A friend of mine is getting a job up near DC for something in the public sector and was wondering about how much they care if he admits to using weed in his past and how it would affect him getting a security clearance. And can say he hasnt done weed before but they might give him a polygraph test too. Wondering if anyone had been in this situation or know of someone who has.

10/15/2006 8:34:36 PM

A friend of mine

10/15/2006 8:43:56 PM

typically most of the gov't polys don't care about recreational use of pot as long as it was in the past and you aren't still smoking up - but you will fail the poly if you lie...

10/15/2006 8:46:32 PM

I told my friend to just say he did it, no point of lying.

^^ im in grad school at ncsu and im not in search of a new job

10/15/2006 8:53:59 PM

Do Not Lie. If he is getting a TS/SCI or the like, he will be polygraphed and will be caught if he lies. Admit to the drug use and if it is just weed and well in the past, it likely shouldnt be a big deal. However, some agencies have more stringent policies on prior drug use (ie: FBI).

10/15/2006 8:54:41 PM

i think less than 10 times is acceptable for things like this

a few years ago i knew someone who was going through the same thing and thats what they told me was pretty much the limit, even though they had never done it

10/15/2006 9:18:28 PM

security clearance does not require polygraph

10/15/2006 9:22:18 PM

Security clearances are more concerned with how past indiscretions can be used to blackmail you. For instance, if you smoked pot in college but no more and you family knows about it and you aren't ashamed of it is different than if you smoke pot in college and no more and your family would disown you if they knew. It's having deep dark secrets that could cause you to get blackmailed into giving up secrets.

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 9:26 PM. Reason : ?]

10/15/2006 9:26:17 PM

Quote :

"I told my friend to just say he did it, no point of lying."

/thread

no need for everybody to keep on spewing out whatever shit you might think is the truth.

10/15/2006 9:33:16 PM

i think its true that you should tell the truth

10/15/2006 10:07:08 PM

Quote :

"security clearance does not require polygraph"

Right ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance

Quote :

"Polygraph. Some agencies may require polygraph examinations. The most common examinations are Counter Intelligence (CI) and Full Scope (Lifestyle) polygraphs. While a positive SSBI is sufficient for access to SCI-level information, polygraphs are routinely administered for "staff-like" access to particular agencies."

Don't lie ... they do ask questions which they expect you to admit to. I don't know specifics and won't talk out of my ass, but I remember somebody somewhere saying the question "Have you ever driven a car under the influence of alcohol?" to be common.

10/15/2006 11:09:49 PM

I recently heard on the news that the FBI just loosened it's criteria regarding an applicants prior drug use.

I can't find a link to the story, but here's what the FBI has to say:


http://www.fbi.gov/employment/policies.htm

Quote :

"Drug Policy The FBI is firmly committed to a drug-free society and workplace. Therefore, the unlawful use of drugs by FBI employees will not be tolerated. Furthermore, applicants for employment with the FBI who currently are using illegal drugs will be found unsuitable for employment. The FBI does not condone any prior unlawful drug use by applicants. The FBI realizes, however, some otherwise qualified applicants may have used drugs at some point in their past. The following policy sets forth the criteria for determining whether any prior drug use makes an applicant unsuitable for employment, balancing the needs of the FBI to maintain a drug-free workplace and the public integrity necessary to accomplish its law enforcement mission. Criteria An applicant who has used any illegal drug while employed in any law enforcement or prosecutorial position, or while employed in a position which carries a high level of responsibility or public trust, will be found unsuitable for employment. An applicant who is discovered to have misrepresented his/her drug history in completing the application will be found unsuitable for employment. An applicant who has sold any illegal drug for profit at any time will be found unsuitable for employment. An applicant who has used any illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991), other than marijuana, within the last ten years or more than five times in one's life will be found unsuitable for employment. An applicant who has used marijuana within the past three years or more than a total of 15 times in one's life will be found unsuitable for employment. To determine whether you qualify under the FBI's drug policy, please answer the following questions. If you answer "YES" to any of these questions, you should NOT apply for FBI employment.: 1 Have you used marijuana at all within the last three years? 2 Have you used marijuana more than a total of 15 times in your life? 3 Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) at all in the past 10 years? 4 Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) more than a total of five times in your life? 5 Have you ever sold any illegal drug for profit? 6 Have you ever used an illegal drug (no matter how many times or how long ago)while in a law enforcement or prosecutorial position, or in a position which carries with it a high level of responsibility or public trust?"

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 11:54 PM. Reason :

10/15/2006 11:50:52 PM

Quote :

"2 Have you used marijuana more than a total of 15 times in your life? "

i guess if you aren't sure of the exact number......

10/16/2006 12:04:08 AM

At national labs, an L-level clearance doesn't require a polygraph unless it's an expedited clearance. Normal clearance will take about a year, expedited only 4-6 months. A Q-level clearance, I'm not sure, never got one. Don't worry, you aren't going to beat the polygraph based on something you read online or saw in a movie - well-trained operators will easily see you doing it.

I know the FBI is easier to get into with drug use now than they used to be, but if he was a regular smoker, he can forget it.

10/16/2006 12:30:48 AM

- Not all clearances require a polygraph, not even all SCI.
- DO NOT LIE. Past drug use is not that much of a knock if it was a while ago. A lot of people have tried something at some point. The point about blackmail is correct.

10/16/2006 12:52:40 AM

Quote :

"It's having deep dark secrets that could cause you to get blackmailed into giving up secrets."

Or deep, dark addictions that could cause you to relapse and sell secrets for drug loot.

10/16/2006 1:17:08 AM

I wouldn't worry about temporary clearances.

Back after 9/11 happened, my father(who turns wrenches and is 6'7"/300+ pounds) was asked to strip search before working on some equipment inside a government building.

"Which one of you boys will be doing that to me?"

Got in, no problem.

10/16/2006 1:57:17 AM

That being said, the company he works for has these guys be subject to a FIFTY panel drug test every 6 months or so. And this is for a bunch of pipefitters.

I wouldn't underestimate the drug policies at some places.

And, as always, tell the truth.

10/16/2006 1:58:33 AM

i know people that were hired by the dept of defense that lied about smoking pot in the past.

10/16/2006 3:15:11 AM

^cookie?

they probably only have a low level clearance. If they were going for a TS/SCI (not even full scope poly lifestyle) they probably would have found out through the investigations.

So let's spell it out again.

IT DEPENDS ON THE LEVEL OF CLEARANCE YOU ARE SEEKING AND LYING ON YOUR SF-80 IS A FEDERAL CRIME AND YOU WILL BE DENIED YOUR CLEARANCE AND PROBABLY NEVER GET ONE AGAIN IF THEY FIND OUT.

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 7:22 AM. Reason : .]

10/16/2006 7:22:22 AM

Just tell the truth, but remember to add "But I have grown up a lot since then and I would no longer consider using marijuana"

Say "using" because it sounds like you wouldn't do it, as opposed to "I would never smoke weed again", which sounds like you'll be blazing up as soon as you get to your apartment.

10/16/2006 9:01:30 AM

It completely depends on what he is applying for.

For a Secret or even TS clearance (there are many different 'types' of TS clearances) he can admit to smoking weed in the past and be fine.

However, certain agencies (FBI being one) won't let you pass if you admit to any kind of past drug use. Then again there are certain levels of TS clearance where you have to pass a polygraph test, so lying wouldn't help much there - although many of my coworkers said they lied on their applications and 'passed' the polygraph test anyways.

I went ahead and was completely truthful on my application - not worth the repercusions imo.

10/16/2006 9:02:26 AM

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C13654AFD

Tell your friend to take a look at the above link. It will give him a feel what kind of behavior is acceptable and what is looked unfavorably upon.

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 11:22 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 11:24 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2006 11:21:46 AM

everyone knows to pass a polygraph you under react to the control question and the lies you tell, but you overreact to the truths you tell

matter of fact, by telling you this, i have probably confused you and you will have funny lie detector results

hence the reasoning why these things are not allowed in court

10/16/2006 12:37:12 PM

^just plain wrong. have you ever taken one? bet not.

you've been reading too many http://www.howtopassapoly.com websites.
The reason they are not allowed in court is because it is a judgement call by the examiner and largely depends on how the test in administered-- and how long they spend "setting you up" for the exam. It's not like a red light flashes if you lie. The examiners are trained to tell general nervousness, overreactions, and look for the responses that indicate deceptive behavior.

What they are looking for is deceptive behavior, and unlike a court they don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If they think you are being deceptive they will err on the side of caution.

these threads are worthless because everyone is talking out their ass including me. NONE of us are trained poly examiners nor do we vet people for OPM. So it's just opinions and imagination.

10/16/2006 4:47:39 PM

Quote :

"everyone knows to pass a polygraph"

you are an idiot & will henceforth be referred to as one after each & every post.

10/16/2006 9:12:55 PM

Quote :

"everyone is talking out their ass including me"

i have never read anything about it online, saw it on some discovery channel thing

stop talking out of your ass and post a reason why what i said was false...i would like to hear the real answer

and yes, they do not hold up in court because they are subjective, the results can easily be swayed by emotions - including fear and nerviousness and since they measure not lies, but physical properties, you can fool them - which is why they are not allowed in court

no shit they do not flash red when you lie

10/17/2006 10:41:03 AM

Quote :

" post a reason why what i said was false..."

jesus christ you're a dumb fuck--Burden of Proof, much? So I can make any number of baseless claims and leave it up to you to disprove it, and if you can't then I must be right.

10/17/2006 10:47:01 AM

If you are overreacting to questions that you shouldn't be that will show DECIPTIVE BEHAVIOR. They might not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you lied (unless you confess) but they will err on the side of caution in determining if you are suitable for a access to our national secrets.

Besides it is really hard to force your body to respond in the way you want to any questions. Can you keep you sweat down on your fingers throughout the entire process. Can you force your heart to palpitate on demand. How do you even know what your lungs "should" be doing.

HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN A POLY? I AM SURE YOU HAVE NOT. UNTIL YOU DO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2006 10:50:01 AM

Quote :

"saw it on some discovery channel thing"

i guess this makes anyone credible enough to be an expert.

10/17/2006 10:50:31 AM

your right i am an idiot because i want to know whats correct
and your input, with no actual information besides "your wrong", has been very educational

10/17/2006 10:54:52 AM

Quote :

"i guess this makes anyone credible enough to be an expert."

never said i was an expert, but i gurantee the discovery channel special knows more about the subject than anyone in this thread

10/17/2006 10:55:39 AM

the technique - overreacting - does not have to be extreme

im sure doing it in the correct manner, and learning to control the way you react when you lie, can be an aquired skill

just because you have taken one does not mean you are an expert

10/17/2006 10:58:10 AM

while wikipedia is not a "real" credible source...

Quote :

"veral countermeasures designed to pass polygraph tests have been described, the most important of which is never to make any damaging admissions. Additionally, several techniques can be used to increase the physiological response during control questions. In an interview, Ames was asked how he passed the polygraph test. His response was that when told he was to be polygraphed he asked his Soviet handlers what to do, and was quite surprised that their advice was simply to relax when being asked questions, which he did."

10/17/2006 11:01:22 AM

I never said I was "wrong" you're putting words in my mouth, as it were. I said all of us are merely talking out of our ass because we are not trained poly examiners nor do we vet for OPM. I do not profess to be an expert, but I know a hell of a lot more than you.

You have no basis to make the claim that ANYONE CAN PASS A POLY.
Because IN FACT many people have FAILED polys and end up admitting to crimes. THEREFORE I have PROVEN by COUNTER EXAMPLE that YOUR CLIAM is WRONG. Because I am sure that many of those people including trained spies that have failed were trying to relax or otherwise throw off the poly examiner.

try this I'm not sure what's there.. I didn't read it but have at it
http://www.howstuffworks.com/lie-detector.htm

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 11:07 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 11:11 AM. Reason : sp]

10/17/2006 11:02:10 AM

anyone can pass a polygraph, meaning with the right training and technique, it is possible to defeat the almighty "lie detector" test

10/17/2006 11:11:19 AM

NO because there have been MANY TRAINED SPIES that were uncovered by polys. It is not the training ALONE it takes a real special kind of person.

10/17/2006 11:12:46 AM

the questions is, were they trained in how to deceive a polygraph...

the howstuffworks article, too, questions the accuracy of the polygraph

people just need to know that these things do not detect lies, they can be fooled, and they are not accurate

10/17/2006 11:18:18 AM

Quote :

"people just need to know that these things do not detect lies, they can be fooled, and they are not accurate"

After changing your original statement numerous times you have finally arrived a suitable claim.

Quote :

"the howstuffworks article, too, questions the accuracy of the polygraph"

No shit, they are not 100%accurate. IT is largely up to the examiner for which there is no countrywide standard. The actual response of your body is only like 50% of the equation.

But in THIS THREAD we are talking about security clearances. I can safely assume that the FBI and CIA have very highly trained poly examiners, that they rely on for vetting people for suitability to safeguard our national secrets. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE BEYOND A FUCKING REASONABLE DOUBT THAT YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO BE DECEPTIVE.

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 11:26 AM. Reason : Damn, I have can more intelligent conversations with a two year old.]

10/17/2006 11:26:01 AM

i still stand by my original statement, anyone can beat a polygraph

i am glad to see you are an expert now on polygraphs, security clearances, spies, the cia/fbi, and talking in caps

10/17/2006 11:29:14 AM

Quote :

"i still stand by my original statement, anyone can beat a polygraph"

then you are stupider than I thought (which is pretty remarkable) and a waste of my time. Believe whatever the fuck you want dumb ass.

Quote :

"you are an idiot & will henceforth be referred to as one after each & every post."

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 11:40 AM. Reason : I should have listened to slut]

10/17/2006 11:39:00 AM

bttt

sorry for going offtopic

clalias (having taken a polygraph test before and being an expert) will be teaching me his vast knowledge on this topic and others on our own time not in this thread - i hope he can do it without having an aneurysm or typing in all caps

Quote :

"you are stupider than I thought"

10/17/2006 11:47:39 AM

Is this the soap box?

10/17/2006 6:22:43 PM

This thread is marked by people who have clearances and those who dont, and you can tell in the replies who does and doesnt.

They are essentially looking for things in your life that could be leveraged against you for information...debt, embarrassing things, hidden or decietful lifestyles

For most reasonable things, as long as you are open and upfront about it, you are not getting in trouble, as the entire investigation is off the record. Obviously if you admit to killing someone or something, well, that might be PC for further action criminally, but if you tell them you smoke pot, you're doing yourself a favor, because they are looking for deviations from your answers to those they interview who knew you, directly or indirectly.

In short, tell your friend to admit to the pot smoking, because if it comes back that he did and he says he didn't, Clearance Denied.

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 6:29 PM. Reason : PS I have a TS clearance and am awaiting clearance for SCI]

10/17/2006 6:27:58 PM