He was engaged in what was legal on a local basis. Where is the risk to his security clearance? Blackmail is out since the behavior was clearly public.
Do his two puffs on a joint indicate some sort of allegiance to a foreign power?
Does the violation of any federal law or regulation disqualify someone from holding a security clearance?
Despite being legal under local law in a number of states, possession of even small quantities of marijuana remains illegal under federal law[0].
In the words of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines[1]: "The illegal use of controlled substances... can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations."
Whether or not you agree with the policy, it's still the policy, and if it's enforced when non-famous people with security clearances use drugs (it is), it should be enforced when famous people with security clearances use drugs.
I have held several security clearances of varying levels over the years. During interviews for every single one, I was asked about past drug use, in particular drug use within the past 7 years. (Note that they also ask about all psych/therapy stuff- though family, grief and combat related PTSD counseling are off-limits.) Some of those interviews took place in locations where marijuana was legal at the state level, but it is everywhere in the US illegal at the federal level so they ask.
And while it wouldn't necessarily kill your clearance, recent use was definitely a black mark that would need to be analyzed and discussed with you and slow things down. Funniest moment in all my clearances: you need to provide a neighbor to be interviewed, having just moved and not knowing anyone well I picked the only neighbor I knew the full name of; turns out he was a registered sex-offender! Didn't kill my clearance, but did slow everything down and mean I got to spend a lot more time talking to men in suits than my colleagues did. Sounds similar to what is happening here, honestly.
Yeah, my wife was close to filling for divorce when she had to sign and provide all her residential history. Not being German that history was quite long. And yeah, alcohol was also a thing. The most annoying so was social networks. At least it gave me the motivation to get rid of some accounts.
And that is before you see how relevant data is handled in real life and you are left scratching your head in some cases...
Because when you get a security clearance the feds explicitly ask if you've smoked weed in the last 7 years, and are especially interested in knowing if you've smoked weed while possessing a clearance (https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf).
> He was engaged in what was legal on a local basis.
Local jurisdictions don't grant security clearances on behalf of the federal government, FYI. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug and illegal to use for any purpose outside FDA approved research programs according to existing Federal law.
> Does the violation of any federal law or regulation disqualify someone from holding a security clearance?
If you did it they'd pull your clearance. This isn't speculation. It happens to little folk all the time[1].
As cynical as it might seem the parent isn't wrong in pointing out the obvious disparity in treatment of wealthy and influential people vs plebs. Musk has the contacts and the lawyers to commit a federal crime on video and keep all of his privileges in this life, and you don't. I can't fault anyone for concluding this sort of double standard is a great dysfunction.
I personally don't agree with the interpretation that drug control is a federal jurisdiction, but that is the status quo. Your second statement is true: Federal law DOES apply across all states. State law does not nullify or override this. There was a damn big bloody war over that question.
Allowed does not mean legal. That's why it is still illegal, but unenforced, in several states. A state CANNOT legalize a controlled substance. To trust lax federal enforcement + state "legalization" is not a wise move. But practical.
And besides, security clearances come from the Feds not the states, so who's laws do you think they go by?
...for smoking weed? What in the hell does weed have to do with security? Outside of some archaic argument like “it’s always been a requirement”, why is smoking weed a factor in security clearance?
Back when smoking weed was more heavily stigmatized (and enforced with jail time), a drug habit was seen as handy blackmail material. That does make doing it publicly something that is less of a concern though; nobody can blackmail Musk for smoking weed because everyone knows he's done it.
Presumably, because it's (technically) breaking federal law, and someone who breaks federal law probably shouldn't have a federally-granted security clearance.
If you ever had a clearance, it isn't about sense. It's about "RULES".
Thing A and thing A' are moral equivalents.
Thing A is a federal crime (we don't care why or if it's wrong). Thing A' is a not a crime.
You do thing A, a long time in the past. You get a couple strikes. Probably still get clearance.
You demonstrate you don't understand difference between thing A and thing A' (even if moral equivalents) which implies you don't understand "RULES" or that you have independent thought (worse). No clearance for you.
I'm not sure the "independent thought" bit is justified; if you can't distinguish between illegal and legal things, or can't manage to not do illegal things that are fairly easy not to do, it seems reasonable to question whether you can be trusted to keep (information requiring a clearance) secure.
Dude, if anything his newb-ness shows he really hasn't smoked before. Do you know how many people with a clearance have a history of smoking weed? (anecdatally, a lot) If we stipulate that weed smoking makes someone untrustworthy (something I vehemently disagree with) if anything then Elon demonstrated a higher worthiness than most people.
OK, but your idea worthiness isn't what gets a clearance.
It's "follow federal law" and "good judgement". Both of which, Elon, epic fail.
Yes, a lot of people with clearances probably smoke. But they do it on the DL, not TV. Bad judgement #1. Break federal law, on purpose, to make some point #2.
Weed and security clearances are such a non-issue. I had a TS/SCI for years but opted to not get it renewed. Why? I like to smoke weed and don't wish to cause issues with my employment if it were ever to be discovered or found out.
Meanwhile a guy I know who still has a TS/SCI gets blackout drunk weekly.
This is the hypocrisy I do not understand. They were drinking straight whisky for an hour before they lit the joint and there is not a peep from anyone about that.
The double standard for Marijuana makes zero sense to me, but I didn't see it for what it was until I listened to a track by the Streets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZrrQoME56U
Edit: Just realized the "lyrics" displayed on that video are a pretty poor translation. Try to ignore what's on the screen because whoever wrote them had trouble understanding the accent.
> I had a TS/SCI for years but opted to not get it renewed.
Why? I like to smoke weed and don't wish to cause issues with my employment if it were ever to be discovered or found out.
You're hiding something because you fear negative repercussions if it were revealed. Isn't that problematic behavior for security clearance, regardless of what you think about marijuana or what you're hiding?
The attitude that "I only follow rules that I personally think are justified" is also problematic for security clearance. Smoking weed despite its federal illegality clearly demonstrates that attitude. It's reasonable to assume such a person would be less likely to follow burdensome security procedures they (perhaps ignorantly and stupidly) don't understand or disagree with.
> Meanwhile a guy I know who still has a TS/SCI gets blackout drunk weekly.
People like that do lose their clearance. They don't know what they did when they were blacked out; they could have done something they could be blackmailed with or they could be convinced they did without too much effort by an adversary.
Here's proof:
This clearance denial is the first one I found with ctrl-f that goes into detail:
> Applicant has a substantial history of maladaptive alcohol use that has resulted in three alcohol-related arrests and convictions within seven years, with the most recent incident occurring in January 2019. By his own admission, Applicant consumed alcohol two times per week during the week and weekends at parties, and he drank to intoxication at every party. He also acknowledged that he has gone to work hung over on many occasions. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-00733.h1
Here's another that doesn't mention any arrests, just plain alcohol abuse:
> Case Number: 18-00767.h1
> Alcohol
> 05/23/2019
> Applicant continued to consume alcohol after being diagnosed with alcohol dependence in 2013 and after receiving inpatient alcohol-detoxification treatment in 2016 for alcohol use disorder, moderate. He continues to drink alcohol against medical advice. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00767.h1
This is apparently the clearance guideline that forbids alcohol abuse:
> (a) The concern. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment, unreliability, failure to control impulses, and increases the risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information due to carelessness.
> ...
> (5) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment;
