1L Summer Job - Drug Tests Forum

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Or, do you guys think it'd be better to just withdraw without explaining the situation? Sorry for flooding the thread, I promise this is the last question I'll ask. Just frustrated at myself for not having the foresight to avoid this situation...

[Anonymous User]

My friend and I, both as 1Ls, both had smoked the wacky tobaccy, lied on the forms, worked for the DOJ, profited, were not tested. Live the dream and don't listen to these liberals

[Stanford4Me]

I remember a friend telling me they told the truth about it and the screener told them they should've just lied.


I cannot verify the accuracy of that statement, however, and this is not meant to serve as my advice for you to lie.

[Anonymous User]

you won't be tested as an intern. chill.

[Anonymous User]

I'm more concerned about the form...

[TaipeiMort]

I had to take one for my in-house internship. It even included a tobacco test, lulz.

Did they notify you beforehand they were drug testing you, or notify you the day you started?

How about you just go ahead and stop doing drugs.

Stop being a moralistic bitch.

Illegal is illegal.

I'm sure that your buds over at NAMBLA are saying the same morally-relativistic garbage. Ironically, I actually last heard your line from a bud of mine who liked to rob porn and liquour stores to "teach them a lesson," he didn't keep the goods, but loved escaping the police and scaring shop owners. Kid was a straightedge homeschooled Christian who thought that his moral view usurped the law.

As someone who has committed my share of assinine acts as a youth, I still wouldn't advise someone to break the law, as it does not make for a great ROI. I actually usually love these threads on TLS because it entertains me to see the cognitivie dissonance at work as people advise other people to risk everything in order vindicate their own moralistic leanings.

[fatduck]

Illegal is illegal.

I'm sure that your buds over at NAMBLA are saying the same morally-relativistic garbage. Ironically, I actually last heard your line from a bud of mine who liked to rob porn and liquour stores to "teach them a lesson," he didn't keep the goods, but loved escaping the police and scaring shop owners. Kid was a straightedge homeschooled Christian who thought that his moral view usurped the law.

As someone who has committed my share of assinine acts as a youth, I still wouldn't advise someone to break the law, as it does not make for a great ROI. I actually usually love these threads on TLS because it entertains me to see the cognitivie dissonance at work as people advise other people to risk everything in order vindicate their own moralistic leanings.

you should visit this thread http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=178262

[Anonymous User]

.

[AreJay711]

I had to take one for my in-house internship. It even included a tobacco test, lulz.

Wait a tobacco test? Did they care if you failed that part?

[MBZags]

I had to take one for my in-house internship. It even included a tobacco test, lulz.

Wait a tobacco test? Did they care if you failed that part?

Apparently.

The lady who administered it said it's a joke and basically impossible to test positive.

[Anonymous User]

Illegal is illegal.

I'm sure that your buds over at NAMBLA are saying the same morally-relativistic garbage. Ironically, I actually last heard your line from a bud of mine who liked to rob porn and liquour stores to "teach them a lesson," he didn't keep the goods, but loved escaping the police and scaring shop owners. Kid was a straightedge homeschooled Christian who thought that his moral view usurped the law.

As someone who has committed my share of assinine acts as a youth, I still wouldn't advise someone to break the law, as it does not make for a great ROI. I actually usually love these threads on TLS because it entertains me to see the cognitivie dissonance at work as people advise other people to risk everything in order vindicate their own moralistic leanings.

Did you not cover this in crim? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

[goodolgil]

^^ didn't mean to be anon

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know if the NY AG's office tests interns for the summer?

[romothesavior]

Illegal is illegal.

I'm sure that your buds over at NAMBLA are saying the same morally-relativistic garbage. Ironically, I actually last heard your line from a bud of mine who liked to rob porn and liquour stores to "teach them a lesson," he didn't keep the goods, but loved escaping the police and scaring shop owners. Kid was a straightedge homeschooled Christian who thought that his moral view usurped the law.

As someone who has committed my share of assinine acts as a youth, I still wouldn't advise someone to break the law, as it does not make for a great ROI. I actually usually love these threads on TLS because it entertains me to see the cognitivie dissonance at work as people advise other people to risk everything in order vindicate their own moralistic leanings.

Did you not cover this in crim? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Yeah Jesus, this. Unreal. TaipeiMort, have you ever written a single thing that didn't suck horribly?

Pretty sure almost no firms test. Someone earlier in the thread said they do, and I am almost positive that is incorrect (had a conversation with a paralegal about it one time). Government employers and in-house are probably a yes, but firms are usually a no.

[Anonymous User]

USAO will ask if you've done any drugs in the past year, if you answer yes its an automatic DQ. Lying on a federal form is a big deal and if you do it definitely don't plan on working there again (apparently they polygraph their permanent hires) Some offices will have you fill out an SF 86 form which asks you to list all the drugs you've done in the past 7 years.

i suspect that USAO/DA only require SF 85P, which only requires you to disclose drug use in the past year.

SF85P is indeed the form for the USAO. It's basically a "Sensitive" clearance, I believe.

Have the form in front of me and it says "standard form 86" and asks me for my drug history going back 7 years. I have friends looking at other offices and they only had to do the SF 85 so I think it depends on the office you are looking at. I'd say its best to expect the SF86 form if you are going for a big city office and the SF 85 for other ones.

[kalvano]

I'm at the Dallas office, which isn't, you know, tiny.

[Anonymous User]

Thats weird I'd expect the dallas office to be similar to the one I applied to. SInce I'm anon it was the southern district of california office.

[kalvano]

I guess it's just office-particular.

[TaipeiMort]

Illegal is illegal.

I'm sure that your buds over at NAMBLA are saying the same morally-relativistic garbage. Ironically, I actually last heard your line from a bud of mine who liked to rob porn and liquour stores to "teach them a lesson," he didn't keep the goods, but loved escaping the police and scaring shop owners. Kid was a straightedge homeschooled Christian who thought that his moral view usurped the law.

As someone who has committed my share of assinine acts as a youth, I still wouldn't advise someone to break the law, as it does not make for a great ROI. I actually usually love these threads on TLS because it entertains me to see the cognitivie dissonance at work as people advise other people to risk everything in order vindicate their own moralistic leanings.

Did you not cover this in crim? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Yeah Jesus, this. Unreal. TaipeiMort, have you ever written a single thing that didn't suck horribly?

Pretty sure almost no firms test. Someone earlier in the thread said they do, and I am almost positive that is incorrect (had a conversation with a paralegal about it one time). Government employers and in-house are probably a yes, but firms are usually a no.

Seriously. How can either of you make statements like that while maintaining even a shred of intellectual honesty? First, I am not into the prohibita/per se game. Pretty much all of our laws are byproduct of public choice compromises, and by trying to fit laws into these two categories requires godly intuition.

But, to play...

Sure, it makes sense to you guys that smoking a bloke with your bros is mala prohibita. It would probably make more sense to card fat poor kids at Taco Bell-- I'm sure this would do more to increase American life expectancy than restrictions on several current controlled substances. Additionally, World of Warcraft players probably experience many of the same downside effects of depression, anxiety, social isolation, unproductiveness, retardation, etc. as pot addicts.

It would be awesome if the government evenly enforced like-controlled substances, or got out of the regulation game of non-deadly substances.

However, I can definitely see some some mala per se grounds for marijuana. I have worked with indigent peoples across the world that have been absolutely jacked by alchohol, pot, and non-deadly opiate use. Addictive substances lead to deviate and unproductive behaviors, which lead ultimately to failure of entire groups of people. People are not at their best when addicted. I worked with one group in Asia where all adults sat around the table all day chewing, smoking, and boozing. Their children were raised by others, and they had no investment in any type of success at all. Some would argue that prohibiting addictive substances will make for ultimately better societies, and some evidence would agree.

Just because you can't comprehend moral views of others doesn't mean they don't have arguments for their side. You are the same as Sarah Palin and her crew of Bible-thumping moralists-- you refuse to see both sides of issues.

[romothesavior]

You compared smoking marijuana to robbery and pedophilia and equated us all to Sarah Palin Bible-thumpers. But yes, you're right... The rest of us are the ones who can't maintain a shred of intellectual honesty. Super cool story bro.

You are an awful poster. Just thought you should know.

[omninode]

So sick of people who have no problem slamming prescription pills by the dozen (many of which can actually kill you) but think marijuana is the devil. Grow up.

[Anonymous User]

Lumping pot smoking, as unproductive as it is, into the same category as child rape and robbery is extremely retarded. Your friend is not a straightedge home schooled Christian, he's a brainwashed nut job; and I guarantee you he was keeping the goods.

Everyone knows the best way to not fail a drug test is to not do drugs. No one is telling the kid to keep smoking and not worry. That would also be retarded.

[Anonymous User]

Haven't touched a thing since before law school started. But, might just barely be within one year. I don't know what to do...already accepted the DOJ offer.

And, I don't have many other things that I could potentially do this summer.

You're absolutely fine. Don't freak out about it.

[Anonymous User]

But, to play...

Sure, it makes sense to you guys that smoking a bloke with your bros is mala prohibita. It would probably make more sense to card fat poor kids at Taco Bell-- I'm sure this would do more to increase American life expectancy than restrictions on several current controlled substances. Additionally, World of Warcraft players probably experience many of the same downside effects of depression, anxiety, social isolation, unproductiveness, retardation, etc. as pot addicts.

There is no such thing. This speaks to how ignorant people are. Pot addicts? Give me a fucking break.