The Daily Beast is running the story….
One would question this policy move at a time when states are increasingly approving recreational marijuana use…
On the Federal level ?
Marijuana IS still a listed ‘dangerous’ drug….
Hmmmm?
Dozens of young White House staffers have been suspended, asked to resign, or placed in a remote work program due to past marijuana use, frustrating staffers who were pleased by initial indications from the Biden administration that recreational use of cannabis would not be immediately disqualifying for would-be personnel, according to three people familiar with the situation.
The policy has even affected staffers whose marijuana use was exclusive to one of the 14 states—and the District of Columbia—where cannabis is legal. Sources familiar with the matter also said a number of young staffers were either put on probation or canned because they revealed past marijuana use in an official document they filled out as part of the lengthy background check for a position in the Biden White House.
In some cases, staffers were informally told by transition higher-ups ahead of formally joining the administration that they would likely overlook some past marijuana use, only to be asked later to resign.
“There were one-on-one calls with individual affected staffers—rather, ex-staffers,” one former White House staffer affected by the policy told The Daily Beast. “I was asked to resign.”
“Nothing was ever explained” on the calls, they added, which were led by White House Director of Management and Administration Anne Filipic. “The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained.”
In response to this news story, White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted out on Friday an NBC News report from February stating that the Biden administration wouldn’t automatically disqualify applicants if they admitted to past marijuana use. Psaki said of the hundreds of people hired in the administration, only five who had started working at the White House are “no longer employed as a result of this policy.”…
…
…would-be staffers in the Biden administration whose dream jobs were derailed by an opaque system now feel their own truthfulness has been used against them.
“It’s exclusively targeting younger staff and staff who came from states where it was legal,” the former staffer said.
Yeah check and see how many marijuana “users” are prosecuted in federal court.
Did you also know that there is a federal law that prohibits a person convicted of Domestic Violence in any court in the country from ever owning a firearm?
That ones really “vigorously “ enforced!
Hahaha!
The shitty thing is the people gave the truth answers while be ‘promised’ they’d be ok…
I was surprised to see this Daily Beast article. Seriously, once an employee is hired, it sounds rather foolish to subsequently fire that person for past marijuana use. The only exceptions should be if the employee was caught smoking or was found high while working in their current job, or they blatantly lied on their application or interview.
Consider firing whoever came up with this idiotic policy.
White House personnel would get criminal, financial and drug testing periodically…
This sucks…
But life ain’t fair….
The piece IS a way to strike back….
But grass usage isn’t gonna work for top Admin official’s to handle to the public…
If you believe that, then you must also believe that neither Obama nor Clinton were worthy of a White House job.
This is not a good analogy because they had admitting to using marijuana decades before becoming President. I am sure the same has applied for others, in either party, who have served in the White House, etc.
Clearly, this matter seems to be related to people who said in their background check that they have used marijuana far more recently or perhaps still do. They are saying these determinations were made for individual reasons and that there is not a blanket zero exception policy.
Many private sector companies prohibit employees from using marijuana even if it is legal for them to do so. I suppose the White House, under Biden, has the same right, although it might come as a disappointment to his pro-weed supporters. While just speculation, perhaps the fact that his son has struggled with drug addiction played a role in this.
as in staffers, in either party, who have served in the White House. The questionnaire would ask them to state when they had last smoked marijuana, etc, and if it was years ago, it likely would have been overlooked in recent Administrations.
Reading between the lines of this story, it seems clear, although Jen Psaski does not want to state it directly, that this relates to people who were unwilling to state they will *no longer* user marijuana as a condition of their holding a White House job, etc.
So, whether legal or not, they had a choice to make, just like people have choices in regards to private sector companies who may require drug tests, etc.
If this was regarding a White House with a Democrat as President requiring that White House employees agree to not use tobacco while serving the government, I doubt many on the left would even bat an eye.
That would be a stupid policy too, unless of course that the policy was to prevent smoking while in the office.
I’m NOT doubting the Biden admin ability to do this….
I AM agreeing with Z to certain extent that promises may’ve been made that where not kept in certain cases…
Going from the campaign to the admin IS a vast difference and this was probably only a issue for low level people unaccustomed to the way things are working in the White House…
The biggest relationship to marijuana and drug addiction is that marijuana can be a substitute for some opioids, and opioids are highly addictive, which is why doctors would prefer to prescribe medical marijuana over opioids, except that unlike opioids, medical marijuana isn’t covered by insurance.
Employers do and should have a right to prohibit marijuana usage mostly because it can be dangerous when using with machinery. And of course, no one should ever be high while working.
People are hired after their background check, so the background check wasn’t what did them in.
And I am objecting most to the stupidity of the policy. You don’t want to lose good people for dumb reasons, and who wants to work for an employer that fires people for dumb reasons?
I HAVE pointed out here that marijuana policy is NOT ‘everybody’ is in recreational usage….
I HAVE pointed out here that on a Federal level marijuana IS listed as a ‘dangerous’ drug….
Those who admit usage on a federal level IN their place of employment have little legal standing to fight this loss of their job…
Is the policy wrong?
People going to work in the nation’s White House , especially with the Republicans and Media ready to jump on ANYTHING should be aware of the politics of this….
I agree with U Z that the person who led staff to believe that prior grass usage admittance would NOT be a problem should be gone just like the users….
This has NOTHING to do with good people…
This is one of beyond reality situations in the work place….
I don’t ever recall being asked on a interview whether I smoke pot, although I had to take pre-employment drug tests twice – which I passed.
Z?
U never worked for the President of the United States….
BTW?
Obama admitted smoking in his past…
If this was important, it should have been asked before the person took the job or it should have been discovered in the background check.
There is no excuse for this policy.
According to what is written, they were asked, and some now feel slighted because they answered honestly. Since the White House is stating that there is no blanket disqualification for past use and that there were individual circumstances present for each “firing”, it seems like those who admitted to smoking very recently were probably asked if they are willing to stop and they said no.. that it’s legal in DC, etc. etc.
So what to do with them is likely something Biden decided himself or decided not to intervene in the opposite direction.
If this was believed to be important, They should have been asked if they would be willing to give pot up BEFORE they were offered and took the job. I can’t believe you don’t see this policy as fundamentally wrong- even if it is legal. Although I philosophically disagree with banning pot for most white collar jobs, my biggest objection is that they fired the people after they were hired without making it clear the expectations.
Whether you smoke pot or not, what type of person would want to work in such a dysfunctional environment that this policy implies? The most brilliant person I have ever known smokes pot. By excluding pot smokers who smoke after hours, you are excluding what might be and probably is some of your most talented workers.
I agree with Z…..
And, remember that if they were already working in new jobs for Uncle Sam, some of them had given up jobs in business, the non-profit sector, academia, the media or state & local government to do so.
Hardly fair (especially during the Covid-19 recession) to change the minimum job qualifications after they’d switched jobs or careers.
Soon, but not soon enough, marijuana will be treated like alcohol.
If you aren’t under the influence of it while working it’s no one’s damn business.
My company stopped drug testing years ago.
It’s crazy though that I used to just accept that I had to piss in a jar to get a desk job. I guess because if I smoked a little weed on the weekend it could really screw up that TPS report more than a fifth of vodka would.
Drug testing was a bigger business when everyone was forced to go through it. I’m guessing it’s not so much anymore. Maybe I shouldn’t have said that. I might be accused of being insensitive to the job loss of piss collectors now too.
Oh well.
Here in deep red S.C. where Simple Possession remains a criminal offense(punishable by a fine of up to $465 or thirty days imprisonment),
Rare is the enforcement.
Indeed, even where a case is made ,few prosecutors mess with bringing the case forward.
I haven’t prosecuted a case like that in years.
No one cares anymore ,except the cowardly Republican legislators who consistently refuse to decriminalize such ,due to the influence of the hypocritical “Evangelicals” who find all sorts of excuses for the sexual predator Trump but wail at the altar of “morality “ against marijuana users.
Seriously, shouldn’t the government use their limited tax dollars wisely? It is hard for me to imagine why, but there are still borrow and spend “conservatives” who believe law enforcement should take resources away from fighting crime to fighting pot smoking. What is the possible benefit to society to put people in jail for pot posssession?
This is the type of story that one Chicagoland contributor will remember 10 years from now and will take the discussion out of context when retelling the story.
There may still be a need for drug testing if there is reason to believe that someone was high while working.
Oh sure if a bus driver was thought to be under the influence and it put people’s lives in danger drug testing us absolutely needed in such a situation.
But as a precondition for working in an office or bank? Waste of time and money.
Totally agree
Take it up with Joe Biden, whom all registered voters on this site, voted for, but some with more enthusiasm than others.
Somehow, people are so pissed (no pun intended) at this policy, but he remains immune from criticism for setting it.
Ultimately, the President is accountable for policies such as this.
And of course, it was not a difficult decision for me to prefer Biden over Trump!
We’re talking about newbie staff people brought over from the campaign I would assume….
Experienced people know the ropes….
I would also assume that ‘critical’ people would get waivers…..
I think it’s more the Bernie Bros.
I NEVER implied that this was aimed at a certain political group….
U ARE?
And see this….
White House press secretary Jen Psaki downplayed the Daily Beast report in a pair of tweets Friday, while saying the security screenings wouldn’t “automatically” disqualify a job candidate who had used marijuana.
“The bottom line is this: of the hundreds of people hired, only five people who had started working at the White House are no longer employed as a result of this policy,” she added….
…
“We shouldn’t conflate a president who … is not a tremendous cannabis reformer, with a president who has not changed his views over time,” he said. “Biden is not where a lot of cannabis reformers would like him to be. But he’s not the Joe Biden of 1988 or 1994.”
More…
Well, the fact that Biden is opposed to legalization of pot is disappointing, but this particular policy for White House staff is a bit more than just disappointing in my opinion. For all of GWB’s many flaws, I doubt that that he would have handled this situation as incompetently as Biden.
I never said Joe Biden was immune to criticism over this. Criticize away!
Only a fool woukd expect Republicans would be any more favorable to relaxing pointless laws against recreational marijuana usage though.
Can Schumer get this?
Schumer Wants Senate to Act on Marijuana
Bloomberg: “Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing the Senate toward lifting the federal prohibition on marijuana with legislation that would represent the biggest overhaul of federal drug policy in decades.”
“The bill that Schumer is drafting with Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden of Oregon and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker is still being written. Though they avoided the term legalization when announcing their plan, it is expected to remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances and tax and regulate it on the federal level while leaving states able to enforce their own laws regarding the drug.”
With a little bit of skill and tact, it should be possible to get some support from pragmatic and libertarian Republicans, just as the First Steps (imprisonment-reduction) bill did in a recent Congress.