Do I confess to Uncle Sam?

October 18, 2006 7:57 PM

I'm thinking about applying for a government job in a field which would almost certainly require a backgound check. I've toked up. Am I screwed?

I was never caught or anything, but there are plenty of people who know, so a thorough background check could definitely turn it up. I don't do it anymore; I decided a long time ago that the risks outweighed the benefits. And what if there's a lie-detector test? Is it better to 'fess up so they know you're telling the truth, or better to lie? I've heard rumors that they ask questions like that so they KNOW you're lying and have a positive control.
Please note that I am NOT ASKING HOW TO BREAK ANY LAWS. I simply want to know whether this is a deal-breaker and how to approach this specific topic if given a polygraph.

posted by anonymous to law & government (30 comments total)

Don't lie, but if you haven't been convicted or even arrested you shouldn't have to. Even on a polygraph (which are completely bogus but a few government agencies still cling to em) they should only ask if you have been arrested or convicted of a crime.

Basicially, don't mention it. For example, on the test if they ask if you've "ever broken the law" say yes but just mention something else. EG: jaywalking, parking ticket, failing to stop for a pedestrian waiting at a crosswalk etc... If they ask if you been arrested or convicted of a drug offense say no which (if I understand your post) is the truth.
posted by Riemann at 8:04 PM on October 18, 2006

I have a friend who called to remind me that she tried pot once or twice in college but never really took to it when she applied for a similar job and listed me as a reference. It wasn't an issue, she loves her job.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 8:06 PM on October 18, 2006

I think its effect on your chances has a lot to do with the nature and profile of the job itself.

For instance, if you were applying for a gig with the CIA, yeah it would probably prevent you from getting the job. I doubt they'd care if you were trying to be a game warden or even a local peace officer though.

Hell, it never hurts to find out.
posted by Willie0248 at 8:08 PM on October 18, 2006

Oh, by the way. If the job is with a private company then they absolutely should not ask about any offenses for which you were not convicted. That's a real quick way for a compay to get sued. If you volunteer the information that is something else entirely.
posted by Riemann at 8:09 PM on October 18, 2006

Depending on the nature of the position, you will not be given the option of evasion that Riemann suggests, even if you chose to take that route. For many positions you are required to fill out a form that specifically asks about drug use. However, it's my recollection that it is time-sensitive, and asks about the last 7 or 10 years.

It is by no means necessarily a deal breaker if you admit to some use, but it depends on the position and the rest of your profile. To the extent you are interested, I would advise you not to lie; guess that if you did lie, there's a very good chance you would not be discovered, but that it is not worth the risk; and discount the probability that this will come up in a polygraph, though that again depends on the position and the agency.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 8:19 PM on October 18, 2006

If asked directly tell them. They may not ask though, depending on the level of clearance you are after.

Do not lie, do not try to lie, there is a good chance you will be caught.

Don't worry about it too much either. Who hasn't tried various drugs from time to time?

I had a boss who had some high level US clearance. He had taken every drug under the sun. But he was honest about it and did not have problems. He had also associated with 'The Weathermen' in the 60s and got it. But again, he told them about it and it was not a deal breaker.
posted by sien at 8:33 PM on October 18, 2006

Own up to what you did and tell them why you don't do it anymore. Touch base with your old pals and make sure they remember the past the same way you tell the story. Everyone changes over time and the people that you used to toke up are also trying to live a respectable life.
posted by peeedro at 8:33 PM on October 18, 2006

(I'm coming at this from a Federal standpoint. Your local government's mileage may vary.)

The answer to your question is "It depends." My friends who have been through the clearance process and had not ever actually smoked pot were viewed askance during their polygraphs, but they made it through. If you smoked up a few times during college (and this was more than a few years ago), you probably don't have anything to worry about, unless you're going for a job as a special agent at the FBI or DEA (FBI has a limit of smoking pot 15 times or less in your lifetime; DEA is super strict, but I'm not sure about particulars). Also, you're probably preempted from Secret Service Uniformed Service. If you're currently trafficking pounds of grass over state lines and toke up every night, the feds will not hire you if they find out about it.

But then there's a huge gray area. If you're applying for a national security position (and have to fill out the SF-86), you'll be asked to go back 7 years in the past. Department of Justice asks for one year in the past (on the SF-85P). If you need TS/SCI, you'll go through a polygraph, extensive (and invasive) background check, with investigators interviewing you, all neighbors for the past 7 years, and basically everyone you've ever known, and mental health assessment. But if you're just going for Secret, OPM will mail out some forms to your friends, who'll fill them out and (hopefully) send them in quickly, and that'll be the bulk of the investigation.

Bottom line: as a government employee, I can't in good conscience advise you to lie on your security forms. I didn't lie on mine, and it's taken me much longer than other people who started work with me at the same time to get fully cleared, but there's something to be said for being honest. But I do know a huge number of people who have lied on their forms (for a Secret-level clearance) and not been caught. Lying to the government so that they'll trust you with sensitive information bugs the hell out of me, but if you choose that route you won't be the only one.
posted by kdar at 8:34 PM on October 18, 2006 [5 favorites has favorites]

They will ask specific questions about drug use if you are applying for a position that includes a SSBI. This would apply to jobs carrying a security clearance of secret or above. A polygraph would be unusual unless you were seeking a very specialized clearance.

I know a number of people who have admitted to past drug use. It does not appear to be a deal-breaker, particularly if the use was several years ago. Current drug use is going to drop you and getting caught in a lie of this nature is going to drop you. The standards of how closely they judge you will vary depending on how high of a clearance is required.

Riemann has several critical things wrong. If a position requires a security clearance, they ask all sorts of stuff and the fact that you work for a private firm is irrelevant. Cute non-answers like the jaywalking thing are ridiculous. In fact "knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines of up to $10,000 and/or 5 years inprisonment." I've never heard of someone getting charged with a crime, but the fact remains that it is illegal.

They will ask if you ever used illegal drugs in the last seven years and if you say yes, they will ask for a range of dates, the name of the drug and number of times you used it. The questions themselves are part of "Standard Form 86" which can be easily googled. The standard adjudicative guidelines say:

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
1. The drug involvement was not recent;
2. The drug involvement was an isolated or aberrational event;
3. A demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future;
4. Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a credentialed medical professional. "

posted by Lame_username at 8:38 PM on October 18, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

kdar: perhaps you know of certain websites specifically catering to security clearance jobs? I think he should ask there but I forgot the precice url's ...
posted by krautland at 8:44 PM on October 18, 2006

I know lots of people with Q clearances (that's for nuclear weapons info, so not exactly a token clearance) who did drugs in the past. They mostly had to sign a form saying they wouldn't do it again.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:48 PM on October 18, 2006

I want to echo others who have said that Riemann is very, very wrong, so please don't listen to him. I know a couple of people who have light drug use in their past who now work in various government positions as lawyers (DoJ, executive agencies, Congressional committees). As far as I know, they were all up front and honest about their past and it didn't effect them. But I don't think the security clearances they needed are very high.
posted by Falconetti at 9:02 PM on October 18, 2006

I concur with Lame_username and dirigibleman, from the mouth of a CIA agent at an informational session last year, as long as you pass the piss test and promise not to do it again, you're fine.
posted by The White Hat at 9:04 PM on October 18, 2006

In general (as always, take my advice with a grain of salt), backgroud checks for security clearance are looking for things about you that could potentially lead to a compromising situation - blackmail material and close ties with criminal elements are two of the biggies. If you are a known consorter with pot or cocain dealers, or have lots of family/friends who live in North Korea or Iran, it will be difficult to get security clearance, because you have the easy and direct means to leak and information to these contacts. If you have substantial amounts of debt, you are at risk of being extorted in exchange for classified information.

Anecdotally, I know a woman who applied for a government job (911 operator) which required an extensive background check. She was truthful on the test, including her drug use more than 20 years prior (if it was even relevant/asked for). She passed the background check.
posted by muddgirl at 9:06 PM on October 18, 2006

I've had one friend get some high security clearance with the US State Dept. In the process, I was interviewed by a retired CIA guy (who came to my office in trenchcoat and Russian fur hat, in case anyone was confused about just who he was) for about 40 minutes about her. About her family, friends, love life, drug and alcohol use, finances, her family's finances, on and on. In addition to seeing if she was trustworthy, it seemed to be mainly aimed at finding out whether there was anything someone could blackmail her with. At the end he asked whether a very open-ended question about whether I thought there was anything else he should know about whether she would be an honorable representative of the US. I tried to just glide over the issue of drug use, since we went to different universities so I wasn't present for any of her wild days... but it would not have been easy for me to overtly lie to this guy. Don't depend on anybody overtly lying for you (or rather, don't depend on everybody lying for you and all telling the same story convincingly). She got the clearance despite having had the usual university experimentation phase of life. Be honest with them.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:29 PM on October 18, 2006

A few years ago CIA recruiters came to my school to give their pitch. According to the information they provided, the CIA is a lot more interested in people's college GPA than they are in occasional or recreational drug use, as long as it's not current. I don't know if that applies to more serious substances such as meth, cocaine, etc (doubt it) but they made pretty clear that doing pot a few times wasn't going to stop them from being interested in you.

I don't really know about other government stuff, although I had a roommate applying to be a cop with the LAPD. He did the background test, and for some reason I could never figure out lied about something really insignificant. He passed the polygraph but got caught in his lie a few months later and it screwed up his chances with the force. So don't lie.
posted by Happydaz at 9:30 PM on October 18, 2006

Lame Username has it right. I work in the area of Security Clearance law. You will have to tell the truth. Ironically, if you did it a lot, its much better to have gone through drug treatment.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:41 PM on October 18, 2006

Very sorry but this reminds me of a line in Stripes (1981 movie) where it's a military scenario and they ask the two guys if they've ever been convicted of a federal crime and they say, "Convicted? (thoughtful looks...) Nooo.... Never convicted...
posted by prodevel at 9:44 PM on October 18, 2006

A friend of mine went through a lie-detector test in order to work for the Australian foreign service (diplomatic, not intelligence). They asked her if she ever took drugs. She answered yes, entirely honestly. She got the job, after signing a vow not to take any drugs from that point on. She was told that the purpose of the test was to weed out liars, not casual potheads.

Of course, the US is not Australia, so your mileage may vary.
posted by randomstriker at 9:56 PM on October 18, 2006

I just filled out an S-86 last week.

Since I have the instructions right here, this is what they say on the matter: "... it is vital that you are candid and honest when completing the security forms. A lack of candor may disqualify you from federal employment even where the conduct or activity underlying the lack of candor might not."

That's straight from the horse's mouth. Make of it what you will.
posted by anjamu at 10:35 PM on October 18, 2006

Want to echo what kdar and others have said. I've been through the SSBI, filled out the SF-86, have the clearances. To be honest, the fact that I lived for a year in South Korea was a much, much bigger deal than the fact I tried pot a few times in college (which wasn't even a blip on the radar). Own up to how many, how recently, how often.
I would just clarify about polygraphs. Not everyone has to take the scary polygraph (lifestyle)--generally only those at CIA or with CIA detailee status or its equivalent. Everyone with a TS (and maybe a Secret? Ironmouth would know better than I) clearance has to take the CI poly (counterintelligence). Basically, are you mishandling classified info, are you a spy, have you ever plotted to commit espionage, etc.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 4:18 AM on October 19, 2006

The initial intake form for the CIA asks you to swear you haven't done drugs in the past 12 months.
posted by thirteenkiller at 4:26 AM on October 19, 2006

I just learned that from one of their college recruiters fyi.
posted by thirteenkiller at 4:27 AM on October 19, 2006

It's been years (over 15!) since I held an active security clearance, and then it was only "Secret" (meaning that no truly comprehensive background investigation was involved) but I can tell you that in the late 1980s, candidly admitting a *past history* of being a more-than-occasional pot smoker was emphatically *not* a dealbreaker.

They checked my criminal records in the places I'd lived and also ran a credit check...
posted by enrevanche at 4:47 AM on October 19, 2006

No, you are not. That's all I care to say.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:05 AM on October 19, 2006

The whole idea of the clearance isnt just "get to know you" its also about telling the government the things you've done so that they can weigh the risk of you being blackmailed in the future. The more you lie the more things you can be blackmailed for. I recommend you keep the lying at a minimum . Things like your travels, mental health, and credit history are more important than casual non-habitual drug use.
posted by damn dirty ape at 7:55 AM on October 19, 2006

Do not listen to anyone trying to tell you that they won't ask about drug use. Depending on the level of clearance, they will ask, and they will want details.

I'm about to start a job in the Canadian federal government that requires a security clearance. Even though Canada is way more relaxed than the US about marijuana use, during the security clearance process they asked me if I had ever tried any illicit drugs. I answered truthfully that I had tried marijuana around the time I was in University. They wanted to know: total number of times, approx date of first time, approx date of last time, who I got it from, what environment I used it in, if I'd ever paid for it, how much I'd paid for it, why I stopped, if I would ever use it again.

They also asked similarly detailed questions about my alcohol consumption habits: what do I drink? where do I drink? how often? how much at a time? who do I drink with? have I ever been through treatment for my alcohol use? Similar questions about gambling. Then they wanted all financial details for myself and my Significant Other. I can't even remember everything they asked about.

I answered the questions truthfully and got the job. So don't think you can be cutesy and not answer their questions. They're going to want specifics.
posted by raedyn at 8:01 AM on October 19, 2006

I work for a defense contractor, and I just received my Secret clearance last month (the whole process took just under a year). I was honest about the half dozen times I'd smoked (the most recent of which was about 3 months prior to the application). I was denied my interim/temporary clearance. A couple of months ago, a government agent (I forget which office specifically) came to interview me for about an hour. The questions were very specifc -- how many times, with who, when, where, why, how much, method of intake (she even went so far as to ask me pipe or bong, and what kind of bong), how did it make me feel, did I enjoy it, etc. We went through those questions for a couple of specific incidents (the first time, and some random other time). When she realized my answers were mostly the same (except the situational details, of course), she went on to the next series of questions.

These mostly concerned peer-pressure (do my friends still smoke? Do they know I "quit"? Would they care if I turned them down?) and blackmail (does my family know?). I pretty much laughed these away.

She ended the interview by saying that I probably wouldn't hear from her again, and that no news was good news. About a month later, I got the notice from our security offer that I had the clearance. The best part is, coworkers who started before or with me and were granted their interims still haven't been fully cleared.

So yeah, be honest. It might turn into a small hassle (there was some shuffling of responsibility when word came in that I'd been denied the interim) but the long term effects are probably minimal. As others have said, better to tell the truth than get caught lying. Plus, you could end up with a good story to tell. The "Pot Interview" is always good for a few laughs.
posted by natabat at 8:41 AM on October 19, 2006

When I applied for police positions (what was I thinking?), I got turned down outright for one position because I tried drugs. The others had questions about it, and one would fail you for having tried pot in the last three years. I dropped out before the background checks though.

As an aside, I thought it was depressing that one would drop me outright, as seriously, I've only done drugs three times, each time just to see what it was like.
posted by drezdn at 10:12 AM on October 19, 2006

I know this has been said already, but if you are subjected to a polygraph lying is pretty much the WORST thing you can do.

I've heard from various people I know who have applied for security clearance that having an 'experimental phase' usually isn't a big deal.

Be honest and let them make the call.
posted by lastyearsfad at 1:22 PM on October 19, 2006