Slashdot Mirror


FBI Need Potheads To Fight Cybercrime

An anonymous reader writes "The rate of cybercrime is growing and growing, and law enforcement is struggling to keep up. The FBI is in the process of beefing up its headcount, but they're running into a problem: many of the hackers applying for these jobs have a history of marijuana use, and the agency has a zero tolerance policy. FBI Director James Comey said, 'I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview.' However, change may be on the horizon: Comey said the FBI is changing 'both our mindset and the way we do business.' He also encouraged job applications from former pot users despite the policy."

172 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait a second, I thought potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

    Looks like one bullshit stereotype driven war is affecting our ability to fight another bullshit stereotype driven war.

    The irony is fucking killing me.

    1. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      So... is this whole situation good or bad?
      It's a moral infinite loop.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait a second, I thought potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

      Exactly right. You'd better start snorting coke if you ever want to amount to anything, you worthless piece of shit.

    3. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes you have, you just don't know it because they aren't advertising that they smoke.

    4. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Wait a second, I thought potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

      Well, Eric Holder is the Attorney General . . . and any time he opens his mouth . . . I think he's tripping his balls off on LSD.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Funny

      Smoke from what? Too much current? Its pretty hard to make a pothead smoke!

    6. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When has admitting that you smoke pot to a law enforcement officer ever turned out to be "good" for you? Seriously, if you hack and smoke pot, don't work for the FBI. Not until pot becomes legal everywhere in the US.

    7. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pot use just doesn't happen in this industry.

      ...and there are no gays in Iran. Right. :-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or maybe...just maybe...they're avoiding you on purpose and are going for greener pastures instead? You'd make a lousy statistician.

    9. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm an accomplished software developer, i smoke pot, i make 6 figures have a family and kids. I have many friends who smoke pot, they include directors of large telecommunications companies, several engineers of different disciplines, and of course other developers. We all have nice houses, cars some of us have boats, yachts and horses. We all hang out and smoke pot together, work on recreational software/hardware projects some private some public, some open source some closed.

      We have an uncanny ability to find our own kind like most other subcultures and like many we don't advertise it.

    10. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by drpimp · · Score: 1

      If a hacker smoke pots in the woods and no one is around, does that mean it didn't happen? I am sure if you dug deep enough many of your neighbors are doing it at least occasionally; you just don't know about it. The mere fact that it's illegal most people don't go around with a blunt lit up promoting their usage.

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    11. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Occasionally (depending on the individual LEO, the circumstances, and your flawless delivery) you can use a truthful response to your advantage during a roadside interview.

      Believe you me, the cops don't get blunt honesty a great deal, and some find it quite refreshing.

      Caveat: YMMV. There would be a much greater probability of a positive outcome if you were admitting to some minor marijuana use versus having a body in the trunk.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    12. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's likely that those developers are avoiding working for companies that do drug testing. In fact, I'm surprised that your company has it. I've worked at 3 different Fortune 1000 companies over the last 17 years, and not one required drug testing for developers or IT workers. Maybe I just got lucky.

    13. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by sfcat · · Score: 1

      potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

      Considering I've never heard directly of anyone in this industry using it, I think the stereotype is correct. Personally I didn't see it in college (BS in Comp Sci in 1989) nor have I seen it in the twenty-five years since. Pot use just doesn't happen in this industry.

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, I hope that was sarcasm...

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    14. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Pump enough current through and just about anything will smoke, shorting out a 200 amp mains feed will do it PDQ.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      You are forgetting the possibility that your sample may not be representative. They may self-select against jobs that drug test, or they may be good at passing drug tests through various means.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    16. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Marijuana is nothing more than a condiment, a spice if you will.

      It doesn't encourage it's users to rob liquor stores or eat the face off each other, and unlike it's completely legal cousin alcohol, it is not a leading cause of family violence... I will bet a lot of the children of abusive alcoholics wish their dads would've smoked a little reefer.

      On the negative side of the list, weed does take a few points off of the old IQ in exchange for a helping of spontaneous creativity, and truth be told, it's not healthy to inhale the fruits of any burning matter.

      There is indeed an occasional Spiccoli Peak if you catch that lightning in a bottle, and that's when you can Melange up and fold space. Yes, creative people seeking innovative solutions might be on the watch list.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    17. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like most drugs "smoking pot" != "drug addict" anymore than "drinking" == "alcoholic". I know plenty of people who use pot, hash, coke, or molly recreationally and still produce top notch software, chances are you have used some of it. On the other hand, I've seen people washout because they couldn't handle the combination of freedom and alcohol. The ones who would fail the drug test just "get other offers" once you mention the test or don't imbibe while doing a job search.

    18. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by dcollins · · Score: 2

      Maybe you were too drunk to notice.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    19. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Six figure salary in IT here. Can confirm.

    20. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by flyneye · · Score: 2

      As one of the top 4% of minds in the world, I have smoked an average of two oz. of cannabis a month for the last 38 years. Ive blow it all off over time,designed everything from military weapons to consumer electronics, interviewed more celebrities than youll ever meet in a lifetime,received two bullshit doctorates from Ivy league Universities and have the gall to offer my top of the line archtop guitar for a cool $35k U.S. This is only from my hobbies.
      What have you done lately?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    21. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or they all detected your attitude and so didn't mention it.

    22. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More likely you're a straight-laced prude that no professional who smoked would reveal themselves to for fear of being turned in to the authorities. If I were to guess from my own experiences I'd say somewhere around 20-40% of computer professionals I've known smoke at least on the weekends - more among the creative programmer types.

      Ask yourself this - how many computer professionals would you estimate drink alcohol? Now, how many of those would you be able to guess if they never mentioned the fact around you? And how many do you suppose would mention the fact in your presence if it were illegal? The fact is you can't tell what drugs somebody uses just by looking at them, unless they are heavy addicts. A stoner, drunk, etc. is obvious, but they're never going to make it in the professional world anyway. The responsible users who have a glass of wine or smoke a bowl after dinner look just like everyone else once they sober up.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    23. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      In case that's sarcastic, it was too subtle for internet use.

      Look around you at work. Look left. Look right. If there's more than 5 people in the room, one of them is a regular user. If not, things are VERY different in your home country than in mine (and no, this here ain't the Netherlands where stuff like that would be legal).

      I don't, I noticed that stuff doesn't do jack to me but making me incredibly sleepy. If I wanted that, I'd go to more meetings, they have quite the same effect on me, are not only cheaper but I'd even get paid for it. But some people enjoy it as a way to unwind. Personally, I don't care. There's no drug tests in my department. Mostly 'cause I know how they'd end...

      The ONLY thing I care about is whether someone can do his work and is sober when he's on the clock. If you can accomplish that, why should I care what you smoke, sniff or snort in your spare time? If it affects your work, your ability to do it or your efficiency, we have to talk. The same applies to everything else, btw, if your pastimes cut into your work, if you're injured every other week 'cause of a high risk sport, we are also going to have a problem.

      Else... have fun.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? CAD/CAM drove desktop computing for a long time in the early days.
      Lets not forget UNIX either....
      I guess you haven't looked....
      Put down the bong, go outside and interface....

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    25. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Threni · · Score: 1

      Let's talk about this over a drink!

    26. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by DeathElk · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least he doesn't smoke crack, unlike you...

    27. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Marijuana increases the risk of having psychotic episodes...Marijuana worsens depression and schizophrenia

      Is there any actual evidence for this? Since all I've seen was mostly contradictory and inconclusive.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      Call me silly but shouldn't we always want to hire people who obey the law before any consideration is given to people who do break the law?

    29. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Considering the lack of a sense of humour among Slashdot moderators these days, the parent post might even be serious.

    30. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Here's some research, at least on the schizophrenia. However, all the studies show that 1. everyone that had schizophrenic issues where already pre-desposed it having it 2. it only to be caused from teen usage, not in adults.

      Basically, if you have a genetic pre-disposition to this kind of mental illness already, AND use for at least 2-3 years WHILE your brain is in it's formation period, you MIGHT have your schizophrenia triggered early. The research doesn't indicate this happens with adults (ei, post brain pathway solidification), so the real warning should be stay away from any and all brain-altering substances until your brain is done forming.

    31. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      actually, no. You want people who can understand the people their chasing...and this is the FBI basically admitting that it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, and their missing out on thousands of highly effective hackers because of duPont Chemical's need to protect their profits against hemp paper and the racist policies of the past. Hire a criminal to catch criminals!

    32. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I was much (decades) younger (and still smoked) I wrote code all of the time when high. In fact, it was one of life's pleasures -- the concentration focus was fantastic. And yes, the code was very complex, was thousands of lines long (when finished) and ran perfectly when I was done as far as I was ever able to tell.

      With that said, not everybody could do what I did and work effectively high. But I knew a fair number who could and did, and of course I knew a few who were useless when high. Of course, I knew a fair number or people who were useless coders stone cold straight. This isn't terribly surprising -- the world is full of functional alcoholics too. Pot is different from alcohol, though, in so many ways. Alcohol eventually puts you into a stupor, then kills you. Pot at worst puts you to sleep and has no known fatal dose. It is considerably safer than aspirin or caffeine -- the former you can easily overdose on or it can kill you outright with e.g. Reyes' Syndrome. Caffeine is lethal at doses somewhere between 2 and 20 grams (depending on your metabolism and weight) -- not easy to ingest in coffee, easy to ingest if you put a couple of spoonfuls of legal, over the counter caffeine powder onto your morning post toasties. Cigarettes, don't get me started -- a single cigarette can kill a small child if accidentally ingested, and nicotine makes a dandy insecticide even when highly diluted.

      In addition to being amazingly safe compared to almost anything humans consume outside of brocolli, pot is basically a non-prescription (openly illegal in many states) antidepressant. Lots of people who smoke (or drink, for that matter) are self-medicating or compensating for the fact that their lives suck for reasons utterly beyond their control. Is it a good medicine compared to SSRIs or other prescription medicines? I don't know. I do know that drug companies don't want you to have the choice. I do know from bitter experience that the law enforcement industry from police through the lawyers and the courts make a living from pot. I know that the biggest single risk for pot smokers isn't anything associated with pot itself -- it is being arrested, charged, jailed, forced to pay thousands of dollars for bail, forced to pay thousands more for lawyers, forced to pay fines and court costs, forced to endure probation, forced to pay for "rehabilitation". It is being fired, not being hired, not getting into college not because of your grades or intelligence (both of which can be just fine) but because of your "police record". And the penalties scale up enormously for the poor and stupid who often smoke weed because life as a janitor or store greeter or one of the dudes who has to put on a costume and wave at passing cars to get them to file their taxes or patronize a failing store sucks, but weed makes the menial and mindless jobs you can get a bit more tolerable without ruining your liver.

      If pot has a flaw as a recreational substance, it is that it can, by making a shitty situation tolerable, act as an ambition suck. Hamlet on pot:

      To be, or not to be: that is the question:
      Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
      The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
      Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
      And by opposing end them? Or just get high
      And suffer no more; and by suffer to say we end
      The head-ache of the thousand natural schlocks
      That life is heir to, 'tis a consummation
      Devoutly to be wish'd. So don't bogart that joint,
      My friend, pass it on over to me...

      Sometimes, though, it really is better to take arms against the sea of troubles and by opposing end them. Pot can make it a bit too easy to suffer the slings and arrows and end up trapped in a life that consists of little else. Or not. Or it can do so for a while, and then people grow up. Ultimately, it ain't nobody's business but your own, and it certainly isn't a positive predictor of failure -- or success. Like anything, for some people (especially some of the me

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    33. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Drug-testing software developers is idiotic. What do you think they might do â" crash their computer into a crowd of sprites?

    34. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...contradictory, inconclusive, and (as even Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN finally came to realize and stated in public when he changed his stance on pot) the result of decades of research funded for the sole purpose of finding something wrong with pot. If 96% or more of all research grants are titled "Investigating Marijuana as a risk factor of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia", and the only way to have a grant renewed is to find some positive (that is, negative) effect, it is hardly surprising that 96% of all research results turn up something negative about pot. What is really interesting is that in spite of subjecting it to a microscope far more demanding than we have ever applied to any other substance under similar circumstances, so very little has been double-blind confirmed as a "risk" to pot smokers. It "interferes with" (but certainly does not "prevent") the formation of short term memory -- for the duration of the time you are high, with no long-term effects. It is indeed used as self-medication for lots of different kinds of dysphoria, and can by preventing or ameliorating dysphoria keep people from making beneficial life changes. Sometimes one does need to take action instead of endure when life sucks. Other times, its gonna suck regardless of what you do, and then sure, pot can help make it suck less.

      The other really interesting thing about pot is the number of myths straight out of the War on Drugs are still being perpetuated by people who heard some pithy thing about it twenty or thirty years ago and never thought to doubt the veracity of their government or question its interest in the whole matter.

      http://www.drfranklucido.com/p...

      http://medicalmarijuana.procon...

      The government itself is pretty schizophrenic on the issue. There are several places one can get to (compilations of) original papers on pot, and (allowing for the confirmation bias that is rampant in medical science these days, especially when reporting anecdotal "evidence" rather than double blind, placebo controlled studies) it really is pretty benign compared to ever so many other things that are quite legal. The same cop who arrests you, the judge who sits on your case, and the lawyer who gets you off can easily be functional alcoholics. I'm guessing alcohol and bipolar disorder or schizophrenia don't mix real well either -- but that is never mentioned or discussed, for some reason...

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    35. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by dcollins117 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Occasionally (depending on the individual LEO, the circumstances, and your flawless delivery) you can use a truthful response to your advantage during a roadside interview.

      Anything you say can and will be used against you. Keep your trap shut.

    36. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A financially successful pot smoker admits to smoking pot on an article about pot smoking in which other people claim that pot smokers aren't useful to society. Yet you are implying that somehow his comment is out of place and unwarranted.

      I think you're the one being unreasonable.

    37. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by koreanbabykilla · · Score: 1, Interesting

      failing a work drug test just means you are stupid in general. They cant watch you so using someone elses piss and some handwarmers works great. You can also buy THC test strips at the dollar store to calibrate drinking water till the weed line says no but the "is urine" line still says yes. Passing a drug test while using drugs is trivial.

    38. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by mrxak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This whole "problem" the FBI has would be solved by legalization. It would solve a lot of other problems, too, like our overcrowded prisons and a fair bit of untaxed organized crime.

      I've never smoked marijuana, and I don't think I've ever even smelled it. If it was suddenly legal tomorrow, I probably wouldn't become a major pothead (and neither would anyone else who isn't already). I still support legalization. It is such a waste to keep marijuana illegal. It should just be like alcohol or tobacco, both of which are more dangerous and addictive than marijuana.

      We all know how alcohol prohibition turned out. Everybody can see how marijuana prohibition is turning out. Everyone who wants to can still get their hands on it, and it's only encouraged a black market largely run by organized crime. The FBI complaining they can't hire any good cyber security experts is just the latest in a long line of absurdities resulting from this nonsense.

      Can we please get whatever equivalent to the twenty-first amendment it'll take to end the madness over reefer?

      Yes, I went there.

    39. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you start this off by stereotyping programmers as being mentally ill with no supporting data, then you follow up with some of the most popular urban myths about marijuana, again with no supporting data.

      Look, I agree that not all marijuana use is noble, but your information is not based on any credible psychological or sociological studies of IT workers nor are your claims about the effects of marijuana accurate and reflective of the weighted opinion of the medical community.

    40. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      That might be funny if you weren't talking about coders, who _also_ have a stereotype about eating cheetos, completely independent of the stoner one.

    41. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Yes, otherwise you get end up working for the FBI incredibly cheaply (job payment scale, clerical 'LOSER' grade) and the failure to perform job performance analysis could have an incredibly painful sting (suspended sentence unsuspended, years of imprisonment to follow).

      Not that smoking grass would be all that bad for the initial pattern analysis. The ability to fracture the personality and brings specific elements to focus helps in that data drift and selection, to spend hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks, months and months, years and years, sifting the global internet for spikes of interests and cross correlation. Just the job for stoners but the FBI don't play nice, in fact really, really not nice unlike corporate security.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    42. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      And yes, the code was very complex, was thousands of lines long (when finished) and ran perfectly when I was done as far as I was ever able to tell.

      Wow, that's... uh... inspiring, I guess? Maybe it would have been quite simple, verifiable, and twenty lines long if you weren't stoned out of your fucking mind while writing it. ;-)

      I'm mostly kidding. Personally, drug use (apart from copious caffeine, occasional nicotine, and very rarely amphetamines) has never helped me with any of my technical efforts, but I know many friends and colleagues who do quite well with pot or even, in a few cases, massive doses of hallucinogens!

      Still, this anecdote as you tell it isn't very compelling evidence for your point.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    43. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      That's okay, there's a new revolutionary field of "data science" which solves all of these pesky statistical issues (survivor bias, sampling bias, hell even false positive rate) by... just ignoring them outright! Clap your hands if you believe!

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    44. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      well, smoke inhalation is never good for you, though the harm is mitigated when the drug is not addictive enough to make you smoke 20+ grams per day. as for IQ, who knows?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    45. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I don't smoke anything myself, but I know first hand of many world-class engineers who smoke up at parties.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    46. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Interesting. What does your girlfriend, Morgan Fairchild have to say about it?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    47. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being financially successful is not the same thing as being useful to society. In fact, often enough people who are harmful to society are financially successful.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    48. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Funny

      Top 3%, designed everything from anti-matter weapons to consumer teleportation devices, been an a-list celebrity, received 3 doctorates from Oxford universties, all on the subject of bovine defecation and have the gall to offer my top of the line Theramin for $35,000.25

    49. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      We all hang out and smoke pot together, work on recreational software/hardware projects some private some public, some open source some closed.

      Cool story, bro.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    50. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by jandersen · · Score: 1, Troll

      ... i smoke pot, i make 6 figures have a family and kids. I have many friends who smoke pot, they include directors ...

      Ah, yes, this is something I have been meaning to talk to you about. You see, one of the terrible, terrible consequences of smoking The Evil Weed is that you get these vivid delusions ... If you didn't do that, you would realize that you actually lying on a filthy rag in a basement somewhere, while rats eat away your shrunken genitals.

    51. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Considering my bitch is a chihuahua, you must be tiny.....

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    52. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Modesty, like manners is for people with nothing better to do.
      I AM the guy who will answer the door naked, if I happen to be, for anyone.
      Philosophically, if you dont blow your own horn, no one else is likely to...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    53. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      In the modern world, only those who are harmful to society are financially successful. Sad, but true.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    54. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by careysub · · Score: 2

      I know that the biggest single risk for pot smokers isn't anything associated with pot itself -- it is being arrested, charged, jailed, forced to pay thousands of dollars for bail, forced to pay thousands more for lawyers, forced to pay fines and court costs, forced to endure probation, forced to pay for "rehabilitation"

      The way they put it, back in the day was: "Pot is dangerous to your health because it can cause your body to get thrown in jail."

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    55. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, no and double no. You will never, ever get out of an arrest for drug possession by admitting to possessing drugs. It doesn't matter if the nice police officer man says he'll "go easy on you if you just admit it," he won't. He's lying to you, because he's allowed to lie to you. There is no reward system in place for "how many honest drug users did you let off the hook today?" There is only a reward system for "how many violators of the law did you apprehend today?"

      Do. Not. Talk. To. Cops.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    56. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by dead_cthulhu · · Score: 1

      My personal anecdotal evidence is that I can't even go to a rock concert without having to taking clonazepam beforehand and immediately heading to the bar for booze, just to prevent the serious crazy that happens if I even get a whiff of second-hand weed smoking. That's right, even a contact high fucks me horribly. However, on the other hand, I know scores of people who smoke the stuff regularly, either for recreational reasons or medicine, and either benefit or have neutral effects. It's a drug, and like other drugs, it causes varying reactions amongst various people.

      I think it should be legal, but I don't know whether it's better to regulate it like medicine, or like other recreational drugs like alcohol or tobacco, both of which are more harmful.

    57. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Bah. I'm in the top 1%, and I've invented artificial gravity, designed and constructed FTL starships, and also invented time-travel machines. I just like to post in Slashdot of the past to amuse myself.

    58. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I had a psychiatrist tell me that THC can trigger psychotic states by means of messing with the dopamine levels. Then, I found out an actual study where they gave people THC in recreational doses (equivalent 1 joint per day) and found out that the dopamine changes were apparently statistically insignificant compared to the changes necessary to induce psychosis. So much for qualitative reasoning in psychiatry.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    59. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Congress should pass a law preventing the FBI from hiring these people. If they're flouting the drug laws, then they have no business working for the government which enforces those laws and refuses to rescind them. If the FBI can't fill their staffing needs as a result, and cybercrime goes unpunished, then that's the price they need to pay for their bad policies.

    60. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      blunt honesty

      I see what you did there.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    61. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Ambient+Sheep · · Score: 1

      Smoke from what? Too much current? Its pretty hard to make a pothead smoke!

      Wonderful! Despite being interested in electrical distribution, I'd never heard that usage before here in the UK, that's just too funny... "Two three phase electric circuits in a residential neighborhood terminated with potheads", brings wonderful visions to mind...

      And no, I don't smoke it...

    62. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Anything you say can and will be used against you. Keep your trap shut.

      This is the literal truth. Anything you say which can be used in your defense is hearsay.

    63. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      Have you ever: used a computer?

    64. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      See this is the most annoying part.

      Not to say that acid is any more harmful than pot, but if you went to your employer and asked: "would you rather I smoked pot or dropped acid?" I am pretty confident they'd vote for pot.

      And yet we test for pot because (1) it's "evil" and (2) it's super easy to test for, it sticks around in your system for far too long to be indicative of ANYTHING.

    65. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by dataspel · · Score: 1

      This will probably come as a surprise to many, but a lot of cops in Texas (at least in Houston and Dallas) don't care about a little pot.

      Don't try this in Williamson county.

    66. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Don't you know the laws don't apply to the guys running things. If the FBI want to hire a stoner, they can hire a stoner and nobody can stop them.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    67. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      In Chicago, they passed a law a few years ago saying the cops can just write a ticket for small amounts of possession. In practice, most people are still arrested and sent to trial.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    68. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you are in the scene you will see a lot more usage, no matter what it is you are looking at. Even driving a model of a car, once you get a new car you start seeing them everywhere on the road. As for people smoking, plenty do, they just don't advertise it. I have even seen friends of a friend light up a hitter right at the table in a bar. Plenty of people smoking cigarettes in the room and if you blew the smoke up high, people didn't really notice. Or if they did, nobody cared.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    69. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      My keyboard has a problem with that and quote marks, go figure.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    70. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      If it were garbage, I would post as Anonymous Coward. hmmmmm

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    71. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      so why does the FBI have trouble recruiting people that don't smoke pot to work their computers?

      I mean if potheads can't do anything useful with computers it'd be a non-issue right?

    72. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      welp, have fun trying to fuck with the murican public and the world without us.

      most of us looser burn out lowlifes live quit comfortably.

    73. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      what really gets me is how this would work in relationship to security clearances. One of the major points is to make sure that you can't be compromised by "bad things" in your past. Seems like the FBI doing this destroys that entire idea...

  2. Simple solution by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    Outsource them. Not to India, but a private company. Do it like NSA.

    1. Re:Simple solution by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Still won't work. Vendors/contractors for the federal government are required by law to do pre-hire drug testing and random drug tests.

    2. Re:Simple solution by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Care to cite that law? Also, random drug tests are often not all that random. People often know a week in advance that they, or at least someone is going to be tested.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Simple solution by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      I can't state the law, but I can say that as being a federal contractor personally, at least at all the companies myself and my co-workers have worked for, it's true.

      Of the 3 companies I have worked for where I was being "paid" by the federal government (i.e., my hours were billed to the government by the company), only one required me to take a drug test.

      And, one of the companies that didn't test had a "no alcohol or drugs at any company function" that literally required us to do things like not wear company-logo'd swag if we had a beer in our hand. So, it's not like drugs and alcohol were accepted there...they just didn't test for them.

    4. Re:Simple solution by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      No. You are definitely wrong.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  3. Interview on Weed?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you have to smoke weed just to make it to the interview I seriously doubt you'll be able to do the job. Some recreational usage might be fine but it you need it to just get out of your apartment to go to a job interview then you have issues and problems that should disqualify for most any job out there.

    1. Re:Interview on Weed?! by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would you be nervous at a job interview if your qualified for the job?! I've never had a job interview where i was nervous. Even the last one I had for my current position 8yrs ago being interviewed by 3 people from management and two other network admins that were higher on the ladder.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    2. Re:Interview on Weed?! by entrigant · · Score: 1

      "have to"? I believe the exact wording was "want to". It's hyperbole meant to demonstrate the level of "tolerance" some of the candidates demand, not to demonstrate their crippling inability to get out of bed.

      I do quite well in the private sector, but government is full of "zero tolerance" requirements from recreational drug use to the exact level of college education completed. Combine that with the pitiful wages and I'm amazed they end up with any technology related work force at all. If they'd compete I'd at least consider them. Now I don't even bother looking at them.

    3. Re:Interview on Weed?! by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

      If you have to smoke weed just to make it to the interview I seriously doubt you'll be able to do the job. Some recreational usage might be fine but it you need it to just get out of your apartment to go to a job interview then you have issues and problems that should disqualify for most any job out there.

      A good point. if you can't stop long enough to pass a drug test for which you know the date, you likely have a problem. One issue is that the FBI loves to do polygraphs. Even though they're not reliable enough to be used in criminal proceedings, they use them for employment screening all the time.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    4. Re:Interview on Weed?! by Shados · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unrelated to the topic, but being qualified for the job and being qualified for the interview is 2 totally different things in the IT and software development field, since there's so many bad interviewers out there.

      I wish I could screen for the interview before agreeing to do it. Would save me a lot of trouble.

    5. Re:Interview on Weed?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yah, smokin' weed is crutch. More better to get a Xananx prescription to handle job interview jitters.

    6. Re:Interview on Weed?! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Fortunately for us, Pal Erdos didn't need a job to reshape modern mathematics while on drugs.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Interview on Weed?! by _merlin · · Score: 2

      THC accumulates in fat cells. It can be detected up to three months out if you're a regular user. One of my friends, who was fucking smart but also a serious stoner and a bit of a womaniser, stayed of the whacky tobacky for six weeks before trying to get into the Royal Australian Air Force, but still failed the drug test. A few years later he successfully got into the army after not smoking weed for about six months.

    8. Re:Interview on Weed?! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Because in some cases, there is someone else qualified for the job, perhaps a significant number of someones applying for only one position. The interview may be the deciding factor, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point in having it (other than perhaps negotiating your pay, which is itself something that may merit concern). Also, you don't seem to be producing a great example here. If your relative strength for the position is stable, you would be more nervous with less experience interviewing, so your most recent interview probably wouldn't be the best example.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    9. Re:Interview on Weed?! by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      THC accumulates in fat cells. It can be detected up to three months out if you're a regular user. One of my friends, who was fucking smart but also a serious stoner and a bit of a womaniser, stayed of the whacky tobacky for six weeks before trying to get into the Royal Australian Air Force, but still failed the drug test. A few years later he successfully got into the army after not smoking weed for about six months.

      I am aware of how THC works and how long it remains in the body, depending on how frequently it is used. My point still stands. If you know you're going to have a drug test and you can't stop long enough to pass it, you likely have a problem.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    10. Re:Interview on Weed?! by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Heavy user here as AC. I went 3 months without even being in the same room as second-hand smoke. I failed a litmus strip/instant-cup test at a third party lab. Luckily,the job was for a small business owner and he didn't care about THC positive, after I had to awkwardly explain what THC meant. That's 3 months. That is a pretty long time.

      No judgement from me. I have no issue with marijuana use. In fact, I think it should be completely legal. Three months (as another poster pointed out) is generally the outside range for removing THC from the body. Presumably there's some variability in that three month window.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    11. Re:Interview on Weed?! by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Some drugs would help with that. I'm not sure I would pick marijuana though. The decreased anxiety going into the interview is outweighed by the increased paranoia when the interviewer starts questioning you.

    12. Re:Interview on Weed?! by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would you be nervous at a job interview if your qualified for the job?! I've never had a job interview where i was nervous.

      Cool.
      Thanks for the fun post!

  4. Colorado Attorney General by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 4, Interesting
    When Colorado passed the recreational Marijuana law last year, the AG stated that he expected to review employment-discrimination cases by the end of this year. It's going to be interesting when it comes to companies that do business in Colorado and other states, since current doctrine allows companies to have policies dependent on individual state laws, but I don't believe any of then conflict with national policy.

    Regardless of your stance on the morality of it, maybe we just start treating one drug (MJ) like another (Alcohol or Tobacco) from a legal perspective? Contrary to Mr. Christie, Denver is a fantastic place to live, and I genuinely believe the recreational industry has improved it even more.

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
    1. Re:Colorado Attorney General by Pax681 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Contrary to Mr. Christie, Denver is a fantastic place to live, and I genuinely believe the recreational industry has improved it even more. --

      Colorado, specially Denver is fantastic.. I go regularly to visit friends and for a wee bit of work. The state is happy as it's got massively increased tax revenue and the people are happy as they no longer are victimised for having a wee smoke. Police are happy as they can get on with other more serious stuff... and i mention the police as one of my friends over is a policeman and he and his colleagues much prefer it this way.

    2. Re:Colorado Attorney General by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Enjoying my Carbondale Kool-aid Cush as I write this ;)

    3. Re:Colorado Attorney General by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Best part is, random drug tests are illegal in Boulder city limits...

      Don't make them random, schedule them daily and cancel most of them on the day.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  5. Drunk by dickplaus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look I'm all for allowing them to smoke on their own time, but I don't show up to interviews or work buzzing off of a couple bloody marys. Relax the drug screenings yes, but showing up high? That's just immature IMHO.

    1. Re:Drunk by Jmc23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      About as immature as all those people showing up to work buzzed on caffeine.

      Different bodies function differently. Just like the majority of people need something to speed them up, some people need something to slow them down.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    2. Re: Drunk by dickplaus · · Score: 1

      And I work better with a couple beers too but that won't fly at a job.

    3. Re:Drunk by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      It used to be fairly common to have a couple drinks at lunch.

    4. Re: Drunk by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Works well enough for bartenders... and executives.

      You must be a drone.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    5. Re:Drunk by Jmc23 · · Score: 2
      I've been both, and caffeine is the only one I can't deal with or do any work on.

      Did you even read the second line I wrote? Try understanding it.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    6. Re:Drunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? Here is a study about the effects various recreational pharmaceuticals have on how spiders construct their webs:

      http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm

      There is no picture for alcohol - probably because it would have killed the spider. However, Marijuana did far better than Caffeine. In fact, all the webs were far better than Caffeine except sleeping pills but that's only because the spider didn't get far enough to complete anything.

      I'm not suggesting the hyper-perfect structures of the tripping spider's webs means we should trip at work (or at all for that matter). What I am suggesting is that to a rational person, the legality of a substance isn't directly correlated with its effects on people making decisions in the work place. Caffeine seems to create a state of ADHD and that is the last person I'd want making complicated decisions such as network design, risk management, corporate strategy, company policy, etc.,... You know, things that need to be well planned, stable for long periods of time because they are not easily changed - things that require a commitment.

      One of the senior managers where I work is like this. Its amazing how much havoc her energy drinks cause on a daily basis. I know it's the Caffeine - she went cold turkey for a while and was drinking green tea instead. She was all of a sudden rational, could hold complicated thoughts could follow things through multiple cause/effect trees, etc.,... Then back on the Caffeine and she was once again like the scatter brained Caffeinated (redundant) spider.

      A cup of joe in the morning is one thing just like a single beer at lunch - probably not really an issue as far as job performance. However, with both Alcohol and Marijuana, someone doesn't cause MORE havoc the more they take. Instead, they pass out or space out. I'd much rather have someone produce nothing than produce pure chaos.

    7. Re:Drunk by dcollins · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that FBI Director James Comey has specific case files he can point to of this actually happening, and wasn't engaging in hyperbolic BS like he normally does.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    8. Re: Drunk by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Find a better place to work. When I was an apprentice mechanic almost 20 years ago, the shop I was at had a beer fridge with beer in it! Shock! And the guys who worked there would actually drink a beer or two during work.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Drunk by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      It still can be. I have a tech friend who used to work for a company (about 4 years ago) that brought in kegs at lunch.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    10. Re:Drunk by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

      Ah, one of the drug addicts on state approved drugs.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    11. Re:Drunk by NIK282000 · · Score: 1

      It is insane how much caffeine some people run on. Seeing people drink 2 XL coffees an hour for a 12 hour shift makes my weekend pub crawl look like the church picnic.

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    12. Re:Drunk by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      It used to be fairly common to have a couple drinks at lunch.

      And smoke a pack of cigarettes at your desk. And only hire people of the correct religion or race. And fire the secretary for not putting out.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    13. Re:Drunk by swb · · Score: 1

      We've stopped doing all those things and now look at the mess we're in.

      Peggy, get your skirt back on, get me some ice and pour me a drink.

    14. Re:Drunk by sjames · · Score: 1

      So if we bring even one thing back, we automatically have to have all the others?

      Besides, the drinks at lunch continued well after the other things went away.

    15. Re:Drunk by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      bah, I moved beyond adulterated caffeine many years ago. Coffee? Takes too long, just open up the Jet-alert and slam 2-3 pills!

    16. Re:Drunk by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Of course then you get the geeks/programmers/hackers who prefer to get their caffeine in carbonated form (and become obese or diabetic as a side-effect thanks to all that HFCS they drink)

    17. Re:Drunk by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Look I'm all for allowing them to smoke on their own time, but I don't show up to interviews or work buzzing off of a couple bloody marys. Relax the drug screenings yes, but showing up high? That's just immature IMHO.

      Imagine you're going to throw your morals under the bus. Wouldn't you be plastered or stoned in your FBI interview? The shitty thing is, aside from my anti-war and anti-spying activism, shitfaced or not they'd hire me on the spot after seeing my resume.

      The people that could protect this country, wouldn't agree to work with the NSA and FBI anyway, that would be counter productive to said goal. Look, if they wanted to end cybercrime then our guys would be discovering exploits and patching them. We'd be buying up vectors on the black market and submitting patches or reports to the OS vendors, not leveraging them with some automated exploit deployment framework -- That's the opposite of security.

      Maybe you've got the wrong idea about the FBI. Better wise up. The FBI and NSA preserve "National Security", that means shit like spam-shilling online forums with state propaganda and manufacturing false evidence against anti-war activists.

      The context of this whole discussion is way off. They're looking for more goons to follow flow charts and deploy automated spying tools or troll facebook, twitter and 4chan threads. Not even joking. You want to not sound like an idiot then: s/(FBI|NSA)/KGB/gi and re-read the story.

    18. Re:Drunk by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Quite true. Should we bring back other practices from that bygone, golden era, such as sexually harassing women in the workforce and refusing to hire blacks for decent jobs? Or are we still waiting for those other bad ideas to come back in style?

      (quick aside: apologies if you're merely making an interesting historical observation, without intending to use it to lend credence to the notion that it's fine to show up high for an interview)

    19. Re:Drunk by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's isn't particularly bright to show up to an interview at less than 100%.

      At the same time, I wouldn't consider someone having a couple drinks at lunch (one if you're a lightweight, and none if work involves dangerous machinery) to be such a bad thing in most cases. As with everything, not all old practices were bad and not all were good. Baby and bathwater, etc.

      As others have pointed out, it's still common practice in many places.

    20. Re:Drunk by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      It used to be fairly common to have a couple drinks at lunch.

      Still is in many countries outside the US, especially in Europe. My husband works for a major IT company in France and they often have drinks with lunch. On friday they have company provided champagne (and other drinks).

  6. Re: I call BS by dickplaus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Must be true. You are statistically significant.

  7. Re:Frito-Lay Inorporated loves this! by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    It's all about the Twinkies and snowballs...

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  8. Re:I call BS by DarkSage · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I am gonna go ahead and have to disagree with that. Non-statistical personal experiences are worth just about as much as opinions.

  9. Re:Frito-Lay Inorporated loves this! by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

    Fuck that! I'll be across the street at the burger joint ordering fries!

    --
    "That's right...I said it."
  10. Re:I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He can't help it that he lives in his mom's basement and telecommutes to work everyday, go easy on him.

  11. Re:I call BS by x0ra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me guess. You probably dress in a shirt with a tie and wear some clean pants. On casual Friday, you *might* switch to a polo. Guess what ? You might not be what the FBI is looking for..

  12. Re:Frito-Lay Inorporated loves this! by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

    I've always said, if I get wind of a national legalization of marijuana, I am going to buy a ton of stock in Frito-Lay.

  13. Re:Good idea by x0ra · · Score: 2

    Do you mean as they do by all the way you can be charged with a felony, and even more controlled afterward ?

  14. Riiiight. by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    The only FBI agent I have ever known reasonably well was a scoutmaster and used his boy scout troop as couriers to deal weed. True story.

  15. Re:I call BS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    So what are the tech wages like in Salt Lake City?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. Re:I call BS by Pax681 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been programming professionally for just over thirty years, and in that time I got a BS in Comp Eng in 1993 and a MS in Comp Sci in 2001. I have never even seen pot. I can't remember ever hearing anyone in this field mention using it. It just isn't common in our field. Of course when I was hiring for a new janitorial position here, I couldn't find a single male that could pass the drug test so it appears to be only the uneducated that use it.

    that's because all the people who DO smoke it KNOW you are a prick and thus don't mention it near you

  17. Re:I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well damn, none of your connections on Linkedin mention their drug use? And none of your employees mentioned behavior that could have negative consequences to their employment? That certainly means that there is no drug use in your industry.

  18. Re: I call BS by dickplaus · · Score: 1

    Well like I said before I can drink and handle it just fine but I don't because that's not 'professional'. Hell I'd probably work better with others if I could snag a couple brews around lunch.

  19. Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s by sjames · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is, everyone spins faster but it's just spinning in place. No more of worth gets accomplished. For all that talk about internet speed, real accomplishments move slower than ever.

  20. No they don't... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    They just need to actually advertise for those positions.

    Anyone seen the FBI recruiting for hackers?

    Nope? Okay... so there's your problem.

    If they're really serious they'll talk to the Pentagon about how to actually get recruitment flowing.

    It requires things like "placing an ad"... in anything. And then manning the phone or email address cited.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:No they don't... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Anyone seen the FBI recruiting for hackers?

      Yes.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:No they don't... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Go to usajobs.gov or the FBI's website.

      I don't think lack of visibility is their problem here. I've entertained moving over to the FBI, but I'm trying to get out of the DC region.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  21. Re:Good idea by flyneye · · Score: 2

    History is NO liar (provided it is not a govt. approved textbook)

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  22. Re:Good idea by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Only if they also controlled the substance totally that these people are dependent on. If they wanted that, making the stuff legal would be the first step.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. Re:Frito-Lay Inorporated loves this! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    I've always said, if I get wind of a national legalization of marijuana, I am going to buy a ton of stock in Frito-Lay.

    Statistics from Colorado suggest that legalization has not increased consumption, and consumption has actually dropped among teenagers. So Frito-Lay may not be a good investment after all.

  24. Those kids by tquasar · · Score: 1

    Well, there he goes. That ranks with "Get off my lawn" and "Old man yells at clouds".

  25. Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A combination of forces has pretty much made the liquid lunch history(at least in technical fields). Neoprohibitionists (MADD, which is no longer about driving, but about drinking, per se), employer paranoia about "impaired employees", etc.

    Not really. I have a beer at lunch once in a while. I do so in plain view of my boss. The way some of you guys describe jobs, I really wonder why you don't leave. You're in a technical field, jobs really aren't that hard to find. Take a pay cut, go work for a startup, get more freedom. Still a ton of work and insane hours, but you're not going to get your boss writing you up for an official warning from HR because you had a beer during lunch.

    Now, though, you get text messages during your (working) lunch asking for a response "soonest", and somehow I think that if you texted back "sorry, getting a couple pints with the guys, get back to you tomorrow", the next text would be "we'll ship your stuff to you at the last address you had on file with HR".

    Holy shit, tomorrow?? Yeah, I wouldn't blame them for firing you in that case, I would too. The guy you're responding to said a couple of drinks, not get plastered and blow the afternoon off. Somehow I think if you instead texted back, "sorry, I'm currently at lunch. I'll get to it as soon as I'm back in the office," it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It's still a workday, dude.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  26. Pot will be legal before too long by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    Like gay marriage the prohibition of marijuana will start falling state by state. Colorado and Washington have already done so. When people see that it isn't going to be a huge disaster other states will follow suit and eventually it will become untenable to maintain the prohibition. It's just a matter of time.

    1. Re:Pot will be legal before too long by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      And as long as its use is viewed the same as drinking, that's fine with me. My problem is pot users seem to think they should be able to get high on their smoke break, or while driving, or whatever. By all means, use it at home or when you are off the clock. Just don't show up anywhere smelling like pot that you couldn't show up smelling like vodka.

    2. Re:Pot will be legal before too long by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Like gay marriage the prohibition of marijuana will start falling state by state.

      Those lucky gay bastards. Hetero marriage doesn't get you stoned, you'd just have to be so to do so.

  27. Living well... by westlake · · Score: 1

    So what are the tech wages like in Salt Lake City?

    Not half bad.

    May 2013 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates --- Salt Lake City, UT

    Which areas are the likely ''up and comers'' in the next decade? These are generally places that have been building up their tech capacity over the past several decades, and seem to be reaching critical mass. One place following a strong trajectory is Salt Lake City, No. 4 on our list, which has enjoyed a 31% spurt in tech employment over the past 10 years. Some of this can be traced to large-scale expansion in the area by top Silicon Valley companies such as Adobe, Electronic Arts and Twitter.

    These companies have flocked to Utah for reasons such as lower taxes, a more flexible regulatory environment, a well-educated, multilingual workforce and spectacular nearby natural amenities. Perhaps most critical of all may be housing prices: Three-quarters of Salt Lake area households can afford a median-priced house, compared to 45% in Silicon Valley and about half that in San Francisco.

    The Best Cities For Tech Jobs [May 2012]

    1. Re:Living well... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's great, but I dunno if it's worth living in SLC :-P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  28. Selection bias. by westlake · · Score: 1

    Wait a second, I thought potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

    You'll see only success stories posted here. Not a word from those whose careers were crippled or cut short by alcohol or drugs.

  29. Re:Good idea by x0ra · · Score: 1

    History is merely subjective, and thus biased, interpretation of past events.

  30. Would they just put up with it for a key hire? by swb · · Score: 2

    Assuming you've got a track record as a top-notch white hat hacker and security guy and you had some unique experience/skill mix that the FBI really felt they needed, would they just kind of put up with it, maybe/especially if you lived in a state like Colorado or had a medical card in California?

    How do companies like Apple/Oracle/Google/MS/Amazon handle it in California now? My first hand experience and everything I've read in the media makes pot seem pretty well accepted in California and there's certainly a counter-culture kind of attitude among a lot of technology people. If you get recruited to Google because you're something special, do they give you a piss test and then tell you they won't hire you?

    1. Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? by ark1 · · Score: 1

      Assuming you've got a track record as a top-notch white hat hacker and security guy and you had some unique experience/skill mix that the FBI really felt they needed, would they just kind of put up with it, maybe/especially if you lived in a state like Colorado or had a medical card in California?

      How do companies like Apple/Oracle/Google/MS/Amazon handle it in California now? My first hand experience and everything I've read in the media makes pot seem pretty well accepted in California and there's certainly a counter-culture kind of attitude among a lot of technology people. If you get recruited to Google because you're something special, do they give you a piss test and then tell you they won't hire you?

      If you are a world class mathematician, NSA will hire you without the traditional polygraph. Under these circumstances they will likely invest more on the field investigation which are fairly expensive but for exceptional individuals likely worth the extra $$$.

    2. Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? by ehiris · · Score: 1

      If you get recruited to Google because you're something special

      From what I understand, any corporation with government contracts is required to do employment piss tests.
      Totally intrusive and probably unconstitutional but the people who own this country piss on the constitution, whatever their piss contains, because no one tests them.

    3. Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? by BigDish · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny...you think tech companies drug test. I worked for MS for 5 years - I *NEVER* heard of an FTE there getting a drug test, even on hire. I never took one. I've since left and work for another tech company. Most of the owners (it's a ~30 person company) know I smoke, and I've smoked with some of them. I have friends at Apple, Google, and Amazon. Again, no drug tests.

      Tech companies basically can't drug test - they would have to fire 1/2 of their employees.

  31. Re:I call BS by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    and his co-workers probably know about Urineluck or other "fake urine" products...unless someone is standing there watching you piss it's pretty easy to use something else and show "clean"...

  32. Uh... by msauve · · Score: 1

    He also encouraged job applications from former pot users despite the policy.

    Maybe we can discuss this over a beer?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  33. Whoa.. by maseo126 · · Score: 1

    Duuuude..

  34. Re:I call BS by Pax681 · · Score: 1

    and his co-workers probably know about Urineluck or other "fake urine" products...unless someone is standing there watching you piss it's pretty easy to use something else and show "clean"...

    indeed l0n3s0m3phr34k , i use it for a govt contract i have LOL.. works a treat even if they stand on the toilet near you... i have it inside my underwear , which heats it to body heat and then when it comes time to pee... it looks like i am just having a piss.... easily done.
    however Captain Bollocks is probably the company snitch so, again, it's not something he'd know about..lol

  35. 'zero tolerance' == 'three years' by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    I know someone who tried joining the FBI years ago, as a mechanic. He had tried a few things during college, even though he hadn't used in years, and he didn't make it through the interview process. This was probably 10-15 years ago.

    Shortly after that, I had heard they had increased the limit to 7 years, so he gave up, rather than trying to just wait out the time ... so three years might've already been relaxing the rules.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  36. The Hacked leading the Hacked by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Perhaps now you see why secret agencies like the NSA and FBI are detrimental. Their "Cybercrime" is full of skiddies who'll do anything for a paycheck and likely are the same folks who privately rail against such mechanisms. Think about it. How many of the ones they hired that weren't potheads were spies from "enemy" states instead?

  37. Re:Reminds me of my time in the Navy by afxgrin · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a trap to nab a whole bunch of pot smokers imho.

  38. FBI by Snufu · · Score: 1

    Fraternal Brotherhood of Inhalers.

  39. "Open the door, it's the F.B.I." by Snufu · · Score: 1

    "The F.B.I.?"

    "Yes. The F.B.I."

    "...F.B.I.'s not here, man."

  40. Why is it still illegal? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously... Ever see a stoner get violent? Many drunks get violent, yet alcohol is legal. Weed is not the same as hard drugs, and more people than you think indulge (or have indulged) in the stuff.

    Besides, if you use a vaporiser, it's not that harmful, and I don't think weed kills more brain cells than beer.

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    1. Re:Why is it still illegal? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Ever see a stoner get violent?

      Yes, it was pretty terrifying with the giggling.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Why is it still illegal? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Although valid and logical, the points you make will not make pot legal, it will be used to make alcohol illegal.

      As an employer, I personally do not care what you use. Be it coffee, beer, pot or cocaine or even meth, as long as you do your job, I do not care. The moment you don't I will fire your ass.
      As a person, I will worry more if you used meth compared to using pot or coffee. The moment using, becomes abusing is when I would first try to help and if nothing else works, cut with you on a personal and professional level.

      But then I also see no difference between you surfing to porn.com or /. If it does not influence your work, I do not care. I understand that you can not be working 100% all the time.

      Here as well: try to see the differnce between using and abusing.

      Yet I would never try to compare pot to other drugs as it will be used against you and people will say: you are right we should ban XXX as well. Pot has received enough investigation to know that it is generally harmless. The fact that it is illegal also means that it attracts criminals and cthus crime.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Why is it still illegal? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Although valid and logical, the points you make will not make pot legal, it will be used to make alcohol illegal.

      That has been tried. It didn't lead to a good situation and the country quit that effort eventually. That is what we are seeing is going to happen with pot. Making it illegal hasn't had a good outcome for the country and going the way alcohol did would be better.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  41. Cry me a river by mbone · · Score: 1

    The depth of my lack of sympathy for the FBI on this issue would float a navy.

  42. Re: I call BS by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Must be true. You are statistically significant.

    At a young age I learned to read beyond the words of humans. Frequently the ignorant will have valid points when they talk on subjects even if they are unable to speak on the pertinent issue with the nuance it requires.

    I wrote my first wireframe 3D game while stoned. I hadn't been taught trig yet so I invented vector math independently after discovering what you'd call the "unit circle" by drawing a radiant diagram of line slope ratios represented in decimal form; Ultimately I ended up creating the equivalent to sin(), cos() and dot() functions because I didn't know what those were useful for (seriously 'online' documentation sucks sans Internet). It was one of the most productive nights of my young life. I doubt I'd have come to the conclusions about connectedness between the mathematic properties in geometry with just a knowledge of linear equations, a glorified graphing calculator, and no mind expanding chemicals. The next school year I realized there was no such thing as Genius. I couldn't understand the reverence my teacher had for these dead dudes: If a stoned kid could discover in a single night much of what took Pythagoras decades to do when confronted with the same problem spaces, then maybe we're just teaching kids wrong... I digress.

    We do have a bit of research which found that downers are less common among Hackers. We typically don't like things that make us stupid or slow. Today's Marijuana is very potent compared to the 70's or even 90's, so many Hackers tend to shy away from what I would call an overdose (meaning above recommended, the term does not imply lethal). IMHO, a brownie shouldn't put you out of commission; Eat herbal confections responsibly. However, for those that Marry Jane doesn't dance with in 'detrimental' ways it's not uncommon to do some light buzzed hacking sometimes with surprisingly clever results (especially for harder problems). Indeed, after I woke the next afternoon I was refreshed and amazed at my output. I was only confounded by a single block of dense hand optimized code with only the comment, // Refactored symbiotic slope system to remove branching. Whether such "here be dragons" comments in code should be taken as quite literal statements or if they arise from the ceremonial chemistry itself is still a great mystery each code-fu master must overcome for themselves. Mine turned out to be matrix math sans matrix idiom.

    Think about it: Hackers like exploiting systems for interesting or clever results; Drugs are the tools we hack organic computers with... Well, that and tDCS, but the latter may blow your fuses before our stem-cell and n.net replacements are ready. As with even alcohol, caffeine or self modifying instructions: Moderation is the key when dealing in any form of computer altering substance.

    Now reconsider the GP's post: Here is someone who has since the early 90's never heard of anyone enjoying recreational mind expanding chemicals in programming. However, when we polled Usenet via trial balloon that's not what we found at all among hackers. Consider that the corporate-clone workplace strongly filters against non-authoritarian approved drug use with the help of the state. The environment itself even hackers find somewhat hostile. Consider that many people sacrifice their pleasures if these are made to cause their livelihood risk. Consider that Hackers do have ways of defeating many unjust social systems such as these. Consider that we may be letting some great minds slip through the cracks for no other reason than a form of Orwellian thought control. Even consider that GP is posting AC and propagating anti-drug propaganda, just as we've seen since the 60's and 70's. With a bit of context even a seemingly dumb comment can stir up the probability matrix quite well. The trick is not to assume anything absolutely or concretely,

  43. Re: I call BS by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    You let humans operate heavy machinery on this planet?! That's insane!

  44. Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

    Some of this depends on what field you're in. I know some sales guys who do 90% of their business over martinis at a posh bar. They're more likely to get to go enjoy a liquid lunch, with management approval.

    However, in other parts of the world this is not uncommon. It all depends on where you work and what the culture is

  45. Depends on the agency and contract by billstewart · · Score: 1

    While the Reagan Administration really wanted to get most of Corporate America doing that, as a tool in the War On Drugs, it was hardly universal, partly to allow companies to go way overboard without the government having to take responsibility.

    Cygnus Solutions, a company that did open-source gcc and other GNU work, had a contract supporting the state of California with compilers, so they were required to have a corporate drug policy and have it posted up on the same board as the minimum wage notices, etc. There was no requirement for the policy to be anything specific, including testing, and the company eventually decided on an official policy that if you bring illegal drugs to the workplace, you have to offer to share them with your coworkers, and posted it. I'm not sure how often the policy was actually followed, but I know some obvious people to ask :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  46. Re:not based upon my coworkers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Do your non-smoking cow-orkers have good emotional skills and cope with stress well?

    How much do you know about what they do evenings and weekends? If you're just counting the dysfunctional ones as potheads you might miss quite a few. I'd call this likely selection bias.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  47. Re:I call BS by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    You are talking about hackers, who as a group are well know for exploiting holes and flaws in systems to get to outcomes that they desire. And then you mention drug tests that you have not seen failed by these hackers. But you have really just shown yourself to be an narrow focused, non-curious, non-hacker yourself. It does't take much research to discover how easy it is to pass a drug test even having smoked recently. Hackers would be the first group I would think of as one that would be particularly prepared for such a situation, since they are typically anti-authoritarian or anti-establishment.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  48. Bottom 100% by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    And I wrote the virtual machine you three are simulated on. :-)

    Dang that time travel bug again; I thought I had fixed that...

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  49. Clearance Process Eradicates Cognitive Diversity by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://www.phibetaiota.net/201...
    "This essay discusses how the USA's security clearance process (mainly related to ensuring secrecy) may have a counter-productive negative effect on the USA's national security by reducing "cognitive diversity" among security professionals."

    This pot smoking issue is just one more way...

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.