Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=315160
Nothing makes more sense than DOJ attorneys throwing poor people in prison for doing the same drugs they partake inAnonymous User wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 9:14 amI agree that you should be fine. When I was applying post-clerkship, so relatively close in time to law school, I was told that post-bar drug use was the only drug-related dealbreaker. Which doesn't mean other kinds of use couldn't be an issue, just that that was the only categorical ban. As long as you're forthcoming, I can't see that being a problem, especially since it sounds like you've been working for a bit (so law school may be further behind you).
I also don't think that a TS clearance is going to vary by civil/criminal - I think the clearance is what it is, regardless of which component you're in - but admittedly I can't confirm that.
Random commentary: as an AUSA, I have run into older prosecutors who are still adamantly anti-weed in all ways, which always kinds of surprises me, but it's few and far between. Not saying employees do currently partake (or don't - not something people are going to discuss), but I think there's recognition of the cultural shift around it. At this point, a strict ban on any marijuana use ever is going to eliminate way too many good people, especially if your law school was in a state with legal recreational marijuana. (I know, I know, it's still illegal federally - though maybe not for long?? - but I think if it's considered at all, it's fair to draw a conceptual boundary between use in a state where it's legal and a state where it's not.) Not that any of this represents the views of DOJ, though, just my personal thoughts.
In this day and age, almost no one gets thrown in federal prison for simply using marijuana. And the prosecution priorities around these issues are set by people at the top, not the DOJ attorneys themselves. But point taken I suppose.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 4:23 pmNothing makes more sense than DOJ attorneys throwing poor people in prison for doing the same drugs they partake inAnonymous User wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 9:14 amI agree that you should be fine. When I was applying post-clerkship, so relatively close in time to law school, I was told that post-bar drug use was the only drug-related dealbreaker. Which doesn't mean other kinds of use couldn't be an issue, just that that was the only categorical ban. As long as you're forthcoming, I can't see that being a problem, especially since it sounds like you've been working for a bit (so law school may be further behind you).
I also don't think that a TS clearance is going to vary by civil/criminal - I think the clearance is what it is, regardless of which component you're in - but admittedly I can't confirm that.
Random commentary: as an AUSA, I have run into older prosecutors who are still adamantly anti-weed in all ways, which always kinds of surprises me, but it's few and far between. Not saying employees do currently partake (or don't - not something people are going to discuss), but I think there's recognition of the cultural shift around it. At this point, a strict ban on any marijuana use ever is going to eliminate way too many good people, especially if your law school was in a state with legal recreational marijuana. (I know, I know, it's still illegal federally - though maybe not for long?? - but I think if it's considered at all, it's fair to draw a conceptual boundary between use in a state where it's legal and a state where it's not.) Not that any of this represents the views of DOJ, though, just my personal thoughts.
I'm the OP you're quoting. To be clear, I was talking about the impact of past use; I don't know any AUSAs/crim div attorneys who currently use weed, but I'm not going to claim to know for certain what every DOJ attorney does.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 4:23 pmNothing makes more sense than DOJ attorneys throwing poor people in prison for doing the same drugs they partake inAnonymous User wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 9:14 amI agree that you should be fine. When I was applying post-clerkship, so relatively close in time to law school, I was told that post-bar drug use was the only drug-related dealbreaker. Which doesn't mean other kinds of use couldn't be an issue, just that that was the only categorical ban. As long as you're forthcoming, I can't see that being a problem, especially since it sounds like you've been working for a bit (so law school may be further behind you).
I also don't think that a TS clearance is going to vary by civil/criminal - I think the clearance is what it is, regardless of which component you're in - but admittedly I can't confirm that.
Random commentary: as an AUSA, I have run into older prosecutors who are still adamantly anti-weed in all ways, which always kinds of surprises me, but it's few and far between. Not saying employees do currently partake (or don't - not something people are going to discuss), but I think there's recognition of the cultural shift around it. At this point, a strict ban on any marijuana use ever is going to eliminate way too many good people, especially if your law school was in a state with legal recreational marijuana. (I know, I know, it's still illegal federally - though maybe not for long?? - but I think if it's considered at all, it's fair to draw a conceptual boundary between use in a state where it's legal and a state where it's not.) Not that any of this represents the views of DOJ, though, just my personal thoughts.
You absolutely see a ton of 924(c) (possession of a firearm in connection with a drug crime) charges with nonviolent marijuana dealing hooks though, and in some jurisdictions a lot of 922(g)(3) (drug user in possession) charges with marijuana use hooks. Those are firearm offenses, but they’re de facto drug offenses, especially 922(g)(3), which most people have no idea is a federal crime. There’s a reason federal criminal law practitioners summarize their job as “guns and drugs.”Anonymous User wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 4:47 pmIn this day and age, almost no one gets thrown in federal prison for simply using marijuana. And the prosecution priorities around these issues are set by people at the top, not the DOJ attorneys themselves. But point taken I suppose.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 4:23 pmNothing makes more sense than DOJ attorneys throwing poor people in prison for doing the same drugs they partake inAnonymous User wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 9:14 amI agree that you should be fine. When I was applying post-clerkship, so relatively close in time to law school, I was told that post-bar drug use was the only drug-related dealbreaker. Which doesn't mean other kinds of use couldn't be an issue, just that that was the only categorical ban. As long as you're forthcoming, I can't see that being a problem, especially since it sounds like you've been working for a bit (so law school may be further behind you).
I also don't think that a TS clearance is going to vary by civil/criminal - I think the clearance is what it is, regardless of which component you're in - but admittedly I can't confirm that.
Random commentary: as an AUSA, I have run into older prosecutors who are still adamantly anti-weed in all ways, which always kinds of surprises me, but it's few and far between. Not saying employees do currently partake (or don't - not something people are going to discuss), but I think there's recognition of the cultural shift around it. At this point, a strict ban on any marijuana use ever is going to eliminate way too many good people, especially if your law school was in a state with legal recreational marijuana. (I know, I know, it's still illegal federally - though maybe not for long?? - but I think if it's considered at all, it's fair to draw a conceptual boundary between use in a state where it's legal and a state where it's not.) Not that any of this represents the views of DOJ, though, just my personal thoughts.
This seems pretty jurisdiction/district specific because I've never seen a 924(c) charged with marijuana, and my district is extremely reluctant to charge 922(g)(3) at all b/c of the burden of proof, but that's obviously a policy/discretion thing.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 4:01 pmYou absolutely see a ton of 924(c) (possession of a firearm in connection with a drug crime) charges with nonviolent marijuana dealing hooks though, and in some jurisdictions a lot of 922(g)(3) (drug user in possession) charges with marijuana use hooks. Those are firearm offenses, but they’re de facto drug offenses, especially 922(g)(3), which most people have no idea is a federal crime. There’s a reason federal criminal law practitioners summarize their job as “guns and drugs.”
Bro, face it, if you ever hit the blunt in college, you're cooked. It would be like unfair or something for you to prosecute people with kilos of cocaine and guns. Hope it was worth it. Not even once.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 8:12 amIn what amounts and under what circumstances? Stand-alone, as an independent charge, or in conjunction with other charges?
No, it's still asking for seven years, unfortunately. I'm the anon above with the issue about some use during law school, so a bit of a bummer.