AUSA drug use question Forum

[Anonymous User]

The idea that smoking weed after one is barred suggests you might practice law while high is silly. But then so is this entire process. Smoked weed a few times 6.5 years ago? Sorry, you're morally bankrupt. We're gonna hire the candidate who smoked it 7 years ago.

This isn’t really how it works. Smoking weed can be a disqualifier, but I know more than a few people who smoked weed in college and at least two who also smoked in law school (all pre-bar exam though) that passed OARM suitability and gained a clearance. Context, recency, and attitude all play a role

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Is it so crazy that prosecutors be expected to not have regularly committed crimes as an adult? I mean, this isn't a speeding ticket here. Would expect that someone who regularly shoplifts from 7-11 would also fail a background check. And don't start with the "well, it is a personal decision and doesn't hurt anyone" line. Society, through the federal congress, has determined that use of drugs is inherently dangerous and unlawful. You are free to disagree, but routinely breaking the law is certainly a relevant factor in determining if you are qualified to serve as a prosecutor.

There is a pretty sizable group of people who have never used drugs, and certainly never as an adult, and feels like that is the more natural group to become prosecutors. I certainly would be very nervous about starting a background check if I had any post-undergrad drug use.

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Okay? What do you expect anyone here to do about it? I don’t understand who you’re bitching at.

[uygiugiyugyugk]

context, recency, attitude.

weed is better than hard drugs. much better.

using illegal drugs (weed) while a prosecutor or cop is specifically asked about on the SF86 (clearance) form. this is looked upon harshly. similarly, using while holding a clearance is a problem.

otherwise, as long as there's been 1+ year between your application and last use of weed, should be fine. you'll be asked to sign a statement of intent to not use again.

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Is it so crazy that prosecutors be expected to not have regularly committed crimes as an adult? I mean, this isn't a speeding ticket here. Would expect that someone who regularly shoplifts from 7-11 would also fail a background check. And don't start with the "well, it is a personal decision and doesn't hurt anyone" line. Society, through the federal congress, has determined that use of drugs is inherently dangerous and unlawful. You are free to disagree, but routinely breaking the law is certainly a relevant factor in determining if you are qualified to serve as a prosecutor.

There is a pretty sizable group of people who have never used drugs, and certainly never as an adult, and feels like that is the more natural group to become prosecutors. I certainly would be very nervous about starting a background check if I had any post-undergrad drug use.

We've had presidents admit to drug use. C'mon. The drug laws need to come in line with reality.

[Moneytrees]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Is it so crazy that prosecutors be expected to not have regularly committed crimes as an adult? I mean, this isn't a speeding ticket here. Would expect that someone who regularly shoplifts from 7-11 would also fail a background check. And don't start with the "well, it is a personal decision and doesn't hurt anyone" line. Society, through the federal congress, has determined that use of drugs is inherently dangerous and unlawful. You are free to disagree, but routinely breaking the law is certainly a relevant factor in determining if you are qualified to serve as a prosecutor.

There is a pretty sizable group of people who have never used drugs, and certainly never as an adult, and feels like that is the more natural group to become prosecutors. I certainly would be very nervous about starting a background check if I had any post-undergrad drug use.

.

[Anonymous User]

I have a close friend that works in the government in a very confidential position (not a lawyer but probably has met the president or sees him regularly).

When he applied for the position, I got a call to give him a reference. They asked about his family and how much money they have. They asked about various addictions (gambling, drugs etc.) When I asked my friend why he laughed and said they ask about those things to see if he has anything he can be blackmailed for.

[Anonymous User]

I have a close friend that works in the government in a very confidential position (not a lawyer but probably has met the president or sees him regularly).

When he applied for the position, I got a call to give him a reference. They asked about his family and how much money they have. They asked about various addictions (gambling, drugs etc.) When I asked my friend why he laughed and said they ask about those things to see if he has anything he can be blackmailed for.

Yes, these are standard questions on security clearance investigations, which can be quite intrusive.

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Is it so crazy that prosecutors be expected to not have regularly committed crimes as an adult? I mean, this isn't a speeding ticket here. Would expect that someone who regularly shoplifts from 7-11 would also fail a background check. And don't start with the "well, it is a personal decision and doesn't hurt anyone" line. Society, through the federal congress, has determined that use of drugs is inherently dangerous and unlawful. You are free to disagree, but routinely breaking the law is certainly a relevant factor in determining if you are qualified to serve as a prosecutor.

There is a pretty sizable group of people who have never used drugs, and certainly never as an adult, and feels like that is the more natural group to become prosecutors. I certainly would be very nervous about starting a background check if I had any post-undergrad drug use.

mans really went from weed to shoplifting to make a point...

[Anonymous User]

I have a close friend that works in the government in a very confidential position (not a lawyer but probably has met the president or sees him regularly).

When he applied for the position, I got a call to give him a reference. They asked about his family and how much money they have. They asked about various addictions (gambling, drugs etc.) When I asked my friend why he laughed and said they ask about those things to see if he has anything he can be blackmailed for.

Yup, that’s exactly why those questions are asked.

[Anonymous User]

I have a close friend that works in the government in a very confidential position (not a lawyer but probably has met the president or sees him regularly).

When he applied for the position, I got a call to give him a reference. They asked about his family and how much money they have. They asked about various addictions (gambling, drugs etc.) When I asked my friend why he laughed and said they ask about those things to see if he has anything he can be blackmailed for.

Yup, that’s exactly why those questions are asked.

How is this different from like the govt firing anyone gay back in the 50s? It's only an issue if being found out is blackmailable. If you don't care then there's nothing to blackmail.

[Anonymous User]

I have a close friend that works in the government in a very confidential position (not a lawyer but probably has met the president or sees him regularly).

When he applied for the position, I got a call to give him a reference. They asked about his family and how much money they have. They asked about various addictions (gambling, drugs etc.) When I asked my friend why he laughed and said they ask about those things to see if he has anything he can be blackmailed for.

Yup, that’s exactly why those questions are asked.

How is this different from like the govt firing anyone gay back in the 50s? It's only an issue if being found out is blackmailable. If you don't care then there's nothing to blackmail.

A lot of people do care about being outed for having various addictions, though. The only people I know who are open about their addictions are those who have got treatment and are in recovery and have come out the other side, not people who are currently in the throes of one. To be clear, I'm not talking about smoking pot recreationally; I'm talking about actual addictions.

(I also probably shouldn't have said "exactly," because blackmail isn't the only issue; there's also the concern that addictions will lead to financial troubles, which can make you susceptible to bribery, as well as just the fact that addictions tend not to encourage good judgment. Obviously the vast majority of AUSAs are never going to be in a situation where anyone is going to want to blackmail/bribe them, so yeah, it's unrealistic, but the whole point of a background check is to CYA.)

[Anonymous User]

The idea that smoking weed after one is barred suggests you might practice law while high is silly. But then so is this entire process. Smoked weed a few times 6.5 years ago? Sorry, you're morally bankrupt. We're gonna hire the candidate who smoked it 7 years ago.

Pretty sure no one here is actually advocating for the federal policy, just trying to figure it out and help others figure it out. So not sure what point this post is trying to make.

(FWIW though, the issue isn’t that oh no! you might practice law while high!, it’s that you’re applying for a job enforcing federal law at the same time that you’ve broken federal law, which goes to the concern that the post above yours raises about you being places where federal law is being broken without doing anything. Still probably not a convincing policy when applied to weed, but it’s a tiny bit less silly than the (non-existent) fear that you’ll practice while high.)

You are directly defending the federal policy though. I hear this argument all the time and it's just so stupid. No one is *EVER* charged federally for small-time personal use of weed. And everyone has broken the law at least once in their life. It does not follow from that you should be forever disqualified from taking part in law enforcement. As if cops and prosecutors are holy warriors washed in the blood of the lamb and utterly above reproach. Stop rationalizing the hyperfixation on innocuous drug use by making garbage arguments like this.

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Is it so crazy that prosecutors be expected to not have regularly committed crimes as an adult? I mean, this isn't a speeding ticket here. Would expect that someone who regularly shoplifts from 7-11 would also fail a background check. And don't start with the "well, it is a personal decision and doesn't hurt anyone" line. Society, through the federal congress, has determined that use of drugs is inherently dangerous and unlawful. You are free to disagree, but routinely breaking the law is certainly a relevant factor in determining if you are qualified to serve as a prosecutor.

There is a pretty sizable group of people who have never used drugs, and certainly never as an adult, and feels like that is the more natural group to become prosecutors. I certainly would be very nervous about starting a background check if I had any post-undergrad drug use.

You're right. It's not a speeding ticket. It's less than a speeding ticket. No one is ever punished federally for small amounts of weed. And before you bring up the "feeding the market" bullshit, the federal government ITSELF is actively declining to enforce federal law against dispensaries that sell huge quantities of weed in broad daylight pursuant to state law. And in fact the federal government is generating revenue from such activities by collecting taxes from these dispensaries.

I agree with the general argument that prosecutors should be law-abiding people. Of course they should. But this purely formalistic argument about how the fact that you've technically broken a law that is never actually enforced against anyone shows you are unfit to be a prosecutor is laughable.

I also understand that the wisdom of this policy has nothing to do with the fact that it is a practical reality for AUSA applicants. And therefore we have to learn to deal with it. But don't defend the merits of the stupid policy.

[Anonymous User]

The idea that smoking weed after one is barred suggests you might practice law while high is silly. But then so is this entire process. Smoked weed a few times 6.5 years ago? Sorry, you're morally bankrupt. We're gonna hire the candidate who smoked it 7 years ago.

Pretty sure no one here is actually advocating for the federal policy, just trying to figure it out and help others figure it out. So not sure what point this post is trying to make.

(FWIW though, the issue isn’t that oh no! you might practice law while high!, it’s that you’re applying for a job enforcing federal law at the same time that you’ve broken federal law, which goes to the concern that the post above yours raises about you being places where federal law is being broken without doing anything. Still probably not a convincing policy when applied to weed, but it’s a tiny bit less silly than the (non-existent) fear that you’ll practice while high.)

You are directly defending the federal policy though. I hear this argument all the time and it's just so stupid. No one is *EVER* charged federally for small-time personal use of weed. And everyone has broken the law at least once in their life. It does not follow from that you should be forever disqualified from taking part in law enforcement. As if cops and prosecutors are holy warriors washed in the blood of the lamb and utterly above reproach. Stop rationalizing the hyperfixation on innocuous drug use by making garbage arguments like this.

Please chill. I said that justifying asking about drug use on the basis that a prosecutor shouldn’t have broken the law is, when applied to weed, only a tiny bit less silly than justifying asking about drug use out of a fear that a prosecutor might practice law while high (which is what you offered and isn’t a thing). Nothing about what I said is a defense of disqualifying someone for smoking weed. It was a correction of you offering an incorrect justification for the policy.

That said, virtually no one gets disqualified for having smoked weed at some point in the past, so this concern is overblown. It’s true that, as of now, the federal government doesn’t want to hire prosecutors who currently regularly use weed, but that’s not the same as forever disqualifying anyone for having broken the law once.

I do think the presumption that someone who’s comfortable breaking federal law may not be as appropriate a federal prosecutor as someone who isn’t is reasonable enough, in a vacuum. But that presumption isn’t ever applied in a vacuum. It’s all fact-specific. How that principle applies to smoking weed will continue to evolve as attitudes continue to change and the federal drug laws change with them.

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Is it so crazy that prosecutors be expected to not have regularly committed crimes as an adult? I mean, this isn't a speeding ticket here. Would expect that someone who regularly shoplifts from 7-11 would also fail a background check. And don't start with the "well, it is a personal decision and doesn't hurt anyone" line. Society, through the federal congress, has determined that use of drugs is inherently dangerous and unlawful. You are free to disagree, but routinely breaking the law is certainly a relevant factor in determining if you are qualified to serve as a prosecutor.

There is a pretty sizable group of people who have never used drugs, and certainly never as an adult, and feels like that is the more natural group to become prosecutors. I certainly would be very nervous about starting a background check if I had any post-undergrad drug use.

You're right. It's not a speeding ticket. It's less than a speeding ticket. No one is ever punished federally for small amounts of weed. And before you bring up the "feeding the market" bullshit, the federal government ITSELF is actively declining to enforce federal law against dispensaries that sell huge quantities of weed in broad daylight pursuant to state law. And in fact the federal government is generating revenue from such activities by collecting taxes from these dispensaries.

I agree with the general argument that prosecutors should be law-abiding people. Of course they should. But this purely formalistic argument about how the fact that you've technically broken a law that is never actually enforced against anyone shows you are unfit to be a prosecutor is laughable.

Pretty sure there is something to the notion that we don't want prosecutors who willfully violate a federal law knowing that you're doing so on the basis that enforcement is lax.

No shortage of talent for AUSAs, so all else being equal I'd prefer to not have the one that willfully violates the law because they disagree with the policy.

It's not hard to abstain from smoking weed, and fed questionnaires go back long enough so if you do it in college it's NBD.

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Is it so crazy that prosecutors be expected to not have regularly committed crimes as an adult? I mean, this isn't a speeding ticket here. Would expect that someone who regularly shoplifts from 7-11 would also fail a background check. And don't start with the "well, it is a personal decision and doesn't hurt anyone" line. Society, through the federal congress, has determined that use of drugs is inherently dangerous and unlawful. You are free to disagree, but routinely breaking the law is certainly a relevant factor in determining if you are qualified to serve as a prosecutor.

There is a pretty sizable group of people who have never used drugs, and certainly never as an adult, and feels like that is the more natural group to become prosecutors. I certainly would be very nervous about starting a background check if I had any post-undergrad drug use.

You're right. It's not a speeding ticket. It's less than a speeding ticket. No one is ever punished federally for small amounts of weed. And before you bring up the "feeding the market" bullshit, the federal government ITSELF is actively declining to enforce federal law against dispensaries that sell huge quantities of weed in broad daylight pursuant to state law. And in fact the federal government is generating revenue from such activities by collecting taxes from these dispensaries.

I agree with the general argument that prosecutors should be law-abiding people. Of course they should. But this purely formalistic argument about how the fact that you've technically broken a law that is never actually enforced against anyone shows you are unfit to be a prosecutor is laughable.

Pretty sure there is something to the notion that we don't want prosecutors who willfully violate a federal law knowing that you're doing so on the basis that enforcement is lax.

No shortage of talent for AUSAs, so all else being equal I'd prefer to not have the one that willfully violates the law because they disagree with the policy.

It's not hard to abstain from smoking weed, and fed questionnaires go back long enough so if you do it in college it's NBD.

This is a ridiculous straw man. Enforcement is not lax. It is non-existent. And it's more than that: The federal government is actively collecting revenue from the market for weed like it does for other lawful businesses. This represents a decision from the highest levels of the executive branch not to enforce the law in this way.

My argument doesn't need to rely on a policy disagreement. It has to do with whether a given activity would make your enforcement of the law as an AUSA hypocritical because of unclean hands. I'm showing you exactly why personal weed use is in no way inconsistent with respect for (and compliance with) the law. And you're obtusely regurgitating the same argument without really addressing the question, which boils down essentially to practical reality be damned.

[Anonymous User]

The other thing to keep in mind is that one reason they ask about drug use isn’t even because they worry about drug use/you breaking the law (though they do), but to see if you’re going to be fully forthcoming and candid. As my investigator put it, the concern is that if you lie on the background check to make yourself look better, are you going to uphold all the ethical requirements around candor etc when it matters?

(Similarly, she said she was relieved when I said I have a couple of drinks a month because if someone says they don’t drink at all, the investigator has to dig further into it - are you in recovery, do you have medical issues, or are you lying about your amount of use? And yes it’s all completely intrusive and invasive and I get people don’t like it. Given the ethical system we have, though, there’s a logic to it. And working as a prosecutor, I also kind of get it. Candor and openness and disclosure are HUGE responsibilities in criminal law and if you have issues with any of those things it creates a ton of problems.)

[Anonymous User]

The other thing to keep in mind is that one reason they ask about drug use isn’t even because they worry about drug use/you breaking the law (though they do), but to see if you’re going to be fully forthcoming and candid. As my investigator put it, the concern is that if you lie on the background check to make yourself look better, are you going to uphold all the ethical requirements around candor etc when it matters?

(Similarly, she said she was relieved when I said I have a couple of drinks a month because if someone says they don’t drink at all, the investigator has to dig further into it - are you in recovery, do you have medical issues, or are you lying about your amount of use? And yes it’s all completely intrusive and invasive and I get people don’t like it. Given the ethical system we have, though, there’s a logic to it. And working as a prosecutor, I also kind of get it. Candor and openness and disclosure are HUGE responsibilities in criminal law and if you have issues with any of those things it creates a ton of problems.)

I absolutely agree that applicants should never lie about drug use on an application form. Honesty is 100% relevant to fitness to be an AUSA. And I think it's fine that the background check process is invasive. I was just showing why weed use itself (as opposed to lying about weed use) should not disqualify someone from service.

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Is it so crazy that prosecutors be expected to not have regularly committed crimes as an adult? I mean, this isn't a speeding ticket here. Would expect that someone who regularly shoplifts from 7-11 would also fail a background check. And don't start with the "well, it is a personal decision and doesn't hurt anyone" line. Society, through the federal congress, has determined that use of drugs is inherently dangerous and unlawful. You are free to disagree, but routinely breaking the law is certainly a relevant factor in determining if you are qualified to serve as a prosecutor.

There is a pretty sizable group of people who have never used drugs, and certainly never as an adult, and feels like that is the more natural group to become prosecutors. I certainly would be very nervous about starting a background check if I had any post-undergrad drug use.

You're right. It's not a speeding ticket. It's less than a speeding ticket. No one is ever punished federally for small amounts of weed. And before you bring up the "feeding the market" bullshit, the federal government ITSELF is actively declining to enforce federal law against dispensaries that sell huge quantities of weed in broad daylight pursuant to state law. And in fact the federal government is generating revenue from such activities by collecting taxes from these dispensaries.

I agree with the general argument that prosecutors should be law-abiding people. Of course they should. But this purely formalistic argument about how the fact that you've technically broken a law that is never actually enforced against anyone shows you are unfit to be a prosecutor is laughable.

Pretty sure there is something to the notion that we don't want prosecutors who willfully violate a federal law knowing that you're doing so on the basis that enforcement is lax.

No shortage of talent for AUSAs, so all else being equal I'd prefer to not have the one that willfully violates the law because they disagree with the policy.

It's not hard to abstain from smoking weed, and fed questionnaires go back long enough so if you do it in college it's NBD.

This is a ridiculous straw man. Enforcement is not lax. It is non-existent. And it's more than that: The federal government is actively collecting revenue from the market for weed like it does for other lawful businesses. This represents a decision from the highest levels of the executive branch not to enforce the law in this way.

My argument doesn't need to rely on a policy disagreement. It has to do with whether a given activity would make your enforcement of the law as an AUSA hypocritical because of unclean hands. I'm showing you exactly why personal weed use is in no way inconsistent with respect for (and compliance with) the law. And you're obtusely regurgitating the same argument without really addressing the question, which boils down essentially to practical reality be damned.

But even if the law is just a formalistic shell at this point (which it is not, even it is rarely prosecuted), it is still the law, so your personal weed use is by definition not compliant with the law. I mean, if you want to smoke weed, just go do one of the 100s of legal jobs that doesn't require you not to smoke weed -- I don't understand the intense vitriol here over a pretty straightforward policy.

[Anonymous User]

But even if the law is just a formalistic shell at this point (which it is not, even it is rarely prosecuted), it is still the law, so your personal weed use is by definition not compliant with the law. I mean, if you want to smoke weed, just go do one of the 100s of legal jobs that doesn't require you not to smoke weed -- I don't understand the intense vitriol here over a pretty straightforward policy.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think smoking weed inherently makes someone a bad prosecutor (unless you have an actual problem, like not being able to get through the work day without smoking - like booze, basically). Nor do I think the feds should ask about mj use on a background check (in a hypothetical universe where it's legal everywhere - plenty of jurisdictions still fine you for possession, so no issues with asking about that; it's like motor vehicle stuff, I don't think the feds should ask if you speed, but no issue with having to report tickets). But I also don't see it as a *travesty* that they ask.

At the very least, if you work as a federal prosecutor you're going to be a very small cog in a very big machine and you don't really have any control over where that machine goes. I think every thoughtful prosecutor has to deal with some ambivalence about the policies they enforce at some point on the job, but at some point if your disagreement is that fundamental, it's probably not the job for you.

[Anonymous User]

grumble grumble this is a profession grumble and we must at all costs grumble grumble avoid the semblance grumble of impropriety.

Is it so crazy that prosecutors be expected to not have regularly committed crimes as an adult? I mean, this isn't a speeding ticket here. Would expect that someone who regularly shoplifts from 7-11 would also fail a background check. And don't start with the "well, it is a personal decision and doesn't hurt anyone" line. Society, through the federal congress, has determined that use of drugs is inherently dangerous and unlawful. You are free to disagree, but routinely breaking the law is certainly a relevant factor in determining if you are qualified to serve as a prosecutor.

There is a pretty sizable group of people who have never used drugs, and certainly never as an adult, and feels like that is the more natural group to become prosecutors. I certainly would be very nervous about starting a background check if I had any post-undergrad drug use.

You're right. It's not a speeding ticket. It's less than a speeding ticket. No one is ever punished federally for small amounts of weed. And before you bring up the "feeding the market" bullshit, the federal government ITSELF is actively declining to enforce federal law against dispensaries that sell huge quantities of weed in broad daylight pursuant to state law. And in fact the federal government is generating revenue from such activities by collecting taxes from these dispensaries.

I agree with the general argument that prosecutors should be law-abiding people. Of course they should. But this purely formalistic argument about how the fact that you've technically broken a law that is never actually enforced against anyone shows you are unfit to be a prosecutor is laughable.

Pretty sure there is something to the notion that we don't want prosecutors who willfully violate a federal law knowing that you're doing so on the basis that enforcement is lax.

No shortage of talent for AUSAs, so all else being equal I'd prefer to not have the one that willfully violates the law because they disagree with the policy.

It's not hard to abstain from smoking weed, and fed questionnaires go back long enough so if you do it in college it's NBD.

This is a ridiculous straw man. Enforcement is not lax. It is non-existent. And it's more than that: The federal government is actively collecting revenue from the market for weed like it does for other lawful businesses. This represents a decision from the highest levels of the executive branch not to enforce the law in this way.

My argument doesn't need to rely on a policy disagreement. It has to do with whether a given activity would make your enforcement of the law as an AUSA hypocritical because of unclean hands. I'm showing you exactly why personal weed use is in no way inconsistent with respect for (and compliance with) the law. And you're obtusely regurgitating the same argument without really addressing the question, which boils down essentially to practical reality be damned.

1. The feds collect income from all sources of illegal activity. Literally provided in the IRC.

2. It's by definition not compliant with the law. Feel free to twist yourself around the axle but I personally would not make the legal argument that freedom from consequences by virtue of nonenforcement is the same as compliance.

3. I'm saying I don't have any sympathy for people who want to smoke weed and be AUSAs. Choose one or the other, it's perfectly just that our government demands you obey federal law (to the extent you are conscious of it) as a condition to employment as a member of the enforcement arm of the federal government. If you have the credentials to be an AUSA, you can smoke weed if it really matters that much to you or you can opt for one of the many other prestigious career paths that should otherwise be open to you given such credentials. I literally knew someone in LS who didn't smoke because he had BIGFED dreams and didn't want to be DQ'd, works for the DOJ now - call him a square but he had an ounce of fucking foresight and decided the career was more important than a drug.

[Anonymous User]

Nobody is saying that, as a practical matter, it's not prudent to abstain if this is the job you want. The question is if it is something that should be in the background check in the first place. I have never smoked weed so I guess I'm personally a square if you will, but I find the "square" argument itt unconvincing. If you're not going to ask if you ever went through a red light why ask this?

It does make sense to ask general questions about addictive behavior, which should include clearly legal behavior such as alcohol.

[Anonymous User]

Nobody is saying that, as a practical matter, it's not prudent to abstain if this is the job you want. The question is if it is something that should be in the background check in the first place. I have never smoked weed so I guess I'm personally a square if you will, but I find the "square" argument itt unconvincing. If you're not going to ask if you ever went through a red light why ask this?

It does make sense to ask general questions about addictive behavior, which should include clearly legal behavior such as alcohol.

Actually, the original question was whether a certain behavior would create problems in the background check. I don't think anyone was ever asking if mj use should be in the background check, until someone came in ranting about the injustice. I also don't think the people saying that it goes to whether you're willing to break federal law are necessarily even saying that those questions *should* be in the background check; there's a difference between saying "I think the feds *should* ask about mj use" and "here are some of the reasons why the feds *do* ask about mj use." Personally, I don't think the feds should ask about it (outside of life-impairing addictions or encounters with law enforcement), but I also see a logic in asking people about whether they've done something that is, federally, still illegal, even if I don't think it's necessary.