Some reactions:
The first one (the one who claimed ignorance) is a pretty clear case for denial in my opinion Interesting about the statement, though; sounds like they requested one which was not provided.
The second case is a little less clear to me, although it seems that if this person admitted to smoking weed up until Feb 2019 and the case has already been heard and denied, it sounds like there may not have been much time from the last use to when they applied for the clearance. That’s a problem, along with the rather casual admission that he still would like to smoke. Honest, perhaps, but not a good move at this stage.
The last case reflects an innovative approach to the law… continue violating existing laws in anticipation that they may be changed in the future.
What is interesting about all these cases is the bit about future intent. Does that fall under any of the adjudicative guidelines? I mean, I’m sure there’s something in there about likelihood of future use but is there a policy requiring a clear statement that the applicant does not intend to continue?