I’m going to ask this one more time: have you specifically been told that prior drug use is a disqualification, or are you making an assumption?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I’m going to ask this one more time: have you specifically been told that prior drug use is a disqualification, or are you making an assumption?
Not wishing to pre-empt the answer, but IME such things are considered on a case by case basis, but a lack of candour will be exponentially more problematic...
I would add that it might also be a felony to lie on a polygraph during an interview for government clearance or job hiring.
Even for top secret clearance I thought the cutoff for drug use was in the past 4 years. Now if you are the type that is thinking you need to lie on a polygraph to get something you "deserve", it sounds like you would be better if in a non top secret job.
Even for top secret clearance I thought the cutoff for drug use was in the past 4 years. Now if you are the type that is thinking you need to lie on a polygraph to get something you "deserve", it sounds like you would be better if in a non top secret job.
@FingerDub , tell the truth. You may lose this job, and you may not. But I truly believe, and it's been my experience, that you will make out far better in the long run if you're honest. Lying is an addiction too. And you know addiction is a slippery slope. If you've ever been to a 12-step program, you know about personal and moral inventories, and admitting when you're wrong.
I've done lots of bad stuff to people in my life, and hurt lots of people close to me, all or in part due to substance abuse and dishonesty. Been there, done that. I never regret telling the truth and admitting I'm to blame. Never lost a job over it. In fact, I've KEPT jobs because my boss said he respected that I was blaming nobody but myself and not trying to weasel or lie out of the situation.
I'm no morality Boy Scout. Just somebody who's made mistakes and learned how to deal with them.
I've done lots of bad stuff to people in my life, and hurt lots of people close to me, all or in part due to substance abuse and dishonesty. Been there, done that. I never regret telling the truth and admitting I'm to blame. Never lost a job over it. In fact, I've KEPT jobs because my boss said he respected that I was blaming nobody but myself and not trying to weasel or lie out of the situation.
I'm no morality Boy Scout. Just somebody who's made mistakes and learned how to deal with them.
IMO taking this route - lying on the polygraph and hoping that your brains, looks and charisma will compensate for that - reeks of hubris.
It’s the path of least effort in order to try to get this job. No telling what other kinds of unethical paths of least resistance you’ll take to get what you want IF you actually get the job.
That said, I do honestly believe in redemption and second chances. I have a feeling that IF you’re honest AND you get the job, it will be 1000x more satisfying for you.
If you do get the job by lying, you’ll be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your career.
Last edited:
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
I advise employer's on issues like this. Unless there was a specific requirement that stated no drug use, if it was in the past, and didn't involve things like stealing to pay for the drugs, prior drug use would not disqualify the candidate. But lying would automatically kick him/her to the curb.
Pbassmanca
In the pocket n' thumpy. So woody, so greasy...
Thats fine for general employment, but It's all about the risk when it comes to vetting, and at higher levels goes way beyond the candidate and past use. For example, a candidate may no longer use drugs but may still move in related circles, maintain contact with or still be known to risky individuals which might lead to them ending up in compromising situations or finding themselves 'of interest' to nefarious organisations... These risks can only be managed if the 'employer' is fully in the picture.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
True. My point is that the fact that someone automatically would not be disqualified from employment simply because they took a puff of weed in the past. There are plenty of activities where someone could end up in compromising circumstances - gambling, crime, etc. If drug use alone disqualified people from employment, I bet there would be a LOT of unemployed people.
This is coming from someone who never even has taken a puff from a cigarette...
Indeed. The drug angle is just one of many. Of course the problems for the OP may have already started if he has completed the first round of form-filling but is now facing the prospect of being 'found out'...
Tell the truth. I had to get clearance for my job and believe me, it's amazing the dirt they can dig up.
Thank god they never asked if I murdered a hooker in Thailand while I was on the wire.
Thank god they never asked if I murdered a hooker in Thailand while I was on the wire.
Good points. Also, there is the difference between having dabbled and having become and addict. For some jobs, addiction is a disqualification as it should be. For all jobs honesty is a must.
Except lawyer.
Lawyers who are honest all the time would be UNETHICAL.
Judge: Is there anything you know about your client unrelated to the case that could color the jury against your client?
Ethical lawyer: No your honor*
Unethical lawyer: He admitted to me while drunk he cheated on his wife while she was in the hospital for breast cancer, because he likes busty women.
See?...
*he's lying
Judges don’t ask lawyers those types of questions.....
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Good thing @mellowinman doesn't try to take cheap shots. Mellow, don't try to talk about things where you have absolutely no clue.
It appears you have no actual experience with lawyers and judges. Good for you.
Yes, that's right. I have no actual experience with judges or lawyers, and I have never read a book, seen a film or watched a TV show about them, either!
