544
the dilemma
(discuss.tchncs.de)
image description:
using the famous inside you three are two wolves template.
the headline says, "inside you there are two wolves"
the text on top of black wolf reads, "tell her the importance of libre software, and how I use services", while on top of white wolf the text reads, "don't reveal too much information. she might be a CIA glowie"
"I'd like to talk to you about some cool software, but would you mind taking these illegal drugs with me first? You know, the whole fed thing."
IIRC undercovers have, in the past, taken drugs to 'fit in' and keep their cover. The guidance to undercovers is probably 'try to avoid it' but the directive of 'don't get caught' and 'try not to die' probably override that.
I saw a documentary where a guy started to use drugs to keep his cover, then got addicted and got pushed down an elevator shaft.
I watched one about penguins.
Did they snort heroin too?
I don't think so, but there was a suspiciously white powder, like, everywhere.
I guess that explains why they’re always throwing up so much. Into their kids’ mouths, even. ODs here, there, everywhere, all the time.
What if you do it with weed though? Drug tests for stuff like cocaine and meth aren't very reliable but testing positive for nonpsychoactive thc metabolites on every drug test for the next 4 months because you had to smoke a joint to "fit in" is going to have a good chance at threatening any government employee's career. They normally let people go over that in a heartbeat no matter how valuable they are. I'm having a hard time believing that there would ever be any situation where the feds wouldn't fire one of their own people over thc. Company policy usually trumps all other reasoning. Under the federal drug free workplace policy if you test positive you get fired. That's the rule.
Them: "That's a myth, actually, they can totally do drugs undercover."
Me: "Do you want some free acid the CIA made or not?"