https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-elon-musk-security-cl...
- "Musk has refiled his SF-86 security form, which requires a federal employee or contractor seeking a clearance to acknowledge any illegal drug use over the previous seven years, according to the official, who asked not to be identified. SpaceX has contracts to launch satellites for the U.S. military."
- "Musk’s “adjudication” review by the Defense Security Service continues with no decision yet, the U.S. official said. Typically during an adjudication, a person keeps his or her security clearance but loses access to information classified as secret, according to the official. If the drug use involves minor issues or doesn’t appear to contain any serious security concerns, the unit reviewing the case could just close it and update Musk’s record."
This is about weed, what are you talking about?
I don't think either of those apply with Musk, because he is a pot afficianado and openly pushing it, and pro-legalization. Some states have legalized because they want those juicy tax revenues, There is a significant part of the populace that realizes pot has been overcriminalized particularly for those with medical issues. While there are risks and dangers associated with all of these (see Alex Berenson), I don't see an adjudication authority seeing Musk as a security risk.
Dollars talk, and saving the federal government hundreds of millions with cheaper launches probably influences this some. But, the feds prolly see the long view and recognize Musk is likely to push the Americans into the infinity cash supplies of space tourism, space freight, deep space exporation, space mining, and the national prestige of first humans to Mars. Why would they want to impair that over a bit of weed?
I would guess that there's a culture of delusion surrounding this wherein because "it's the rules" they are actually followed. You know because rules are rules. The world, especially those like the Elons of the world, don't care to follow them as diligently as perhaps a command and control military / public service style structure demands. I'd even be surprised if even in the federal government those with security clearance were completely sober and free of the drugs considered illegal under US law.
You know Elon is gonna do what he wants to do. For better (electric cars, reusable rockets) or for worse (open his twitter feed any day of the week).
I suspect this is less true than you think; since federal prosecution is blocked by law for state-legal use, one of the major security clearance reasons for it to be an issue (the leverage that the criminal behavior might give others over you because of prosecution risk) is very much affected by state law.
But wouldn't debt of any kind, or regular motivations such as greed, family (maybe a relative got into drugs/trouble) be the same or even worse?
It just seems like a left-over relic from the 'reefer madness' days.
A big part of my early distrust for police stems from the lies they told me in D.A.R.E. 'class'. Marijuana will turn you into a drug-fueled criminal, it eats your brain cells like this spray paint on a Styrofoam cup, and they never come back, this is your brain (egg), this is your brain on 'drugs' (but it's an anti-weed commercial) and the egg starts frying in a pan. They spent years trying to convince the very young and very old that weed==narcotics.
As I've gotten older I've realized almost everyone has some issue- addiction, drug use, over-indulgence of whatever, just seems some are hell bent on hiding it and pretending they don't.
It just makes no sense to me, maybe it did in the cold war era.
https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1468223510724190208
https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/1334879994896666624
It sounds like it differs greatly between departments and whether the usage was in the past or the present.
Source for that? One would think the supremacy clause overrides any idea of state law.
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me that if its federally illegal its still illegal within the states. The only question is if the federal government really cares to enforce the law in states where a large population of the state is openly breaking the federal laws.