Biden Admin Weeds Out White House Stoners

[Sunsettommy]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 were ruled unconstitutional in 1969 after the Supreme Court found it in violation of citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights. Requiring all marijuana users to identify themselves, the amount of weed they had, and where they got it from amounted to self-incrimination.

It was a power grab by corporate interest, a compliant media, and a more than willing federal government. By the time it was ruled unconstitutional that power had grown enough that they were immediately allowed to continue to perpetrate the WoD fraud on Americans for the political gain of both parties.

A tax act is different than putting a substance onto schedule I, which involves only technically the legal sale of said product, which under the commerce clause the feds can claim is under their control. Remember most criminalization of pot use and possession is at the State level, the feds only get involved in trafficking that crosses state lines or international ones.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 set the stage for cannabis restrictions, but the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 marked the start of full-scale prohibition. The law did not explicitly ban cannabis in its wording, but that was clearly the intent. In the 1930s, the Treasury Department, run by the mega-rich Andrew Mellon as Secretary, determined that it could use the taxing power of the federal government to prohibit products he deemed problematic. By creating overly excessive taxes, the laws could create de facto prohibition for everybody but the wealthy. Herman Oliphant, the Treasury’s general counsel, employed this tactic with the National Firearms Act. Passed in 1934, the law attempted to ban or reduce shotguns and machine guns, and challenges to the law went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld its legality in March 1937. Two weeks later, Oliphant (along with arch-prohibitionist Harry Anslinger) introduced the Marihuana Tax Act directly into the House Ways and Means Committee, a powerful committee (and the oldest in Congress) with the unique ability to send bills directly to the House of Representatives.

https://studentmmj.com/learn/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937/

I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

> I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

There is currently a bill in the House to move it to Schedule III...

Text - H.R.365 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2021

Text for H.R.365 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2021

www.congress.gov

It has zero co-sponsors, so it will probably die in committee.

The Dems have promised full legalization this year though...

Democrats Plan to Legalize Marijuana in 2021

"Democratic Senate leadership has a plan to legalize marijuana at the federal level at some point this year. In a joint statement released Monday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and Senator Cory Booker detailed how the Democratic-controlled...

www.usmessageboard.com

Better to DECRIMINALIZE it and let the states decide?

 

[OKTexas]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

Alcoholism is more akin to drug abuse, not drug use. Plenty of people can and do use pot recreationally only.

Both can cause impairment and affect judgment. Tell the class where the cutoff is between recreational and habitual use.

.

So only straight edge people can be 100% trusted?

Caffeine can cause impairment and affect judgement, guess one cup of coffee a day makes you unemployable?

The cutoff is if you can use it without impacting your day to day life. I got plenty of friends who toke daily who lead perfectly normal and productive lives. Same as a person who has a scotch after work or before bed.

Sorry, I think people charged with the security of this nation should be held to a higher standard than Bill or Jenny down the block. Drug and alcohol use tends to increase when peoples jobs increase their stress levels.

.

Sorry, but I think enforcing teetotaling as a requirement for federal office or employment is overboard.

You don't like it, I get it. But others do and can function just fine while using them in moderation.

The others are the very ones I don't want entrusted with our nations secrets or foreign policy. They can work a job where it won't matter much if they FU.

.

 

[Vel]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

So she's a liar or a hypocrite. That's not news to anyone who has been paying attention.

 

[Vel]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

> Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

No, it would not. It's still against federal law to possess marijuana, it's a federal job, and it's a long-standing policy that prior drug use can be a disqualifier for security clearances and many jobs requiring integrity or where public safety is involved.

Shoot, I am pretty sure that some private employers do not hire people who use tobacco, since there is not federal law that prohibits them from doing so.

Regards,
Jim

So Harris shouldn't have been able to pass her security clearances.

An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.

 

[martybegan]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

Alcoholism is more akin to drug abuse, not drug use. Plenty of people can and do use pot recreationally only.

Both can cause impairment and affect judgment. Tell the class where the cutoff is between recreational and habitual use.

.

So only straight edge people can be 100% trusted?

Caffeine can cause impairment and affect judgement, guess one cup of coffee a day makes you unemployable?

The cutoff is if you can use it without impacting your day to day life. I got plenty of friends who toke daily who lead perfectly normal and productive lives. Same as a person who has a scotch after work or before bed.

Sorry, I think people charged with the security of this nation should be held to a higher standard than Bill or Jenny down the block. Drug and alcohol use tends to increase when peoples jobs increase their stress levels.

.

Sorry, but I think enforcing teetotaling as a requirement for federal office or employment is overboard.

You don't like it, I get it. But others do and can function just fine while using them in moderation.

The others are the very ones I don't want entrusted with our nations secrets or foreign policy. They can work a job where it won't matter much if they FU.

.

That eliminates most of the population. You don't want impaired people working on machinery or operating vehicles more than you don't want them implementing policy.

 

[pknopp]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

> Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

No, it would not. It's still against federal law to possess marijuana, it's a federal job, and it's a long-standing policy that prior drug use can be a disqualifier for security clearances and many jobs requiring integrity or where public safety is involved.

Shoot, I am pretty sure that some private employers do not hire people who use tobacco, since there is not federal law that prohibits them from doing so.

Regards,
Jim

So Harris shouldn't have been able to pass her security clearances.

An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.

She most certainly had to.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

> Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

No, it would not. It's still against federal law to possess marijuana, it's a federal job, and it's a long-standing policy that prior drug use can be a disqualifier for security clearances and many jobs requiring integrity or where public safety is involved.

Shoot, I am pretty sure that some private employers do not hire people who use tobacco, since there is not federal law that prohibits them from doing so.

Regards,
Jim

So Harris shouldn't have been able to pass her security clearances.

An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.

She most certainly had to.

>>An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.
>She most certainly had to.

Here is what I had alluded to in a prior post about elected officials being exempt....

Politicians and Security Clearances

Lawmakers (and aspiring presidents) don’t go through the same background investigation process required of everyone else.

www.govexec.com

" The process of election is considered a public seal of access. When you elect a candidate into office – be it Congress or the Presidency – you in some sense grant them access to the classified information required for the position. "

 

[pknopp]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

> Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

No, it would not. It's still against federal law to possess marijuana, it's a federal job, and it's a long-standing policy that prior drug use can be a disqualifier for security clearances and many jobs requiring integrity or where public safety is involved.

Shoot, I am pretty sure that some private employers do not hire people who use tobacco, since there is not federal law that prohibits them from doing so.

Regards,
Jim

So Harris shouldn't have been able to pass her security clearances.

An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.

She most certainly had to.

>>An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.
>She most certainly had to.

Here is what I had alluded to in a prior post about elected officials being exempt....

Politicians and Security Clearances

Lawmakers (and aspiring presidents) don’t go through the same background investigation process required of everyone else.

www.govexec.com

" The process of election is considered a public seal of access. When you elect a candidate into office – be it Congress or the Presidency – you in some sense grant them access to the classified information required for the position. "

There is a level where people have to go through background checks to have access to certain info. All elected officials are not privy to all info.

Harris had to go through one to become the VP candidate.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

If you're stupid enough to lie to the FBI about this, you deserve to be fired. Just ask General Flynn what happens when you lie to the FBI.

 

[pknopp]

"we can't allow you access to the lies we create to justify killing 10's of thousand innocent people because you smoked pot back in college".

 

[Juicin]

Anyone who thinks pot smokers are more a security risk than drunks is a stupid fucking boomer

Guess who runs our cybersecurity? And has access to everything the American state has?

Stoners

Literally have the keys to the kingdom.

 

[Vel]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

> Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

No, it would not. It's still against federal law to possess marijuana, it's a federal job, and it's a long-standing policy that prior drug use can be a disqualifier for security clearances and many jobs requiring integrity or where public safety is involved.

Shoot, I am pretty sure that some private employers do not hire people who use tobacco, since there is not federal law that prohibits them from doing so.

Regards,
Jim

So Harris shouldn't have been able to pass her security clearances.

An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.

She most certainly had to.

>>An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.
>She most certainly had to.

Here is what I had alluded to in a prior post about elected officials being exempt....

Politicians and Security Clearances

Lawmakers (and aspiring presidents) don’t go through the same background investigation process required of everyone else.

www.govexec.com

" The process of election is considered a public seal of access. When you elect a candidate into office – be it Congress or the Presidency – you in some sense grant them access to the classified information required for the position. "

There is a level where people have to go through background checks to have access to certain info. All elected officials are not privy to all info.

Harris had to go through one to become the VP candidate.

The Biden campaign may have asked for one but U.S. law does not require her to have one. It has always been assumed that the voters would have sufficiently vetted a candidate, usually by way of an honest press. In these days, I think a background check should be done and made public on candidates before elections as our press is no longer a watchdog.

 

[pknopp]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

> Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

No, it would not. It's still against federal law to possess marijuana, it's a federal job, and it's a long-standing policy that prior drug use can be a disqualifier for security clearances and many jobs requiring integrity or where public safety is involved.

Shoot, I am pretty sure that some private employers do not hire people who use tobacco, since there is not federal law that prohibits them from doing so.

Regards,
Jim

So Harris shouldn't have been able to pass her security clearances.

An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.

She most certainly had to.

>>An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.
>She most certainly had to.

Here is what I had alluded to in a prior post about elected officials being exempt....

Politicians and Security Clearances

Lawmakers (and aspiring presidents) don’t go through the same background investigation process required of everyone else.

www.govexec.com

" The process of election is considered a public seal of access. When you elect a candidate into office – be it Congress or the Presidency – you in some sense grant them access to the classified information required for the position. "

There is a level where people have to go through background checks to have access to certain info. All elected officials are not privy to all info.

Harris had to go through one to become the VP candidate.

The Biden campaign may have asked for one but U.S. law does not require her to have one. It has always been assumed that the voters would have sufficiently vetted a candidate, usually by way of an honest press. In these days, I think a background check should be done and made public on candidates before elections as our press is no longer a watchdog.

There is no law that states that you get suspended for having smoked pot in the past.

 

[Dragonlady]

"we can't allow you access to the lies we create to justify killing 10's of thousand innocent people because you smoked pot back in college".

It comes down to the lying. As a bank manager, and as a law clerk, lying is, was and always shall be the most unpardonable sin, for anyone.

As a young loan manager, I had an application for a loan from an excellent customer. We'd been lending to him for years, and he'd never missed a payment, but the loan was above my limit. He had ample security, and income to support the loan, but when I updated his credit report, it reported a $5000 loan with another bank, that he had failed to disclose. I recommended the loan but my senior manager declined on the grounds that the applicant lied, and said "If we can't trust him to tell the truth on his application, how can we trust him to repay us?"

After we turned him down, I received numerous calls from other lenders he applied to. One year later, the applicant declared personal bankruptcy. It was also revealled, that he had stolen tens of thousands of dollars from his elderly mother's bank account. My bank had a second mortgage on his prime real estate house. We recovered every dollar he owed us. The rest of them didn't make out nearly so well. It was one of my very first lessons as a young banker and one I never forgot.

It's why you go to jail for lying to the FBI, and you get fired for lying on your White House job application.

 

[Blues Man]

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

Bingo. Employers don't want to hear that you are loaded on grass , particularly in writing when the applicant is applying for a gig in someplace like the WH.

The insurance company doesn't want to pay the claim if you get wasted on some bad ganja trip in the Oval Office and accidentally fall on the Red Nuclear button.

I'm surprised that modern young people couldn't figure this out for themselves. There is a reason that neither Cheech nor Chong were ever appointed to high office by previous libs.

There are things you just don't admit.

Like when your Dr asks you how much you drink or if there is a gun in your house

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

If you're stupid enough to lie to the FBI about this, you deserve to be fired. Just ask General Flynn what happens when you lie to the FBI.

If they aren't making you piss in a cup then even the Feebs won't be able to prove anything

 

[westwall]

This article is somewhat confusing, or perhaps I have not had enough coffee yet.

It seems to indicated that the Biden Admin promised staffers that they would be flexible regarding past marijuana use, but after the affected staffers completed background check forms revealing past marijuana use, even in states where it is legal according to state law, many were asked to resign.

My guess is that the real story is that the incompetent Biden Admin made unclear, unwritten promises that they could not keep, and the stoners had trouble understanding how the system really works, with some being let go due to excessive or habitual use that they considered personally to be "limited", or perhaps being dishonest about the level of prior use. You can just imagine the low-IQ woke cast of characters who are trying to be employees of the Executive Branch these days.

"'The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained,' the staffer said. "

The press was all over Jared Kushner's security clearance challenges. I wonder how many folks with a Hunter Biden type of record are trying to work at the White House.

White House weeds out young staffers who have smoked pot

The White House has weeded out young staffers who have smoked pot - despite them having been informally told that past highs would be overlooked, it has been revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Well, these are the pros, you know. They do everything well. According to them.

 

[Richard-H]

I got fairly high level security clearances many years ago.

I was very clear in my interview that I smoked pot and wasn't going to change.

From what I remember, only being a member of some communist organization or having a felony conviction barred people from getting security clearances.

They'd even give clearances to people who were in organized crime.

Maybe things have changed since then, but if smoking pot disqualified people from security clearances, then half the American people would be disqualified - and the other half are all douche bags!

 

[easyt65]

So when is Kamala being booted for smoking weed?

 

[Dragonlady]

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

Bingo. Employers don't want to hear that you are loaded on grass , particularly in writing when the applicant is applying for a gig in someplace like the WH.

The insurance company doesn't want to pay the claim if you get wasted on some bad ganja trip in the Oval Office and accidentally fall on the Red Nuclear button.

I'm surprised that modern young people couldn't figure this out for themselves. There is a reason that neither Cheech nor Chong were ever appointed to high office by previous libs.

There are things you just don't admit.

Like when your Dr asks you how much you drink or if there is a gun in your house

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

If you're stupid enough to lie to the FBI about this, you deserve to be fired. Just ask General Flynn what happens when you lie to the FBI.

If they aren't making you piss in a cup then even the Feebs won't be able to prove anything

That's exactly the attitude that got these fools fired in the first place. Those who do not learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them.

 

[Nostra]

This article is somewhat confusing, or perhaps I have not had enough coffee yet.

It seems to indicated that the Biden Admin promised staffers that they would be flexible regarding past marijuana use, but after the affected staffers completed background check forms revealing past marijuana use, even in states where it is legal according to state law, many were asked to resign.

My guess is that the real story is that the incompetent Biden Admin made unclear, unwritten promises that they could not keep, and the stoners had trouble understanding how the system really works, with some being let go due to excessive or habitual use that they considered personally to be "limited", or perhaps being dishonest about the level of prior use. You can just imagine the low-IQ woke cast of characters who are trying to be employees of the Executive Branch these days.

"'The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained,' the staffer said. "

The press was all over Jared Kushner's security clearance challenges. I wonder how many folks with a Hunter Biden type of record are trying to work at the White House.

White House weeds out young staffers who have smoked pot

The White House has weeded out young staffers who have smoked pot - despite them having been informally told that past highs would be overlooked, it has been revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Does this mean Crackhead Hunter can't go to the White House? How will "The Big Guy" get his Chinese checks?

And didn't President Harris smoke dope with Tupac when she was in college?