Love him or hate him, you always know where Elon Musk stands. Between his ubiquitous presence in the news and his penchant for Tweeting (“X-ing?”), it seems that the man is everywhere these days and not shy about sharing his opinions.
His status as one of the world’s richest and most prominent men is, alone, enough to turn those opinions into headlines. But in an added twist, news reports claim Musk has (or had) a security clearance while also allegedly dabbling in drug use.
Musk, for his part, denies illegal drug use and says he hasn’t tested positive for any illegal substance. However, the truth – whatever it is – is far less interesting than what else Musk told the Wall Street Journal in January: if drugs improved his productivity, he “would definitely take them!”
This brings to mind an issue I’ve seen repeatedly in the security clearance context: applicants who indicate that they don’t use (or are no longer using) illegal drugs but might contemplate doing so in the future. As surprising as that sounds, it seems a fair number of applicants either don’t want to lock themselves into sobriety commitments or have a philosophical problem with acquiescing to “the man.”
Most applicants in this scenario add quasi-legal qualifiers like “if marijuana becomes legalized,” “if I’m in a place where drug use is legal,” or “if I get a medical marijuana card.” (See, for example, this recent DOHA case). But some applicants – like in this case and this case – are bolder. These applicants are unequivocal about the possibility of future use; have a Musk-like “the ends justify the means” outlook; or view their security clearance application as an opportunity to wax philosophical on their perceptions of U.S. drug laws.
If this isn’t the literal definition of shooting one’s self in the foot, I don’t know what is. Yes, honesty is paramount in security clearance applications; but why bother applying in the first place only to guarantee one’s-self problems?
In most cases, the answer is likely either a lack of self-awareness or a failure to understand the implications of equivocating. The reality is that, even if drugs are legalized in the future or the applicant is physically using drugs in a jurisdiction where they have been legalized, that still likely wouldn’t negate security concerns. That’s because illegal drugs are mind-altering substances. Regardless of legality, drugs have the potential to impair the user’s judgement and thus their ability to safeguard classified information.
Alcohol is a great example of this tension between legality and security concerns. Sure, it is perfectly legal to drink to intoxication at home every night, provided the individual doesn’t venture into public intoxicated, violate terms of probation/parole, or engage in other activity (e.g., driving) that implicates a separate crime. But the drinker in this scenario would still encounter difficulty obtaining or retaining a security clearance for the same reason as the hypothetical “legal” drug user: an impairment of judgement.
I’ve written previously about why federal legalization of marijuana, should it ever happen, is still a pipe dream for clearance holders; but it bears repeating here: no legalization, justification, or medicinal application of mind-altering substances (marijuana or otherwise) is likely to result in a significant policy change for clearance holders. Anyone applying for a clearance must either be prepared to accept that reality – both in the present and the future – or forego the clearance. Attempting to thread the needle with qualifiers is a recipe for problems.
This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Although the information is believed to be accurate as of the publication date, no guarantee or warranty is offered or implied. Laws and government policies are subject to change, and the information provided herein may not provide a complete or current analysis of the topic or other pertinent considerations. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
