Automatic Failure for drug use on background?

[Reality98]

I know during a background investigation you can be failed for drug use (duh), my question is what is the timeframe for the different types of drugs before the "statue of limitations" expire on them. I know that MJ is a year or two. I was having this discussion with a friend of mine who is going through his background right now. We discussing hallucinagins (spelling?) he doesn't think there is a time limit on the auto failure. Does this vary from department to department or is it pretty universal?

Thanks in advance.

[}Dragon{]

I know during a background investigation you can be failed for drug use (duh), my question is what is the timeframe for the different types of drugs before the "statue of limitations" expire on them. I know that MJ is a year or two. I was having this discussion with a friend of mine who is going through his background right now. We discussing hallucinagins (spelling?) he doesn't think there is a time limit on the auto failure. Does this vary from department to department or is it pretty universal?

Thanks in advance.

LSD use is usually an automatic DQ.

[motorman4life]

Each department is different. Most agencies will exclude for any MJ in the past 1-2 years and any illegal narcotics or misuse of Rx drugs within the past 3-5 years. Acid, 'shrooms and other hallucinogens are usually an automatic exclusion (no time period). Some agencies will provide a list of their policy when you start the process, others keep it somewhat secret.

Larger departments (>1000 sworn) tend to be more permissive while smaller agencies (<100 sworn) tend to be more restrictive. YMMV

[T-1 Thunder]

I know during a background investigation you can be failed for drug use (duh), my question is what is the timeframe for the different types of drugs before the "statue of limitations" expire on them. I know that MJ is a year or two. I was having this discussion with a friend of mine who is going through his background right now. We discussing hallucinagins (spelling?) he doesn't think there is a time limit on the auto failure. Does this vary from department to department or is it pretty universal?

Thanks in advance.

"Tried it once for experimental purposes and did not like it and never touched it again"

Copy and paste that into your questionaire and you'll be alright.


LSD: Never admit LSD. Can not be tested because it completed leaves your body within 24 hours.
Shrooms/peyote: You can always claim you were on a trip to Mexico and did this legally with the guidance of a shaman.

[JPM]

"Tried it once for experimental purposes and did not like it and never touched it again"

Copy and paste that into your questionaire and you'll be alright.


LSD: Never admit LSD. Can not be tested because it completed leaves your body within 24 hours.
Shrooms/peyote: You can always claim you were on a trip to Mexico and did this legally with the guidance of a shaman.


Please don't take this advice. If you are willing to lie about such stuff to get a job then I don't want to work with you anyway! Own what you have done with your life and let the chips fall as they may. Plus once you get caught in a lie, no matter how small, you are done.

[Slow600rr]

Please don't take this advice. If you are willing to lie about such stuff to get a job then I don't want to work with you anyway! Own what you have done with your life and let the chips fall as they may. Plus once you get caught in a lie, no matter how small, you are done.

Ahmen to that. And not only done with that department, but period. Once your caught lying to one, they will all know about it and not waste their time.

[antarius]

"Tried it once for experimental purposes and did not like it and never touched it again"

Copy and paste that into your questionaire and you'll be alright.


LSD: Never admit LSD. Can not be tested because it completed leaves your body within 24 hours.
Shrooms/peyote: You can always claim you were on a trip to Mexico and did this legally with the guidance of a shaman.

Others have responded to your ridiculous post with far more tact than I will.

[MOD SNIP]

On topic, as stated before... deparments vary. I have seen a department, forget where (somewhere in NorCal) that did allow Shroom use after 5-7 years or something....

[Reality98]

Thanks for the responses, you guys answered my questions. I guess a LE career is out for me even though it was never really what I wanted to do. I'll just have to stick to my fire career. Used acid once when I was 15 and hated it. Ohh well, that's life I guess. Thanks again for the responses, stay safe out there.

[motorman4life]

Thanks for the responses, you guys answered my questions. I guess a LE career is out for me even though it was never really what I wanted to do. I'll just have to stick to my fire career. Used acid once when I was 15 and hated it. Ohh well, that's life I guess. Thanks again for the responses, stay safe out there.
You can't really get through to kids how much their juvenile decisions may effect their future. Drug use, bad credit, petty crime, bad driving habits; they can all come back to haunt you. Particularly as more businesses and agancies do in-depth background checks and with the sharing of information between agencies and corporations. It will only get worse.

Come up "hot" on a piss test at Wal-Mart or Sears and you will carry that for the rest of your life.

[mabbott]

Well, I am glad you decided against law enforcement. That career is not one that you can take lightly, it is a life choice not just a career. If you aren't getting into the career for the right reasons you will, more than likely, leave the career.

Whatever you did, you did, if you are open and honest about it then you deal with whatever they say. Don't lie about anything and using drugs when you were a teenager is what it is. Law enforcement agencies can't be as choosy as they once were, the field of qualified applicants are dwindling and as in all jobs the requirements will be lessened to get more people.

[T-1 Thunder]

Others have responded to your ridiculous post with far more tact than I will.

You are a complete jackass. I miss the time when you were banned.

On topic, as stated before... deparments vary. I have seen a department, forget where (somewhere in NorCal) that did allow Shroom use after 5-7 years or something....

No, you're inferior because you're unable to see the direct correlation and similarity between shrooms and LSD.
Not admitting acid, but admitting shrooms in a controlled setting in a legal place is 99% the same, as far as truth of the psychedelic experience itself.

However, it has a 90% different emotional impact to the person hearing it simply based on that one little difference.


It's like admitting taking an underage drink in Mexico where it's legal, with family. - Rather than saying you were boozing behind an alley with friends in LA.

PS: Keep calling names and you may get the next ban.

[}Dragon{]

Thanks for the responses, you guys answered my questions. I guess a LE career is out for me even though it was never really what I wanted to do. I'll just have to stick to my fire career. Used acid once when I was 15 and hated it. Ohh well, that's life I guess. Thanks again for the responses, stay safe out there.



Hey, if Firefighting was easy...cops could do it, too. :cool:teeth

[SpeedyCorky]

"Tried it once for experimental purposes and did not like it and never touched it again"

Copy and paste that into your questionaire and you'll be alright.


LSD: Never admit LSD. Can not be tested because it completed leaves your body within 24 hours.
Shrooms/peyote: You can always claim you were on a trip to Mexico and did this legally with the guidance of a shaman.


The man speaks what is actually the straight up, honest truth about the unwritten drug use rules.


... and he gets shot down for it.


totally expected; but still a shame.

:|

[wackyiraqi]

You are a complete jackass. I miss the time when you were banned.
While I can empathize with your frustration, I can't let that one go. Sorry.

Enjoy a T1-free week off.

[B-Cuz]

"Tried it once for experimental purposes and did not like it and never touched it again"

Copy and paste that into your questionaire and you'll be alright.


LSD: Never admit LSD. Can not be tested because it completed leaves your body within 24 hours.
Shrooms/peyote: You can always claim you were on a trip to Mexico and did this legally with the guidance of a shaman.


Can't believe you would encourage someone to blatantly lie on a test for Police Officer much less any test which will eventually empower someone with the protection of the public. Do everyone a favor and keep your keen advise to yourself you're doing no one a favor, and in fact your words could lead to a persons damaged reputation.

[mlm]

The man speaks what is actually the straight up, honest truth about the unwritten drug use rules.


... and he gets shot down for it.


totally expected; but still a shame.

:|

The whole LSD issue was debated here last year.
http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188404

I still assert the hysteria about LSD use is unfounded by medical evidence. I've heard some unsubstantiated comments that DQ'ing for LSD use may be largely a liability issue if there is a lawsuit over an officer's actions.

I've had (non LEO) background checks and been honest. I've also known of at least a two people who I'm sure were NOT honest on some of their (LEO) background questions. I don't agree with their moral decision, but I also think excluding a candidate because of something that happened 10 years ago is complete horseshit.

I think something like 5 years with no illegal drug use is a reasonable pre-requisit for Law Enforcement. I don't see much benefit in going beyond that.

[kiltwearinfool]

LSD affects your brain chemistry and composition if it is abused - and that means in as little as 2-3 doses for some people. Same can be said for Ecstasy.

While I understand T1's excuses for protecting and justifying one's behavior, I disagree with the logic that it's okay to hide behind an adopted religious practice to protect yourself. Shamanism is a serious, valid religion in many areas of the world. It has deep meaning for those who practice it. To heft recreational use of substances on top of that is weak in my opinion.

[mlm]

LSD affects your brain chemistry and composition if it is abused - and that means in as little as 2-3 doses for some people. Same can be said for Ecstasy.

Where did you get this information? Look over last year's discussion and you'll find that aside from a couple of questionable studies in the 60s, there isn't any agreement on the affects of LSD in the medical community.

I'd agree there is a potential for long term damage with drug or alcohol abuse, but claiming 2-3 or even 20 doeses of a drug causes long term damage is rediculous.

If people feel a given drug is "evil" then that's their choice, but don't try and support it by science that isn't there. We don't demonize things like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder even though there IS evidence to suggest it has direct negative implications.

[Reality98]

Hey, if Firefighting was easy...cops could do it, too. :cool:teeth

That's very true! :twofinger
I had thought about a LE career but I think I would enjoy my Fire Fighter career better. I love the job, it's really fun kicking in a door of a burning house. Thanks again for the responses guys.

[}Dragon{]

That's very true! :twofinger
I had thought about a LE career but I think I would enjoy my Fire Fighter career better. I love the job, it's really fun kicking in a door of a burning house. Thanks again for the responses guys.


My only advice is avoid B-shift:thumbup

[JPM]

Hey, if Firefighting was easy...cops could do it, too. :cool:teeth



We all know how hard it is to push the TV remote buttons while trying to recline the Barcalounger. Fireman multitasking!:rofl

[kiltwearinfool]

Where did you get this information? Look over last year's discussion and you'll find that aside from a couple of questionable studies in the 60s, there isn't any agreement on the affects of LSD in the medical community.

I'd agree there is a potential for long term damage with drug or alcohol abuse, but claiming 2-3 or even 20 doeses of a drug causes long term damage is rediculous.

If people feel a given drug is "evil" then that's their choice, but don't try and support it by science that isn't there. We don't demonize things like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder even though there IS evidence to suggest it has direct negative implications.

I had a nice post composed as a rebuttal, but barf logged me out. Thanks.

One source I found is from an article published by two Vanderbilt PhDs in 2002, in the magazine Neuropharmacology. It talks about how LSD changes the way DNA replicates, and how the brain is a very plastic organ in its ability to change itself.

here's the article (http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v26/n5/full/1395848a.html)

I'm not demonizing drugs - they're inanimate tools. But even the simpleset drug (like aspirin) has cumulative effects.

[nedro]

So, if you are open minded enough to try drugs, the force doesn't want you. :rofl
At least they are consistant.

[}Dragon{]

So, if you are open minded enough to try drugs, the force doesn't want you. :rofl
At least they are consistant.

How does trying drugs make you "open minded"? :laughing

[mlm]

I had a nice post composed as a rebuttal, but barf logged me out. Thanks.

One source I found is from an article published by two Vanderbilt PhDs in 2002, in the magazine Neuropharmacology. It talks about how LSD changes the way DNA replicates, and how the brain is a very plastic organ in its ability to change itself.

here's the article (http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v26/n5/full/1395848a.html)

I'm not demonizing drugs - they're inanimate tools. But even the simpleset drug (like aspirin) has cumulative effects.

Interesting article, but I'm not convinced for a couple of reasons. First, this study was referencing "acute" LSD doses. I'd be willing to bet this means they gave rats about 1000x or even higher the typical street does of LSD. Second, the "DNA" changes referred to are also referred to as "transient". I'm not an expert in this stuff, but it sounded like the DNA replication just affected neurochemical production, which wouldn't be a long term effect unless a subject was drugged for prolonged periods.

I absolutely agree with you that ALL drugs have potential long term effects. I just don't see any evidence that supports the "flashback" and "brain damage" hysteria surrounding LSD. In summary I'm not claiming LSD doesn't cause ANY damage, just that I don't see any reason to suspect it causes any more damage than any other drug.

[T-1 Thunder]

LSD affects your brain chemistry and composition if it is abused - and that means in as little as 2-3 doses for some people. Same can be said for Ecstasy.

While I understand T1's excuses for protecting and justifying one's behavior, I disagree with the logic that it's okay to hide behind an adopted religious practice to protect yourself. Shamanism is a serious, valid religion in many areas of the world. It has deep meaning for those who practice it. To heft recreational use of substances on top of that is weak in my opinion.

Excellent point. I agree completely. In my defense, I can only HOPE that any potential cop only did "acedemic acid", like me. And with a respectful approach to learning something or getting a glimpse into the quantum world, it's similar to a shamanistic trip. I have found my spirit animal. ;)

[T-1 Thunder]

Interesting article, but I'm not convinced for a couple of reasons. First, this study was referencing "acute" LSD doses. I'd be willing to bet this means they gave rats about 1000x or even higher the typical street does of LSD. Second, the "DNA" changes referred to are also referred to as "transient". I'm not an expert in this stuff, but it sounded like the DNA replication just affected neurochemical production, which wouldn't be a long term effect unless a subject was drugged for prolonged periods.

I absolutely agree with you that ALL drugs have potential long term effects. I just don't see any evidence that supports the "flashback" and "brain damage" hysteria surrounding LSD. In summary I'm not claiming LSD doesn't cause ANY damage, just that I don't see any reason to suspect it causes any more damage than any other drug.

Absolutely correct, Mlm. It takes most people hours of research to come to these conclusions.

There are natural "trained" cells in your brain that conform to what you do. Has nothing to do with drugs. You see this with people that are always a "victim", etc. Or people that get addicted to sex or other things. These "peptides" form new communication with other parts of the brain and expect more of the same to get their fix. Commonly, this is what can be explained as "retraining yourself" to be a more positive person, etc. People spend big bucks in motivational sessions to get just this.

LSD, when taken correctly - brings about new ways of looking at yourself and the world around you.
Taken just to party, it's wrong. I say give those guys a "thumbprint" and they'll see the light and never want to touch drugs again.


PS: Drugs don't open your mind. 99% of all drugs are SELFISH and they just make you "feel good" and "escape" reality. Now LSD, shrooms, peyote are all "academics" with a greater focus on enlightenment and a reduction in the "feel good" area. A lot of people get sick and feel terrible when they do these drugs. The opposite of the goal of all others...

[kiltwearinfool]

Interesting article, but I'm not convinced for a couple of reasons. First, this study was referencing "acute" LSD doses. I'd be willing to bet this means they gave rats about 1000x or even higher the typical street does of LSD. Second, the "DNA" changes referred to are also referred to as "transient". I'm not an expert in this stuff, but it sounded like the DNA replication just affected neurochemical production, which wouldn't be a long term effect unless a subject was drugged for prolonged periods.


1. Researchers often use acute doses when conducting experiments to exacerbate the effects of what they are researching. It helps to save time. It does not indicate that they conducted the same experiment with lower doses and saw no effect.

2. Transient changes in DNA refer to changes whic are not seen in the same area of the genome with each replication. It's like making a xerox copy of something and having a black dot appear in a different spot on each copy. In this case, it may indicate that the flaw could affect the quantity of neurochemical produced, the effectiveness of the chemical produced, the place the chemical bonds to on the receptor site, etc. The flaw will be different with each replication.

[mlm]

1. Researchers often use acute doses when conducting experiments to exacerbate the effects of what they are researching. It helps to save time. It does not indicate that they conducted the same experiment with lower doses and saw no effect.

2. Transient changes in DNA refer to changes whic are not seen in the same area of the genome with each replication. It's like making a xerox copy of something and having a black dot appear in a different spot on each copy. In this case, it may indicate that the flaw could affect the quantity of neurochemical produced, the effectiveness of the chemical produced, the place the chemical bonds to on the receptor site, etc. The flaw will be different with each replication.

I guess I might be more impressed if the research showed that acute doses of THC (and other more accepted drugs) did NOT show similar changes.

I remeber being taught in High School that drugs were bad and LSD causes chromone and brain damage. I remember learning in college that most of the specific information was sesationalized and some of it entirely false.

[T-1 Thunder]

I guess I might be more impressed if the research showed that acute doses of THC (and other more accepted drugs) did NOT show similar changes.

I remeber being taught in High School that drugs were bad and LSD causes chromone and brain damage. I remember learning in college that most of the specific information was sesationalized and some of it entirely false.

Beyond THC and LSD - doesn't everything show changes? Chocolate, air, even experience? I believe that what you live affects your brain in the same way. Therefore you can't pin it on one thing.

[highonF4i]

LSD affects your brain chemistry and composition if it is abused - and that means in as little as 2-3 doses for some people.

I'm sorry but that sounds like pure regurgitation of unfounded drug-war rhetoric, and it makes me sad when I hear this kind of blind credulousness. Unfortunately I'm exhausted from arguing about this over the years, thanks for trying though mlm. ( i used up all my rep today :( ) but kiltfool, if you honestly believe that, and you're not just spouting it because you want to feel comfortable and righteous in your personal choice to not use LSD...then I'm fine with that.

Being ineligible to be an LEO because you've tripped on Lucy a few times is a shame to me; but honestly, their loss. I am extremely law abiding and concerned with the wellbeing and effective, safe functioning of my society, and I'd make a great LEO. If anything, the sporadic recreational drug use in my past would arm me with tools that would make me a better cop. I don't harbor any "drugs should be legal" BS opinions just because I've used them, and it wouldn't affect my ability to enforce anti drug laws if it were my job to do so. I've grown up around cops in my family and love the job, I've always wanted to become one but I know they wouldn't take me. But all LSD has done for me is broadened my perspective a bit...

[Razel]

Reminds me of a Bill Cosby presentation ("Himself", I believe)

Proponent:"Cocaine intensifies your personality"

Opponent: "So, what if you're an asshole?"


We've got enough of a challenge to figure out what the brain is going to do on day-to-day situations. While LSD is not cocaine, we don't know if anything else has been introduced to the brain, raising the challenge that much more. If we understood the brain functions sufficiently, we'd be in a better position to figure out LSD's blueprint on the brain. Right now, it's not worth the risk (IMHO).

[Reality98]

PS: Drugs don't open your mind. 99% of all drugs are SELFISH and they just make you "feel good" and "escape" reality. Now LSD, shrooms, peyote are all "academics" with a greater focus on enlightenment and a reduction in the "feel good" area. A lot of people get sick and feel terrible when they do these drugs. The opposite of the goal of all others...

I completly agree, the one time I did LSD I didn't like the effects at all and haven't touched it since. The visiuals (spelling?) were interesting sure, but everything else and the after effects is what turned me off. But then again I've felt the same way about MJ, the only other drug I've tried. I think I'll stick to classic alcholol especially since it's legal and I won't get in trouble for using it.

P.S.
It's good to see such an open minded discussion on such a controversial (again spelling?) subject and not really any name calling or flaming. Just goes to show the type of people here on BARF.

[B-Cuz]

I'll stick to classic alcholol especially since it's legal and I won't get in trouble for using it.

Always enjoy in moderation!:thumbup :Port

[T-1 Thunder]

P.S.
It's good to see such an open minded discussion on such a controversial (again spelling?) subject and not really any name calling or flaming. Just goes to show the type of people here on BARF.

You know, that's a damn good point. I'm actually very surprised myself. Anytime I've ever brought acid up it was never recieved so well, at least - so open to listening and an attempt to understand.

I totally respect everyone's position, be they pro or anti. It's nice to see others feel the same way.

Three Cheers for BARF!

[kiltwearinfool]

I'm sorry but that sounds like pure regurgitation of unfounded drug-war rhetoric, and it makes me sad when I hear this kind of blind credulousness.

I'm not anti-drug. I'm anti-brain fry. I've got personal experience with people who fried themselves on LSD and screwed their lives up with other drugs. Drug addiction in many cases (not all) is a personality issue, not a drug chemistry issue.

Believe me, I'd love to see big pharma come up with a non-narcotic hallucinogen. I also am not concerned about people using peyote or mescaline. From what I understand, it's the only hallucinogen which gives an entoptic reaction: the nerve impulses producing the hallucination happen in the optic nerve instead of the brain. I've read Aldous Huxley, and agree. Hallucinations can be fun. Frying yourself or becoming addicted is not.

As far as cops and drugs, as we have seen in news throughout the year there are cops in the field who don't have the personality or judgment that society at large feels they should have. I feel it's indicative that the screening process needs to focus on a wider range of qualities, and not just test scores from the academy. I frown upon drug use by LEOs not from the standpoint of poo-pooing recreation, but that it can endanger the safety of the officer. Flashbacks and relapses are unpredictable in their occurrence. You might have them weekly, you may never have them. I would not want an officer to be put in jeopardy during a chase or routine op because they were having a flashback or reaction to some other drug.

[motorman4life]

All anti-drug rhetoric aside, I don’t personally know of anyone that suffers long-term LSD flashbacks 5 or 10 or 20 years later. But, I do know that if you disclosed to an agency that you had taken LSD in the past, experimental or otherwise, if you later screwed something up, say an on or off-duty shooting incident, if you claimed you had been suffering a flashback at the time and they had been made aware of the LSD use in your background.. that would be a HUGE liability. All they would need is one study showing how LSD is stored in fat cells long term.. and can be metabolized later, etc… blah, blah, blah.

Think about it. What if your mother, father, spouse or child were killed by a police officer (in a shooting or car accident) and that officer claimed they had been suffering an LSD flashback under the stress of the situation and you found out the department had known about their previous LSD drug history?

Why would a department even consider hiring someone that opens them up to that degree of liability? With officers becoming addicted to Rx and illicit drugs and getting fired for prescription forgery, why pick up a previous drug user when you can "settle" for applicants that have had ample opportunity to experement with narcotics and chose not to do so?

[mlm]

All anti-drug rhetoric aside, I don’t personally know of anyone that suffers long-term LSD flashbacks 5 or 10 or 20 years later. But, I do know that if you disclosed to an agency that you had taken LSD in the past, experimental or otherwise, if you later screwed something up, say an on or off-duty shooting incident, if you claimed you had been suffering a flashback at the time and they had been made aware of the LSD use in your background.. that would be a HUGE liability. All they would need is one study showing how LSD is stored in fat cells long term.. and can be metabolized later, etc… blah, blah, blah.

Think about it. What if your mother, father, spouse or child were killed by a police officer (in a shooting or car accident) and that officer claimed they had been suffering an LSD flashback under the stress of the situation and you found out the department had known about their previous LSD drug history?

Why would a department even consider hiring someone that opens them up to that degree of liability? With officers becoming addicted to Rx and illicit drugs and getting fired for prescription forgery, why pick up a previous drug user when you can "settle" for applicants that have had ample opportunity to experement with narcotics and chose not to do so?

How many departments have had to worry about combat veterans with post traumatic stress disorder? Ironically there are many experts who believe the whole "flashback" experience is nothing but PTSD from a bad trip.

I'm not promoting or defending drug use, just pointing out that the arguments being presented are far from objective. Then again, so is our society.

[motorman4life]

How many departments have had to worry about combat veterans with post traumatic stress disorder? Ironically there are many experts who believe the whole "flashback" experience is nothing but PTSD from a bad trip.

I'm not promoting or defending drug use, just pointing out that the arguments being presented are far from objective. Then again, so is our society.

I don't disagree with you. I feel for the ex-military folks coming back with PTSD and similar diagnoses. I believe it will be difficult for them to find jobs in the Leo field as a result. Again, liability.

How would you react if a loved one was capped by a rookie police officer fresh back from the battlefield with a known diagnosis of PTSD? How about when he claims the PTSD as a defense for his actions? Pick a number between 1 and 10 and we’ll just add the zeros. No one has to be objective to see the problem this poses to an agency.

Blame the lawyers. :thumbup

[Rel]

Blame the lawyers. :thumbup

Amen.

[-Baker-]

I think I'll stick to classic alcholol especially since it's legal and I won't get in trouble for using it.


Always enjoy in moderation!:thumbup :Port

But, I do know that if you disclosed to an agency that you had taken LSD in the past, experimental or otherwise, if you later screwed something up, say an on or off-duty shooting incident, if you claimed you had been suffering a flashback at the time and they had been made aware of the LSD use in your background.. that would be a HUGE liability. All they would need is one study showing how LSD is stored in fat cells long term.. and can be metabolized later, etc… blah, blah, blah.

Think about it. What if your mother, father, spouse or child were killed by a police officer (in a shooting or car accident) and that officer claimed they had been suffering an LSD flashback under the stress of the situation and you found out the department had known about their previous LSD drug history?

Why would a department even consider hiring someone that opens them up to that degree of liability? With officers becoming addicted to Rx and illicit drugs and getting fired for prescription forgery, why pick up a previous drug user when you can "settle" for applicants that have had ample opportunity to experement with narcotics and chose not to do so?

Add Alcohol consumption to your list of concerns about drinking and how much you drink. In my Pcsyh review when asked about alcohol I said a 12 pack once a year I buy and it takes me all year to drink the other 11 bottles or my buddies would come over and finish it for me. I admitted to smoking MJ back in HS but it wasn't for me I said and I have been around it at football parties but I can't control that enviroment except leave. The Pcyh Doc said out of the 562 test questions I admitted to enjoying MJ...lol I responded by saying Ma'am there were 562 questions and on average 3-4 were the same question with maybe one word different and to answer your question, "NO, I don't enjoy anything that takes control of my mind or body" She understood and moved along with the questions.

The families of an applying Officer are told the typical problems associated with this position ...verbal and or phyiscal abuse, drinking, stress, and suicidal thoughts.

Well alcohol is a very big concern even if its legal to do so.

[Ramsay]

This is a VERY interesting discussion, but i would like to open up the discussion on a different drug Extacy. I know it is a reletively new drug and there has been less research in its direction but I have seen some interesting and VERY worrying information about the drugs effects on the brain, and how quickly they accumulate. Brain scans of E users comes to mind. How have LEO depts dealt with this so far? how is E treated in the LEO community?

[enki]

Denver police policy is hard drugs ok if it happened 60 months or more ago. As police agencies continue to have recruitment issues, this will become the template, IMO.

[Rel]

rel,

do you know the CHP policy concerning past drug use? does it matter at all if it was done in another country where said drugs were legal?

Nope. Doesnt matter if its legal in the country where you did the drugs or not. You have to declare what you did, when you did it, and how many times.

For example, you cant be an officer and go to Amsterdam and get loaded on the legal stuff.

Some drugs are automatic DQ's, some aren't. Just be honest about what you did, when you did it, and who was around to see it.

[enki]

From Police Chief magazine:

The FBI's revised policy still disqualifies people


who have sold illegal drugs,

who have used drugs in the past three years,

who have used marijuana more than 15 times, or

who have used harder drugs, including cocaine, more than a total of five times or any time within the past 10 years.32
Because of recruitment difficulties, the FBI is considering changing its pol-icy further, judging applicants based on their "whole person" rather than limiting drug-related experiences to an arbitrary number. It would consider the circum-stances of an applicant's previous drug use, such as the person's age, and the likelihood of further use. The relaxed standard is already in use at most other U.S. intelligence agencies.33

[Rel]

This is a VERY interesting discussion, but i would like to open up the discussion on a different drug Extacy. I know it is a reletively new drug and there has been less research in its direction but I have seen some interesting and VERY worrying information about the drugs effects on the brain, and how quickly they accumulate. Brain scans of E users comes to mind. How have LEO depts dealt with this so far? how is E treated in the LEO community?

If you do E, we wont touch you.

[JPM]

E supposedly does permanent damage very quickly, just ask Dr. DREW. :teeth

[enki]

That's true from what I've read as well. It's an amphetamine.

[mlm]

I'll wait till Oprah comes out with her position. Until then I'll read for myself.:teeth

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity3.shtml
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2N5qUP_34V8

[Reality98]

Add Alcohol consumption to your list of concerns about drinking and how much you drink. In my Pcsyh review when asked about alcohol I said a 12 pack once a year I buy and it takes me all year to drink the other 11 bottles or my buddies would come over and finish it for me. I admitted to smoking MJ back in HS but it wasn't for me I said and I have been around it at football parties but I can't control that enviroment except leave. The Pcyh Doc said out of the 562 test questions I admitted to enjoying MJ...lol I responded by saying Ma'am there were 562 questions and on average 3-4 were the same question with maybe one word different and to answer your question, "NO, I don't enjoy anything that takes control of my mind or body" She understood and moved along with the questions.

The families of an applying Officer are told the typical problems associated with this position ...verbal and or phyiscal abuse, drinking, stress, and suicidal thoughts.

Well alcohol is a very big concern even if its legal to do so.

As Far as alcohol goes, i have it with dinner or maybe a drink or 2 in a bar. I'm like you, I don't like not being in control of myself which is why drugs never did it for me. And I agree with all the LEO positions on this too which is why I understand that an LEO career is out for me. I made the mistake of trying LSD in high school and I can live with that choice.

[nicholonious]

If you do E, we wont touch you.

I did E. I'm also starting FTO in 1 week. What agency are you from?

[Rel]

I did E. I'm also starting FTO in 1 week. What agency are you from?


You first.

You're starting FTO in a week? Meaning completing the academy and reporting to your area?

Did you disclose that you did E?

[mlm]

So lets say I apply to the Nation Institute on Drug Abuse for a grant. My research will "prove" long term brain "damage" from even a single use of Marijuana. Are some of you LEOs going to demand many of your co-workers turn in your badge? I assure you such a study could be done and would be about as valid as the "hard science" being referred to here.

This debate reminds be about when I argue with my wife that cell phone use is dangerous...she assumes it is safe because it is legal.

[-Baker-]

So lets say I apply to the Nation Institute on Drug Abuse for a grant. My research will "prove" long term brain "damage" from even a single use of Marijuana. Are some of you LEOs going to demand many of your co-workers turn in your badge? I assure you such a study could be done and would be about as valid as the "hard science" being referred to here.

This debate reminds be about when I argue with my wife that cell phone use is dangerous...she assumes it is safe because it is legal.


About 90% or more of Officers have tried MJ (Illegal) and 100% have drank alcohol (Legal) takes those 2 sturdies and we won't have any cops and then we can go back to the wild west and have a shoot out which would resolve alot of problems. Oh wait Oakland and Richmond are already like that...lol

[mlm]

About 90% or more of Officers have tried MJ (Illegal) and 100% have drank alcohol (Legal) takes those 2 sturdies and we won't have any cops and then we can go back to the wild west and have a shoot out which would resolve alot of problems. Oh wait Oakland and Richmond are already like that...lol

Exactly. Hiring standards are dictated by the pool of job applicants. The fact that past marijuana use is allowed, while past LSD use disqualifies is not because one drug is more dangerous than the other, but because a lot of people smoked pot and less have (or will admit to) tried LSD.

At one point I'm sure past marijuana use automatically disqualified a candidate, and that there was a lot of pseudo-scientific justification for it. Don't be surprised if the standards are relaxed for your departments in the future, and I doubt any cops will turn in their badges due to safety concerns if it does. In fact, I'd be willing to bet there are a considerable number of cops who lied about past drug use, so not only are you working with former drug users, but liars as well.

That's reality, whether you like it or not, or whether you choose to accept it or not.

[nicholonious]

You first.

You're starting FTO in a week? Meaning completing the academy and reporting to your area?

Did you disclose that you did E?

I asked you first. Not sure why you're bouncing the question back to me.

Yes, I was truthful throughout the background process.

Yes, going through in-house training and then beginning FTO. Very glad to be done with the Academy. Bitter sweet from my experience.

[Rel]

I asked you first. Not sure why you're bouncing the question back to me.

Yes, I was truthful throughout the background process.

Yes, going through in-house training and then beginning FTO. Very glad to be done with the Academy. Bitter sweet from my experience.

Well, it is clear that we're with different agencies.

[B-Cuz]

I asked you first. Not sure why you're bouncing the question back to me.

Yes, I was truthful throughout the background process.

Yes, going through in-house training and then beginning FTO. Very glad to be done with the Academy. Bitter sweet from my experience.

Well, it is clear that we're with different agencies.

So who is going to fess up first as to which agency they belong to, not exactly why there is so much secrecy revolving around department policy rather than personal opinion. I am very interested in the conversation at hand and the seperate department policies because I too have used E experimentally (twice) in my past but have applied to Oakland PD and Alameda County Sheriff. I have read a publication of a department (unsure as to which at this moment) that allowed applicants to have used MJ and E in their past but must devote two years of sobriety before applying.

[nicholonious]

So who is going to fess up first as to which agency they belong to, not exactly why there is so much secrecy revolving around department policy rather than personal opinion. I am very interested in the conversation at hand and the seperate department policies because I too have used E experimentally (twice) in my past but have applied to Oakland PD and Alameda County Sheriff. I have read a publication of a department (unsure as to which at this moment) that allowed applicants to have used MJ and E in their past but must devote two years of sobriety before applying.

Different agencies have different standards and policies when hiring applicants. Agencies that do not have many retirements, do not have many slots to fill for new officers, and receive many qualified applicants will most likely have high qualifications and filters when screening out applicants.

Small agencies will usually have less strict requirements, so I'd recommend contacting recruiters or check their policies and see what are automatic DQ's and what are not.

I've had much more success applying and getting oral board interviews and chief interviews at smaller agencies than in the big city.

Definitely check over your life in whole, look at what you've done (good and bad) and see if there are things that would make it near impossible to get in. You may have to work a little harder than the "ideal" candidate to get your foot in the door and prove that you're an asset as a whole.

[Ian01]

The agency I applied for didn't DQ for E use if it was over 10 years ago........FYI