Hacker News Reader

Comment by ganoushoreilly | Hacker News Reader

While it's a clear rule under the requirements of your Clearance, I think it's about time this one is relaxed. Not to mention, depending on the clearing authority and whom manages the clearance, there are waivers for everything.

Until we have a national ruling on pot, we're going to keep running up against this more and more.

I'm not standing on one side or another, just pointing out that this isn't the first and won't be the last. Do we really need to focus on pot usage or should we pay attention to far greater issues, is all.

View on HN

There certainly is not a waiver for everything, despite the common saying making people think otherwise. The FBI[1] said they can't find hackers to work for them because they can't get around the "no pot" rule.

I agree absolutely that we need a national pass on this, but I think everyone who's taken a genuine look into the topic already agrees on this. The problem is the massive number of voters who already made up their minds based on decades-old propaganda.

[1]https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d737mx/the-fbi-ca...

The FBI actively hires plenty of people that have smoked pot in the past, this was relaxed 8 years ago from the hard NO POT stance they had because of the above. In fact last time I was contacted by a recruiter I specifically asked about it and he said as long as you haven't used recently and state you're not a current user, you would be fine. Their clearance process is also run by them as with most agencies so consistency isn't always a thing. The most common component is OPM, beyond that adjudication rules and requirements are at the sole discretion of the acting entity. I won't go into specific waivers within other agencies, but I know first hand they're pretty common as long as you're not active military (even then there are always exceptions).

All said, I think the only real issue for a pass is law enforcement and their it's a gateway drug perspective. I also think that states will push back due to their perceived loses in fine revenues (because everyone knows the police should generate revenues right?).

I'd imagine that it probably is the last because most CEOs don't broadcast drug use in public.

Although practically no CEO would hide alcohol use, which is - scientifically speaking - far more harmful than cannabis use.

Edit: I mistakenly wrote "less" instead of "more". Now corrected.

I don't personally disagree with that but CEOs are the public face of a company and he's running an American company where there is still stigma against marijuana. It does not show good judgment on his part.

I question whether there's actually a stigma. I mean, it's legal in ten states.

Anything illegal in 40 states likely has an actual stigma.

Obviously its not stigmatized enough to dissuade Elon from publicizing his use of weed. I'd say partaking in marijuana is more acceptable in those 40 states than being non-straight based my own experience.

Integrity :is: good judgment.

is it hard to say what "good" judgement is?

one person might think it's bad judgement to be on a podcast that talks about psychedelics, conspiracy, and weed...

another might think it's bad judgement to do business with folks who don't practice sharia law.

from my perspective, I'm super glad that Elon's out there sticking both his middle fingers up at the establishment. Even if it's just for the sake of perception control or stock market philandering, i am grateful somebody is doing it so publicly.

There is no harm in doing donuts in a parking lot with no shirt on either, but it isn't an image that Tesla needs in the current cultural climate.

Debatable. It's hard to predict the public. I think they could possibly turn that one into a PR win. Odds would be against them though.

Right, that is what is cool about Elon. He could probably get away with it. Still, it would not be a conservative move on his part.

Did you mean more harmful?

Just off the top of my head, there is doubt whether cannabis is actually physically addictive.

Ethanol withdrawal, on the other hand, can kill you.

There is no measurable LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of subjects) for THC.

Lethal overdoses of ethanol are quite common.

Yes but you originally said alcohol is far less harmful than THC

Oops - you're right. I meant the opposite.

you mean _more_ harmful than cannabis or?

https://www.businessinsider.com/alcohol-marijuana-which-wors...

Few CEOs would be willing to get sloshed on camera for a podcast, I suspect.

The pot use was done in the open to distract everyone from focusing on Tesla's Chief Accounting Officer quitting the company after a month on the job.

Anyway, the public pot use on Rogan's podcast is just what's being publicly acknowledged in the media for the moment, there are many rumors of more hard drug use. The Pentagon is probably also focused on Musk needing funding from Chinese banks for the Shanghai Tesla factory they've been teasing every couple of weeks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com