almost mushrooms

[cmarks10]

This may be a simple question, in 1995 I attempted to try mushrooms, my friend later found out that he was "ripped off" and not sold the real thing, so we didn't really take them. Since I had the intent should I put it down on the personal history statement or forget about it. Also, should I inform the backround investigator or polygrapher. Any comments welcome.

[DJOHNSON954]

Well if you took them thinking they were mushrooms then there isn't much difference! In my opinion, you will want to disclose this on the PHQ and with the Polygrapher. Explain that what you actually took was the the real deal but be honest. If you are concerned about it now then when it comes time for the poly you can bet it will be weighing on you mind then too. My 2 cents.

[Raven231]

I agree with Dan. In most states I know of having or attempting to sell imitation drugs are the same class felonies as the real thing . I would disclose the information and let it go from there.

Raven231

[HB]

Definitely disclose the incident. If there is anything that can be questionable, it is much better to report it and address it up front in the beginning, rather than later and have it look like you were hiding it or only disclosing it because it was dragged out of you.
Hope all goes well !

[Housecop]

They go by what you INTENDED to do. You INTENDED to do shrooms, thats the problem.

[BasementAddix]

are shrooms weighed that heavily?...will u not got hired cause of shrooms in your distant past?...i had heard that they only want to know about up to 7-10 years back....but i dont know if thats true...

[dmclark]

ANY hallugenogenic use and you're in for a problem...whenever. It is a problem that is not easily surmountable.

[stein810]

well i might lie but they would find out about it sooner or later if it shows up in the polygraph or cvsa. i would say tell them to be up front and get it out of the way, no one is a saint.



Originally posted by cmarks10
This may be a simple question, in 1995 I attempted to try mushrooms, my friend later found out that he was "ripped off" and not sold the real thing, so we didn't really take them. Since I had the intent should I put it down on the personal history statement or forget about it. Also, should I inform the backround investigator or polygrapher. Any comments welcome.

[dmclark]

Stein810: Your approach to the problem is the reason we have polygraphs in the recruiting process. ("I might lie")...and as far as anyone being a Saint....we're not talking Sainthood..we're talking about past drug use...

[five-oh]

You can get hired with mushroom usage. Whats allowed will vary from dept. to dept. The hiring pool for police officers has shrunk so agencies have had to relax their standards. Like it or not it's whats happening.

Had the mushrooms been the real deal you'd have eaten them. Don't try and weasel your way out of it the BI will wonder what else you're trying to talk your way out of.

Mushroom usage for my department is max of 2 times with the last time being minimum of five years ago.

[dmclark]

Ahh Northern California...gee, you wouldn't be working in Humboldt County would you?

You guys are on the extreme cusp of drug law enforcement reality if you are hiring after ANY hallucinogenic use. What about LSD or PCP?

I'm surprised no strong, certified ambulance chaser hasn't found out which officers used prior to joining your department. It would be information that could be subpoenaed and revealed in open court. Then your credibility would be destroyed and your department taken to the cleaners for damages in hiring you.

I would welcome any debate here. I'm locked and loaded.

[five-oh]

How would your credibility be ruined if you used prior and didn't lie about it? That's almost like saying you can never write a speeding ticket because you also have exceeded the speed limit in the past.

[five-oh]

Going off on a tangent from the original post but I'd like to explain (defend) my opinion of the some of the new hiring trends.

I have midwest roots and was shocked upon being exposed to some of the liberal attitudes and views when I moved to CA. (not Humboldt Co.) Marijuana is no longer a crime here. Domestic Violence responses are out of control. And don't get me started on illegal aliens. Hell, the Berkley FD had to take off their American Flags off of their trucks after 9/11 because of complaints. This is a hard state to be a Rebublican cop in.

I have not seen any studies where it has been shown that one or two usages of mushrooms (psilocybin) has produced any recurrent hallucinations. I have talked with people who have used 'shrooms and found that they have not experienced any hallucinations only extreme fits of laughing. This doesn't mean I condone the use or think it should be legal though.

I have had the opportunity to work along side of officers that have had a squeaky clean background and those who raised a little hell in their past. My observations are that the latter are the more agressive, proactive cops. I'll take one of these officers as my back during a car stop of parolee gang bangers before some virgin goody two shoes.

A good BI should be able to find out if deliquent juvenile activities were acts of stupidity or a behavioral problem to be wary of. States also mandate a probation period where the new officer can be fired for any reason. A supervisor should terminate new officers if they exhibit actions/attitudes that are not conducive to being a law enforcement officer. My depts. probationary period is 18 months. Plenty of time to see what a new officer is about.

I think Federal agencies have a larger applicant pool, being able to utilize the entire country to draw applicants from. Local agencies do not have the resources or manpower to search far and wide for eagle scouts and west point grads who've never smoked a bowl or spent a weekend binge drinking.

I do believe coke. PCP, LSD, heroine, meth, etc should be a DQ. Fortunately most of these people who have done this in the past do not want to be cops. But there are exceptions to every rule and those people who have shown that errors in judgement when they were sixteen and seventeen, and have proven that they were in fact errors in judgement should be given a chance.

I have lived in every corner of this great country (to include TX) and also lived overseas in two countries and have found that most everyone thinks California is off the wall. Hell in TX if you tell someone you are from the bay area of CA they just assume you are gay.

I too welcome the debate and respect your opinions.

[dmclark]

five-oh...I'd recommend you do a search on the site on this subject as we've been around the horn several times. First, I respect your opinion and it's not my place to try to change it. Let me point out that the definition of ANY hallucinogenic drug is first that it is "mind altering" and CAN cause flashbacks and repeat episodes. There is no guarantee on will or won't.

There ARE legal decisions on the liability issues surrounding a law enforcement officer and previous drug use. Most state, federal and municipal jurisdictions DQ on hallucinogenics because of the liability issue, period.

It doesn't matter that the PD accepted your background to put that background into question. This is not directed against you personnally, but I have known numerous defense counsels who could put your credibility into question with the drug use, WHATEVER drug use.

What law enforcement officers face now is defense counsel asking for their personnel files as part of the defense interrogatories with the prosecution. Drug use by the officer, then a civilian, can be made out as poor judgement, medical impairment, mental impairment, etc. Sadly, if concerning officer involved shootings, defense counsel can and will raise the flashback potentials of any hallucinogen as reason to show the officer was mentally unfit to carry a firearm as evidenced by his/her past admissions to hallucinogens. Once that door is open (and I've seen it already) it is very hard for the officer/prosecution team to maintain his/her credibility with the jury.

This then leads to some serious exposure to the city/state/federal governments as to liability. We're talking significant budget dollars in awards and no city attorney wants to add punitive damages on top of liability awards.

Hallucinogenic drug use is not only stupid (again, not directed at you personally) but is CAREER altering. You've gotten onto a PD and that's great for you. But you've severely restricted your upward mobility within the law enforcement community by your mushroom "experience".

Oh, and I've GOT to call your attention to the fact that thousands of men and women in this country, who are not West Point grads or Eagle Scouts, have never done a bowl, snorted a line, shared a spike or toked a blunt. Let's not go down the "everyone's done it" avenue.

BIs are not designed to deal in distinguishing between behavioral problems and other intents. They gather facts and report on them. I really don't care if you're 16 or 60. If you commit a crime, you should be held accountable. Now if you don't think that drug use is a crime...and I mean OTHER than heroin, coke or meth...then we've got an unresolvable difference of opinion.

CA is tough to work in as a LE officer. I was assigned to the Bay area for a number of years. Its tough to maintain your principles and not "go with the flow, dude."

I wish you the best of luck in your position. Again, this is not a personal attack. After 27 years as a federal narcotics agent, I've seen all the opinions come and go. I just have a tough time with the forgive and forget approach to law enforcement recruiting. Stay safe.

[PittAJ]

I just want to comment that for some reason I've noticed that narcotics officers have the strongest opinions towards drug use and getting DQed. Threw out college I had past ATF agents Border Patrol professors etc.... But the professors that used to be Narcotic cops always were against any drug use at all. I wonder if that is because what they saw on the street or just personal opinion. I dont know jsut somethign I was thinking about.

[DelC]

Originally posted by five-oh
. . . Marijuana is no longer a crime here. Domestic Violence responses are out of control. . . Hmmmmmmmmmm!! I wonder if there is a connection here?? Naaaa. Just a coincidence I imagine!!

[five-oh]

:shades: Actually it seems alcohol is the common denominator in Domestic Violence. I haven't been to too many fights involving persons high on the MJ.:D

[ATF SAC]

Actually, someone needs to say it straight up. We don't first look at drug users past or current as potential partners. We first look at them as punk snitches. Easily broken, easily replaced. Hey, you made a choice, so did we.

[g-mod]

so you are saying that no one in your agency has ever tried any drug and if so they are "punk snitches"?
please tell me that's not what you're saying

[ATF SAC]

Of course not. My admittedly snappish response was aimed generally at a perception that some folks feel that "Not only did I try marijuana but actually it is sort of cool and ought to be just ok."
This pops up quite a bit, not just in this forum, but God save us, in the hiring process. "No big deal", and it isn't if you were restrained in your "experimentation" and suitably contrite in the interview process.
It is almost a tautology that snitches are involved with drugs. In fact, their involvement is what creates the leverage we use on them or gives them the knowledge that makes them useful to us.
Nothing is more self apologetic or self justifying than a confidential informant, or more annoying or career threatening or more useful, but we learn early not to love them.
Some of the attitude that "I can't believe it matters that I did this or that" or "It's not fair that choices I made count" frankly frosts my pumpkin. Are drugs illegal? Yupper. Therefore drug purchase and use constitutes a crime, right here and right now and you can bet we want to deal with that in examining someone who now says they want to be a law enforcer.

g-mod, thanks for calling me out on this, but the underlying fact stands that beneath the civilized veneer, an experienced investigator is looking at someone who is involved in illegal activity and wants "understanding" and "forgiveness" the way a handyman looks at new power tools. Of course that's a long way from someone who did something wrong once, realizes it was a dumb stunt in the larger context of what they want in their life, and straightens up. So take my original shot as not being at a little drug experimentation but at the attitude that nothing counts but what I want right now. Silly, Silly.