Drugs, Sex, and Rock & Roll

[vengeance05]

I happened upon this site, as a CJ major, looking for information on the hiring process. There is a plethora of great information here, but one discrepency that I came across. Perhaps it is just the boredom at work, but I'm interested in what everyone else thinks about the subject.

In New York, and most states I'm sure, use of MJ is a lesser form of Criminal Possession equal to an A Misdemeanor. There are a number of varying opinions on the topic, but what this forum sees a lot of are posts reading, "I smoked MJ X-times, do you think I am an automatic DQ?" Drugs have come to the point of almost being common in our society, especially in a college environment.

One of the largest factors in any society though, is sex. The most predominant sex crime probably being Sexual Misconduct, also an A Misdemeanor. In comtemporary society, a person may very well not have used drugs, but how many high school students today (say 18yo HS Seniors) are not sleeping with 16yo Sophomores (or 15yo Freshmen :rolleyes: ). Without any facts to support this, I would hazard a guess that more people are engaged in Sexual Misconduct than Criminal Possession in the 7th Degree. Just as a prosecutor could bring up an officers drug history on the stand, so could he bring up an officers sexual history.

Both crimes are Mala Prohibita. Both crimes are A Misdemeanors. One seems to be more accepted. Yet both could be equally defeating.

Without turning this into a flame war, I would like to see what the other members of this board have to say. Perhaps this has the potential for a good thesis paper. ;)

[Minotaur]

Actually, in New York there is no "use" statute with regard to marijuana. The offenses are predicated upon one knowingly and unlawfully possessing the drug. Mere first time unlawful possession of marihuana is not a crime, rather only a violation punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. NYS PL 221.05. Public possession which is either burning or open to public view is only a class B misdemeanor. NYS PL 221.10. There is no criminal possession of marijuana in the seventh degree.

[vengeance05]

Originally posted by Minotaur
Actually, in New York there is no "use" statute with regard to marijuana. The offenses are predicated upon one knowingly and unlawfully possessing the drug. Mere first time unlawful possession of marihuana is not a crime, rather only a violation punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. NYS PL 221.05. Public possession which is either burning or open to public view is only a class B misdemeanor. NYS PL 221.10. There is no criminal possession of marijuana in the seventh degree.

I am taking that information from NYS PL 220.03 that Crim Possession (of a controlled substance) 7th is an A Misdemeanor. Use is prosecuted by possession laws. After all, to use you must criminally possess. Sexual Misconduct (NYS PL 130.20) being an A Misdemeanor.

I now see that I overlooked NYS PL 221.10, as you mentioned, where MJ Possession 5th is denoted as a B Misdemeanor.

The indication still being that drug use has a seemingly much larger impact on whether or not a candidate would make a good police officer. Or at least that it is a bigger concern than other offenses?

[dmclark]

The Class A misdemeanor has nothing to do with the questions regarding DQs. Agencies are holding LE candidates to a standard of X uses of MJ and most zero tolerance on Schedule I and II drugs.

You might do a search on the topics of CJ majors and drug use, which has been discussed here before. CJ programs do not adequately inform students that previous useage of Schedule I and II drugs will DQ them from most federal law enforcement positions. MJ is usually the ONLY drug where some "experimentation" useage is accepted, but then again, the number of "experimentation" episodes vary from agency to agency.

[Minotaur]

If you go back to the definitions in 220 you'll see that marihuana (sic), with the exception of concentrated cannabis, is specifically excluded from the list of controlled substances.

"Use is prosecuted by possession laws. After all, to use you must criminally possess."

This is not necessarily true in jurisdictions which have a use statute. One that comes to mind is Colorado's approach to anabolic-androgenic steroids. If you have access to it, take a look at Colorado's Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1992, which is codified in Title 18 of the Colorado Criminal Code (C.R.S. 18-18-404. Interestingly the statue specifically provides that the "use" of anabolic steroids, HCG or hGH is a misdemeanor. Now here's the good part, while "use" is a misdemeanor, possessing them is a class IV felony. 18-18-405.

Perhaps a thesis could be written on how one could arguably being using without possessing. One possible scenario that comes to mind is where a person in a position of public trust tests positive on a drug test. Although, it's equally arguable that they also knowingly and intentionally possess the metabolites of the drug in their blood stream. On its face it appears rather absurd to endeavor to differentiate between use and possession. We need some insight as to the floor discussion during the legislative sessions. Perhaps there are law review articles that have explored this apparent quandary.

In any event, with regard to your original topic of discussion, I never was given the impression that any law enforcement agency was mitigating the importance of other crimes in relation to the emphasis on prior drug use.

[vengeance05]

If you go back to the definitions in 220 you'll see that marihuana (sic), with the exception of concentrated cannabis, is specifically excluded from the list of controlled substances.

I realized the mistake after your first post. I should have looked more into the facts before posting, but I believe this actually lends credibility to my observation.

"Use is prosecuted by possession laws. After all, to use you must criminally possess."

This is not necessarily true in jurisdictions which have a use statute. One that comes to mind is Colorado's approach to anabolic-androgenic steroids. If you have access to it, take a look at Colorado's Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1992, which is codified in Title 18 of the Colorado Criminal Code (C.R.S. 18-18-404. Interestingly the statue specifically provides that the "use" of anabolic steroids, HCG or hGH is a misdemeanor. Now here's the good part, while "use" is a misdemeanor, possessing them is a class IV felony. 18-18-405.

Perhaps a thesis could be written on how one could arguably being using without possessing. One possible scenario that comes to mind is where a person in a position of public trust tests positive on a drug test. Although, it's equally arguable that they also knowingly and intentionally possess the metabolites of the drug in their blood stream. On its face it appears rather absurd to endeavor to differentiate between use and possession. We need some insight as to the floor discussion during the legislative sessions. Perhaps there are law review articles that have explored this apparent quandary.

Very interesting. Thank you for your post.

In any event, with regard to your original topic of discussion, I never was given the impression that any law enforcement agency was mitigating the importance of other crimes in relation to the emphasis on prior drug use.

Yes, this is the main topic at hand. It may just be an inference on my part, but the basis of my statement is from what dmclark has written above. I only speak as a civilian, but from what I have read on the boards and my experience with recruiters leads me to believe that agencies do determine the importance of applicant criminality through their actions.

The most overt proof would be the stated disqualifications. If an agency says that minimum requirements for an applicant are that he can have committed no felony and have smoked MJ (B Misdemeanor) no more than 10-times, then that LE Agency has given MJ a specific worth if you will. In contrast: sexual misconduct (A Misdemeanor) is not mentioned. I have never, for example, read an LE Agency's minimum requirements saying that an applicant can have no Felony convictions and have slept with their 16yo girlfriend no more than 10-times when they were 18yo.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that prior sexual impropriety can damage an officers credibility on the stand just as easily as experimentation with drugs.

I agree with dmclark also, too little is said to college and high school students about how their actions can affect their future careers. I have the displeasure of knowing a fellow student who claims not to have a fake ID ("because it is a felony") yet this person deals MJ ("its only a soft drug").

I also see many threads with strong opinions on why even one-time experimentation with substances means you have serious character flaws, but I have not see any posts regarding sexual misconduct. Similarly many people say that women, alcohol, and power are the premier downfalls of an officer.

I am not saying whether I agree with one side or the other, only that this is a topic which has not been discussed yet, and I think it is an interesting direction for the board to go in. Thank you both for your replies.

[Paul E. Nunis]

Vengeance05, actually, this topic HAS been brought up before.

There are enough arcane laws on the books that just about anyone who applies for a job in LE is already a criminal of some sort. Adultery, fornication, jaywalking, eating an ice cream cone on Main Street, etc.

So why does the screening process focus on minor drug use, and ignore other misdemeanor behaviors?

As I recall, I gave the answer "Harry J. Anslinger" for those who cared to do a little research.

Besides the political climate regarding drug use, there is the consideration that an officer will, at some point in their career, be in a position to take enforcement action against fellow drug users.
The presumption stands that excessive prior drug use may affect the ability to take such enforcement actions in a way that prior fornication or prior jaywalking does not.


Or were you assuming that there was a component of moral relativism at work here?
:rolleyes:


Paul

"Take away paradox from the thinker, and you have a professor".
Soren Kierkegaard

[ATF SAC]

There is a need to be careful in extrapolating from this forum. It is a byproduct that folks perceive that drug usage is "more or less" disqualifying than other offenses. I would urge being careful with what is a slip in logic. Given the pervasiveness of drugs and the fact that the G allows a little relativism it is worth having this forum. However, the interpretation that this forum marks a stronger attitude than toward other offenses is actually a misread. We could have a forum on traffic offenses and LE and that would about do it.

DM, on point as always, notes that we differ between statutory offenses and standards of hiring. Words of wisdom. Almost anything else is a DQ absent very compelling and very individualized circumstances. I have seen them go down for an accumulation of internal disciplinary actions that have nothing to do with either legal codes or particular moral or legal relativism. In the end, it is a competitive process and you are accountable for a lot of decisions and actions.

Always remember that there are two issues at stake in 1811 selections. One is a general cleanliness of behavior, legal and otherwise. The other is issues that affect a clearence at a TS or higher level. Although they pull in tandem, they are two different horses.