"Have you used any illegal drug in the past five years?"

Great Debates
1

I recently applied for my medical training license in North Carolina, and the thread title was a question on the application. For obvious reasons, I won’t say what I put there, or how accurate that answer was.

However, most of the people applying for this license are in their mid-to-late twenties, and have been students for their entire lives. (Five years would go back to a year before med school started.) Many of them have experimented with drugs in those five years, and the vast majority of those have not gone on to make drug use a significant part of their lives.

(In fact, it has been my experience that med students generally just don’t like marijuana. People tend to use recreational drugs with effects that are extensions of their own personalities; thus, most serious marijuana users are fairly mellow and laid-back anyway. Med students, as a group, are decidedly not. Some people in my class loved it, but most seem to share my indifference.)

So if everyone answered these questions truthfully, most of those who say “yes” are not what any reasonable person would call “drug users” (except in the “…but ye fuck one goat!” sense). However, the question is a simple “yes” or “no”, with space to explain on the back. I doubt any amount of explanation could head off the inevitable overreaction, with further questioning and investigation, probably counseling and monitoring, and possibly even denial of the license.

Then again, this is not an application to work at Blockbuster; this is an application for a license to prescribe drugs.

So, is a person who smoked a doob 4 1/2 years ago at a Phish concert and hated it morally obligated to answer that question truthfully? (Again, not my story…just an illustration.) Or does the current climate of overreaction toward drug use (no matter how insignificant) make a lie more forgivable in this case?

Dr. J

2

I’ve never exactly understood the purpose of questions like this on job applications. Yes or no questions, unless they’re face to face, tend to get very little feedback, and just encourage people to lie on these applications. Who in their right mind would ever answer yes to such a question, knowing the consequences, and not ever be able to provide context? What is the point of these sorts of questions on applications, that obviously HAVE a right answer?

3

Lie lie lie! I got turned down for medical insurance because I was truthful. I called and wrote letters to no avail. I was 23, and of course I had smoked some pot in college. I guess it’s part of the “zero-tolerance” mentality.

4

There are a few ways to answer this, I suppose.

  1. “yes.” and pray they hire you anyway.
  2. “no,” and pray they never ever ever EVER find out that you lied or you are completely fucked.
  3. “I refuse to answer this question because it’s illegal/immoral/irrelevant.” I have no earthly idea whether the question really is illegal. One would assume that it must be if it’s on the application, but you never can be too sure. After all, if 5 years happens to be past the statute of limitations for doing an illegal drug, then they’re asking you a question with the intention of punishing you for doing nothing wrong. That shouldn’t be right.

I apologize in advance for being completely unhelpful.

5

Lie. You are under no obligation whatsoever to truthfully answer a question you shouldn’t have been asked in the first place.

America’s drug problem is booze. It slaughters teen-boppers in cars by the thousands, shortens the lives of millions of addicts.

Of course, the drug war is probably working. Look at how low the Emergency Room stats on marijuana overdose have become!

6

You mentioned the phrase “morally obligated.” I imagine your question doesn’t concern whether or not you’d still land the job with a “Yes, I used drugs” answer. Rather, I believe you’re asking if it would be wrong to lie on the application.

Whatever good intentions the employer may have, this is a question he should not ask. In my opinion, you are actually morally obligated TO lie, in order to thward his unfair thwart.

If each and every applicant always answers “no” to the question of drugs, it might give the employer a hint that the question doesn’t belong on the application, or at least, that everyone is hip to his trick question.

7

Maybe you should answer with “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

8

I haven’t ever applied for a medical license, so I’m not sure, but isn’t there a part of the application where you swear that the answers you gave are all true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Does it mention the possibility of perjury charges? I seem to remember there was when I applied for the bar, but again, I’m not positive.

I differ with most of the sentiments here. Is the question relevant to those who will be practicing medicine, and prescribing drugs? Hell, yes. I feel better as a patient, and I’m sure the licensing people feel better, knowing that someone they certify as a doctor is not knocking back a couple Valium before surgery. And, IIRC, prescription drug abuse IS a problem within the medicial profession. I think they have every right, and I’m glad they ask the question.

I am also amazed at the number of people who advocate lying. Although I hate the whole “this is another sign about the deterioration of our society as a whole” bit, I am aghast that people say you should not only lie, but you have a “moral obligation TO lie.” Or that since the question shouldn’t have been asked, you have every right to lie (the same sentiment flying around in the Bill Clinton perjury thread). What the heck is that about? Lying is wrong. In this case, it keeps valuable information about somebody who may have somebody else’s life in their hands daily, from a licensing body.

And before the inevitable reactions come in, no lying is not ALWAYS wrong. If a psychopathic rapist with a gun asks me if my wife is in the next room, I’d probably consider that a good lie. However, in this case, the question was definately relevant, and the lie is to a licensing body that is there to try and make sure that the the wonderful people with Doctor before their name live up to the tough ideal they have.

9

It reminds me of the adage that No good ever came out of telling the truth. I agree that I wouldnt be too happy if the doctor treating me had popped down some Valium just before, but would I mind if he were a dope smoker? Not at all; in fact, Id much rather be treated by somebody who smoked dope than an habitual drinker.
So, unless and until they modified the question by asking, Have you used any illegal drug in the past five years, other than marijuana?, I`d recommend lying. Do we really want to stifle promising medical careers, because they happen to be both honest and a dope-smoker?

10

Truth is important. What if we had to complete a questionaire after driving every 1500 miles that asked if we had broken the speed limit? Speed kills. I think it is important for people to drive safely. Lives are at risk. How many folks would answer the question truthfully if they knew the truth would result in license suspension or a hefty fine? Is speeding as serious as smoking pot? Degrees are important. Which presents more risk to society? A doctor that smoked pot a couple of times during med school or a person that drives recklessly and often? But still the truth is the truth. No, I don’t know where I am going with this.

:rolleyes:

I think the medical profession should exert more energy and effort toward more “humane” teaching practices. I know there must be rigor and that weak students should be weeded out. Still, there should be more balance. I believe the methods they use encourage “unhealthy” choices. I would guess that the drug of choice could be some sort of upper.

11

People in positions of authority are not in a position to find out the truth about positions in which they exert their authority.

Thus, if the question is one in which the answer will affect their decision, they will not statistically find out the truth.

I do not like lying. I think the world is confusing enough as it is without people not telling the truth, especially about things which others have no reasonable access to (personal emotional states and thoughts, past events not subject to public scrutiny, etc). As such, I try to avoid answering questions in a fifth amendment sort of way; in such a manner, the person asking the question may not be better off, but they definitely aren’t worse off.

I would avoid answering the question even if the answer would affect me positively should the question be about something that it seems unreasonable to ask about.

The medical profession is not the DEA, and have no place to ask such questions except for purposes of study, in which case this is the wrong time to ask it. If I was unable to leave the question blank, I would answer “no” regardless of the factuality of the answer. The answer to the question “Have you used any illegal drugs in the past five years?” obviously cannot be indicative of an ability to be a doctor or similar professional; if anyone here thinks it can be, please speak up as I would appreciate understanding the motivation for asking this question. Barring that, I find the question to be inappropriate, and anyone with half a brain would know that because of the information thing I mentioned in my first paragraph, that the results of this question statistically tend toward what the test-takers believe the test-givers want to hear, and so truly add no objective information to anything, making it a senseless question.

I’m not going to suggest that the OP has such vast intelligence that he is the only one to see that there are, in fact, many people who have used drugs in the past five years who would not be considered users in any realistic sense. In fact, I have little doubt that even the test-givers know this to be the case.

Why this thread’s title is even a question when considering all of the foregoing is truly a mystery to me.

In summary: they do not seem to be in a position to ask, and even if they were the act of asking will give them skewed answers to the test-takers estimation of the test-givers desires, and as such the taker should either not answer or answer how they feel the test-givers would “like” them to (that is, so that the answer is part of a positive outcome). If that means lying, then lie. (saying this directly contradicts earlier posts of mine on lying, but such is life; I am a growing individual)

12

The difference is that Valium is not, per se, an illegal drug, so a doctor popping Valium, or even a doctor shooting up morphine, would not be lying by answering “no” to that question.

Personally, I think the question should be more along the lines of “have you, in the last 5 years, been a habitual user of any non-prescribed narcotic, hallucinogenic, or other habit-forming drug, or have you been treated, or told by a healthcare professional that you should be treated, for drug or alcohol addiction?”

Of course, that wasn’t the dilemma. I had to answer a similar one for a government security clearance, and when I answered truthfully that no, I had never smoked pot or taken any other nonprescribed drug, they didn’t believe me. I told them to go ahead and drug test me if they wanted; they didn’t.

13

Gotta be with Hamlet on this one. I’m pretty sure that most people would have to answer “Yes” to that question, if they were to be honest. I imagine that the group asking that question understands this and is prepared to handle the response in some way (knee-jerk to passivity).

When applying for a secure job w/ the Gub’ment, I was asked that question. I wanted to walk up to the proctor/person behind the desk and ask for a calendar :slight_smile: The advice here is to answer the question honestly.

Let’s say, hypothetically, of course, that I had responded with, “Duuuuuuuude!”. The SOP would have been an indepth interview with questions regarding when, how frequently, when the last time was, why, circumstances, etc. The purpose for the Gov. was that their security lies in me being “blackmailable” for any reason. A lot of that goes with the “nothing to hide” thing. If past “indescretions” are out in the open, it is difficult to use that information as leverage to extort information, etc.

14

I had the same experience as chula. If you really want that medical licence, then you know what you have to do.

Consider this. If you answer truthfully , some office worker will red flag your application. Then some supervisor will consider why he should stick his neck out for approving your application when he was already warned. (That takes a split second). This of course will all come out if you were sued for malpractice.

15

Med students must have changed since my day. We had a lot of stoners in my class at Johns Hopkins.

If you lie on the application for a license, and they find out, you are really, really, really screwed. I cannot emphasize this enough.

If you tell the truth, generally what happens (in Wisconsin anyway) is the Medical Examinng Board will ask you to be evaluated by a psychiatrist or addictionologist, and you might end up on whizz quizzes for a few years.

Feel free to email me with any questions. I have dealt with a number of medical examining boards in a number of states about these very issues. What they do can vary widely from state to state.

16

I was denied government security clearance for admitting use of an illegal drug. Not admitting I was a user, not admitting addiction, etc, but that, in fact, I had once (indefinite time period) used an illegal drug.

I told the truth thinking that telling the truth was the right thing to do. The interview ended when I answered “yes” to that question, though technically there were more questions to ask. I find the estimation that use of an illegal drug automatically implies untrustworthiness to be such an incredible error that I have never, ever thought the same of the government since.

As I said, I think it is immoral to lie in the general sense, but that actually figuring out whether it is immoral to lie in any particular case is a matter of context. Lying is not “the worst” thing you can do (and in my opinion there is no “worst thing”) and so there are times when one is compelled to lie because of other circumstances, not that one is compelled to lie for lyings’ sake.

Hamlet

I do not believe the quesion is valuable. The question seems patently absurd, in fact.

First, as it stands, it does not seperate the one-time user from the long-term abuser. Secondly, it assumes that only illegal drugs can impede functioning when legal drugs can and do as well (you know, the whole idea of warning labels on things so simple as cough medicine). Thirdly, if they rephrased the question to weed out my first point, then we are in a situation where the only people who must answer affirmative (and thus jeapordize their standing) know that the answer to this question will jeapordize their standing as a doctor. In such a case, if they had no intention of lying then they wouldn’t be taking the test since they would agree with the board’s determination of viability and know that they weren’t viable! Need I say, “duh?”

As such, asking the question will not provide or otherwise add factual information to the test-givers, and this makes it a worthless question for objectively or subjectively determining the fitness of the applicant.

So it is good to lie when you feel it is in your interest to do so, but it is bad to lie when it is in your interest to do so. Lying about drug use over the past five years seems particularly useless information for the reasons I gave above. In fact, your example further illustraes that for all its absurdity. Should the psychopathic rapist ask you where your wife is, he would also have to be a stupid psychopathic rapist to expect you to give an honest answer!

Do you see why the question is inappropriate from my view?

17

Yes, he would, because Valium or morphine, or codene, or pick your drug, is illegal to possess or use without a perscription.

And, that seems to be one of the main points of the question. They don’t want someone able to prescribe drugs if he has a tendency to abuse those drugs for personal use.

18

Oh, sorry, I forgot this is GD, not GQ. What is morally correct? If the lie covers up truly bad conduct or an addictive or other disorder, then I think it’s not defensible. If it covers normative behavior for the peer group you were in at that time, then I think it becomes more defensible. But again, if it’s found out, the individual is really, really gonna have licensure problems from then on.

19

Perhaps it’s intended as an I.Q. test. If you answer “Yes”, then it’s prima facie evidence that you’re too dumb to practice medicine.
More likely, though, it’s a way for the medical board to more easily discipline people who have a real problem and then lie about it - the lie may provide additional grounds for license suspension or revocation. As in the case of people who lie on the generic question “Do you have any physical or mental condition that would tend to impair your ability to practice medicine?”. I suspect there are more than a few people who fudge that one.

20

True, but:

a) that’s not how the original question is worded; and
b) lots of folks get addicted to prescription drugs as a result of having been originally prescribed the drug for a legitimate medical reason, but then using it far past the point where it should have been medically useful. So it’s perfectly possible to abuse a dangerous narcotic, but not be breaking the law. My sister got pretty hooked on painkillers after knee surgery, but they were prescribed to her, so how would she have been breaking the law?