View Full Version : Secret Service?
agentfromgod
10-28-2002, 13:08
I'm interested in applying for the Secret Service. I'd like advice on this subject b/c In my lifetime, I have experimented with marijuana - a total of 6 times. The last time I experimented was 2 and a half years ago. Am I disqualified on account of my past?
Thanks.
I don't work for USSS, but guessing that 6 MJ uses will not DQ you, but I'd bet the last use has to be more than 2.5 years ago. Maybe 3, 5, or even 10 years ago, but I don't know for sure.
Suspect that ATF and the USSS are close on this, so check my post a little further down in this forum on Agency Drug Policies.
agentfromgod
10-28-2002, 23:37
I know they may be close, but it's important for me to know for sure. Is there a way I can find out definately? Does anyone have more info.?
Thanks.
spb10059
10-29-2002, 06:31
Call the agency you are interested in. Ask to speak to a recruiter. Ask them their drug history policy. Hell, even tell them what you have done and ask if it is a DQ. They are going to find out anyway if you apply. You may even find the policy on their website. Every agency I can think of has a policy that is pretty well spelled out.
army_recon
10-29-2002, 18:34
I wouldn't call 6 times "experimentation", that is known as "useage". Once, maybe twice, is experimentation.
agentfromgod
10-29-2002, 20:24
Here we go again. Instead of posting useful information on the Secret Service and their respective drug policy, you have decided to hijack this thread with a debate on the difference between "usage" vs. "experimentation."
I don't care about your personal opinion that offers nothing positive. I have already stated on this very forum that any drug use, 1 time or 100 times, is illegal and wrong. I have tried marijuana on 6 occasions; I consider it experimentation because I never felt the effects of the substance. I tried it a few times my freshman year in college. A few years went by and then I tried it again a few times. I regret my past decisions and if it were possible to do again I wouldn't. I don't mean to jump down your throat on this issue, but I have seen a topic like this debated over and over again. I just don't understand the logic in even posting such a controversial reply that has nothing to do with the original thread. Instead of providing useful information you simply inflame people's emotions and the original question never gets answered. It's bad for everyone involved.
C'mon!
vengeance05
10-30-2002, 00:29
I spoke with a USSS recruiter and he said that they did not disqualify for using MJ up to 9 times. Seems pretty lax to me, maybe I was misinformed? He also mentioned that it had to be a minimum of 3 years prior and nothing over the age of 22. You should check with your area's recruiter for a definite answer but I think your problem lies in the fact that you recently used it (2.5 yrs ago). You also admit it was a mistake but you spent "a few years" and then tried it again "a few times." This might conflict with the requirements more than the # of uses, from what I gather in your post.
agentfromgod
10-30-2002, 08:28
Are you sure the policy is no use after the age of 22?
I read someplace on this site about the DEA having a policy of no use after the age of 24. I may be wrong. Maybe the Secret Service is more strict.
If anyone has more information, please post.
Thanks.
P.S. There really should be a forum on this site strictly on the drug policy for every agency. That would be a great addition and would probably answer a lot of people's questions. I see the same questions asked over and over again.
Here we go again. Instead of posting useful information on the Secret Service and their respective drug policy, you have decided to hijack this thread with a debate on the difference between "usage" vs. "experimentation."
Before you go flying off the handle, I was going to echo the same sentiment. It IS helpful, in my opinion, to know how an agency may view/perceive you when you contact them. By this I mean that if I'm a USSS recruiter and you mention to me what you posted in this thread - that you "experimented" 6 times, with the most recent "experiment" being 2 years ago - I would instantly perceive you to be someone who is NOT admitting to what they had done wrong, but rather someone who is attempting to minimize their drug use by labeling it as something else. No one is saying you're doing that, but that's how you may be perceived by the agency. I think that this is all that army recon is trying to say. 6 times is "usage," not "experimentation", and it's pretty likely that most LEO's - including agency recruiters - will see it that way as well.
I think you DID get "useful information" - just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't mean it's not useful.
As far as a special forum on the drug policy for every agency - we have a drug forum to answer questions which an applicant could not find after searching on his/her own. This is not a one-stop shopping center for law enforcement employment info and there's no way we can know everything about every agency, much less put it all in print so that applicants won't have to do the research themselves. It's a supplement to the hiring process, the purpose of which is to answer an applicant's questions which could not be answered after contact with the agency. Having a separate forum listing each agency's drug policy (!) would be impossible, as there are so many agencies and so many CHANGING policies as to make the maintenance of such a forum a ridiculously-huge task. Besides, that info is easily available from each agency by checking their website or making a few simple phone calls to a recruiter. When that fails, people ask here, but only AFTER other methods prove fruitless.
Quite frankly - and this is not aimed at you, specifically - I fail to see the logic behind the massive number of people who claim to want to be criminal INVESTIGATORS and come here asking questions which can easily be answered by a small amount of INVESTIGATING on their own, either surfing the web or making a couple of phone calls.
k
army_recon
10-30-2002, 19:12
AgentfromGod.....Krellum took the words out of my mouth. I wasn't trying to get you all fired up, and it wasn't a personal attack...sorry if you took it that way. I re-read my post and I guess I worded it wrong. But, I echo Krellum's reply, I have only been through the process with local PD's, no fed, but I feel that if you use the wording of "experimentation" in a interview in regards to 6 different periods of time, the person conducting the interview may not see this in a positive light. That's all I was trying to get across in less wording. Good Luck!
agentfromgod
10-30-2002, 21:08
A few notes . . .
Perhaps I did fly off the handle a little in my post. I didn't mean to be offensive and I apologize if it came across that way. Everyone who spends any time answering a question I post surely deserves my unadulterated appreciation.
I just wanted to add a few notes to my original message as well as express a few comments.
I have searched the web extensively for information on various drug policies for a multitude of federal law enforcement agencies. They are always very vaguely worded to the effect of "no recent usage." As I have said in earlier posts to this forum, "no recent usage" can mean anything to anyone. Common sense dictates at least a few years, but it doesn't NECESSARILY preclude someone who has smoked marijuana 9 months ago, let alone 2.5 years ago. I find most agencies to be a little lacking in specific language, probably b/c agencies prefer and expect a majority of their applicants to have never used illegal drugs. The fact is however that many good, qualified applicants have used illegal drugs and it really helps to know the facts, all the facts. I realize this information can be acquired by calling a recruiting agent and speaking indept about drug policy, but since this question is asked so much here on this website, it would seem quite righteous to have the information freely accessible to your customers.
A forum for every agency on this website is unrealistic, but one forum that would serve as a Drug Policy FAQ seems very doable. As information was acquired, it would be posted for all to see. I imagine since you have so many agents here many would know the policy by heart and would be more than willing to post.
It's only a suggestion. Please don't take this out of context. I just think in the long run it would serve a lot of potential recruits a lot of unnecessary time applying for an agency just to get DQ'd.
Thanks for all your help!
P.S. If you have more info. on the Secret Service drug policy, please post. I'm still lookin'!
Well, this IS the drug forum, so you're barking up the right tree to ask your questions here...
A forum detailing each agency's specific drug policy, as I said, would require too much maintenance. Despite the fact that everyone may ask drug questions, they are certainly not so frequent as to merit that kind of a dedicated database of info or a special forum (the activity in THIS forum is often non-existent for weeks at a time). Also, these policies are constantly changing, and no one can keep track of those changes. Rather than gathering and posting all drug policy info - a huge amount of work - we encourage specific questions about those policies, so that we can more efficiently provide the information needed. And that's what this forum is for. You can also do a search of past topics, typing in "USSS" and "drugs" to see what you get.
Just some FYI - specific questions about drug policies have a good chance of getting answered, such as your reference to what "recent usage" means. However, broad/vague questions like "what is the USSS drug policy" will probably not get answered, either in this forum or any other - not because no one knows or cares, but because it's asking for too much non-specific information.
k
vengeance05
10-31-2002, 11:30
Originally posted by agentfromgod
Are you sure the policy is no use after the age of 22?
I read someplace on this site about the DEA having a policy of no use after the age of 24. I may be wrong. Maybe the Secret Service is more strict.
If anyone has more information, please post.
I'm going off what I remember from a conversation that happened aprox 4 months ago. If you are already in the process, you should ask your recruiter because I may be wrong. Take into account the requirements will also differ depending upon if you apply to be an Agent or USSS Dispatcher.
Negotiate This
10-31-2002, 22:59
It has been my experience that finding hard-and-fast rules on drug use amongst the various agencies is difficult, as an earlier poster suggested, because of the simple fact that such hard-and-fast rules often do not exist.
In my aspirations to enter this field, I have come to find out that as much as we like to bitch about unfair and biased hiring standards, the "whole person concept" comes into play more and more. In other words, departments and agencies will look at drug use based on the totality of your experience and personality. In my opinion, the reason that departments don't post a strict "number" of usages as the cutoff is because they'd probably lose out on a good number of otherwise qualified candidates.
Let's say a guy walks in, 6'4", mature, built like a brick sh!thouse, intelligent, knows Spanish, and has experimented with marijuana on a couple of occasions five or six years ago. Let's say another guy walks in, 5'7", not too sure of himself, sketchy past, no foreign language, and has also experimented. Guess who's gonna get DQ'ed for past marijuana experimentation? Guess whose experimentation the department could care less about?
Hey Negotiate This, that would be height discrimination. Just kidding, I see you point. And, as someone whose 6' 2", I wouldn't mind the scales being tipped that way, lol...
Very good point though.
Originally posted by agentfromgod
A few notes . . .
The fact is however that many good, qualified applicants have used illegal drugs...
Can you point to some research data on this?
I don't intend to hijack your thread, but I disagree with your statement.
The fact is however that many good, qualified applicants have used illegal drugs...
Personally, I think that's the battle cry of people who have used drugs and want the agencies to lower the bar by saying "well, there's so many of them..." or "EVERYone's done it...". I'm not saying that this is THIS person's reason, but like Mac, I don't buy the premise.
Remember that while there ARE people who have used drugs who are applying, the ones who get hired are usually the ones who admit it. Moreover, they're the ones who admit it AND take responsibility for it. There's a big difference between someone who admits and says that it was because he/she made a stupid mistake, simply leaving it at that, and the person who admits it, says it was a stupid mistake, but then extrapolates on the reasons behind it, adding that everyone else was doing it so it should be OK, they were young and didn't know, etc. If you were young, fine. But let the agency decide - don't give them more of a reason to DQ you by appearing to be someone who doesn't want to take responsibilty for their actions.
Like I said, I'm not aiming this at anyone, but this topic seems to come up every time we talk about drugs and law enforcement, with someone inevitably talking about how 90% of the cops they know are former drug users, so why can't they get hired, etc.
k
I kind of agree with Mac here. This seems to be a kind of "where you sit is where you stand issue". Over the past 30 years, a lot of folks have come in with some, minor drug use. Increasingly, applicants more typically say none and it sticks through the poly, screening and bi. My data is based on meeting, interviewing and processing them. Folks in whose circle it was sort of ok or who tried it often feel that everyone made the same decision they did, not so. The more you have to offer may well overcome some minor drug experimentation, so long as you are head and shoulders above other applicants. Doesn't happen very often. If you are pushing the agency limits you have a tougher shot than someone who has little to no drug use. Again it is a competitive process, in which what you offer may or may not stack up as well as what other candidates in the pool with you do. And yes, it does make a difference who you are up against at a particular point, just the way it is.
911Agent
11-05-2002, 13:08
I find it halarious when I see a call for statistics. As if a study could truthfully be conducted when many officers have lied just to get the job. What I know, I know firsthand. Being close with many officers, I personally know of several who have used illegal drugs. Not excessively; only slight experiementation when they were younger, but they did use.
The problem with labeling people who have used drugs as "bad" or "lowering the bar" is that everyone's situation is different. I'm quite confident that many of you who claim to be holier than god would have used or experimented with drugs at a point in your life had the circumstances been a little different. Perhaps when you were 16, if a pretty girl had approached you and tempted you, you may have given way to temptation. You were fortunate enough to have more parental supervision, or had friends that didn't engage in such activities. A lot of people on this board are talking about use at the age of 16 or 17. Are they still bad people ten years later?
I just believe whole-heartedly that many of you on these forum who profess to be perfect people fail to realize that people can change. Not everyone who has used marijuana a few times several years ago is a pothead or an addict.
Now I know the retort. Responses will be we're not saying we're holier than god; we're just saying we didn't use marijuana or any illegal drug and that there are good people who are clean. I don't believe those responses b/c deep down most who respond like that think they're better than those who have used even just a few times.
Get the chip off, 911Agent. Some do lie; some get caught. Not a great start to an LE career either way. Some folks do have a black and white view on a lot of issues; others would prefer a kind of situational ethics. Makes it fun to talk. The fact is that agencies have drug policies. They are flexible in some areas not in others. Some officers have used drugs, told the truth and gotten hired. Some folks in these forums are like me, we do selecting and hiring and we know what we are seeing. We are seeing less and less.
We are not saying that to make a moral judgement about you, but folks come through these threads who may use the information to deal with a temptation that is still in front of them. If we wave them off, then good.
Never met a perfect person, much less a perfect cop, but folks come here to find out information about getting jobs in LE so we give the best advice we can. Some of that information is not positive to others, who want to argue that it ought to be different. OK, but I don't like it isn't going to carry much weight.
Have I hired agents who admitted minor mj use when younger? Sure have, good folks too. Am I going to hire someone whose experimentation was of such duration and quantity that they ought to publish the results? No 'fraid not. Make them bad people as individuals? Not for me to judge. Makes them candidates who despite their other attributes have a background that could be used to challenge the integrity of the others or to question the integrity of our operations. Really can't have that.
If you find the moralists annoying; most of us find the apologists more so. I did it, I realized it was unwise, unhealthy, wrong and wish I hadn't is a far better approach than "everybody I know did it so I went along and can't believe its an issue."
I find it halarious when I see a call for statistics. As if a study could truthfully be conducted when many officers have lied just to get the job. What I know, I know firsthand. Being close with many officers, I personally know of several who have used illegal drugs. Not excessively; only slight experiementation when they were younger, but they did use.
Wow - that's exactly what I was talking about. Good response ATF-SAC, but I have a bit more, since in my two and ahalf years on this board, I get very tired of trying to give people advice and have them put words in my mouth or make ridiculous statements and presumptions about what I'm trying to say.
First of all...um...if you "know the retort", why did you bother to make such an antagonistic (and in my opinion, weak) argument? No offense, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say - other than you essentially reject everyone's opinions (though based on their EXPERIENCE in LE and agency hiring processes).
Though we seem to have to go through the same explanations over and over again, let me make this perfectly clear. Because I believe that any finger-pointing and labeling - even with a disclaimer (!) - is unfair, I'll break it down to its simplest terms:
No one said anything about people who have used drugs as "bad." YOU said that. No one called anyone a "pothead" or an "addict." Again - YOUR words.
No one said they were "perfect" or "holy" or claimed to be mistake-free. Again, more assumptions on your part. Not sure who you're quoting here, but how about this - if you don't put words in our mouths, we won't put any in yours.
Wanting an agency to accept everyone, regardless of drug history, on the premise that EVERYONE does it - IS, in fact, lowering the bar, like it or not. That's not an insult to anyone. It's the lowering of a present standard to accomodate those who do not MEET that present standard.
As for whether I (or anyone else responding) have done drugs or not - YOU HAVE NO IDEA. Don't presume. I don't care what you believe "whole-heartedly." As a LE officer, try telling a jury that you don't KNOW something, but believe it "whole-heartedly", so they should too. Your "whole hearted" belief and 60 cents will get you a Diet Coke out of the machine in the all - that's it. No offense, but you should probably change that mind-set now if this is your chosen profession.
I'm not sure why you would make a vague claim like "many good, qualified applicants have used illegal drugs" and then find it "halarious" when someone wants you to back up your statement with fact (in this job, you will be required to back up EVERYTHING you say or do, so get ready for more hilarity...).
"Many law enforcement officers have lied to get the job???" WHAT!?! I'm not sure how many law enforcement officers you know personally (including their backgrounds and hiring histories (!)), but I'm willing to bet that in my relatively-brief LE career in working with HUNDREDS of Federal, state and local LE AGENCIES (let alone their officers and agents), I know MANY more, and I'm here to tell you that your statements are WAY off. If you think many of us lied to get hired, well, you need to think some more. Hopefully you'll realize just how ridiculous and insulting that statement is (again made without anything to back it up) to the hard-working men and women in this profession.
Again, no offense, but you make a lot of generalizations and assumptions (at least in this thread) for someone who wants to be a law enforcement officer.
k
I simply made a request to back up what I thought was a bullsh*t statement. The statement being: "The fact is however that many good, qualified applicants have used illegal drugs".
I'm just curious if the person that wrote this has intimate and unrestricted access to personnel files throught law enforcement agencies. I doubt it, rather I think it's someone minimizing their own shortcomings and continuing to rationalize poor judgement.
911Agent: Your statement, "many officers have lied just to get the job" is beyond ridiculous and insulting to all current badge holders on this board. How do you know this? Why would you even say such a thing? Is your statement a disclosure of yourself and your application process? If so, then I can't think of anyone more deserving of a DQ letter than you.
Personally I wouldn't work with someone that has lied to get the job. This should not be interpreted by you or anyone else that I consider myself "holier than thou". I've made the statement before on this board and I'll do it agian here and now; I never had a halo, so I can't even profess to have one that is tarnished or otherwise.
As far as my personal background and the integrity of my application: Don't even dare to presume that I lied or mislead anyone during my application process.
I disagree with the assumption made by agentfromgod. I further disagree with your arrogant response and personal accusation that we are all liars. Just because you have to lie and deceive your prospective employers doesn't mean that we had to.
I think every LEO on this board deserves an apology from you.
Geez Gonzo, for a minute there you even had me convinced you didn't lie on your application to OSI, FBI, SS-OIG, TSA, FWS, ABCD, NASA, M-I-C-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E, AFL-CIO, NBC, TGIF, and Hooters.
And don't hijack this thread with your anecdotal tale about your license.
911Agent
11-06-2002, 08:34
My original point has been entirely missed with the same boring, overplayed rhetoric. I value your opinion and agree, but the content of your message has already been posted a thousand times. No one in their right mind disagrees your point of view about responsibility and accountability.
Let me restate my view :
I regret my past decisions regarding drug use. I was wrong. I have always accepted responsibility for my actions and drug use is no exception.
I have no idea why you're driving yourself into a frenzy about responsibility.
I do not live by the philosphy of "I did it, so everyone must have done it" either. I used the example about a "pretty girl" not to play the blame game, but rather to point to the fact that there are circumstances that could have occurred in some peoples lives that may have led them down a different path. Not that everyone is susceptible, but *SOME* are.
My point, more concisely stated :
There are people in this forum, who by circumstance alone, without a sense of morality, have not used illegal drugs. Those same people, NOT ALL, some have decided to preach a "holier than god" message. These are the people to which my message was targed.
The issue about my statement being "bullsh*t" by someone on this forum is again halarious. My statement comes directly from people I know, not a statement I read someplace on a forum. I *PERSONALLY* know many officers who have lied and/or have used marijuana. If you refuse to acknowledge what I've lived through and what I've heard them tell me and want to believe otherwise, I'll never change your opinion. This statement is again not accusing *ALL* officers of being morally corrupt or bad people, only a small subset of the officers I personally know.
It's a waste of time because it seems that you don't want to hear anything from anyone. Do you think your arguments are not "overplayed" to US? Think we haven't seen it before? Hell man, I've been here longer than most board members and probably longer than all but 2 or 3 other moderators - I've seen it, believe me. And while I've been HERE a lot, my LE experience doesn't even scratch the surface of some of the other folks that are trying to get these points across to you. However, I still know more than YOU do, and if you don't like what I have to say, you should be professional enough and mature enough to simply file it and be on your merry way. Don't insult me, put words in my mouth, or be a smart-ass in the process.
You came here and insulted everyone by making blanket statements and generalizations (which were ridiculous and which you refused to back up with fact), and now you want to know why everyone is pi$%ed off? Are you kidding me? If you can't SEE that your statements were insulting, uncalled for, and completely unsubstantiated, and then be a man and apologize for it, there's not much hope for you. I think you should go back and read what you've posted and put yourself in the shoes of the folks reading it.
Obviously, we had to trot out the same "boring, overplayed rhetoric" because although everyone else seems to understand it, you just dismiss it as if it doesn't matter. OK - so our opinions don't matter to you - great. If that's the case, here's some more advice: if your don't want the opinions on this board, take the advice of the many "people" you know in law enforcement - not the experience of the people here who are trying give advice - and go somewhere else. If you don't believe our "rhetoric", GO AWAY - go to the delphi forums, where everyone spends all day flaming everyone else.
I'm not sure how you can make the statements you've made, especially in the face of people like ATF-SAC and others, who have probably 20+ years each of Federal LE experience, who actually DO make daily hiring decisons concerning an applicants' past drug use, who come here and VOLUNTEER their time to give FREE advice. I'm not sure how you can make those statements and not feel like sh$%. I know that if I had opened my mouth that wide and inserted my foot, that's exactly what I'd feel like. Not trying to offend you, but I think you have a long way to go before you enter the field of law enforcement.
Good luck
k
911Agent, you squeeze yourself between the good things you say, like I accept responsibility for my choices and the silly lines like "boring, overplayed rhetoric." C'mon, man. What you are saying is "I don't want to hear it." Well tough, you came here and asked and it is the answer. The fact that someone you know lied about it, so far successfully, doesn't make it overplayed or boring, it means you are espousing a world view that what you get away with doesn't matter. Lot of folks feel that way and maybe are ok folks in other significant ways, but it is not the foundation of a professional law enforcement officer. It is the foundation of the public impression that cops are in the business of covering shit up and like to punish people for the things they do themselves.
Your pushing a fair amount of 'tude for someone who is out and wants in. Our 'tude comes from being in and knowing the score, the big score, not a few points cheated by the other side. Nothing you have said has put us in the position of saying that unless you lie successfully you will never get in, so lighten up and do it now. The issue is never going to be what somebody else did that you know about. It is going to be about how you handle what you did. I can predict your entire career from that; just like I can predict your chances if you deal with a real job application with the same it's all a scam, hilarious, boring attitude.
Want to ask us how to deal with your actual situation. We are here to help. Want to challenge us- you can leave by the same door you came in.
911Agent
11-06-2002, 10:19
I have nothing to apologize for. My statements are accurate b/c they come from personal experiences. Someone here stated I didn't backup my statement with fact? What? Huh? Does my life experiences count for nothing while your life experiences and prior law enforcement experiences count for everything? Are you serious? There are more points of view than only your own and that's the essense of my message.
Secondly, do you even read your own responses? I don't know you, but it seems to me that if you're capable of judging me and my entire future law enforcement career based on a few messages I've posted in a forum, than it's only fair for me to judge you based on what you've written. Rather than actually reading my second response which outline my views in explicit detail, you act from passion and forget logic. You ramble about honesty and integrity. I have never lied on an application nor would I ever even consider it. I am a person of extreme integrity and I will damned if I allow you to say otherwise. You've alluded in your messages that I am less than a desirable law enforcement candidate and that wants the bar lowered. Again, are you seriously reading your own responses? It's laughable.
I tried to stop this meaningless debate, not because it's not important, but because we agree. What more is there to say? It's a "WASTE OF TIME" for us to debate this further. You don't get it - I agree. Instead of reading and accepting what I say at face value, you're trying to dig into a deeper meaning and make it into more than what it is. If I were you, I would feel really badly for insulting someone who offered his advice in a public forum. You don't agree with it - fine. But don't attack me personally.
Perhaps you should go back to my second response to see who I was targetting before you continue this meaningless debacle. It was never targeted at good, honest, hardworking law enforcement officers as you have tried to make it.
Wow - you just don't get it. I still find your intial post insulting and over-generalized. So do others (obviously). You DID NOT provide fact or evidence, but simply more opinons (this may be a news flash to you, but an opinion is not evidence - you'll learn that in your legal class if you ever get to a LE academy).
If you can't see that - see that your attitude and statements were offensive (and that I'm not the only one who felt that way, obviously) you have a serious problem. You're a "person of extreme integrity" and you "will be damned" if anyone says otherwise? Wake up - no one EVER said anything about your integrity. What posts are you reading, anyway? But you know what? Why don't you back up your next claims with evidence. Mine are filled with direct quotes from YOU - baseless accusations that you've made, statements you have yet to substantiate - your posts make new accustations and don't adddress the past ones. The next time you claim that your integrity was questioned or anything else, QUOTE someone. That's called EVIDENCE - what we've been asking for all along. In poker, it's called "put up ro shut up." You're starting to make yourself look foolish and I'm tired of shooting holes in your arguments while you continue to ignore your own statements and point fingers at everyone else, put words in everyone else's mouth, etc.
Since you seem to be a big fan of clarification, how about this, one last time, for the record: no one has said ANY of the things you claim in this entire thread. Period.
You're right, we don't know you. That's why no one insulted your character or made any outlandish statements about your background. YOU, on the other hand, don't know us, either. That didn't stop you from saying many of us lied on our applications and used drugs when we claim to have not done so, did it? You were asked to provide evidence for your INITIAL statements, way back in the beginning, and since then, you've responded with insults. That's why everyone (myself included) is angry. Wouldn't YOU be? You even claimed that you saw nothing wrong or insulting about those statements. Yeah, "huh" is the right word, there... Let me ask this: would you be insulted if you were a cop on this board and someone came here asking for advice, but then claimed that "many" cops had lied to get hired? Hey, that would be a questioning of your integrity, wouldn't it? And remember, you'll "be damned" if someone tries to do that. Wait a second... you already questioned OUR integrity and don't think it's insulting, but it sure as hell would be if we questioned YOURS, right? What's wrong with this picture?
I am not "holier than thou" and never claimed to be (again, YOUR label), however, I now seriously question your willingness to take responsibility for your actions: not for drug use - you may have taken responsibility for past drug use, and that's good. But your failure to take responsibility for the ridiculous claims and insults you've spouted in this thread is laughable. I'm done wasting my time trying to make you see that. There are plenty of people on this board who want answers or advice and who are willing to accept those answers based on the fact that they are coming from people with MORE experience than they have. More than that, there are plenty of people who - if they don't like or agree with the advice (and that's OK), won't respond in an insulting or sarcastic manner; who won't insult someone for trying give them the benefit of their experience. Those people are far more deserving of any help I can give them about getting a job in law enforcement than you are.
Good luck in your career.
k
Bow-n-Arrow
11-06-2002, 11:48
Krellum, ATFSAC and my other Mod brothers, I believe that all of your valuable time is beig totally wasted here on this subject. (911agent)
After having read this thread several times, (and still scratching my head at how THICK some folks can be) 911 agent, you have been given some outstanding attention here. Re- read some of these replies and see if you can see the real meaning. If not you can blame me for not having ever done drugs or lied on my app either. Get a clue man.
Enough of this sh&$ close the damn thread and save a few bucks to spend on posts that HELP other users of the board .
Negotiate This
11-07-2002, 00:32
Well, I certainly don't mean to jump right in the middle of an argument "in progress," but I saw a couple of things from the LE side of the argument that I thought were interesting.
Please forgive my generalization, but a couple of gentlemen from the LE side of the house mentioned that they see a lot of applicants come through with no reported usage, and that it sticks through the poly, BI, etc. Although I am not currently in LE but a mere wanna-be, I am a person who comes into contact with the public quite a little bit, and I also happen to manage a business that hires people that are very similar in age to the typical LE wanna-be.
I have found that society in general is becoming more and more polarized when it comes to so-called "victimless crimes," or "lapses of moral judgement," or whatever you want to call a good category of infractions that include drug use. What surprised me when I got into hiring was that in regards to usage, he vast majority of kids from this generation are either squeaky clean, or they are potheads, with very little deviation.
Mind you, I am no sociologist by any means (although I probably should have been), but this phenomenon struck me as a little odd, since I am still relatively young myself (graduated high school ten years ago), and don't really remember things being that way. Used to be, most kids tried it, and either liked it or didn't like it. The ones who kept using, which were relatively few, were probably a combination of A) kids who liked to get high, and B) had lax, if any, parental supervision. Doesn't seem like that anymore.
The point in all my ramblings is that I wouldn't doubt the LE guys when they say that they see quite a few applicants who have, in fact, never used. But, like I said earlier, it is becoming more of a "black and white" type of situation, with very few greys in between.
Whether that "black or white" phenomenon is good for LE as a profession is another question entirely, but I'll go out on a limb and say that I really don't care for having police forces (again, speaking in a broad, sociological context--no offense intended to the LE members) that have less and less in common with the citizens they are sworn to protect. That sort of stuff just invites hatred, fear, and aggravation on both sides, as the shades of grey in society slowly evaporate.
911Agent
11-07-2002, 08:45
Outline of this discussion =>
Original Argument (Quote posted by AgentFromGod) :
"The fact is however that many good, qualified applicants have used illegal drugs and it really helps to know the facts, all the facts."
Response (Quote posted by macleod-lewis):
"Can you point to some research data on this?"
My response (Quote posted by 911Agent):
"I find it halarious when I see a call for statistics. As if a study could truthfully be conducted when many officers have lied just to get the job. What I know, I know firsthand. Being close with many officers, I personally know of several who have used illegal drugs. Not excessively; only slight experiementation when they were younger, but they did use. "
<font color="ff0000">This response was directed strictly at those officers I know personally, not the entirely law enforcement community.</font>
Response by (Quote posted by ATF SAC):
"If you find the moralists annoying; most of us find the apologists more so. I did it, I realized it was unwise, unhealthy, wrong and wish I hadn't is a far better approach than [everybody I know did it so I went along and can't believe its an issue]."
POSTED BY KRELLUM:
"Wanting an agency to accept everyone, regardless of drug history, on the premise that EVERYONE does it - IS, in fact, lowering the bar, like it or not. That's not an insult to anyone. It's the lowering of a present standard to accomodate those who do not MEET that present standard. "
<font color="ff0000">I never stated I wanted an agency to accept everyone. I don't agree with lowering the bar. You're presuming my position. "Don't presume." <- Your words.</font>
POSTED BY KRELLUM:
"[Many law enforcement officers have lied to get the job???] WHAT!?! I'm not sure how many law enforcement officers you know personally (including their backgrounds and hiring histories (!)), but I'm willing to bet that in my relatively-brief LE career in working with HUNDREDS of Federal, state and local LE AGENCIES (let alone their officers and agents), I know MANY more, and I'm here to tell you that your statements are WAY off. If you think many of us lied to get hired, well, you need to think some more. Hopefully you'll realize just how ridiculous and insulting that statement is (again made without anything to back it up) to the hard-working men and women in this profession."
<font color="ff0000">I am not arguing about who knows more law enforcement officers. Many of the ones I personally know have used marijuana a few times. Not all of the ones I know, but many. My message was never directed at you or anyone in fact outside the group of officers I know personally. Also, if I were to ask you to backup your statement that many of the officers you know *PERSONALLY* have in fact never used or in fact never lied on an application, how would you go about it? I have to accept at face value what you state as true. There is no statistical analysis of the enforcers you *PERSONALLY* know that have not lied or used drugs. I have heard these officers with my own ears tell me their histories. Again, if you don't accept that at face value than fine. It'll never happen. Just don't tell me I don't get it, because I do "get it." I have agreed with almost everything posted by you and ATF-SAC. I just don't agree that people who have used marijuana a few times should be classified as "bad" people. When you say that no-one called anyone a "bad" person or a "pothead" or any of the other terms outlined in one of my messages you're technically correct. It's what people always allude to. The fact that it's not stated outright doesn't mean people are not alluding to it.</font>
POSTED BY macleod-lewis:
"I further disagree with your arrogant response and personal accusation that we are all liars."
<font color="ff0000">Generalization? I never said that. In fact, let me outline again who I targetted.</font>
MY STATEMENT:
"The issue about my statement being "bullsh*t" by someone on this forum is again halarious. My statement comes directly from people I know, not a statement I read someplace on a forum. I *PERSONALLY* know many officers who have lied and/or have used marijuana. If you refuse to acknowledge what I've lived through and what I've heard them tell me and want to believe otherwise, I'll never change your opinion. This statement is again not accusing *ALL* officers of being morally corrupt or bad people, only a small subset of the officers I personally know."
<font color="ff0000">What has happened here is that one or two people went into a frenzy about drug usage and made all sorts of assumptions about my position. Now people are responding to responses which are invalid and putting words in my mouth. My view is and has always been a simple one - Accountability and honesty.</font>
<font color="ff0000">I could go on and on with this response. I just don't have the time. It's upsetting to see how this is perpetuating into something I never intended for it to be. I am not attacking law enforcement agents and SURELY I don't believe they ALL lie and use drugs. How ridiculous for anyone to assume that's my position! I even posted a second message to clarify my position.</font>
You know we actually get your point. And we are not unsympathetic or unkind to folks with minor drug use. If I went back and edited your posts to remove words like hilarious and ridiculous, we would be having a meaningful discussion and you would be seeing less polarization. However, you are dropping value loaded words on us from the beginning and then complaining that we react to the values in the words you stated.
OK....I'll give you a little latitude on this. You say that many of the LEOs that YOU know, lied to get the job. Since the original discussion was on drug usage, I am going to assume that they lied about that. Correct me if I am wrong.
So, my question to you is: Do you understand how serious it is to lie on a LEO application? Do you realize the consequences? If such an officer remains within the "ranks", then possible discover could be minimized. Now, what if that same officer rises to the level of a Senior Administrator, or Chief, or Detective for that matter? What happens when this person is called to testify or hold out their credentials in court, under oath? Now what happens, should the rest of the agency be forced to endure the embarrassment?
I'm sure Mark Furman was a good detective. I'm certain that he brought closure not only in the courts, but to victims' families. How sad, when his credibility was shattered on the stand; his career ruined; and a killer walked free.
In Law Enforcement, we don't seek out Angels to fill the ranks, but we do set standards on conduct that we can accept. And with that we ask them, we insist upon it, we demand, that they be honest about ALL, not some, of their past personal behavior. Why? Because, it's about credibility. Are you familiar with Giglio? Federal LEOs that have lied to their supervisors or in circumstances when they were directed NOT TO, are prohibited from EVER testifying in court. Now, should they ever perjure themselves, and get caught, they will be prosecuted. Additionally, FLEO applicants that lie during the application process can be charged and prosecuted for providing false information to a Federal Agent.
Dishonesty to a LEO Agency by an applicant, can not be tolerated.
Now, another question: Why would you associate with such officers? Have these officers confided in you that they deliberately decieved their departments? For one, if they have lied, I doubt they told you about it, and if they did, and you've accepted it, then you are not welcome by ME in this profession.
Your whole argument about drug usage and lying about it, is ridiculous and BS. You say you know "many". Well, so do I. I would bet that I know considerably MORE than you. And none of the ones I know, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER told me they lied. Nor, have they EVER given me reason to believe otherwise.
In my honest opinion, and I do believe whole heartedly, that you lack honor and integrity. I never want to know you personally, and I pray that you never get hired in this profession as long as you maintain your passive attitude towards drug usage for LEOs and dishonesty. And I certainly never want to be associate with the officers you know have lied.
How can anyone believe a self confessed liar?? I mean, a few bells and whistles should go off once someone says, “I lied about . . . .”. After such a statement, how can anything else they say have any credibility? Or, is it, “Oh, they only lied to others; they’re telling me the truth”. Yeah, right!!! Sounds like something a wife would believe!!
911Agent
11-07-2002, 12:55
POSTED BY macleod-lewis:
Your whole argument about drug usage and lying about it, is ridiculous and BS. You say you know "many". Well, so do I. I would bet that I know considerably MORE than you. And none of the ones I know, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER told me they lied. Nor, have they EVER given me reason to believe otherwise.
In my honest opinion, and I do believe whole heartedly, that you lack honor and integrity. I never want to know you personally, and I pray that you never get hired in this profession as long as you maintain your passive attitude towards drug usage for LEOs and dishonesty. And I certainly never want to be associate with the officers you know have lied.
<font color="ff0000">You have misunderstood my position if you feel this way because I have never lied on any application, let alone a law enforcement application nor would I ever consider it.
I'm also not debating how many officers you know. You probably do know many more. I don't know you, I can't debate it, but neither can you make such claims since you don't know me.
I do not lack honor nor integrity and declaring otherwise is very unfortunate. Mostly b/c you've made this personal. It's disappointing you feel this way.</font>
RedWhiteBlue
12-12-2002, 23:39
I think the local DEA recruiter said that all federal law enforcement drug use standards are the same.
When I first contacted the local DEA SA recruiter. He started to ask me all these drug questions. When I told him that I got to FBI phase II, then he stopped with the drug questions and said I should be okay because the standards are all the same. But he did point out that I will have to pass the polygraph at a certain point in the process.
I think the FBI’s drug standards are available on the web.
Here’s an expert from one of my initial FBI forms:
Marijuana in last 3 years?
Marijuana more than 15 times in you life?
Any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after Feb 27, 1991) more than five times?
Sold any illegal drug at any time in your life?
Engaged in the unauthorized usage of any illegal drug while employed in a position of public trust?
Negotiate This
12-13-2002, 00:52
Originally posted by DelC
How can anyone believe a self confessed liar?? I mean, a few bells and whistles should go off once someone says, “I lied about . . . .”. After such a statement, how can anything else they say have any credibility? Or, is it, “Oh, they only lied to others; they’re telling me the truth”. Yeah, right!!! Sounds like something a wife would believe!!
Well, I don't know about this. I think there are many people that have actually learned valuable lessons about truthfulness and integrity the hard way. I consider myself fortunate to be one of those folks. I told DEA about lying to my superiors in the Navy, and I think it'll probably sink my application in the long run, but the fact is that I have made mistakes and have learned from them. So, although I may be a "self-confessed liar," I know what the serious consequences of such actions are. That's why I won't repeat them.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.