PDA

View Full Version : Legalization of Mary Jane



CJSmith
09-01-2013, 07:36 AM
With the legalization of Mary Jane in more and more states and the DOJ stating they will not prosecute, will this be a game changer for future recruits? Will admitting to smoking pot disqualify an individual from a TS gig? It may be easy to answer no now, but opinions and laws (obviously) change over time.

http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-ruling-could-signal-end-prohibition-pot-151612677--abc-news-topstories.html

Absinthe Anecdote
09-01-2013, 07:57 AM
With the legalization of Mary Jane in more and more states and the DOJ stating they will not prosecute, will this be a game changer for future recruits? Will admitting to smoking pot disqualify an individual from a TS gig? It may be easy to answer no now, but opinions and laws (obviously) change over time.

http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-ruling-could-signal-end-prohibition-pot-151612677--abc-news-topstories.html

You mean people other than Sergeant Joe Friday from Dragnet still call it Mary Jane?

Admitting marijuana use doesn't disqualify you from a TS clearance now and hasn't for over 30 years.

Gonzo432
09-01-2013, 12:09 PM
New CBT requirement titled "Reefer Madness" coming to a base near you!

Gonzo432
09-01-2013, 12:14 PM
You mean people other than Sergeant Joe Friday from Dragnet still call it Mary Jane?

Admitting marijuana use doesn't disqualify you from a TS clearance now and hasn't for over 30 years.

Pot, weed, loco weed, smoke, reefer, doobie, 420, and yes, Mary Jane is still on the rather extensive list.

http://botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/h/hemp22b.html

garhkal
09-01-2013, 06:02 PM
Since it's being legalized in many states, will the rules against using it/spice in the mil eventually change?

sandsjames
09-01-2013, 07:56 PM
Since it's being legalized in many states, will the rules against using it/spice in the mil eventually change?

No...I'm sure they won't. Stupid, but they won't. Of course the argument is that they don't want people working on/with dangerous stuff while they're high. That's always the argument. Even though it would be as with alcohol, where you can't be impaired on duty, the same argument always comes into play.

Chief_KO
09-01-2013, 09:07 PM
Even in those states where it is legal, failing a urinalysis test will prevent someone from being hired in many companies.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-01-2013, 09:23 PM
Even in those states where it is legal, failing a urinalysis test will prevent someone from being hired in many companies.

As it should be. I wouldn't want to hire a pot smoker to run one of my hot dog carts and if I ran a corporate enterprise, I would also want the right to not hire pot smokers.

Gonzo432
09-01-2013, 09:41 PM
As it should be. I wouldn't want to hire a pot smoker to run one of my hot dog carts and if I ran a corporate enterprise, I would also want the right to not hire pot smokers.

They get the munchies and there goes the profit margin, or they forget where they left the cart and there goes the profit margin.

sharkhunter
09-01-2013, 10:29 PM
AD members still have to follow the current rules, regulations, and orders present to us. Just because its legal off base, doesn't mean its legal for us. Codeine is legal over the counter in the UK, but its not allowed for AD members to take it.

BENDER56
09-01-2013, 11:07 PM
As it should be. I wouldn't want to hire a pot smoker to run one of my hot dog carts and if I ran a corporate enterprise, I would also want the right to not hire pot smokers.

Running a "corporate enterprise" might mean complying with federal and/or state fair-hiring laws and the like. So if pot eventually becomes legal everywhere you might have no more legal grounds to refuse to hire a pothead as you would refusing to hire a drinker or a tobacco user or a woman, etc. But I think you have more freedom over whom you do or don't hire if you have a small business. (I don't know this for sure -- anybody out there expert in this stuff?)

Personally, I doubt pot users are any less reliable than drinkers, but I think business owners should have final say over whom they hire even if they have no acceptable reason for their choices. i.e., "I don't hire people from Kansas 'cause Kansas is a stupid-sounding name." Doesn't make any sense, but, hey, he owns the company.

sandsjames
09-01-2013, 11:13 PM
Running a "corporate enterprise" might mean complying with federal and/or state fair-hiring laws and the like. So if pot eventually becomes legal everywhere you might have no more legal grounds to refuse to hire a pothead as you would refusing to hire a drinker or a tobacco user or a woman, etc. But I think you have more freedom over whom you do or don't hire if you have a small business. (I don't know this for sure -- anybody out there expert in this stuff?)

Personally, I doubt pot users are any less reliable than drinkers, but I think business owners should have final say over whom they hire even if they have no acceptable reason for their choices. i.e., "I don't hire people from Kansas 'cause Kansas is a stupid-sounding name." Doesn't make any sense, but, hey, he owns the company.

Businesses do NOT have to hire smokers. In fact, there are many who refuse to on the grounds that it increases their insurance costs.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-01-2013, 11:55 PM
Running a "corporate enterprise" might mean complying with federal and/or state fair-hiring laws and the like. So if pot eventually becomes legal everywhere you might have no more legal grounds to refuse to hire a pothead as you would refusing to hire a drinker or a tobacco user or a woman, etc. But I think you have more freedom over whom you do or don't hire if you have a small business. (I don't know this for sure -- anybody out there expert in this stuff?)

Personally, I doubt pot users are any less reliable than drinkers, but I think business owners should have final say over whom they hire even if they have no acceptable reason for their choices. i.e., "I don't hire people from Kansas 'cause Kansas is a stupid-sounding name." Doesn't make any sense, but, hey, he owns the company.

I won't hire a person with a lot of tattoos or body piercings either, it doesn't fit the image of Happy Dog Hot Dogs. Much less a pot smoker and I certainly think a teenage pot smoker is more of a risk than a clean cut kid.

Chief_KO
09-01-2013, 11:55 PM
Usage of any mood altering substance is not protected under EEOC laws. "The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information."
I see the future lawsuits based upon "religious expression" as to why the job applicant or employee pops positive. I'm sure there is already case law on the books however that would make such a suit frivolous. Of course frivolous lawsuits are often filed for the publicity factor...

garhkal
09-02-2013, 05:33 AM
Businesses do NOT have to hire smokers. In fact, there are many who refuse to on the grounds that it increases their insurance costs.

Very true. And many of those are Govt facilities (fl IRS and other govt entities)..

Bunch
09-02-2013, 07:40 AM
With the legalization of Mary Jane in more and more states and the DOJ stating they will not prosecute, will this be a game changer for future recruits? Will admitting to smoking pot disqualify an individual from a TS gig? It may be easy to answer no now, but opinions and laws (obviously) change over time.

http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-ruling-could-signal-end-prohibition-pot-151612677--abc-news-topstories.html

The question that potential applicants need to answer regarding marijuana use is worded as follows:

"Have you ever used or experimented with marijuana? (Prior marijuana use is not disqualifying for enlistment or appointment, unless you are determined to be a chronic user or psychologically dependent, have been convicted or adversely adjudicated for marijuana involvement. Preservice marijuana use may render you ineligible for certain skills.)"


So yeah I think it could still pose a obstacle for many recruits and it could negatively affect recruiting unless changes are made to our regulation and I haven't heard anything about this changing in the near or distant future.

BENDER56
09-02-2013, 07:03 PM
Businesses do NOT have to hire smokers. In fact, there are many who refuse to on the grounds that it increases their insurance costs.

Yeah, I decided to look up "EEOC protected classes" after posting that:

Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps.

I should have know better; after all, the Iowa supreme court just upheld a decision that it was legal for a dentist to fire his assistant because she was too attractive.

sandsjames
09-02-2013, 07:44 PM
Yeah, I decided to look up "EEOC protected classes" after posting that:

Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps.

I should have know better; after all, the Iowa supreme court just upheld a decision that it was legal for a dentist to fire his assistant because she was too attractive.

Which is a shame, and a double standard, because I remember awhile back when Hooters was sued because the woman applying either wasn't attractive enough or didn't fit the "Hooters" profile.

AJBIGJ
09-02-2013, 08:43 PM
Which is a shame, and a double standard, because I remember awhile back when Hooters was sued because the woman applying either wasn't attractive enough or didn't fit the "Hooters" profile.

I'm sure there probably was, I know full well there was a class action suit based on the fact that dudes couldn't become Hooters waitresses. It settled out of court if I recall correctly.

garhkal
09-02-2013, 09:20 PM
Which is a shame, and a double standard, because I remember awhile back when Hooters was sued because the woman applying either wasn't attractive enough or didn't fit the "Hooters" profile.

Along with the case (that got lost) cause guys sued to be allowed to become hooter's waitstaff (rather than just busboys or cooks).

sandsjames
09-02-2013, 10:08 PM
I'm sure there probably was, I know full well there was a class action suit based on the fact that dudes couldn't become Hooters waitresses. It settled out of court if I recall correctly.

I don't agree with it, but I can see that, since sex is a protected group.

71Fish
09-02-2013, 10:39 PM
You mean people other than Sergeant Joe Friday from Dragnet still call it Mary Jane?

Admitting marijuana use doesn't disqualify you from a TS clearance now and hasn't for over 30 years.

I was disqualified from some jobs in 1989 because I admitted to smoking left handed cigarettes within the previous six months.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-02-2013, 10:44 PM
I was disqualified from some jobs in 1989 because I admitted to smoking left handed cigarettes within the previous six months.

I probably should have said experimental marijuana use. How did you characterize your usage?

SomeRandomGuy
09-03-2013, 12:18 AM
Along with the case (that got lost) cause guys sued to be allowed to become hooter's waitstaff (rather than just busboys or cooks).

They sort of lost. It was settled out of court. Rumor has it the guy received something like $1000 plus attorney fees. Hooters defense in the case was that being female is a bona-fide occupational qualification. As part of the suit they did agree to hire more males in jobs like line cook and manager though.

http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/Would-Be-Hooters-Guy-Settles-Discrimination-Suit.html

71Fish
09-03-2013, 01:39 PM
I probably should have said experimental marijuana use. How did you characterize your usage?

Heavy, but of course I wasn't completely honest. I would have kept up with th e lie everyone who has used tells, that I've never touched it. Those mean old doctors at MEPS scared me into telling half the truth.
I wish I could find it, but on my entry paperwork, the "no" is crossed out and initialed, and the "yes" is circled.

Pullinteeth
09-03-2013, 04:21 PM
The question that potential applicants need to answer regarding marijuana use is worded as follows:

"Have you ever used or experimented with marijuana? (Prior marijuana use is not disqualifying for enlistment or appointment, unless you are determined to be a chronic user or psychologically dependent, have been convicted or adversely adjudicated for marijuana involvement. Preservice marijuana use may render you ineligible for certain skills.)"


So yeah I think it could still pose a obstacle for many recruits and it could negatively affect recruiting unless changes are made to our regulation and I haven't heard anything about this changing in the near or distant future.

Ummmm....no. The ONLY branch that DQ's someone from service based on marijuana use is the Marine Corps. Other than that? It is a strictly medical issue.


Which is a shame, and a double standard, because I remember awhile back when Hooters was sued because the woman applying either wasn't attractive enough or didn't fit the "Hooters" profile.

They get sued every couple of years for it. They ALWAYS settle out of court. The first time? Cost 'em $3.75 MILLION dollars (7 plaintiffs).

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by-men-denied-jobs.html

Bunch
09-03-2013, 05:33 PM
Ummmm....no. The ONLY branch that DQ's someone from service based on marijuana use is the Marine Corps. Other than that? It is a strictly medical issue.

I think you are misinformed.

What I quoted was the question and statement right from the AF Form 2030 (20121107) "USAF Drug and Alcohol Abuse Certificate" that every single potential applicant needs to sign when they come to our office for their first appointment.

Additional information about AF policy on marijuana can be found on AFRSI36-2001 (12Aug2012)


3.22.1. As with an MED, a DRED is made on a person‘s conduct and actions rather than on the outcome of a legal proceeding. Complete a DRED when an applicant‘s suitability is in question. Pre-service use of marijuana and any synthetic cannabis including but not limited to: Spice, K2, Genie, Yucatan Fire, more than 15 times will require a DRED at the squadron- commander level. Any use in excess of 50 times will require a DRED at the group- commander level. Before the physical exam, in order to determine if a DRED is necessary, use the number of times the applicant says he/she used marijuana/synthetic cannabis. Marijuana/synthetic cannabis use documented on the DD Form 2808, Report of Medical Examination, should be compared to information in AFRISS. Ensure the information in AFRISS matches the finding documented on DD Form 2808. Use the number that is documented on the DD Form 2808 to determine if a DRED is required.

A DRED is a Drug Related Eligibility Determination that needs to be approved by either the Squadron or Wing CC in order for the person to be allowed to enter the Air Force, if they say no, applicant won't be allowed to join. For all sense of purposes a DRED is a waiver and technically waivers are used for applicant that has a disqualifying condition that prevents him from joining. And nowadays these types of waiver are seldomly approved, we get so many quality applicants that don't need waivers that why a CC would allow a "pothead" to join when there a thousands of kids that have stated they haven't used drugs. I personally differ from that view but thats how is explained to us when our waivers get denied or they just decide to stop taking waivers of any kind.

Additionally on AFRSI 36-2001 Table 3.1 Rule 2 goes even further and states that a waiver wont be allowed to be submitted if an applicant
Is psychologically dependent on, is a chronic user of, or uses marijuana after signing AF IMT 2030 (note 1)

So even if an applicant has never used marijuana but was found to use it after he signed the AF Form 2030 he will be DQ from entry. I had this happen to an applicant of mine, he told me he never used marijuana, went to MEPS got slotted for a job with a date for BMT and everything but the DAT came back positive to MJ, now he is DQ from ever entering the Air Force.

This is why I mean that it could cause a a recruiting issue. Because a potential applicant in Colorado goes to the AF recruiting office and discloses that he has use marijuana more than 20 or 50 times, he is technically disqualified and needs a waiver. If the squadron or wing cc decides not to approve the waiver then he/she won't be allowed to enter.

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 04:51 PM
I think you are misinformed.

What I quoted was the question and statement right from the AF Form 2030 (20121107) "USAF Drug and Alcohol Abuse Certificate" that every single potential applicant needs to sign when they come to our office for their first appointment.

Additional information about AF policy on marijuana can be found on AFRSI36-2001 (12Aug2012)

A DRED is a Drug Related Eligibility Determination that needs to be approved by either the Squadron or Wing CC in order for the person to be allowed to enter the Air Force, if they say no, applicant won't be allowed to join. For all sense of purposes a DRED is a waiver and technically waivers are used for applicant that has a disqualifying condition that prevents him from joining. And nowadays these types of waiver are seldomly approved, we get so many quality applicants that don't need waivers that why a CC would allow a "pothead" to join when there a thousands of kids that have stated they haven't used drugs. I personally differ from that view but thats how is explained to us when our waivers get denied or they just decide to stop taking waivers of any kind.

Additionally on AFRSI 36-2001 Table 3.1 Rule 2 goes even further and states that a waiver wont be allowed to be submitted if an applicant

So even if an applicant has never used marijuana but was found to use it after he signed the AF Form 2030 he will be DQ from entry. I had this happen to an applicant of mine, he told me he never used marijuana, went to MEPS got slotted for a job with a date for BMT and everything but the DAT came back positive to MJ, now he is DQ from ever entering the Air Force.

This is why I mean that it could cause a a recruiting issue. Because a potential applicant in Colorado goes to the AF recruiting office and discloses that he has use marijuana more than 20 or 50 times, he is technically disqualified and needs a waiver. If the squadron or wing cc decides not to approve the waiver then he/she won't be allowed to enter.

Still wrong. As someone that has been a recruiter for 10+ years and processed several hundred of the damn things, I have NEVER DQ'd anyone for MJ use...EVER. If MEPS determines they are dependent on MJ THEY PDQ 'em but I have very rarely seen that either. As far as the DAT, when they sign the 2030 they are also saying that if they test positive at any point from that moment forward, they will be PDQ. Not because they used MJ but because they refused to stop when they said they would....

Bunch
09-04-2013, 04:55 PM
Still wrong. As someone that has been a recruiter for 10+ years and processed several hundred of the damn things, I have NEVER DQ'd anyone for MJ use...EVER. If MEPS determines they are dependent on MJ THEY PDQ 'em but I have very rarely seen that either. As far as the DAT, when they sign the 2030 they are also saying that if they test positive at any point from that moment forward, they will be PDQ. Not because they used MJ but because they refused to stop when they said they would....

And you are still misinformed...


3.21. Pre-service Drug Use and Drug Waivers:
3.21.1. In most cases, substance abuse is disqualifying. Self-admission of pre-service experimental marijuana (including organic or synthetic cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinal (THC)) use without exposure to legal proceedings is not automatically disqualifying. However, any use over 15 times is disqualifying. (Refer to paragraph 3.22 for drug-related eligibility determinations [DRED].)

Where I recruit they rarely approved DRED's. We are discourage from even submitting them. But my main point is that if we go technically by what AFRSI 36-2001 and by what the 2030 states, marijuana use can be a disqualifying factor and that's all I'm saying.

So if you have an applicant that tells you he has used marijuana 100 times what you do...you just let him apply like it's all good?

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 05:14 PM
And you are still misinformed...

Where I recruit they rarely approved DRED's. We are discourage from even submitting them. But my main point is that if we go technically by what AFRSI 36-2001 and by what the 2030 states, marijuana use can be a disqualifying factor and that's all I'm saying.

So if you have an applicant that tells you he has used marijuana 100 times what you do...you just let him apply like it's all good?

MJ CAN be but per the 2030 ONLY if it is a medical determination OR if they keep using after signing the 2030.

Absolutely. It is MEPS's call....in case you were curious, not everyone that recruits for the AF used AFRSI 36-2001.... How do you think a 42 year old went to BMT about four years ago?

Bunch
09-04-2013, 05:20 PM
MJ CAN be but per the 2030 ONLY if it is a medical determination OR if they keep using after signing the 2030.

Absolutely. It is MEPS's call....in case you were curious, not everyone that recruits for the AF used AFRSI 36-2001.... How do you think a 42 year old went to BMT about four years ago?

Then why are you making a blanket statement that the AF doesn't DQ applicants for marijuana use when that entirely not true?

Maybe the ANG or the Reserves take the potheads but for Air Force active is different and that needs to be pointed out so potential applicants can have accurate information.

The fact is that marijuana use can be a disqualifying factor to enter the US Air Force active duty component and I seen it time and time again.

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 05:30 PM
Then why are you making a blanket statement that the AF doesn't DQ applicants for marijuana use when that entirely not true?

Maybe the ANG or the Reserves take the potheads but for Air Force active is different and that needs to be pointed out so potential applicants can have accurate information.

The fact is that marijuana use can be a disqualifying factor to enter the US Air Force active duty component and I seen it time and time again.

Because you used the statement on the 2030 to support your assertations instead of the AFRSI reference and yeah...ADAF takes potheads all the time just like pretty much everyone else. The ONLY branch that requires a waiver for 1x MJ use is the USMC.

Bunch
09-04-2013, 05:34 PM
The ONLY branch that requires a waiver for 1x MJ use is the USMC.

That's the clarification you need it to make after your original statement.