cannabisnews.com: Why Lower Standards?





Why Lower Standards?
Posted by CN Staff on October 23, 2005 at 19:51:49 PT
By Mark Souder
Source: USA Today
USA -- The FBI's move to lower its standards relating to past drug use is unnecessary and a troubling diversion from its vital mission. The FBI is not suffering from a lack of applicants. On the contrary, thousands of Americans apply each year for a very limited number of FBI positions.Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the applicant pool has only grown. For example, 665,079 people applied to become part of the FBI's team of analysts and support staff from fiscal year 2000 to the present. The total number of those positions at the bureau is only around 18,000.
In other words, even if every single position were vacated and filled within those six years, only one in 37 applicants would have been accepted. Of course, the reality is that the ratio is much higher.Among the thousands of applicants, are there so few who have not broken the law? One wonders what it is about repeat drug abusers that the FBI thinks it needs. What in particular would these individuals contribute that is not already available from the considerable number of applicants? It is important to remember we're not talking here about informants. We're talking about FBI professionals  people with enormous power and enormous responsibilities.Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-10-23-oppose_x.htmSource: USA Today (US)Author:  Mark SouderPublished: October 23, 2005Copyright: 2005 USA Today, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.Contact: editor usatoday.comWebsite: http://www.usatoday.com/Related Article:FBI Weighs Hiring Former Pot Smokershttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21221.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #11 posted by christen-mitchell on October 25, 2005 at 08:06:32 PT:
What They're Saying in Colorado Springs:
"F**k Em if they can't take a toke."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by runruff on October 24, 2005 at 11:42:48 PT:
Hey Souder, speak louder!
I don't think they heard you in the white house. Lets see:
The bush burned the herb. Bill the Pill didn't inhale,[right]. Newt got the boot but not for burnin' a hoot. Kerry got merry, so what, puffed some pot. JFK felt ok, took a toke what the hey? Jerry Brown made the sceen. Said Brown is good but I prefer the green. Hey Mark, you're in the dark. Congressman Souder take a powder!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2005 at 10:37:54 PT:
Waaaah! Uh-waaaaaaah! Waaaah!
(Baby crying a fit, if you didn't recognize it.) Poor ol' Marky; somebody shove his pacifier in...but I leave it as to where you want to place it. Oh, the irony. Souder's Law was intended to create a 'drug-free' utopia wherein almost anybody can apply for a Fed job unconcerned about past cannabis use thanks to the Draconian little twist of denying higher (no pun intended) education to those who didn't fit his faux Godly and sanctiminious parameters of social engineering. (Bug-eyed, fulminating preacher in full mania, flecks of spit flying: "All God's chillun gonna be THC free, amen brother, can I hear you say "Hallelujah"?)His prohib wet-dream has run smack into the brick wall reality of so many of the DARE Generation having defiantly chosen to say "Yes" (instead of the dimwitted cattle-lowing of "No") to illicits after all. And his latest urinating-and-moaning about the FBI lowering their standrads is but salt in his wounds...and music to my ears. Pardon me while I rosin up the violins...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Hope on October 24, 2005 at 08:19:47 PT
Souder
I think he's sensing various "mutinies" on his "teams". This is at least two that he's "sensed" just recently.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Hope on October 24, 2005 at 07:55:47 PT
OverwhelmSam
A "fanatical extremist", that seems very arrogant toward some people, is what he apparently is. Any shortcomings on his part are likely to lie somewhere within the bounds of either the fanatical extremism, or the astounding arrogance. I'm sure "common" vices are well below him.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by AlvinCool on October 24, 2005 at 04:24:33 PT
I think we may be missing the point
The article says why lower standards to allow people with drug use. The reality would be why change standards to allow people who have used cannabis to be in the FBI.And the reason is simple.We are more analytical, and they know it. The FBI needs cannabis users to look at data and see connections simple for us and hard for them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by mayan on October 24, 2005 at 04:01:57 PT
Souder Sucks
He can put this in his pipe and smoke it...Expert finds no link between pot smoking, cancer: 
http://www.azcentral.com/health/news/articles/1024pot-ON.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Toker00 on October 24, 2005 at 03:57:10 PT
Souder is a loser.
He is avoiding the issue. It's not about how many applicants you have, but how may QUALIFIED applicants you have. Seems smot poking makes you exceptionally smart, or exceptionally smart people know pot is not dangerous.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by OverwhelmSam on October 24, 2005 at 03:33:56 PT
Souder
Souder is one of the most fanatical extremist against with power against our initiative to legalize marijuana. In essence, he's either a moron who's elevator doesn't go all the way to the top, or he's being bribed big buck's to keep marijuana illegal at all costs. I'm thinking it's a combination of both. There's got to be some dirty information on Souder or his family out there somewhere. Prostitution, alcoholism, gambling, domestic violence, unethical business, accepting bribes, etc..., if anyone from Fort Wayne Indiana knows anything about him, please let us know about it before the 2006 election. If I could afford it, I would hire a private detective to see what he could find out.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Jim Lunsford on October 24, 2005 at 03:32:22 PT
Finest?
Of course, drugs are bad. However, insider trading, money laundering, treason (blowing the cover of a cia agent might be considered such, duh!), making a sham out of the nation's disaster response system, are all okay! As long as they're not on the evil Reefer madness! Lord, these morons still ain't got a clue! Oh well, loving it in the sunshine state! Peace, Rev Jim
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dankhank on October 23, 2005 at 20:34:37 PT
And so ...?
Another part of Souder's screed ...The FBI is not Major League Baseball. It is disturbing when Mark McGwire says he doesn't want to "talk about the past." It would be shocking if the FBI allowed its prospective employees to make the same claim.Hey ... didn't Dubya get away with this selfsame defense?"Not talking about the past ......"Oh yea ...
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment