converting sentient beings into beasts of burden.

If this were a capitalist country, even the "drug addled" hackers would be allowed to compete in the workplace along side the prudes. A true scientist would say, "Let's do the experiment and find out what drugs in what concentration benefit which types of work in what ways." The corpo-statists don't mind if you get hyped up on caffeine or Adivan (legal speed), or if you dull your senses with pain killers to do your single minded jobs more efficiently. However, they prohibit mental chemistry that entertains, sparks new ideas, and causes folks to think outside their boxes.

I don't find AC's comment insignificant at all, just terribly sad.

Re: I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054371)

"so I invented vector math independently "

Stopped reading right here. You're an idiot or an arrogant fool. This is like saying I invented string tokenizing my freshman year at university because I didn't know that strtok existed. I don't claim to have invented it though, I claim that I was an idiot and recreated the wheel. It is possible (and in all probability, likely) that though you weren't formally educated about vector mathematics, you'd still been introduced to the idea, thus somewhat tempering your "invention".

Re: I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47056461)

Probably your latter explanation, but still nonetheless impressive. FWIW as an AC, I've had similar experiences, especially with the "here be dragons" bit. Your mind puts together smaller pieces of things you may not fully comprehend in another state of mind into a complete whole. You can comprehend a bigger picture while on THC but this effect doesn't always last once you "sober up". In other words, you need to smoke again in order to remember or comprehend what was going on. This is sometimes called "state-dependent memory [wikipedia.org] ".

Re: I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47057327)

Are you high right now? I found what you wrote nearly impossible to grok.

Re: I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47060099)

I have never even seen pot. I can't remember ever hearing anyone in this field mention using it.

The next school year I realized there was no such thing as Genius. I couldn't understand the reverence my teacher had for these dead dudes

I'm glad that taking isolated data and interpolating it into broad generalizations is something everybody can agree on.

Re:I call BS (1)

DarkSage (208892) | about 6 months ago | (#47051533)

Yeah, I am gonna go ahead and have to disagree with that. Non-statistical personal experiences are worth just about as much as opinions.

Re:I call BS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051585)

He can't help it that he lives in his mom's basement and telecommutes to work everyday, go easy on him.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051657)

You're probably just in the wrong branch. I know a lot of programmers who don't, but I know plenty in my branch of Network Administration that do. Many of them have a BS in Advanced Networking. Others have MS in Info Systems. ALL of us at least have a CCNP in one area or the other(mine is in VoIP, I love it) Myself and a few others decided a year ago to go on and get our Doctor of Management in IS and Technology. We are not a dim-bulb group of people

Re:I call BS (4, Insightful)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#47051685)

Let me guess. You probably dress in a shirt with a tie and wear some clean pants. On casual Friday, you *might* switch to a polo. Guess what ? You might not be what the FBI is looking for..

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051771)

> On casual Friday, you *might* switch to a polo

I'm the GP, and I usually wear Hawaiian shirts on Friday. Your stereotype is wrong.

My work for AOL and later MSN and finally Wal-Mart has resulted in the arrests of at least two dozen crackers. I know the type well that tries to break into systems, and I've had several world-class hackers work for me over the years, and as far as I know, none of them have ever used drugs. I know that none of them have ever failed a drug test. Drug addicts aren't the type that can be successful at either side of the hacking problem.

If pot was popular in this field, it seems that one of the over eight hundred connections I have at Linkedin would have mentioned it sometime.

Re:I call BS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051895)

Well damn, none of your connections on Linkedin mention their drug use? And none of your employees mentioned behavior that could have negative consequences to their employment? That certainly means that there is no drug use in your industry.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054929)

I'm a contractor whose rate hasn't dipped below $600 a day since I started contracting in 2010.

I frequently use drugs in the office (mostly heroin), yet I am never out of work.

Stereotypes are stupid.

Re:I call BS (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | about 7 months ago | (#47060093)

You are talking about hackers, who as a group are well know for exploiting holes and flaws in systems to get to outcomes that they desire. And then you mention drug tests that you have not seen failed by these hackers. But you have really just shown yourself to be an narrow focused, non-curious, non-hacker yourself. It does't take much research to discover how easy it is to pass a drug test even having smoked recently. Hackers would be the first group I would think of as one that would be particularly prepared for such a situation, since they are typically anti-authoritarian or anti-establishment.

Re:I call BS (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 6 months ago | (#47051755)

So what are the tech wages like in Salt Lake City?

Living well... (1)

westlake (615356) | about 7 months ago | (#47052715)

So what are the tech wages like in Salt Lake City?

Not half bad.

May 2013 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates --- Salt Lake City, UT [bls.gov]

Which areas are the likely ''up and comers'' in the next decade? These are generally places that have been building up their tech capacity over the past several decades, and seem to be reaching critical mass. One place following a strong trajectory is Salt Lake City, No. 4 on our list, which has enjoyed a 31% spurt in tech employment over the past 10 years. Some of this can be traced to large-scale expansion in the area by top Silicon Valley companies such as Adobe, Electronic Arts and Twitter.

These companies have flocked to Utah for reasons such as lower taxes, a more flexible regulatory environment, a well-educated, multilingual workforce and spectacular nearby natural amenities. Perhaps most critical of all may be housing prices: Three-quarters of Salt Lake area households can afford a median-priced house, compared to 45% in Silicon Valley and about half that in San Francisco.

The Best Cities For Tech Jobs [forbes.com] [May 2012]

Re:Living well... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 7 months ago | (#47055693)

That's great, but I dunno if it's worth living in SLC :-P

Re:I call BS (4, Insightful)

Pax681 (1002592) | about 6 months ago | (#47051841)

I've been programming professionally for just over thirty years, and in that time I got a BS in Comp Eng in 1993 and a MS in Comp Sci in 2001. I have never even seen pot. I can't remember ever hearing anyone in this field mention using it. It just isn't common in our field. Of course when I was hiring for a new janitorial position here, I couldn't find a single male that could pass the drug test so it appears to be only the uneducated that use it.

that's because all the people who DO smoke it KNOW you are a prick and thus don't mention it near you

Re:I call BS (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 7 months ago | (#47053095)

and his co-workers probably know about Urineluck or other "fake urine" products...unless someone is standing there watching you piss it's pretty easy to use something else and show "clean"...

Re:I call BS (1)

Pax681 (1002592) | about 7 months ago | (#47053615)

and his co-workers probably know about Urineluck or other "fake urine" products...unless someone is standing there watching you piss it's pretty easy to use something else and show "clean"...

indeed l0n3s0m3phr34k , i use it for a govt contract i have LOL.. works a treat even if they stand on the toilet near you... i have it inside my underwear , which heats it to body heat and then when it comes time to pee... it looks like i am just having a piss.... easily done.
however Captain Bollocks is probably the company snitch so, again, it's not something he'd know about..lol

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47057659)

Why did you have to be so hateful in your response? It was completely uncalled for.

If there's one thing I resent, it's that the 'stereotype' of pot users being friendly and laid back is completely untrue. People who use pot, at least those who express their opinions of it on the internet, are frequently just as bitter and hateful as you are. They treat it with an "us vs them" mentality where anybody who isn't a drug addict is the enemy and should be hated. What's so mellow and peaceful about that mindset?

i'm a hacker who's never used pot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051637)

where do i apply?

Re:i'm a hacker who's never used pot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051865)

If you smoked pot, you'd know where to apply.

The FBI is encouraging illegal drug use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051671)

Did I miss something? Even my employer doesn't do that and I hired him (ie I'm on the board of the corporation for which I work, and am the CEO, and personally I support legalization, but done condone it on the job, lol).

Re:The FBI is encouraging illegal drug use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051729)

Not exactly. The FBI guy is talking about loosening the restriction about hiring hackers who have toked within the last 3 years. Pot use is not condoned (it's illegal in most states!), and I'm pretty sure you'd have to give it up if you went to work for the FBI.

Re:The FBI is encouraging illegal drug use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052325)

All work and no play makes a whistleblower a dull boy...

Riiiight. (2)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 6 months ago | (#47051705)

The only FBI agent I have ever known reasonably well was a scoutmaster and used his boy scout troop as couriers to deal weed. True story.

Re:Riiiight. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051839)

The problem isn't "FBI Agent." The problem is "Scoutmaster."

Re:Riiiight. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055453)

The problem isn't "FBI Agent." The problem is "Scoutmaster."

What's wrong with a grown man wanting to spend inordinate amounts of time alone with and playing with little boys? NAMBLA/BSA are completely legitimate organ-izations. :o)

Re:Riiiight. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47059415)

While I get the point of your joke, the underlying tone is very scary.

Why can't a grown man want to spend a bunch of time playing with kids? Why is this creepy? Because of spooky things you've read on the internet?

I really hate this slowly growing trend of demonizing people for wanting to play with, and help teach, children, for fear of STRANGER DANGER.

LOL funny story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051921)

I've got a funny story. I had to go rack some servers at Area 71 [wikipedia.org] as part of the Ingram Micro services network. Or whatever they call it. I worked at WM home office before this job, and was familiar with their data centers, anyway.

Anyway, when you pull up to the security gate [google.com] , you get asked for what WM calls a "RFAR number". So I was riding with my friend, and he called it a "reefer number" right into the speaker. LOL!

They were like, "Who are you with?!" And my friend was like, "I got a reefer number!". And she was so mad...

They got so pissed!!!!! LOL! True story.

NO SHIT:::: The captcha was "intercom" How does that even happen?

They already employ former cannabis users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47051953)

Hint: people will lie if a policy is both overly-strict and unenforceable. I guarantee you they have a substantial number of employees, probably even at director levels, who have used cannabis at least once in their lifetime. It wouldn't surprise me if James Corney is one of those people, but can, like, totally explain why his joint at 19 years old was okay but other peoples' use wasn't.

No they don't... (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 6 months ago | (#47052063)

They just need to actually advertise for those positions.

Anyone seen the FBI recruiting for hackers?

Nope? Okay... so there's your problem.

If they're really serious they'll talk to the Pentagon about how to actually get recruitment flowing.

It requires things like "placing an ad"... in anything. And then manning the phone or email address cited.

Re:No they don't... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 7 months ago | (#47054677)

Anyone seen the FBI recruiting for hackers?

Yes.

Re:No they don't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055125)

Should be easy enough - just call up the NSA and have them switch out the contents of a few network packets here and there. Whomever spots it, gets the job (pot or not).

Re:No they don't... (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 7 months ago | (#47056491)

Go to usajobs.gov or the FBI's website.

I don't think lack of visibility is their problem here. I've entertained moving over to the FBI, but I'm trying to get out of the DC region.

Those kids (1)

tquasar (1405457) | about 6 months ago | (#47052261)

Well, there he goes. That ranks with "Get off my lawn" and "Old man yells at clouds".

Reminds me of my time in the Navy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47052285)

"He also encouraged job applications from former pot users despite the policy."
He's encouraged people to apply knowing that there is a zero chance of acceptance? No. He's saying he doesn't actually care about the rule and he's encouraging people to lie on their applications. When I was in the Navy, I worked with several people, from fry cooks to nuclear engineering officers, who were told by recruiters "Do you smoke now? No? Well then just lie and say you never smoked. We don't actually care."

Re:Reminds me of my time in the Navy (2)

afxgrin (208686) | about 7 months ago | (#47053703)

Sounds like a trap to nab a whole bunch of pot smokers imho.

Re:Reminds me of my time in the Navy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054943)

Don't do it. It's a trap. This submission is similar to one of those sting sweep letters sent out to people with outstanding warrants.

Pot will be legal before too long (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 7 months ago | (#47052425)

Like gay marriage the prohibition of marijuana will start falling state by state. Colorado and Washington have already done so. When people see that it isn't going to be a huge disaster other states will follow suit and eventually it will become untenable to maintain the prohibition. It's just a matter of time.

Re:Pot will be legal before too long (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 7 months ago | (#47052581)

And as long as its use is viewed the same as drinking, that's fine with me. My problem is pot users seem to think they should be able to get high on their smoke break, or while driving, or whatever. By all means, use it at home or when you are off the clock. Just don't show up anywhere smelling like pot that you couldn't show up smelling like vodka.

Re:Pot will be legal before too long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054343)

Do we? I know a bunch will, but they have jobs, pot heads with careers aren't rolling up at lunch in my experience.

Re:Pot will be legal before too long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052641)

I disagree. It is already legal here in WA, but I haven't had any developers fail the test yet. Being legal hasn't seem to help that product gain market share here. I know that I have never seen pot before, and as far as I know, have never smelled it even though it has been legal here for a while.

Re:Pot will be legal before too long (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#47054079)

Like gay marriage the prohibition of marijuana will start falling state by state.

Those lucky gay bastards. Hetero marriage doesn't get you stoned, you'd just have to be so to do so.

Re:Pot will be legal before too long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054417)

The Feds cutting tax distributions to the states has also been a large driver of change in licensing laws for the states that are early-adopters.
States need the revenue.

"encouraged job applications" .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052457)

so they have more names to add to the 'keep an eye on' and/or 'ok to violate all constitutional rights' lists

Not their biggest problem, by a long shot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052495)

The FBI is an organization full of closet cases, and they have been ever since that notorious drag queen, J. Edgar Hoover was around. Repressed homosexuality is the motivation behind the majority of their hare-brained incompetence.

Would they just put up with it for a key hire? (2)

swb (14022) | about 7 months ago | (#47052865)

Assuming you've got a track record as a top-notch white hat hacker and security guy and you had some unique experience/skill mix that the FBI really felt they needed, would they just kind of put up with it, maybe/especially if you lived in a state like Colorado or had a medical card in California?

How do companies like Apple/Oracle/Google/MS/Amazon handle it in California now? My first hand experience and everything I've read in the media makes pot seem pretty well accepted in California and there's certainly a counter-culture kind of attitude among a lot of technology people. If you get recruited to Google because you're something special, do they give you a piss test and then tell you they won't hire you?

Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? (1)

ark1 (873448) | about 7 months ago | (#47052935)

Assuming you've got a track record as a top-notch white hat hacker and security guy and you had some unique experience/skill mix that the FBI really felt they needed, would they just kind of put up with it, maybe/especially if you lived in a state like Colorado or had a medical card in California?

How do companies like Apple/Oracle/Google/MS/Amazon handle it in California now? My first hand experience and everything I've read in the media makes pot seem pretty well accepted in California and there's certainly a counter-culture kind of attitude among a lot of technology people. If you get recruited to Google because you're something special, do they give you a piss test and then tell you they won't hire you?

If you are a world class mathematician, NSA will hire you without the traditional polygraph. Under these circumstances they will likely invest more on the field investigation which are fairly expensive but for exceptional individuals likely worth the extra $$$.

Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053569)

News flash, a TS/SCI requires an extensive background check with a field investigation.

I've personally given interviews on behalf of job candidates who were trying to land jobs at places like Raytheon to the government goons needing to find out from me if they were threats to national security. You're not going to convince me that prospective NSA employees could ever get by without one. It's not just the "exceptional", it's for everyone.

Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055103)

Just FYI, if you quote the entire parent post, there's really no reason to quote it at all. It's assumed you're responding to what was said in that post when you hit the "Reply to This" button.

Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053221)

If you get recruited to Google because you're something special, do they give you a piss test and then tell you they won't hire you?

No, at least not as a contractor. I've worked a number of contracts for Google, mostly here in Australia. Zero piss tests.

The American experience is be different but here in Australia only grunts get piss tested - as a general rule if your job is such that your employer tells you how to stand, you might be piss-tested (defence or private sector). e.g. most labouring or plant operator jobs. But if your job is well paid (skilled) you will probably only have a entrance (or occassionally and annual) urine test. Urine testing is something business (and gov) employs because the testing companies convince them it'll make a difference to the bottom line - it doesn't. At best if provides a legitimate reason to sack someone you already planned on sacking. Australia still has labour unions and they are the reason piss testing isn't as pervasive as in the US (that and the whole medieval nature of the US morality/religion).

Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? (1)

ehiris (214677) | about 7 months ago | (#47053735)

If you get recruited to Google because you're something special

From what I understand, any corporation with government contracts is required to do employment piss tests.
Totally intrusive and probably unconstitutional but the people who own this country piss on the constitution, whatever their piss contains, because no one tests them.

Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053941)

The law is pretty sketchy in Arizona. I have a medical card and work in a facility that does initial hire and random drug testing. The law provides some protections from firings due to failed UAs/disclosure but the loopholes are the size of like two libraries of congress.

The employer is not allowed to fire an employee with a medical card for failing a piss test for marijuana, but they can fire you if they say that they think you are high at work. There doesn't need to be any evidence, just a stated suspicion that the employee might be under the influence while working. How long after smoking is one under the influence? I've heard many argue that weed hangovers are a thing, and that the effects can linger until at least the next morning.

The employer is also given an OK if the position is safety sensitive, or if the company might lose federal funding or licensing if they do not maintain a marijuana user free workplace. What qualifies as a safety sensitive position is up to the lawyers to decide, and the wording guarantees ambiguity and weasel room for the HR departments.

I don't trust the protections. It sucks weighing risking my job against living in pain.

Side note: I don't get high at or before work. I choose marijuana for pain management for many reasons, but mainly because prescription pain killers are scary as hell for any sort of regular use. Posted anonymously because, duh.

Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053993)

In SV, the only companies that drug test are Intel and ones that do nothing but federal contracts.

Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? (3, Interesting)

BigDish (636009) | about 7 months ago | (#47054301)

Funny...you think tech companies drug test. I worked for MS for 5 years - I *NEVER* heard of an FTE there getting a drug test, even on hire. I never took one. I've since left and work for another tech company. Most of the owners (it's a ~30 person company) know I smoke, and I've smoked with some of them. I have friends at Apple, Google, and Amazon. Again, no drug tests.

Tech companies basically can't drug test - they would have to fire 1/2 of their employees.

Clearance Process Eradicates Cognitive Diversity (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 7 months ago | (#47062757)

http://www.phibetaiota.net/201... [phibetaiota.net]
"This essay discusses how the USA's security clearance process (mainly related to ensuring secrecy) may have a counter-productive negative effect on the USA's national security by reducing "cognitive diversity" among security professionals."

This pot smoking issue is just one more way...

Serious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47052917)

I honestly don't know many people who smoke pot... especially not IT kinds.

But coke, MDMA, and other 'harder' drunks aren't at all uncommon - what's the policy there?

Is this really a big problem? (0)

Powercntrl (458442) | about 7 months ago | (#47052921)

Is the FBI really turning away applicants that, aside from being potheads, meet all the mental and physical requirements? Every pothead I've ever known could barely hold a job, wasn't in the best of shape and didn't think highly of law enforcement. Sure, that's just my anecdotal evidence, but it logically stands to reason that if you're successful and in decent physical condition, you probably prefer real world outdoor stimulus over getting high, sitting on dirty couch, playing Xbox and stuffing your face full of cheesy poofs.

Uh... (1)

msauve (701917) | about 7 months ago | (#47053237)

He also encouraged job applications from former pot users despite the policy.

Maybe we can discuss this over a beer?

Whoa.. (1)

donnie Freyer (2881319) | about 7 months ago | (#47053465)

Duuuude..

'zero tolerance' == 'three years' (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 7 months ago | (#47053617)

I know someone who tried joining the FBI years ago, as a mechanic. He had tried a few things during college, even though he hadn't used in years, and he didn't make it through the interview process. This was probably 10-15 years ago.

Shortly after that, I had heard they had increased the limit to 7 years, so he gave up, rather than trying to just wait out the time ... so three years might've already been relaxing the rules.

Re:'zero tolerance' == 'three years' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055573)

It was three years posted on their web site about 6 years ago. Haven't heard about the increase to 7 years

The Hacked leading the Hacked (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#47053637)

Perhaps now you see why secret agencies like the NSA and FBI are detrimental. Their "Cybercrime" is full of skiddies who'll do anything for a paycheck and likely are the same folks who privately rail against such mechanisms. Think about it. How many of the ones they hired that weren't potheads were spies from "enemy" states instead?

Re:The Hacked leading the Hacked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47058143)

Also, according to this page [fbijobs.gov] , "new Special Agents in their first Field Offices earn between $61,100 and $69,900, depending upon the region of the country to which they are assigned.". I've got 15 years of experience and make 3x that. How is the FBI going to lure already-well-compensated, experienced people with that kind of laughable pay scale? Instead they'll get dudes out of college who just want to make enough money to buy some weed, eat some ramen and Doritos, and go back home to live in their parents' basement.

FBI (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 7 months ago | (#47053761)

Fraternal Brotherhood of Inhalers.

"Open the door, it's the F.B.I." (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 7 months ago | (#47053779)

"The F.B.I.?"

"Yes. The F.B.I."

"...F.B.I.'s not here, man."

Why is it still illegal? (4, Insightful)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 7 months ago | (#47053835)

Seriously... Ever see a stoner get violent? Many drunks get violent, yet alcohol is legal. Weed is not the same as hard drugs, and more people than you think indulge (or have indulged) in the stuff.

Besides, if you use a vaporiser, it's not that harmful, and I don't think weed kills more brain cells than beer.

Re:Why is it still illegal? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 7 months ago | (#47054681)

Ever see a stoner get violent?

Yes, it was pretty terrifying with the giggling.

Re:Why is it still illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055643)

Weed is still illegal because Prohibitionist Christian Taliban and idiot rednecks (the non-smoking kind, there are a vast number of redneck tokers) think weed
turns people into Leftists.

Re:Why is it still illegal? (1)

houghi (78078) | about 7 months ago | (#47057503)

Although valid and logical, the points you make will not make pot legal, it will be used to make alcohol illegal.

As an employer, I personally do not care what you use. Be it coffee, beer, pot or cocaine or even meth, as long as you do your job, I do not care. The moment you don't I will fire your ass.
As a person, I will worry more if you used meth compared to using pot or coffee. The moment using, becomes abusing is when I would first try to help and if nothing else works, cut with you on a personal and professional level.

But then I also see no difference between you surfing to porn.com or /. If it does not influence your work, I do not care. I understand that you can not be working 100% all the time.

Here as well: try to see the differnce between using and abusing.

Yet I would never try to compare pot to other drugs as it will be used against you and people will say: you are right we should ban XXX as well. Pot has received enough investigation to know that it is generally harmless. The fact that it is illegal also means that it attracts criminals and cthus crime.

Re:Why is it still illegal? (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | about 7 months ago | (#47060223)

Although valid and logical, the points you make will not make pot legal, it will be used to make alcohol illegal.

That has been tried. It didn't lead to a good situation and the country quit that effort eventually. That is what we are seeing is going to happen with pot. Making it illegal hasn't had a good outcome for the country and going the way alcohol did would be better.

Re:Why is it still illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47063403)

Vaporizer for weed? Or #?

Cry me a river (1)

mbone (558574) | about 7 months ago | (#47053875)

The depth of my lack of sympathy for the FBI on this issue would float a navy.

The president is a ex pot user. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47053923)

So why not let pot users into the office at FBI, CIA and other branches of goverment. Hopefully they would be a bit more relaxed ;)

Pot is not dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054311)

You know, im smoking marijuana for 30 years. I do not have any problem at all about... what are we talking about ?

not based upon my coworkers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054409)

My coworkers that smoke pot regularly have stunted emotional skills, don't cope with stress well, and there's no point in scheduling a meeting with them after lunch and their trip to the parking structure.

Re:not based upon my coworkers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055221)

My coworkers that smoke pot regularly have stunted emotional skills, don't cope with stress well, and there's no point in scheduling a meeting with them after lunch and their trip to the parking structure.

I'm pretty sure McDonalds has a strict "no-drugs-at-work" policy. Of course we're talking about the IT industry, but do go on....

Re:not based upon my coworkers (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 7 months ago | (#47057853)

Do your non-smoking cow-orkers have good emotional skills and cope with stress well?

How much do you know about what they do evenings and weekends? If you're just counting the dysfunctional ones as potheads you might miss quite a few. I'd call this likely selection bias.

Just too cheap .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47054497)

To pay people who aren't stoners what they are worth.

Just too cheap .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47055981)

I bet i make more than you and i smoke every day and have never had to do a single piss test over the last 6 years I've been in the industry. 3 times the average salary for my area. I'll also out program you while smoking a blunt but I digress. You don't know any pot smokers and you don't know what they are capable of because they've all figured out you are an ignorant cunt.

Just gotta point this out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47057275)

Notice that the bulk of comments from coders who used marijuana for a long period of time are rife with typos, poor sentence structure, grammar errors, and aren't entirely coherent? There are literally no posts from self proclaimed drug users that I'd describe as being completely coherent.

We know THC causes a permanent shift in the density and distribution of gray matter in the brain. Maybe that's what we're seeing here?

How does this extend to programming? More typos? Strange variable naming conventions? I wonder.

FBI Applications Closed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47057277)

Here is there problem right here... You go to the FBI Cyber Security Team and click to apply for a Special Agent and get this:
THE FBI SPECIAL AGENT APPLICATION IS CURRENTLY CLOSED.
THE NEXT SPECIAL AGENT POSTING DATES ARE YET TO BE DETERMINED.

https://fbijobs.gov/032.asp

Probably not going to get many applications if you don't let anyone apply.

The insanity of the draft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47057943)

I never signed up for it. Now. by law, I can't work for the FBI.
BUT, an illegal drug user is cool???
Is he going to encourage job applications from people who did not sign up for the draft?

They need Potheads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47058605)

Where was the FBI when harmless potheads were having their lives ruined over the last 70 some odd years? Now you need them, well fuck that!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?