Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Illegal stuff in legal countries?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Illegal stuff in legal countries?

    I remember a thread where it was mentioned that doing illegal stuff in a country where its legal is still a threat when applying to an agency.

    (Smoking pot in Amsterdam and applying for LAPD)

    Can anyone clarify why this is true? I remember something along the lines of "its still against u.s. legislation, its still breaking the rules if you are a u.s. citizen etc etc.

    Are there any articles on this or info?

    THanks
    After its all done and I've cleaned up, Chief comes out of his office, big smile on his face pats me on the shoulder and says........That wasn't so bad was it? - Redders4786

  • #2
    For the purpose of a background investigation, whether or not you broke the law when you used recreational drugs is a secondary issue. The primary issue is that you used recreational drugs, a practice that is frowned on by law enforcement agencies. It doesn't matter whether the use was legal where you did it. If you found a country that was tolerant of child molestation, you might be able to go there and have sex with children without breaking the law, but you would still be a child molester.

    The question is going to be "Have you ever used marijuana?" not "Have you ever broken the law by using marijuana?" If you did it, you're going to have to live with it. No police department is looking for someone who regards themselves as a specialist in loopholes.
    Tim Dees, now writing as a plain old forum member, his superpowers lost to an encounter with gold kryptonite.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm assuming the BI for LVMPD won't ask if you've bought a hooker?
      Thanks for clarifying
      After its all done and I've cleaned up, Chief comes out of his office, big smile on his face pats me on the shoulder and says........That wasn't so bad was it? - Redders4786

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Intrinsic
        I'm assuming the BI for LVMPD won't ask if you've bought a hooker?
        Thanks for clarifying
        Actually paying for sexual activity is a common question in background investigations.

        It was in mine on both the application and the polygraph.
        Fear not the armed citizen but rather the government that tries to disarm him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah, but Nevada has those "legal" ranches.
          After its all done and I've cleaned up, Chief comes out of his office, big smile on his face pats me on the shoulder and says........That wasn't so bad was it? - Redders4786

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Intrinsic
            Yeah, but Nevada has those "legal" ranches.
            Oh, yea. I forgot about that.
            Fear not the armed citizen but rather the government that tries to disarm him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Intrinsic
              Yeah, but Nevada has those "legal" ranches.

              In both Las Vegas and Clark County there are no "legal" ranches, and it is still a crime so I bet you will still be asked that question.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Vtfuzz
                In both Las Vegas and Clark County there are no "legal" ranches, and it is still a crime so I bet you will still be asked that question.
                You are 100% right on both accounts. You will definitely be asked that question. Unless things have changed since i got hired 8 months ago.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Playing Devil's Advocate

                  I have to question whether using a drug in a country where it is legal to do so would, in and of itself, would be grounds for DQ.

                  EEO rules require that criteria for testing, hiring, disqualification and ongoing treatment of employees must demonstrate a reasonable relationship to the job. These rules exist to prevent administrators or BIs from improperly substituting their own arbitrary and unreasonable personal philosophies or moral codes (which will vary from individual to individual) on applicants and employees. For an example of such arbitrary wackiness, I used to work with a Captain who thought it was absolutely shameful if someone took time off from work due to a legitimate job related injury and openly advocated harassing them for doing so. He was also incensed if they took a write-off on their income tax for a business meal and actually questioned subordinates about this if he saw them tear off the tab from a restaurant check. He would further impugn their honesty by saying, "The tab lists the total price for everyone's meal. How do I know you aren't deducting the cost of everyone's meal and rather than just your own?" Yet, another Captain thought going to a bar off duty for a drink was shamefully immoral and would counsel officers if he learned they had done so.

                  The grounds for DQ in drug use are not based on the drug's use alone, Instead, it is because the applicant's conduct was illegal, or because the applicant reasonably appears to be addicted to the use of controlled substances. For example, cocaine and vicodin are two of the most popular recreational drugs here in California. Applicants who have used them illegally are routinely rejected, not because of some moralistic issue, but because their possession without a prescription is a felony. However, dentists routinely prescribe cocaine for certain dental procedures and physicians prescribe vicodin to control pain for certain injuries. A law enforcement agency is not going to reject someone who is not addicted to a controlled substances, simply because they used cocaine or vicodin at one time under a doctor's prescription. Again, the grounds here for DQ are based solely on law violations and not on morality or actual drug use.

                  The same goes for prostitution. An applicant who has patronized a hooker here in California may get rejected, not because he committed an immoral act but because he engaged in an illegal activity. OTOH, if the same applicant patronized one of the legal brothels in Nevada, there would be no grounds for DQ.

                  There are limits, but again they are based in the law. For example, in some countries having sex with children is not illegal. However, the US has laws making it illegal for its citizens to have sex with underage persons in foreign countries. Hence, an applicant who takes a child sex tour of Thailand (where such conduct is not illegal) is DQed solely because their conduct violated US law.

                  The original discussion on this issue was started some months ago. It was based on a proposed change in Mexican law that would allow for the legal use and possession of up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin, or 500 milligrams of cocaine. It would have also decriminalized the possession of limited quantities of other drugs, including LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines, and peyote. (BTW, the law never passed.) The question posed at the time was, if the law had passed and an applicant used any of these drugs recreationally while visiting Mexico but was not addicted to their use, would there be any legal (and not moral or philosophical) grounds for DQ? Nobody could come up with one.
                  Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by detsarg
                    Actually paying for sexual activity is a common question in background investigations.

                    Well, could being married classify as paying for sexual activity? You may not always get what you pay for, but you certainly pay for what you get!


                    Last edited by VA Dutch; 12-30-2006, 02:43 PM.

                    The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                    The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                    ------------------------------------------------

                    "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                    Comment

                    MR300x250 Tablet

                    Collapse

                    What's Going On

                    Collapse

                    There are currently 4029 users online. 202 members and 3827 guests.

                    Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                    Welcome Ad

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X