The fact you’re getting dunked on for this comment shows how delusional people are.

Lol

Your reading comprehension is so, so bad

The study you link has literally nothing to do with your claim.

Do you find it weird that people die in ERs sometimes, and it happens more often in overcrowded ERs, as the study you link suggests? Because that’s what it’s saying. That long triage times and short staffing leads to worse patient outcomes… And surprise, this study was in 2021, still peak COVID year.

I downvote anyone that whines about or asks why they’re getting downvotes. Otherwise I don’t up/downvote anything at all (except that guy that is posting triangles for upvotes)

Seriously, who cares?

What is the personality of the toaster?

One looks like your friend’s dad when he comes home and finds everyone has not only left on all the lights in the house but have also left the fridge open

Other one looks like a guy in early 20s that is on a bus and some fucker is doom scrolling tiktok loud without headphones

I’d say they’re both great but you gotta decide what kind of cranky toaster you’re going with

You’re mixing some things up. Yes, some agencies will have some POLICIES about not wanting to hire personnel with a history of drug abuse/use, but that is separate from the clearance adjudication process.

A secret clearance is a secret clearance, and you’re correct that it’s much simpler to get a basic secret than it is a TS-SCI or to be read into certain programs. But there isn’t a “FBI” secret and an “Army” secret.

There’s no timeline for how long it’s been since you’ve smoked pot, or number of times, or anything. I think a poster said that it’s about whether the investigation finds you trustworthy enough for the level of eligibility they’re investigating you for, and that is correct - and there isn’t a hard and fast rule necessarily.

If you do an investigation and are asked if you’ve ever used any illegal drugs and you say no, but in your criminal record you have a possession charge, that’s bad. You’re obviously lying, and not even being smart about it. If you say you used to smoke trees every day and are blazed right now, that’s bad because you obviously don’t give af about laws and stuff (not my opinion, this is the opinion of the Fed that still thinks it’s illegal). If you say you used to smoke with your friend for a couple months in college a year ago but stopped and think that was probably a dumb decision, that’s not necessarily bad, it all depends on how the interview goes. They’ll ask for the names of who you smoked with and how you got the weed - so they can check if you were hanging out with known cartel members or just some other joe schmoe at UCWhatevs.

At the end of the day it’s all based on context and a ton of factors. They dig a lot deeper and have a much higher standard for more selective clearances or programs, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone? But it’s all about whether you’re trustworthy to keep certain sensitive information from unauthorized people.