FBI director: Zero tolerance pot policy kills our ability to hire cyber war programmers

So even the head of the FBI is admitting that pot law is stupid, and is hurting the agency.

Source

FBI director James Comey said this week that the bureau may be forced to change its drug policy because the U.S. could not find enough programmers who did not use marijuana to fight cyber crime.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Comey told the White Collar Crime Institute’s annual conference on Monday that it was going to be difficult to fill the 2,000 new jobs that Congress had authorized this year.

“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,” Comey explained.

This guy seems to get it. He continues:

“And so I believe… that we have to have — we on the federal side — a whole of government approach. We got to figure out how can we support you,” Comey continued. “You can’t arrest your way out of this problem, but arresting — for us, focusing on the international trafficking organizations that are flooding the market — is a huge part of the answer.”

I wonder if he'll get any flack from upper management regarding this bit above. He's speaking out of turn considering the Federal Government has done nothing at all about the issue. Other than say, they won't be doing anything at all, see Colorado and Washington.

Now this conversation isn't about people smoking pot, or wanting to smoke pot, it's about how stupid prohibition laws may in fact bu hurting America's ability to fight legitimate cyber crime.

Another nail in the coffin for draconian laws. I'm glad they will be changing the practice internally, but it still begs the question:

If Federal Agencies are having to do this, effectively break their own laws to help enforce the good ones, why hasn't the Federal Government started looking into this more seriously?

~Tenth

At last...not the sensible attitude on pot, but actual evidence of sense in the Federal Government for once.

Priceless article though in all seriousness, knocks those wild propaganda proclamations claiming that pot ruins the brain completely for six.

After all, If they were just a pile of drooling mush for brains...they wouldn't be particularly handy to the Feds for Cyber-warfare now would they.

a reply to: MysterX

That's another good point. Regardless of the research on the effects of THC on developing minds, this shows that hiring somebody who smokes pot, is no different than somebody who enjoys alcohol.

If it were the terrible substance they claim it to be, I highly doubt that they would have so many successful computer programmers graduating with qualifications enough for the FBI.

To the point where he's got to speak out publicly about it.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I read this earlier today. I'm a programmer and I've been an IT professional for many years and before that, an active member of the hacking/phreaking scene.

There's a reason that there's not a lot of drug testing in IT.

You can freely admit to pot use, including dealing and still hold any public office including president. But you can't be a low level programmer?

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Apparently the current FBI guideline is no pot within 3 years. Now they can only test for use for about 80 to 120 days at the maximum so mind you people would just need to lie.

But why need to lie at all really is what it comes down to.

~Tenth

It's a win win for the government.

Money in form of tax.

New industri and shop opportunities for the people(jobs).

Can lower the crimerate as the plant is'nt a crime anymore, and spend money on "cyberwarfare" instead(Sneaky little bastards).

Lower the violence being commited in the fight for Dealer domination or anything violence related to it being illigal.

People get more relaxed from recreational use.

They can better control the people when they are relaxed, thats a big WIN for them, not so good for the people.

Hmm Might be they have a plan

And even if you don't smoke weed,
don't work for the government.

They will promise you cookies.
But there are no cookies.

Only whips and chains. (and not the fun kind)

Hahaha. A little off topic here, but a buddy of mine who works at a major movie house told me that said company would NOT fill creative positions with people who PASSED a random test for marijuana use. Their attitude was that the stoners did better and more in-depth work. That made me chuckle.

Cannabis were never about protecting the public, they have always been about protecting big business interest. About 90% of the jobs out there require a drug tests, again it is nothing about protecting the work place. Considering how long will test positive for cannabis, drug test are extremely biased against cannabis users.

It is all about control. The vast majority of employers do no like to drug test their employers but are forced to by the insurance companies. Further more many big industries will use a drug test to fire people, especially when they approach retirement.

Also now a lot of big companies will now use hair follicle tests than can go back for years, not for initial employment more for firing people.

It is all about control. When he have a population that blindly submits to 4th Amendment violations, they are much easier to control.

a reply to: Mianeye

The tax revenue is of secondary concern to me but it's nothing to sneeze at. The bigger issues to me are the unjustifiable infringement of liberty, the egregious harm done to society by incarcerating and otherwise stigmatizing so many people with criminal convictions and the sheer expense of fighting a "war" against ourselves that very few people actually support.

a reply to: Mianeye

Can lower the crimerate as the plant is'nt a crime anymore, and spend money on "cyberwarfare" instead(Sneaky little bastards).

People get more relaxed from recreational use. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is where a massive saving will happen if pot is legalised, most people focus on the sale tax, the job creation, the pot associated sundries and paraphinalia. The real dividends will come in increased police performance in areas of crime detection and prevention in areas where they really need to be, but also a usually overlooked and potentially huge benefit, both financial and social, will come from decreased levels of violence period.

Excessive booze intake tends to encourage otherwise rational and calm people to violent behaviour, brawling, act recklessly, vandalise property, even murder people in a drunken stupor...apart from the human costs, this all costs a LOT of money, a hell of a lot.

Excessive pot intake tends to encourage...deep, refreshing and restful sleep. Handy for insomniacs like me, so another bonus in addition to freeing up LE to do real and needed police work, and all the other benefits that will happen with legalisation.

But Tenth is spot on...if this guy is saying this, at the level he is, something positive may, just may be in the wind on the Federal level...i just sincerely hope it trickles over the pond to us here in Blighty, and our policy makers wake up and see sense for a change too.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I hear you.

But "cyberwar" is aimed at everyone, which means more Surveillance of us, the people.

Everyday in here or anywhere there are talks about NSA and Snowden and the useless surveillance of the people and countrys.

So now we will give them more money to peak over our shoulders, in return we get "A Plant".

I find it very ironic as it will lead to less freedom in the long run.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I would not attempt that. They Polygraph you during the interview processes after the background check.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

This might not be a good idea, since the security of the programmers would be given away by this guy:

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

That post is a disgrace to your user name.

I have had an FBI background check and security clearance for a previous job.

We are told that honesty is the best policy our entire lives, however one is a fool to admit to doing something that is frowned upon by some when a paycheck depends on it. Especially when there were no flags that would have suggested otherwise to said agency.

The problem with zero tolerance policies is it forces people to lie. Most people with security clearances are smart enough to lie about things like prior drug use.

THE BEST, anti-cyber hacker/programmer would be an ex -cyber criminal. Recruited from the underground, busts, guys looking to cut deals for their freedom, turn coats, rats..

The FBI is up to no good..

a reply to: tothetenthpower

S&F!

It seems when all else fails epically, that pure potluck rises up and saves the day! [pun intended]

And the madness is that these pot addicted IT techo's will theoretically be asked to work against their addictions best interest by helping to bust the illicit drug supply!

originally posted by: MysterX

Excessive pot intake tends to encourage...deep, refreshing and restful sleep. Handy for insomniacs like me

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

That post is a disgrace to your user name.

I have had an FBI background check and security clearance for a previous job.

We are told that honesty is the best policy our entire lives, however one is a fool to admit to doing something that is frowned upon by some when a paycheck depends on it. Especially when there were no flags that would have suggested otherwise to said agency.

Easy, killer. It is a joke. Ya see, if the FBI loosens its drug policy on weed in order to attract programmers, which apparently have a high percentage of weed users in their ranks, then the next logical step would be to let them get baked at work and provide them with free munchies to keep productivity high - in jokey joke land.

Of course, now that I had to explain the humor to you, it has been ruined. By the way, can only dogs hear it when you fart?

The problem with zero tolerance policies is it forces people to lie. Most people with security clearances are smart enough to lie about things like prior drug use.

I do agree with you there.