Let's settle this... Every locale has different requirements for qualifications and for pre-employment tests. Inquire within the jurisdiction within which you seek employment so that you know before hand if u are capable of meeting the criteria.
For example, where i am from (a major city in CA) previous drug experimentation is permitted. There are limits on the number of times certain drugs may have been taken, with use of class I opiates an automatic disqualifier. All drug use must not be current and must have occured more than a certain number of years prior to employment testing.
Some juridictions require polygraph testing. The thing to remember here is, and this is the aspiring lawyer side of me talking, if you beleive it, it is not a lie. If you can rationalize in your mind your answer then it is not a lie...
For example, say u have used purportedly illegal drugs in the past. how can you be sure that the alleged or purported drugs were in fact illegal (with the exception possibly being weed as it is identifiable by sight)?
I mean, for example, if you used some type of powdered illegal drug, how do u know it was illegal? did u have it tested? (probably not). did u get arrested and it was tested in a lab analysis? (if this is the case, yes it was illegal and you probably dont qualify for peace officer status so this question is moot.
This having been said, (and AAS possibly being the exception in some cases to be explained in a moment) even if u took drugs, u cant be sure the drugs you took were actually illegal in absence of lab testing. is the touchstone altered state of conscience? no, it is not because there are a great number of many lawful drugs that may exhibit very similar mind-altering affects of controlled substances. example: detromethorphan (active ingredient in cough syrup) may be passed off as X and I have seen this in real life. This is just an example. so, the touchstone of having used unlawful drugs cannot be intoxication, but rather lab analysis.
if asked if u used unlawful drugs, certainly you can truthfully answer no, if u beleive it, and can factually justify it in your mind where there is no physical evidence to the contrary? do u follow me here?
the same can apply to AAS, so long as you were using UG products. If you were using zamboon amps, u certainly would be aware that u were using AAS. however, say u were using an UG product. can u ever really be certain u were using AAS in the absence of lab analysis? not really. so you gained some mass, but certainly this could be attributed to increased calorie intake, healthier diet, increased training, ect. what makes the ellicited response (bigger muscles) any different from those experienced by placebo drug users in double-blind controlled drug studies? nothing....
if you can, based on the facts, state that you have never used an unlawful drug, and there is no evidence to the contrary is it a lie? certainly not.
A note of caution: use common sense and make sure u have the observed the necessary time of abstinence (sp?) prior to taking a drug test as a precautionary measure, just in case the alleged drugs are in fact drugs... It would look exceptionally bad to pass the polygraph, and yet test positive in urinalysis......
another note: there are websites on the web to teach u to pass a polygraph, do a search
.... I guess it just wasn't in the books for me to be a government employee. I love my job and plan to be making well over $100,000yr in under 5yrs. Not saying it will happen,but i'm still planning it
