DOJ honors policy Forum

[Anonymous User]

It just confuses me why everyone gets so worked up over governments issue with drugs. Drugs are not cool, they are not normal, and they are against the law. So just don't fucking do it.

Life must be remarkably simple when you have an IQ of 90.

Awesome dude, people get worked up because most use it to relax and let off stress or when chillin with their friends, yet its against the law and you get fucked for using. Show me health studies that show pot is worse than coffee, and I know drinking is much worse than pot. I honestly cannot beleive that DOJ will disqualify you for recreational marijuana use, I know traders blowin lines of coke during bathroom breaks. Just kind of bullshit and plays more into the whole lawyers suck vibe. And, drugs....are sort of normal, everyone I know enjoys a little toke now and then at least and all of them are successful or doing interesting things. It's kind of a shame that DOJ disqualifies people like this and almost forces them to lie. Why can't I smoke an want to be a part of DOJ? Are all government agencies like this? I can't beleive you get punished for having fun in college.

Lol at the dumbest post i've ever read.

If you are going to work as someone who is explicitly trying to uphold the law, then breaking it regularly is not something that will fly with your employer. And its not just lawyers, its pretty much every job in every federal agency. And the MAJORITY of people have fun while upholding the law. Go back to Ridgemont High, Spicoli.

Good one, I must be a dumb stoner that talks slow because I enjoy smoking weed. I just think it is bullshit that marijuana habits from college can affect your employment. Also, the MAJORITY of people I know have fun while getting blackout drunk, hooking up and doing various drugs, I guess we have different samples.

[Patriot1208]

This whole debate will be really fun when California legalizes marijuana in a few months.

In any case, I'd certainly love to work for the DOJ and I'd like to think that I have the background, grades, and skills to be an effective advocate for the government. But I also like occasionally smoking pot after work.

The DOJ is certainly within their rights to exclude folk like me from their talent pool, but singling out marijuana users is wrongheaded and ultimately not in the national interest. It used to be that "practicing homosexuals" were also categorically denied security clearance. After all, gay sex was illegal and homosexuals were seen to be craven weak-willed folk. Thankfully we've progressed as a society. Hopefully in the coming years we'll be able to progress a little more.

And the MAJORITY of people have fun while upholding the law.

Actually, according to the government itself over half of Americans age 18-35 have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pub ... t/druguse/

Lol at another terrible argument. Once =/= doing illegal things to have fun. And marijuana legalization (as a federal law) is not happening anytime soon enough to effect our job propsects. And the DOJ has their pick of the talent pool, so singling out people who continually do things that violate federal law, does not hurt them or the country whatsoever. And its also OUTRAGEOUS that you compare drug users to those homosexuals who have been discriminated against.

[ggocat]

1. So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

2. And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

1. no.
2. you are not asked this question per se. You might be asked this question in an interview if you have an MIP on your record. Just answer truthfully, and it won't be a serious red flag.

[Patriot1208]

So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

I mean, I'm all for recruiting law-abiding people, but let's not look at this is strictly black and white.

No, you'd be fine. Generally, its about 7-12 uses and not within 3-5 years. And later on the drinking isn't a problem, it was for me because when I applied for my TS I was 20.

[romothesavior]

1. So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

2. And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

1. no.
2. you are not asked this question.

So why did previous posters imply that marijuana use within the last 5-7 years would bar you from DOJ, and why did another poster say that his use of alcohol as a minor slowed up his application process? Genuinely curious...

[vanwinkle]

There are a couple posts I did not out because they might actually link the user (who is kind of dumb enough to use something approaching a real name as a TLS handle) to drug use. However, if he/she keeps posting using the anonymous feature I will out him/her. Everyone else has been outed for abusing the anonymous feature.

Also, policy arguments over drug law and whether it's necessary belong in the Lounge, not the Employment forum. OP needs help with a specific issue, not with whether or not marijuana or other drug use is morally right.

Behave, or else.

[Patriot1208]

1. So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

2. And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

1. no.
2. you are not asked this question.

So why did previous posters imply that marijuana use within the last 5-7 years would bar you from DOJ, and why did another poster say that his use of alcohol as a minor slowed up his application process? Genuinely curious...

Read my above post. If you appply to the DOJ honors program at the end of law school, and have not done marijuana since, you will be fine. I'm pretty sure its usually around not within 3 years (this can be flexible, slightly) and not more then like 12 times your entire life. And for me the underage drinking was a problem due to me being 20 when I applied for my TS.

[ggocat]

1. So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

2. And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

1. no.
2. you are not asked this question.

So why did previous posters imply that marijuana use within the last 5-7 years would bar you from DOJ, and why did another poster say that his use of alcohol as a minor slowed up his application process? Genuinely curious...

Read my above post. If you appply to the DOJ honors program at the end of law school, and have not done marijuana since, you will be fine. I'm pretty sure its usually around not within 3 years (this can be flexible, slightly) and not more then like 12 times your entire life. And for me the underage drinking was a problem due to me being 20 when I applied for my TS.

And just to clarify further, even habitual (more than 12 times) will not "bar" or "disqualify" an applicant. It's up to the individual reviewers/division. But lying about it will certainly get you barred/disqualified.

[romothesavior]

There are a couple posts I did not out because they might actually link the user (who is kind of dumb enough to use something approaching a real name as a TLS handle) to drug use. However, if he/she keeps posting using the anonymous feature I will out him/her. Everyone else has been outed for abusing the anonymous feature.

Also, policy arguments over drug law and whether it's necessary belong in the Lounge, not the Employment forum. OP needs help with a specific issue, not with whether or not marijuana or other drug use is morally right.

Behave, or else.

VW, I love you. Really I do. And I really appreciate you outing people for abusing the anon feature, because that is annoying.

But we are "behaving." If every poster or thread that strayed a bit from the OP was banned or moved to the lounge, this site would cease to exist.

[vanwinkle]

VW, I love you. Really I do. And I really appreciate you outing people for abusing the anon feature, because that is annoying.

But we are "behaving." If every poster or thread that strayed a bit from the OP was banned or moved to the lounge, this site would cease to exist.

I think I'm irritated because half the policy arguments, and especially the worst ones, were being made by "anonymous users". You're right in that things should not be stifled too much, also, I'll agree with that. I want to stay out of things until they really get out of hand, but once they do...

I just want people to be mindful of what they're really saying, and whether they're being helpful or not. These public forums are meant to be helpful, and raging policy debates breaking out in them doesn't help the people who actually need help.

Sometimes that takes a little policy arguing, but people have got to be more civil. Of course, if they weren't hiding under anonymity maybe they would've been more civil in the first place...

Anyway, carry on. I'm starting to derail this thread myself, and I don't want to.

[Patriot1208]

VW, I love you. Really I do. And I really appreciate you outing people for abusing the anon feature, because that is annoying.

But we are "behaving." If every poster or thread that strayed a bit from the OP was banned or moved to the lounge, this site would cease to exist.

I think I'm irritated because half the policy arguments, and especially the worst ones, were being made by "anonymous users". You're right in that things should not be stifled too much, also, I'll agree with that. I want to stay out of things until they really get out of hand, but once they do...

I just want people to be mindful of what they're really saying, and whether they're being helpful or not. These public forums are meant to be helpful, and raging policy debates breaking out in them doesn't help the people who actually need help.

Sometimes that takes a little policy arguing, but people have got to be more civil. Of course, if they weren't hiding under anonymity maybe they would've been more civil in the first place...

Anyway, carry on. I'm starting to derail this thread myself, and I don't want to.

I doubt it will carry on as it seems the one proponent of toking up at his lunch break with the DOJ has taken the hint and distanced himself from the thread.

[vanwinkle]

I doubt it will carry on as it seems the one proponent of toking up at his lunch break with the DOJ has taken the hint and distanced himself from the thread.

As one of the people who was posting anonymously, I really hope you've taken the hint as well.

[deadhipsters]

Hey, this is a little off topic: But, does anyone know what kind of scrutiny applicants to say, the Manhattan DA's Office, are put under in terms of drug use, etc? Is there a polygraph or is this generally limited to Federal jobs?

[Patriot1208]

I doubt it will carry on as it seems the one proponent of toking up at his lunch break with the DOJ has taken the hint and distanced himself from the thread.

As one of the people who was posting anonymously, I really hope you've taken the hint as well.

It was only one post, everything substantive was not anonymous.

[Patriot1208]

Hey, this is a little off topic: But, does anyone know what kind of scrutiny applicants to say, the Manhattan DA's Office, are put under in terms of drug use, etc? Is there a polygraph or is this generally limited to Federal jobs?

I don't have first hand experience like I do with the federal jobs. But there is zero chance there is a polygraph. And probably just a current drug test, with a look into any questionable criminal/credit records.

[romothesavior]

So basically, if I want the lifestyle of hookers and blow, I should avoid the DOJ? Or just wait til after I get hired?

[Patriot1208]

So basically, if I want the lifestyle of hookers and blow, I should avoid the DOJ? Or just wait til after I get hired?

lol I would say avoid, because your security clearance does have to be renewed every five years (for a TS).

[deadhipsters]

Hey, this is a little off topic: But, does anyone know what kind of scrutiny applicants to say, the Manhattan DA's Office, are put under in terms of drug use, etc? Is there a polygraph or is this generally limited to Federal jobs?

I don't have first hand experience like I do with the federal jobs. But there is zero chance there is a polygraph. And probably just a current drug test, with a look into any questionable criminal/credit records.

Great. Thanks. It's odd that NYC pushes the polygraph on NYPD recruits and not prospective ADA's.

[romothesavior]

So basically, if I want the lifestyle of hookers and blow, I should avoid the DOJ? Or just wait til after I get hired?

lol I would say avoid, because your security clearance does have to be renewed every five years (for a TS).

Looks like I'll be avoiding the Departttment of Justttice then.

Anybody know how many people DOJ takes straight outta LS a year? Pay? What they look for in new hires (besides top grades from top schools)? I mean, I'm sure my little WUSTTTL ass won't be getting DOJ, but I'm curious now. Is there a thread re: DOJ?

[deadhipsters]

http://www.justice.gov/oarm/arm/hp/lawschools.htm

There used to be a site that listed it in terms of applicants per school. Not too sure where that is.

[EijiMiyake]

So basically, if I want the lifestyle of hookers and blow, I should avoid the DOJ? Or just wait til after I get hired?

lol I would say avoid, because your security clearance does have to be renewed every five years (for a TS).

Looks like I'll be avoiding the Departttment of Justttice then.

Anybody know how many people DOJ takes straight outta LS a year? Pay? What they look for in new hires (besides top grades from top schools)? I mean, I'm sure my little WUSTTTL ass won't be getting DOJ, but I'm curious now. Is there a thread re: DOJ?

I don't have a link, but I've heard that the HP is about 150 hires per year. There are some good threads on Autoadmit about hiring and apps.

[ScaredWorkedBored]

??? Eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eyewitness testimony from likely drug users that's nearly a decade old. Sounds like a surefire conviction to me.

You haven't taken any courses that have touched on how federal court usually works out for defendants, have you?

-

In any case, there should be a sticky telling people they shouldn't lie on security clearance papers and no, the federal government really does take a dim view of its employees engaging in what it considers criminal activity. Really.

[dailygrind]

Hey, this is a little off topic: But, does anyone know what kind of scrutiny applicants to say, the Manhattan DA's Office, are put under in terms of drug use, etc? Is there a polygraph or is this generally limited to Federal jobs?

I don't have first hand experience like I do with the federal jobs. But there is zero chance there is a polygraph. And probably just a current drug test, with a look into any questionable criminal/credit records.

Great. Thanks. It's odd that NYC pushes the polygraph on NYPD recruits and not prospective ADA's.

It is pretty strange, but the polygraph isn't terribly accurate, so I could see why some would choose not to administer it.

[Anonymous User]

For those who are well informed on the policy:

Let's say regular (once/week) use of marijuana for a period of a year in college, but no use since (and absolutely non since law school, approx. 50 times).

Is this an automatic ding? Likely ding? Non-issue if you admit it?

[Anonymous User]

For those who are well informed on the policy:

Let's say regular (once/week) use of marijuana for a period of a year in college, but no use since (and absolutely non since law school, approx. 50 times).

Is this an automatic ding? Likely ding? Non-issue if you admit it?

Not automatic ding.
Not likely ding.
Not a complete non-issue, but if you don't admit, and they find out, it's likely ding (maybe auto).

/speculation (I went through process without drug use during the time period, but from chatting with others on the job, I gathered that disclosure is not a likely ding)