Some states allow from prescriptions, but it's still Federally illegal - and of course the Federal government doesn't care about state law when making decisions about security classifications.
> the Federal government doesn't care about state law when making decisions about security classifications.
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.
I never realized until the comments today that the reason you can't be on even state-legal prescribed drugs is because you become more open to blackmail and exploitation or prosecution risk.
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.
Admittedly, I'm pretty far from that world, but I follow a bunch of NatSec folks on Twitter and Bradley Moss and Mark Zaid are specialist NatSec lawyers who represent many people denied clearances;
> since federal prosecution is blocked by law for state-legal use
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.
