• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

When should I apply for CHP?

i never said a bad word about the CHP officers. i only spoke of the CHP agency's hiring practices and desires.


i know well of what i speak, i've been thru the hiring process for many departments, i did A LOT of researching (official and word of mouth) for CHP, before i applyed. when it comes to drugs and CHP, i know more than your average joe. i certinly can not be described as someone that 'clearly does not know of what i speak"


and departments position on drug us is ANYTHING BUT CLEAR according the the extensive research i've done. plenty of former addicts are carring a gun and wearing blue. so it IS IN FACT tolerated (to some extent) and in some cases. personally i find it sad that most officers out there, sent to enforce drug laws, have little or no personal experience with them; which to me, is not only pathetic - but limits the expertise and discretionary ability of our police force
 
SpeedyCorky said:
i never said a bad word about the CHP officers. i only spoke of the CHP agency's hiring practices and desires.
Click to expand...

You said "the CHP want nice and sober silly mamas boys ....." therefore any person hired would be considered a nice and sober mama's boy.

Additionally, are you saying that any Officer who does not drink, can not investigate drunk drivers?

I've never taken LSD, but I know what someone under the influence of LSD looks like.

I've never taken Ambien but I've seen people under the influence driving their vehicles while "asleep".
 
what CHP wants, and what they actually end up with is often not the same - however the rule does apply for a lot of the new hires that i've seen

i'm not able to get into a debate about if knowing about something, and having 1st hand experience with it - is a desired quality before enforcing it as law, is a good thing or not ... :rolleyes
 
SpeedyCorky said:
what CHP wants, and what they actually end up with is often not the same - however the rule does apply for a lot of the new hires that i've seen

i'm not able to get into a debate about if knowing about something, and having 1st hand experience with it - is a desired quality before enforcing it as law, is a good thing or not ... :rolleyes
Click to expand...


The two above statements make so sense to me, perhaps I'm just being dense.

In a age when agencies are lowering their standards to accept some drug use, we have not. The rules for what is and what is not accepted are quite clear.

Having first hand experience is an added bonus when investigating crimes as well as testifying however its not necessary.

Again, I don't have to use drugs to understand the effects of drug use. I don't have to be a car thief to know what to look for when dealing with a car thief.
 
SpeedyCorky said:
i find it sad that most officers out there, sent to enforce drug laws, have little or no personal experience with them; which to me, is not only pathetic - but limits the expertise and discretionary ability of our police force
Click to expand...



lol.
 
Rel said:
The departments position on drug use is very clear, we don't tolerate it. If people don't like it, apply elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Ok but what is there policy with people who have used in the past but it is no longer an activity he/she participates in? Is there a time frame or is it a case by case bases? Does this 3 year rule stand or is it false? I was scheduled to take a test in September and just a few weeks ago I backed out because I was worried my history would ruin my chances.
 
SpeedyCorky said:
what CHP wants, and what they actually end up with is often not the same - however the rule does apply for a lot of the new hires that i've seen

i'm not able to get into a debate about if knowing about something, and having 1st hand experience with it - is a desired quality before enforcing it as law, is a good thing or not ... :rolleyes
Click to expand...

...and the police investigate murders, rape, child abuse, robbery, burglary, etc. without having personal experience in committing those crimes. It's about time LE Agencies start hiring all sorts of criminals with first hand experience. :rolleyes
 
bojangle said:
...and the police investigate murders, rape, child abuse, robbery, burglary, etc. without having personal experience in committing those crimes. It's about time LE Agencies start hiring all sorts of criminals with first hand experience. :rolleyes
Click to expand...

...unfortunately, you're analogy falls into the category of a "slippery slope" and is a fallacy, otherwise known as not a logical conclusion.
"The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. " (from wikipedia)
Its something they teach in Logic 101, a class offered at major universities and local community colleges alike. It is my sincere hope that all LEOs are required to take this course prior to law enforcement. It is this type of slippery slope logic that leads to excessive law enforcement, in my opinion.

... personal recreational drug use experience (particularly as a teen) is in no way analogous to personal experience committing murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.
in my opinion, experience with the effects of drugs and why people (especially young people) take them would lead to understanding by law enforcement officers.
...and yes, it is wise to seek the expertise of people with first-hand criminal experience. for example: ex-gang members, former-"terrorists," white-collar criminals all would provide you with valuable insight into how these types of operations work and how to disrupt them.
 
I think what SpeedyCorky is saying is that he's upset that he got DQ'd for telling the truth when they told him to, while others got in by lying about their drug use.

It hink Many honest applicants who smoked for two months in highschool are very upset about this.

haha and please don;t respond with BS about the the Poly and readings/vs personal background.

Fact is, lots of HONEST people got turned down for life for folks that have done drugs continuasly and were smart enough to figure out how to answer.......but maybe PD/CHP arnt looking for honesty, theyre looking for smart folks that know how to get what they want
 
Last edited:
Speedycorky speaks well for himself, actually. No translation needed.

The rest of your rant isn't that helpful, more on the verge of bashing.

Just sayin' ...
 
redwood650 said:
Ok but what is there policy with people who have used in the past but it is no longer an activity he/she participates in? Is there a time frame or is it a case by case bases? Does this 3 year rule stand or is it false? I was scheduled to take a test in September and just a few weeks ago I backed out because I was worried my history would ruin my chances.
Click to expand...


Anyone?:nerd
 
3 year rule stands for all departments as far as i've heard of. 3 years off EVERYTHING including weed. so far as i've heard, they wont even LOOK at you if you say you've smoked within the past 3 years. so go smoke cigs and booze it up, if thats your fancy. i dunno how'd they feel about prescribed pharmaceutical drugs

for harder stuff like LSD, X, heroin, and likely others; they usually want 7 or 10 years, or might just DQ you for life
 
Last edited:
Just keep in mind that the entire process is designed to disqualify as opposed to qualify you, from the start. If it's not on record, who cares if it was 2 months of pot in high school, a single experimentation, or none at all. Will it have any effect on you as a future leo? Highly unlikely that it will. No one knows the truth except you. Regardless of the department policy of however many years, you don't know how the person going through your file personally feels on the issues of marijuana or anything else, they might not care for it that much or think it's the devils lettuce.
 
redwood650 said:
Anyone?:nerd
Click to expand...

case by case. that part of the hiring process will come out during the polygraph exam. you tell the story (what, when, how long ago, etc) and then they report your reaction to the question again when you're hooked up.
:nerd
 
kat gixxer said:
case by case. that part of the hiring process will come out during the polygraph exam. you tell the story (what, when, how long ago, etc) and then they report your reaction to the question again when you're hooked up.
:nerd
Click to expand...

Which in itself is an inadequate application of the polygraph when it comes to pre-employment testing.
 
kat gixxer said:
case by case. that part of the hiring process will come out during the polygraph exam. you tell the story (what, when, how long ago, etc) and then they report your reaction to the question again when you're hooked up.
:nerd
Click to expand...

gotNINJA said:
Which in itself is an inadequate application of the polygraph when it comes to pre-employment testing.
Click to expand...

gotNINJA, care to explain?
 
Thanks for the tips. I wish it was a bit more clear though. I am just gonna wait a little and then consider applying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top