Biden Admin Weeds Out White House Stoners

[Jim H - VA USA]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

Some of them may have lied and were then found out via the investigative process of the background check, but as the article notes, lying on a disclosure form under the penalty of perjury is a felony.

I think it's more likely that most of them told the truth. They were probably under the misconception that their prior history would be viewed leniently. A Security clearance is a big deal, particularly "Top Secret." I am strongly in favor of rigorous requirements for such clearances. Too many people these days have a sense of self-entitlement and think they can leak information they have promised to keep secret because of various personal motivations. Every time it happens, it bugs me greatly - Snowden, Bradley, Schiff, Comey, McCain, Corey Booker, etc.

 

[konradv]

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

Get a real source, not some UK tabloid. They make up controversies on a whim, as evidenced by the Queen Elizabeth-Meghan Markle-Piers Morgan axis.

 

[jillian]

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

I got to the word incompetent, laughed at you and was done

Poor psychotic trumpkins

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

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

Get a real source, not some UK tabloid. They make up controversies on a whim, as evidenced by the Queen Elizabeth-Meghan Markle-Piers Morgan axis.

> Get a real source, not some UK tabloid. They make up controversies on a whim, as evidenced by the Queen Elizabeth-Meghan Markle-Piers Morgan axis.

The DailyMail does have some questionable coverage. Other times though, they cover US events much better than US MSM outlets. As noted in the article, it was originally reported by the DailyBeast, which may also be a source questionable veracity.

But the article does include first person quotations from at least one affected White House staffer, so it seems to have some credibility with me.

Here is an NBC News article from February announcing the new Biden Admin policy...

Past marijuana use won’t automatically disqualify Biden White House staff

Though pot use is legal in a growing number of cities and states, it's still illegal under federal law and is therefore a potentially disqualifying factor in obtaining security clearances.

www.nbcnews.com

And just for you, Forbes and the NY Post are reporting the same as the DailyMail. Can't you DuckDuckGo when you are skeptical, or you prefer to just open your mouth first? That's a strange way to behave, not researching before posting.

white house marijuana at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[Blues Man]

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

 

[AMart]

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

Get a real source, not some UK tabloid. They make up controversies on a whim, as evidenced by the Queen Elizabeth-Meghan Markle-Piers Morgan axis.

• The Biden administration has suspended dozens of young staffers, asked them to resign or placed in a remote work program, Daily Beast revealed

 

[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)

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

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

I got to the word incompetent, laughed at you and was done

Poor psychotic trumpkins

Would you let Biden grope you Jilldo?

Sniff your hair?

 

[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.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

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

I got to the word incompetent, laughed at you and was done

Poor psychotic trumpkins

> I got to the word incompetent, laughed at you and was done

Hi, Jillian.

Just as your posts are evidence of your competence or lack thereof , this article is proof of the White House staffers' incompetence, don't you think?

Regards,
Jim

 

[BlindBoo]

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"?

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[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

 

[Thinker101]

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

This is good news. Is Kamel-toe on the chopping block?