Obama had a mention about this during his presidency. I wonder if Biden does as well... very likely he does.
What was mentioned about this during the Obama years was that the federal government will not interfere in states legalisation of marijuana. So here then it seems foolish to also say "but if you leave the state and want to work for us and have never smoke marijuana where it was illegal to do so, you will face an uphill battle"
The federal government in the past took up the argument of "we won't act against states based on our own rules"
In the case of DC, don't smoke on federal property.
This isn't about legalization, this is about the security clearance process.
They are not acting against the states, they are acting in regards to people on federal property, in the employ of the federal government. They are not denying the same to state employees.
As much as you want to make this into a huge deal, they are simply following the rules that already exist, and are trying to be consistent in the application of those rules. Now, I'm all for getting rid of those rules, but that has not happened, yet.
Oh but it is normal behaviour and has always been.
Just look back to the founding of this defective country.
One of the biggest contentions that Americans colonies had against the Crown, besides... their tax evasion issues... and annoyance at not having excised power over parliament as the argument was they had enough via their merchant lobbies...
The next big concern was one around religion. If you recall the result of the seven years war, one major contention was around the crown being too soft and forgiving on the catholic french. which made an already tenuous situation more so...Yet... when it came to war just who did the colonies ally themselves with? It is absolutely normal behaviour.
We can go back further to the late 17th century and the bacon rebellion that turned black slaves from being in a socially similar space to white indentured workers (children were born free) to the creation of chattel, purposefully to drive a wedge between the groups and put their cooperation to bed. So who did the poor whites who never got their 50 acres or money and had to have their children also indentured align within years after? Their very own oppressor...
I mention this (race) because there is a theme here with how it connects to modern-day Russia... a country seen by a lot of racists as something to aspire to... a mostly white ethnostate.
It's not surprising to me in the slightest it has happened a lot... is it a "big" deal i have no idea... but it isn't surprising but totally expected.
It is foolish to say "i don't support it but i support them doing it until they change the rules"
I don't support it and I don't support them doing it. They can because they can and they have the rules, but I would want a big stink made about it, and why?
Draws light to the issue and potentially forces quicker change.
- - - Updated - - -
yet states can and have passed laws legalising it...The Trump administration who even said they would go after states... didn't so much...
It is harder to go after states for marijuana than it is to go after states for violating the constitution explicitly as they can.
You're the one flailing. You know who is responsible for upholding federal law right? Including Constitutional law? Oh yes, the federal government. If you're a federal employee, it doesn't matter where you reside, because as you just stated yourself, state law cannot supersede. They were required to stop and they wouldn't, which is a violation of federal law. It really is as cut and dry as Kim Davis to me. I don't want another Trump administration just cause it's "my side" this time.
You're just being argumentative. If you wish to actually discuss something with me I'm here, otherwise I suggest you focus on informing and educating yourself. I'd start by contemplating how we get from where we are to decriminalizing all drugs as you claim that it is something you want to see.
Not at all. It's respecting that laws exist, and wanting equal application of laws, even when you don't support specific laws themselves.
By all means, get rid of the fucking law. Until that happens, don't push double standards.
These people were not betrayed.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm arguing with you, because you are pushing bullshit and nonsense. Even the administration has come out and pointed to how you are wrong. The articles and quotes were already gleefully provided by others.
The bottom line is that the security clearance forms ask about this, and lying on those forms is a crime. Period. Drug use can prevent you from getting a clearance. Lying about drug use (or even alcohol use) can prevent you from getting a clearance.
We decriminalize all drugs, by literally getting rid of the legislation that bans them in the first place. Let's fucking do it. Vote libertarian, and make it happen.
Asking me to inform myself, when you are the one who is clearly ignorant on the issue... is rather ironic.
Ah but state laws often are what trump federal laws in their respective states, with the federal government generally respecting that. Do tell me what laws is being "upheld" by denying or moving people about due to "past" usage of something legal in their state?
It is not as cut and dry as Kim Davis because there are clear differences between directly violating the constitution versus a federal law.
Also trump interfering to get a crony a position is the same as Biden interfering to get policy change affect millions of ordinary workers??????????
You sound like those people are super concerned with being concerned
The rules don't make sense and are inconsistent. That's the point of anyone commenting on them.
Clearance rules are outdated and inconsistent. Also if the employees have already been cleared, which they have, then it should not be an issue.
In this case enforcement is due to the discretion of the office. Enforcing it is quite against the administration's messaging. They are being rather conservative for a liberal administration. And as brought up, suddenly staffers have to worry about being blackmailed for old incidents of smoking weed.