Pros/cons of disclosing marijuana for USAO intern Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do people regularly disclose old marijuana use for USAO internships? Tried once in college 4+ years ago, kind of a narc now, paranoid about disclosing but also about the lie being an issue later

[Anonymous User]

Do people regularly disclose old marijuana use for USAO internships? Tried once in college 4+ years ago, kind of a narc now, paranoid about disclosing but also about the lie being an issue later

Just disclose. If they find out you lie, things are much much worse.

[Anonymous User]

Do people regularly disclose old marijuana use for USAO internships? Tried once in college 4+ years ago, kind of a narc now, paranoid about disclosing but also about the lie being an issue later

Yes, they do disclose (assuming it's in the time frame asked about). Trying MJ once in college is not going to keep you from getting an internship.

[Anonymous User]

You should absolutely disclose. I was honest about how much weed I smoked in college (and my experimental use of other drugs) for internships at a USAO and Main Justice on my SF-86s, and it was a procedural headache at most. For the volunteer USAO job, they just made me write an additional letter explaining a bit more about my drug history. For the Main Justice job, because they were paying me and I technically had disclosed simultaneous use of two different drugs, I had to talk to the person conducting my suitability review, which was stressful but ultimately pretty perfunctory.

That being said, you shouldn't lie on your SF-86, for hopefully obvious ethical reasons. And if that's not enough for you (and it should be), while they may not call your references for a volunteer internship (although I've head of it happening for certain USAOs), if you want to work for DOJ down the line, they'll conduct a full-blown background check, and if they find things inconsistent with the SF-86 you file for this internship, you'll be in for a world of pain.

[Anonymous User]

I disclosed for my internship and it was fine. They made me write a letter where I basically apologized, said I was immature kid, and I wouldn't do it again. Don't lie about these things. One, if they find out you lied it's essentially over for you and, two, if you want to be an AUSA you really shouldn't be lying about this stuff on a more professional/moral level.

[Anonymous User]

Alternate perspective from someone who didn't: don't. Creating a record of lawbreaking seems like not the right thing to do (IMO).

[Anonymous User]

Alternate perspective from someone who didn't: don't. Creating a record of lawbreaking seems like not the right thing to do (IMO).

Hope you don’t join the federal government then! Prosecutors willing to lie gives me the ick (as a someone who is one at DOJ).

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Appreciate the feedback. The near unanimous opinion of those I talked to at my school who filled out this form was to not disclose, which surprised me.

[Anonymous User]

Alternate perspective from someone who didn't: don't. Creating a record of lawbreaking seems like not the right thing to do (IMO).

Hope you don’t join the federal government then! Prosecutors willing to lie gives me the ick (as a someone who is one at DOJ).

Seconded (as another fed prosecutor). Covering unfavorable things up and hoping they don't get discovered is not the right instinct to have.

[Anonymous User]

Alternate perspective from someone who didn't: don't. Creating a record of lawbreaking seems like not the right thing to do (IMO).

Hope you don’t join the federal government then! Prosecutors willing to lie gives me the ick (as a someone who is one at DOJ).

Seconded (as another fed prosecutor). Covering unfavorable things up and hoping they don't get discovered is not the right instinct to have.

Thirded from the same position.

As for other students not disclosing, don't ask 1Ls, they don't get it yet that the cover up is always always always worse than the crime.

[Anonymous User]

Alternate perspective from someone who didn't: don't. Creating a record of lawbreaking seems like not the right thing to do (IMO).

Second this. They won’t catch you. Don’t let a nonissue create a headache for you and get in the way of doing some good (hopefully not prosecuting people for weed).

LGBTQ federal job applicants and employees were right to conceal their sexuality back in the day, too.

[Anonymous User]

Alternate perspective from someone who didn't: don't. Creating a record of lawbreaking seems like not the right thing to do (IMO).

Second this. They won’t catch you. Don’t let a nonissue create a headache for you and get in the way of doing some good (hopefully not prosecuting people for weed).

LGBTQ federal job applicants and employees were right to conceal their sexuality back in the day, too.

lol at this comparison.

[Anonymous User]

Alternate perspective from someone who didn't: don't. Creating a record of lawbreaking seems like not the right thing to do (IMO).

Second this. They won’t catch you. Don’t let a nonissue create a headache for you and get in the way of doing some good (hopefully not prosecuting people for weed).

LGBTQ federal job applicants and employees were right to conceal their sexuality back in the day, too.

lol at this comparison.

Comparing an inherent characteristic to a decision to smoke weed ain’t it. I disclosed and nothing happened besides the standard letter / paperwork. I will warn future honors applicants that this is a closer (though certainly not an automatic ding) call when you do so after being a licensed attorney. I want to be clear though, my last usage was during law school (and not the beginning of it). I had a lot of heart burn, but I am so happy I disclosed as I obtained a clearance and passed suitability. Best part about disclosing is that I didn’t have to worry that my investigators would uncover anything that wasn’t listed on my SF86. Integrity matters in this profession, EVEN MORE SO if you are a prosecutor.

Please just disclose. Smoking weed alone will not mean a negative suitability determination. But lying about it will. And that’s the kind of thing that prevents you from ever passing suitability or obtaining a clearance.

[Anonymous User]

What is the standard letter/paperwork you refer to? I disclosed mj use 5 years ago (college) and waiting to hear back…

[Anonymous User]

Alternate perspective from someone who didn't: don't. Creating a record of lawbreaking seems like not the right thing to do (IMO).

Second this. They won’t catch you. Don’t let a nonissue create a headache for you and get in the way of doing some good (hopefully not prosecuting people for weed).

LGBTQ federal job applicants and employees were right to conceal their sexuality back in the day, too.

Insane comparison. Anyways you absolutely should disclose it even putting aside moral reasons. From a purely self-interested point of view it is better to disclose. Marijuana use in college is literally a non-issue as long as you don't do it again. I disclosed and I literally just had to promise I wouldn't do it again. In fact, my vacation to China in college for a week was more of a head-ache then the marijuana use. It is literally nothing. I'll tell you what isn't nothing, though. Lying about marijuana use on your USAO intern form then when you apply it comes out that you did try marijuana. At that point you're done, it's over for you.

Respectfully, lying about marijuana use in college is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard framing it from a pure self-interested standpoint and I can't believe people in this thread are even suggesting otherwise.

[Anonymous User]

What is the standard letter/paperwork you refer to? I disclosed mj use 5 years ago (college) and waiting to hear back…

I disclosed use in law school and was still cleared, so seriously do not sweat over college use. I had to fill out further paperwork regarding lifetime use (not just last seven years) and sign something that basically said what the circumstances were and that I understand DOJ is a drug free workplace and I didn’t plan on using it again.

[andythefir]

Definitely disclose. Weed use is no big, but lying is. If you lie and then eventually want a paid USAO position you will fail that second background for lying. No downside to disclosing, huge downside to not disclosing.

[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.

[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.

I'm fully, fully on board with this take.

[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?

[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.

I'm fully, fully on board with this take.

I’m fully against it. I think there is a pretty big step between “people who enforce rules shouldn’t break them even if *they individually* have decided the rule is stupid” to “you are a prosecutor who will put people in cages.” Talk about no sense of proportion….

Just my personal take: I would have a huge problem being a hypocrite by prosecuting people while violating federal law myself. That doesn’t mean I think people who break the law are animals who belong in cages.

To answer the question presented: don’t violate federal law to seek an internship helping prosecute people who violate federal law.

[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.

No one in this thread is looking down on marijuana usage or defending that we have to report it. But it’s literally a federal form with a criminal penalty attached. It’s not about the usage, as pointed out by others, it’s about lying knowing full well that it’s a required disclosure.

In the course of your career as a prosecutor, if you lie about a required disclosure, you are a BAD prosecutor who is putting their license at risk. It’s better to learn to deal with uncomfortable situations now.

[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.

This is such self-aggrandizing bullshit.

I’m also pretty sure you’re not an AUSA and don’t know what the job actually entails. That’s completely fine - no one has to do this job or even approve of this job - but it’s stupid to advise others from this perspective.

[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.

No one in this thread is looking down on marijuana usage or defending that we have to report it. But it’s literally a federal form with a criminal penalty attached. It’s not about the usage, as pointed out by others, it’s about lying knowing full well that it’s a required disclosure.

In the course of your career as a prosecutor, if you lie about a required disclosure, you are a BAD prosecutor who is putting their license at risk. It’s better to learn to deal with uncomfortable situations now.

+1
And the sense of proportion -- alleged to be lacking -- is knowing that disclosure of prior use won't likely bar people from being hired anyway (assuming no bigger/other issues).

[Anonymous User]

Here's what happens if you disclose: nothing. Here's what happens if you don't disclose and they find out about it, either during the process or at some point in the future: you're blackballed from federal employment for life, and it only gets worse from there.

No one cares that you were an idiot in college and smoked weed. They care that you're lying about it now.

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?

USAO internship background checks are pretty light-touch. Once you actually join the feds, however, and get a security clearance—that's a much more in-depth check (perhaps insanely so, depending on what level clearance you're going for). They'll call people up, even folks you haven't listed.

And if you ever sit for a poly—which you might need to do years after you begin employment to access certain types of information—you're finished.