Pros/cons of disclosing marijuana for USAO intern Forum

[Anonymous User]

Those saying that you should disclose it because it will be caught in a later background check. How would they find out occasional marijuana use in college?

On a more in depth background check, they will talk to people from your past, and you can't control what people will say/whether they will bring it up, so it's just better to be honest. It truly is the case that the dishonesty is an order of magnitude more serious than smoking weed casually years ago and there is a non-zero chance the former will get you dinged and a zero percent chance the latter will. It makes no sense to lie.

[Anonymous User]

Those saying that you should disclose it because it will be caught in a later background check. How would they find out occasional marijuana use in college?

On a more in depth background check, they will talk to people from your past, and you can't control what people will say/whether they will bring it up, so it's just better to be honest. It truly is the case that the dishonesty is an order of magnitude more serious than smoking weed casually years ago and there is a non-zero chance the former will get you dinged and a zero percent chance the latter will. It makes no sense to lie.

Yeah, when you fill out the background check stuff, you have to give names of people who’ve known you in all stages of your life, and they can/will ask those people for names of other people to talk to. You also don’t know what people will/won’t say to an FBI investigator. (Someone came to talk to my school who had grown up on a reservation, and he said that when he had his background check, his friends started calling him up saying, “the FBI was asking about you, we said we didn’t know you!” He had to tell them, PLEASE talk to the FBI. No real lesson here, I just like this story.)

Now, it’s not likely that they will go to this full extent for an internship (they often operate on whether there’s a prima facie issue). But the problem is that what you say now stays in the system forever, so IF you apply for a permanent job down the line, AND they do the full background check later, AND they talk to the wrong person… you’ve dinged yourself forever for lying. And since, as everyone has said, smoking pot in college won’t ding you, it’s not worth it, even if the consequences seem remote.

Last thing - basically, lying on the form about something like this signals that you’re willing to lie to put yourself in a better position. That is absolutely a red flag for a position that requires scrupulous candor.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone disclosed anything other than marijuana or know how they view it?

[Anonymous User]

Knew someone who disclosed occasional c usage after college (but before law school). He/she got the job but they had to write a bunch of essays about how it was bad and they wouldn’t do it again. They also had a very heavy weight judge pushing the office to hire them.

[Anonymous User]

Knew someone who disclosed occasional c usage after college (but before law school). He/she got the job but they had to write a bunch of essays about how it was bad and they wouldn’t do it again. They also had a very heavy weight judge pushing the office to hire them.

A judge pushing to hire someone has no bearing on the OARM process, so I wouldn’t take this into account.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone ever disclosed adderall use?

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone ever disclosed adderall use?

With or without prescription?

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone ever disclosed adderall use?

With or without prescription?

Without.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone ever disclosed adderall use?

With or without prescription?

Without.

I have a friend who disclosed this during law school who didn’t have a problem. But he did clerk so was a year or two past last use. When they say they decide on a case by case basis about suitability, they really mean it.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone ever disclosed adderall use?

With or without prescription?

Without.

I have a friend who disclosed this during law school who didn’t have a problem. But he did clerk so was a year or two past last use. When they say they decide on a case by case basis about suitability, they really mean it.

That’s really helpful, thank you. Do you know if he had to get a security clearance or just suitability?

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone ever disclosed adderall use?

With or without prescription?

Without.

I have a friend who disclosed this during law school who didn’t have a problem. But he did clerk so was a year or two past last use. When they say they decide on a case by case basis about suitability, they really mean it.

That’s really helpful, thank you. Do you know if he had to get a security clearance or just suitability?

For all DOJ jobs you need both. To be honest, many people will be cleared regardless of drug use history. Suitability is the real kicker when it comes to this kind of thing.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone ever disclosed adderall use?

With or without prescription?

Without.

I have a friend who disclosed this during law school who didn’t have a problem. But he did clerk so was a year or two past last use. When they say they decide on a case by case basis about suitability, they really mean it.

That’s really helpful, thank you. Do you know if he had to get a security clearance or just suitability?

For all DOJ jobs you need both. To be honest, many people will be cleared regardless of drug use history. Suitability is the real kicker when it comes to this kind of thing.

Is that right? My understanding was that security clearance was the harder part to get past, but admittedly I do not know much about the process.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone ever disclosed adderall use?

With or without prescription?

Without.

I have a friend who disclosed this during law school who didn’t have a problem. But he did clerk so was a year or two past last use. When they say they decide on a case by case basis about suitability, they really mean it.

That’s really helpful, thank you. Do you know if he had to get a security clearance or just suitability?

For all DOJ jobs you need both. To be honest, many people will be cleared regardless of drug use history. Suitability is the real kicker when it comes to this kind of thing.

Is that right? My understanding was that security clearance was the harder part to get past, but admittedly I do not know much about the process.

I thought the forms only asked for the past 7 years? What if by the time that you are doing the security clearance it has been past 7 tears since college?

[Anonymous User]

With or without prescription?

Without.

I have a friend who disclosed this during law school who didn’t have a problem. But he did clerk so was a year or two past last use. When they say they decide on a case by case basis about suitability, they really mean it.

That’s really helpful, thank you. Do you know if he had to get a security clearance or just suitability?

For all DOJ jobs you need both. To be honest, many people will be cleared regardless of drug use history. Suitability is the real kicker when it comes to this kind of thing.

Is that right? My understanding was that security clearance was the harder part to get past, but admittedly I do not know much about the process.

I thought the forms only asked for the past 7 years? What if by the time that you are doing the security clearance it has been past 7 tears since college?

You’re good then. But my understanding is if you disclose anything in the last 7 years, then they ask for lifelong history

[Anonymous User]

Without.

I have a friend who disclosed this during law school who didn’t have a problem. But he did clerk so was a year or two past last use. When they say they decide on a case by case basis about suitability, they really mean it.

That’s really helpful, thank you. Do you know if he had to get a security clearance or just suitability?

For all DOJ jobs you need both. To be honest, many people will be cleared regardless of drug use history. Suitability is the real kicker when it comes to this kind of thing.

Is that right? My understanding was that security clearance was the harder part to get past, but admittedly I do not know much about the process.

I thought the forms only asked for the past 7 years? What if by the time that you are doing the security clearance it has been past 7 tears since college?

You’re good then. But my understanding is if you disclose anything in the last 7 years, then they ask for lifelong history

This is correct. Disclosure of any drug use in last seven years means you get a follow up request for life use. The lifetime usage request is only for suitability. Clearance only asks for last seven years regardless of what you report. Suitability is a higher bar than clearance at least when it comes to use of illegal drugs.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the person who first mentioned not disclosing, wanted to respond to the knights in shining armor who ridiculed that decision.

Some said: "Prosecutors with instinct to lie or hide things are bad."

My response: I'm more worried about prosecutors, like some of *you*, who have no sense of proportion or ability to think with their minds rather than according to the edicts they are given from above. The schedule 1 classification of marijuana is one of the most unjust, stupid laws currently in force by the United States. Treating an insane, deeply stupid law as more important than your own critical thinking is highly concerning. It's this type of black and white thinking that leads prosecutors to think of defendants as animals who need to be locked away. It's the type of thinking that leads you to throw the book at someone when society will not benefit from that. YOU have prosecutorial discretion. It's the most important part of your job. Use it.

Some said: "Oh well if you smoked once in law school just disclose it, what's the problem? Just don't use it again."

My response: clearly none of you grew up in Colorado. Are any of you in West Coast USAOs? There are many AUSAs for whom marijuana was or is a regular part of their lives. It's part of the family they grew up in. It's part of the culture of the town they are from. They aren't addicts or abusers, but it is ubiquitous in their lives. Maybe they use it regularly, or maybe they don't. People like us have learned that there is nothing to be gained by putting our names on the line to explain these details to someone whose job is to look at a piece of paper and decide to hire or not hire you based on whether you say you smoked weed a month ago. And given the existence of stick-up-their-ass AUSAs like those in this thread, I'd say we're making the right decision. When something is otherworldly stupid and you clearly have no means to change it yourself, just don't mention it.

These laws also disproportionality target people of color. Let’s not advise black people to put up barriers to their own success (and give racists an opportunity to deny their applications), okay? A lot of privileged takes in this thread.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the person who first mentioned not disclosing, wanted to respond to the knights in shining armor who ridiculed that decision.

Some said: "Prosecutors with instinct to lie or hide things are bad."

My response: I'm more worried about prosecutors, like some of *you*, who have no sense of proportion or ability to think with their minds rather than according to the edicts they are given from above. The schedule 1 classification of marijuana is one of the most unjust, stupid laws currently in force by the United States. Treating an insane, deeply stupid law as more important than your own critical thinking is highly concerning. It's this type of black and white thinking that leads prosecutors to think of defendants as animals who need to be locked away. It's the type of thinking that leads you to throw the book at someone when society will not benefit from that. YOU have prosecutorial discretion. It's the most important part of your job. Use it.

Some said: "Oh well if you smoked once in law school just disclose it, what's the problem? Just don't use it again."

My response: clearly none of you grew up in Colorado. Are any of you in West Coast USAOs? There are many AUSAs for whom marijuana was or is a regular part of their lives. It's part of the family they grew up in. It's part of the culture of the town they are from. They aren't addicts or abusers, but it is ubiquitous in their lives. Maybe they use it regularly, or maybe they don't. People like us have learned that there is nothing to be gained by putting our names on the line to explain these details to someone whose job is to look at a piece of paper and decide to hire or not hire you based on whether you say you smoked weed a month ago. And given the existence of stick-up-their-ass AUSAs like those in this thread, I'd say we're making the right decision. When something is otherworldly stupid and you clearly have no means to change it yourself, just don't mention it.

These laws also disproportionality target people of color. Let’s not advise black people to put up barriers to their own success (and give racists an opportunity to deny their applications), okay? A lot of privileged takes in this thread.

Oh for crying out loud. Yet again, no one is going to get dinged for admitting that they have smoked pot. It’s not up to one individual just to decide what they think of your application; these checks go through layers of review. And no one is prosecuting anyone for admitting that on an application. It’s not a barrier to black applicants passing the background check.

Now, the truth that you are mixing your criticism up with is that yes, criminal drug laws are often disproportionately enforced against people of color. But the issue that raises for a background check is a history of stops, arrests, or convictions. And there isn’t even the tiniest leg to stand on to claim that you shouldn’t disclose something that’s in your criminal record. Which can definitely be unfair and make it harder for people of color to pass the background check, and I agree that that’s a problem. I think it the profession would be enriched by being more open to people who’ve had issues with the law in the past, depending on what they were and the evidence that the person has put this behind them. But this has nothing to do with what happens if you admit to smoking pot in college.

(Now, if you and the histrionic poster you quote are arguing that you should be able to keep smoking pot as a federal prosecutor and lie about it, that’s a different issue, I’m sympathetic, but good luck with that. I’m not saying the law is right, just that if you use regularly the chances of concealing that aren’t good.)

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone ever disclosed adderall use?

With or without prescription?

Without.

I have a friend who disclosed this during law school who didn’t have a problem. But he did clerk so was a year or two past last use. When they say they decide on a case by case basis about suitability, they really mean it.

Do you know how frequently your friend used it?

[Anonymous User]

As another data point, I disclosed adderall and alcohol abuse, as well as pot/coke/mushrooms/LSD/DMT use. All was 3+ years old except pot, which was 1+ year old.

There were some extra hoops to jump through but ultimately it was fine. I got the internship. I think they were surprised by the disclosures but really appreciated the honesty.

[Anonymous User]

I’m wondering if it’s worth it to apply with my background until I can say that I haven’t used marijuana in the last seven years.

When I was in high school, I received three juvenile delinquency adjudications/convictions/whatever over the course of three years: one for marijuana possession, one for underage drinking, and one for drinking/running from the police. It was a bad time in my life and helped motivate me to go to college, which led me to law school. During that time in high school, I used marijuana regularly, used psychedelics twice, and prescription meds four times. I have not used any drug, other than marijuana, for over a decade.

I had marijuana one time six years ago, right before I went to law school. I may have used it twice after my arrests, including that one time towards the end of college. I’d have to disclose that one time use because it’s in the requisite window of time, but if it’s coupled with my juvenile record (which is sealed, but still accessible to the feds/a required disclosure on SF-86), I’m worried that it’ll be a hassle.

I’m getting pushed very hard for an AUSA position in my hometown and some powerful figures are really trying to get it to happen for me. Everything seems to be lining up perfectly for it in the next year. But as much as I want the position, I always envisioned waiting until there’s enough time since I used marijuana (maybe ten years) so that I can present less issues for a security clearance. If any disclosure about marijuana use six years ago would require the investigators to ask more about my background, I’m worried that the cumulative effect of what I did over a decade ago would ruin my chances. Am I being overdramatic? I’m more worried about embarrassing my recommenders if this all works out (and assume for my sake that I would actually get the position). I couldn’t imagine having to explain to people that I greatly admire why I couldn’t pass a security clearance.

[Anonymous User]

I’m wondering if it’s worth it to apply with my background until I can say that I haven’t used marijuana in the last seven years.

When I was in high school, I received three juvenile delinquency adjudications/convictions/whatever over the course of three years: one for marijuana possession, one for underage drinking, and one for drinking/running from the police. It was a bad time in my life and helped motivate me to go to college, which led me to law school. During that time in high school, I used marijuana regularly, used psychedelics twice, and prescription meds four times. I have not used any drug, other than marijuana, for over a decade.

I had marijuana one time six years ago, right before I went to law school. I may have used it twice after my arrests, including that one time towards the end of college. I’d have to disclose that one time use because it’s in the requisite window of time, but if it’s coupled with my juvenile record (which is sealed, but still accessible to the feds/a required disclosure on SF-86), I’m worried that it’ll be a hassle.

I’m getting pushed very hard for an AUSA position in my hometown and some powerful figures are really trying to get it to happen for me. Everything seems to be lining up perfectly for it in the next year. But as much as I want the position, I always envisioned waiting until there’s enough time since I used marijuana (maybe ten years) so that I can present less issues for a security clearance. If any disclosure about marijuana use six years ago would require the investigators to ask more about my background, I’m worried that the cumulative effect of what I did over a decade ago would ruin my chances. Am I being overdramatic? I’m more worried about embarrassing my recommenders if this all works out (and assume for my sake that I would actually get the position). I couldn’t imagine having to explain to people that I greatly admire why I couldn’t pass a security clearance.

Honestly I feel like this is so long ago that it won’t be an issue. It’s been literally six years since you did anything “wrong,” and even longer than that since the high school stuff. I think you’d be ok.

[Anonymous User]

I’m wondering if it’s worth it to apply with my background until I can say that I haven’t used marijuana in the last seven years.

When I was in high school, I received three juvenile delinquency adjudications/convictions/whatever over the course of three years: one for marijuana possession, one for underage drinking, and one for drinking/running from the police. It was a bad time in my life and helped motivate me to go to college, which led me to law school. During that time in high school, I used marijuana regularly, used psychedelics twice, and prescription meds four times. I have not used any drug, other than marijuana, for over a decade.

I had marijuana one time six years ago, right before I went to law school. I may have used it twice after my arrests, including that one time towards the end of college. I’d have to disclose that one time use because it’s in the requisite window of time, but if it’s coupled with my juvenile record (which is sealed, but still accessible to the feds/a required disclosure on SF-86), I’m worried that it’ll be a hassle.

I’m getting pushed very hard for an AUSA position in my hometown and some powerful figures are really trying to get it to happen for me. Everything seems to be lining up perfectly for it in the next year. But as much as I want the position, I always envisioned waiting until there’s enough time since I used marijuana (maybe ten years) so that I can present less issues for a security clearance. If any disclosure about marijuana use six years ago would require the investigators to ask more about my background, I’m worried that the cumulative effect of what I did over a decade ago would ruin my chances. Am I being overdramatic? I’m more worried about embarrassing my recommenders if this all works out (and assume for my sake that I would actually get the position). I couldn’t imagine having to explain to people that I greatly admire why I couldn’t pass a security clearance.

Honestly I feel like this is so long ago that it won’t be an issue. It’s been literally six years since you did anything “wrong,” and even longer than that since the high school stuff. I think you’d be ok.

Thanks for that. I figure being honest about disclosure is the best route here (with regard to everything within that seven year window).