Why is drug use so bad?

[Sandles2Sidearm]

I had an intereting conversation with my current Chief and it went somthing like this:

I stated that I read a study a while back about CPD DQ'ing a bunch of candidates because of drug usage.

He came back and stated what is the big deal with that, drug usage could and should be considered life experience, and the poor choices one makes in their younger years helps develop character. He futher stated that the poor choices one makes many years before, more often then not do not effect current judgement and candidacy.

I referenced the Psycotropic Relapse scenario as one major factor, but he said what about all those guys in L/E coming out of Vietnam, drug use was rampant there and there is no way ALL of those guys are prestine angels.

My question is, what is the rational for such stringent policies? Our current President has been rumored to have dabbled in materials far worse than MJ, why the double standard?

Sorry this was long.

[DelC]

I see you’ve been a member of this board for over a year and have 180 posts to your credit, therefore I find it hard to believe that you haven’t seen the numerous posts in the past year about the very question you’re asking. If you haven’t seen them, then do a search on this board or just browse through the drug forum. I hope the purpose of your question is not to start another lengthy debate.

[Sandles2Sidearm]

and short of reading every post with the the word drug in it, I wanted to get a concise answer as to why most agencies feel it is so important to have little or no drug usage.

With the world as it is, morally flexible, the application pool is greatly widdled down because of this requirement. I was wondering if there was a hard fast reason drug usage was such a faux pau in the process? Is it simply integrity? Is there a medical explination besides the hallucinegenic obvious, flash backs and all that?

Please don't take this to mean anything more than it is...its just a question.

[DelC]

As I said, this topic has been hacked to death on this board. Thus, you don't have to read every post with the word drug in it, just look for those in the drug forum that have more than 10 replys. I imagine your time is very valuable, thus you probably don’t have time to search posts, so here are 3 to get you started. Enjoy.

(Post #1) (http://www.911jobforums.com/vB/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=11027) (Post #2) (http://www.911jobforums.com/vB/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=12501) (Post #3) (http://www.911jobforums.com/vB/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=4934)

[MacLeod]

I concur with my fellow Moderator, and I really can't see the value in beating a dead horse this close to the holiday season.

I'm tempted to close the thread out right, and spare us from enduring the inevitable, but then again, I think those that have weighed in before will just cruise on by without responding ad nauseam. Word of caution here: for any tempted to reply to this question. Keep it on track and things should be OK, but if this is just a platform for a member to voice their personal opinion on why agencies should lift, amend, or otherwise alter their stance on prior drug usage, then I would urge said member to find another more appropriate medium for said purpose (newspaper editorial page, direct letter to specific agencies, or delphi forums). I think I speak for the majority of the moderators, when I say that the fundamental purpose of this board is NOT to debate such issues (call in to question the basis for an agency's policy(s)). The fundamental purpose of this board is to provide objective information regarding hiring.

Unless ofcourse we have within our membership a commissioner, director, chief, or sheriff that can answer why they "specifically" made such a decision.

[Sandles2Sidearm]

I am a guest here and did not mean to drudge up topics that are inappropriate. This is, however, the Drugs and Law Enforcement forum and there are no places in the world where this topic can be addressed.

Paul's answer was what I was looking for, but it is probably wise to erase this thread before peoples emotive responses and lame assumptions come into play. As I stated, I was looking for the motivation or rational that drives the policies that most departments adhere too. Not to have a debate as to why drugs are bad, that was just to get people to look at it. The threads DelC provided, do not give much more then opinion. "I wouldn't want some doper going through the door behind me," statements do not address the policy end.

I personally lump drug use in the same category as other crimes, theft, vandalism, etc. but those offenses don't automatically preclude one from a career in law enforcement.(if uncaught)

Any way...Please pull it! The only people who have responded are the Mods and as I understand it, they will have access to it anyway.

Thanks

Reid

[DelC]

Originally posted by reid-oclg
. . . I personally lump drug use in the same category as other crimes, theft, vandalism, etc. but those offenses don't automatically preclude one from a career in law enforcement.(if uncaught). . . Oh my friend, but they do! The next time you apply for an LE job, write on your app that you have shoplifted 5-6 times in the last 3-years and see what they say. Just explain it as experimentation, that should work.

[dmclark]

The REASON for these rules is because some people seem to believe that THEIR world is "morally flexible". However, our law enforcement agencies and US society in general has continued with the moral and legal positions that drug use in law enforcement is wrong and unacceptable. Period.

[Sandles2Sidearm]

The conversation that I mentioned actually took place. The morally flexible world is a fact, drug use is up exponentially from when I was a youngster and violence is becoming more and more mainstream.

I don't feel it is acceptable to have used drugs, regardless of my preivious indiscretions.

I do feel that people who use drugs beyond the experimentation phase, should be precluded from L/E, end of story.

I am going to let this horse die, as she has been kicked far too many times...I don't think I am going to get the information I wanted. I wanted to see if people could get past personal views and give reasons for the policy...thanks anyway

[ATF SAC]

Actually, what seems to be a focus may be more a result of their being a Drug forum, rather than a Really Heinous Felonies and God Awful Misdemeanors and Law Enforcement thread. I would suggest along the lines of Paul and DelC, that because of the MJ experimentation exception there is actually more flexibility on this issue than shoplifting, hit and run, sexual abuse of animals and domestic violence. The other thing that gives drugs more attention as an issue is that it comes at an applicant in several ways, in addition to questions in the interview, poly and BI, it can be approached in the medical phase through screening. Doesn't make of it a more important DQ than what an applicant did with Poochie, just one subject to several approaches to confirm.

With all the other mods, i stand on the principle that we don't have to change the rules to get first class people, so let's not argue why X or Y is so terrific they should get 4 strikes before they are out. If we made childhood theft of a candy bar a DQ we would still have thousands of applicants for hundreds of slots in every agency. Where there is some flexibility is in line with what the Chief told you, we accept some normative behavior as part of "experience" and growing up. As DM and others note, tighter standards than for the average bear and we can't subject every cop to the scrutiny of a National election campaign and the selection of the people. It could be said that most presidents could not qualify for any Federal agency, if we also recognize we don't qualify very well (in the most postive terms) to run the country. Not really a double standard. FDR's polio disqualifed him from military service, not from being commander in chief.