Marijuana use/federal job Forum

(Issue areas, International Law, International Public Interest, Public Service in the private sector, Non-Profits, Public Interest Organizations, Government/ government agencies, employment settings)
Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Nov 06, 2022 11:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:45 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:32 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Nov 05, 2022 11:29 pm
Yeah, the answer here is don’t disclose. Lawyers are good to ask for legal advice, but not so much for common sense…
Are you aware that making false statements on federal forms constitutes the felony offense of perjury? The FBI conducts a thorough background investigation that includes in-person or telephonic interviews of people you are randomly acquainted with--not just your buddies who you listed as references. This is such a dumb statement that it amazes me someone with a law degree actually wrote it.
So the OP is going to jail then? :D

It boggles my mind the amount of degeneracy that goes on among the partners and clients in big law. I guess those partners, as leaders of our profession, should (and of course do) voluntarily disclose their poor actions to the firm because it’s the right thing to do?

If OP was a pot head, maybe something to worry about. Not an occasional lark on a trip to Colorado.
Once again, you seem to be missing the obvious problem here, either because you are unable to issue spot when it comes to the law, or because you are the dumbest criminal in the universe.

Not disclosing bad acts to your law firm is not a criminal offense. Federal statutes do not criminalize your decisions to lie to your law firm partners, or your spouse, or the Pope for that matter. They do criminalize false statements on federal forms or to federal investigators. This is where you seem to be missing the legal issue, since you're conflating law firm conduct with federal false statements as though they're the same thing. No one's putting you in jail for lying to grandma, dude. Lying on a form is different.

The reason you seem to be an incredibly dumb criminal is that you don't seem to appreciate how easy it is to catch someone lying about this subject. The FBI is the agency that conducts background investigations into AUSA hires. They knock on actual doors in your neighborhood. They will call your ex-girlfriend. They will talk to that one kid you got into a fight with your senior year in high school. They are good at their job and catching young law graduates who are really dumb at being criminals is super easy for them compared to what they normally do. The FBI agents doing these checks, in fact, are typically semi-retired agents who are doing this after long careers of catching smart criminals.

It is really disturbing that all of this has to be explained to someone who presumably has a college education and has also gone to law school.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:03 am

There’s an assumption in your post. When I reference degenerate partner behavior, some of it is criminal and would result in them not only being sacked but prosecuted according to the letter of the law. I’ve been in big law for a while across a couple of firms, and it’s rare anything ever happens to these people. It’s rife in the profession.

When analyzing any type of risk, you have to look at magnitude and likelihood. Yes theoretically at least, the magnitude of the risk is high. Although I highly doubt anyone is going to jail for failing to disclose they smoked weed once in Colorado (as opposed to the partner example given above). The likelihood the feds are gonna spend mountains of time digging into the Colorado scenario…that’s where we disagree. Maybe I’m a dumb criminal, but I’ve never had issues with the law.

But yeah OP make sure you disclose the Colorado trip, that time you rented your place on AirBNB and “forgot” to declare it on your tax return, that time you intentionally returned your rental car a couple of days late because you needed to use it, when you slept with your high school girlfriend when you were both technically underage and there weren’t Romeo and Juliet laws in your state, etc etc.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:04 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:03 am
There’s an assumption in your post. When I reference degenerate partner behavior, some of it is criminal and would result in them not only being sacked but prosecuted according to the letter of the law. I’ve been in big law for a while across a couple of firms, and it’s rare anything ever happens to these people. It’s rife in the profession.

When analyzing any type of risk, you have to look at magnitude and likelihood. Yes theoretically at least, the magnitude of the risk is high. Although I highly doubt anyone is going to jail for failing to disclose they smoked weed once in Colorado (as opposed to the partner example given above). The likelihood the feds are gonna spend mountains of time digging into the Colorado scenario…that’s where we disagree. Maybe I’m a dumb criminal, but I’ve never had issues with the law.

But yeah OP make sure you disclose the Colorado trip, that time you rented your place on AirBNB and “forgot” to declare it on your tax return, that time you intentionally returned your rental car a couple of days late because you needed to use it, when you slept with your high school girlfriend when you were both technically underage and there weren’t Romeo and Juliet laws in your state, etc etc.
You're still missing the legal issue. When you fill out a federal form or making a verbal statement to a federal investigator, your obligation to not state falsehoods is literally criminalized. Your analogy to biglaw still fails. Familiarize yourself with 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

And you're also still missing the stupidity of how easy it is for the FBI to detect your falsehood, but there's no need to regurgitate that again. Just do your own family a favor: don't ever try to be more clever than you actually are.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:05 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:03 am
There’s an assumption in your post. When I reference degenerate partner behavior, some of it is criminal and would result in them not only being sacked but prosecuted according to the letter of the law. I’ve been in big law for a while across a couple of firms, and it’s rare anything ever happens to these people. It’s rife in the profession.

When analyzing any type of risk, you have to look at magnitude and likelihood. Yes theoretically at least, the magnitude of the risk is high. Although I highly doubt anyone is going to jail for failing to disclose they smoked weed once in Colorado (as opposed to the partner example given above). The likelihood the feds are gonna spend mountains of time digging into the Colorado scenario…that’s where we disagree. Maybe I’m a dumb criminal, but I’ve never had issues with the law.

But yeah OP make sure you disclose the Colorado trip, that time you rented your place on AirBNB and “forgot” to declare it on your tax return, that time you intentionally returned your rental car a couple of days late because you needed to use it, when you slept with your high school girlfriend when you were both technically underage and there weren’t Romeo and Juliet laws in your state, etc etc.
Dude you're comparing apples and oranges. We're talking about how a person who wants to get a particular job should answer specific questions on a form under the pains of perjury; we're not talking about some kind of free-floating requirement that you volunteer everything "bad" you ever did because it's the "right" thing to do. The background check asks specifically about drug use including marijuana. It does *not* ask if you've ever *committed* a crime/moral infraction; it asks if you've ever been arrested/charged/convicted. The advice here is about answering the questions asked of you, not how to purge yourself of all past sins or whatever weird spin you're putting on it.

The partner/client thing just isn't comparable. It's a different situation. If you mean that ethical rules would theoretically require you to report them but no one does, that's fine, but it's just not what we're talking about here. Go start another thread.

Finally, the marijuana in Colorado thing would actually be pretty easy to uncover. FBI agents interview personal references from throughout your life and can get recommendations from them of other people to talk to. For someone who went to Colorado with a group of friends, that could easily come up.

I agree that the FBI investigation is unlikely to uncover particularly isolated use, BUT that kind of use is also extremely unlikely to remove you from consideration. So if you want to analyze the risk, the likelihood of being caught lying about it is probably pretty small, but the consequences of discovery would be HUGE, while the risk of disclosing it is pretty small, and eliminates any chance of being found to have lied. Like no of course you're not going to go to jail if you get caught lying on this form, but your job offer will be rescinded and you will never get hired by the feds again, which for most people who get to this point is penalty enough.

In any case, you don't have to agree with any of this, but if people are reading this because they're facing a federal background check, I hope they ignore you, because I can promise you that the feds don't agree with you.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:14 am

No, reread my post. I acknowledge that any failure to disclose is technically criminal. I said in the real world, nobody is going to jail in the OP’s situation.

I think you miss the point of my big law analogy. Senior people in our profession (who know how to issue spot) take calculated risks all the time even when there are potentially criminal consequences, and which aren’t merely theoretical like the OP’s situation.

Whether the FBI can figure out if the OP smoked weed in Colorado once (I’m sure they can), and whether it’s one of their priorities, are different issues.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:18 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:05 am

I agree that the FBI investigation is unlikely to uncover particularly isolated use, BUT that kind of use is also extremely unlikely to remove you from consideration. So if you want to analyze the risk, the likelihood of being caught lying about it is probably pretty small, but the consequences of discovery would be HUGE, while the risk of disclosing it is pretty small, and eliminates any chance of being found to have lied. Like no of course you're not going to go to jail if you get caught lying on this form, but your job offer will be rescinded and you will never get hired by the feds again, which for most people who get to this point is penalty enough.
This is a fair point. Although others are suggesting on here it could stop him or her being hired. Anyway OP, you’ve had both sides put forward their cases on here, hopefully it helps.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:31 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:18 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:05 am

I agree that the FBI investigation is unlikely to uncover particularly isolated use, BUT that kind of use is also extremely unlikely to remove you from consideration. So if you want to analyze the risk, the likelihood of being caught lying about it is probably pretty small, but the consequences of discovery would be HUGE, while the risk of disclosing it is pretty small, and eliminates any chance of being found to have lied. Like no of course you're not going to go to jail if you get caught lying on this form, but your job offer will be rescinded and you will never get hired by the feds again, which for most people who get to this point is penalty enough.
This is a fair point. Although others are suggesting on here it could stop him or her being hired. Anyway OP, you’ve had both sides put forward their cases on here, hopefully it helps.
I mean, it theoretically could, which is why I said "extremely unlikely." Something within the immediate past (6 months? a year?) might be an issue, which is why it all depends on the individual case. But disclosing and being found unsuitable *at that time* still is a much lesser penalty than being found to have lied and never getting hired by the feds again.

I still don't think partners making decisions that could have criminal consequences is analogous to what's going on here. Partners are beholden to their clients' interests and their firms' interests (both of which are usually monetary). An AUSA is beholden to the cause of justice. I know that sounds schlocky and cheesy as hell, but I can tell you that the feds take it extremely seriously.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:04 pm
I was wondering if anyone had any information about the federal hiring process (specifically US atty offices/DOJ) and what they ask about past drug use. I am planning a trip with friends (all 21+) to a state that has legalized cannabis, and am considering using it recreationally while there. I also know that there are questions about past drug use on job forms with the federal government. Can I do this and still get hired in the government? I have had trouble finding good information on this.
This is the original post, which is asked in a perfectly intelligent and inquisitive manner. The correct answers I think are obvious. But, one of those answers was to essentially question why anyone would ever narc on themselves, as though we're all just a bunch of high school punks. I think the responses to that have made things clear why this was a dumb suggestion: Not only are you committing a crime, but you can actually get caught very easily.

There's been some riffraff in the responses suggesting that no one goes to jail for this. Bullshit. (A) Do the Westlaw checks. Lawyers do go to jail for this kind of arrogance, all the time, and AUSAs also get shitcanned, fired, and disbarred for this kind of shenanigans. (B) There is no thin blue line among AUSAs. We're lawyers after all, with resentments, simmering anger caused by our crappy lifestyles, and numerous personality disorders. The moment another AUSA in your office somehow finds out that you might have committed a violation of national security standards, much less a possible federal crime, you are doomed.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:12 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:55 pm
There is no thin blue line among AUSAs. We're lawyers after all, with resentments, simmering anger caused by our crappy lifestyles, and numerous personality disorders. The moment another AUSA in your office somehow finds out that you might have committed a violation of national security standards, much less a possible federal crime, you are doomed.
Um, the bolded is an interesting take. As to the last point, it is probably worth mentioning that we are actually required to report pertinent transgressions by others in the office, and we have to certify to DOJ every so often that we will do so. So while I realize non-AUSAs will probably think this is a distinction without a difference, I wanted to make clear that it's not that AUSAs are just snooping around trying to report our co-workers on our own initiative or something.

Also, as to the mj side of things, while I'd imagine that use is one those things we're supposed to report, I also think all the AUSAs I know would basically do their utmost *not* to find out about anything mj-related so they could avoid the issue. No one wants to report their co-workers and certainly not for using mj (assuming they don't show up to work too stoned actually to work, or something).

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:34 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Nov 05, 2022 3:27 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Nov 05, 2022 1:42 pm
Any idea if these rules apply to the FPD? Temperamentally, I assume they'd be more understanding.
Haha... good question. You should first figure out whether the FPD requires a security clearance background investigation. If it does, there's some federal agency that will have you fill out the standard SF-86 form. The FBI does this for USAO hires, but I assume that's not the case for FPD. It could be the "DCSA" or some other agency.

Either way, the SF-86 requires strict disclosure of narcotics use within the last 7 years only. If you have such disclosures, I wouldn't worry too much about them if they show little more than occasional recreational use. If you were a habitual user doing it weekly or more, though, and you seem like someone who is still doing it, you might get denied. If you are actively using marijuana, I am pretty confident the FPD will refuse to hire you. Marijuana is federally illegal still and constitutes a federal crime. You can't be doing that while representing clients whose lives are on the line based on your ability to practice law in the federal system.
Current AFPD here. There is no security clearance required to become an AFPD, nor any questions in the application process about prior (or current) drug use. There's just a general background and fingerprint check, exactly like what is required to clerk for a federal judge (we're technically part of the US Courts for administrative purposes, not the executive branch).

I have had colleagues who had to get a security clearance to work on particular cases that had classified discovery, but that's pretty rare. In my office at least, if you thought you'd have a problem getting the security clearance, you could just tell the boss, who would reassign the case with no consequence to you (or have another attorney handle the part of the case requiring the clearance).

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Nov 14, 2022 8:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:34 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Nov 05, 2022 3:27 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Nov 05, 2022 1:42 pm
Any idea if these rules apply to the FPD? Temperamentally, I assume they'd be more understanding.
Haha... good question. You should first figure out whether the FPD requires a security clearance background investigation. If it does, there's some federal agency that will have you fill out the standard SF-86 form. The FBI does this for USAO hires, but I assume that's not the case for FPD. It could be the "DCSA" or some other agency.

Either way, the SF-86 requires strict disclosure of narcotics use within the last 7 years only. If you have such disclosures, I wouldn't worry too much about them if they show little more than occasional recreational use. If you were a habitual user doing it weekly or more, though, and you seem like someone who is still doing it, you might get denied. If you are actively using marijuana, I am pretty confident the FPD will refuse to hire you. Marijuana is federally illegal still and constitutes a federal crime. You can't be doing that while representing clients whose lives are on the line based on your ability to practice law in the federal system.
Current AFPD here. There is no security clearance required to become an AFPD, nor any questions in the application process about prior (or current) drug use. There's just a general background and fingerprint check, exactly like what is required to clerk for a federal judge (we're technically part of the US Courts for administrative purposes, not the executive branch).

I have had colleagues who had to get a security clearance to work on particular cases that had classified discovery, but that's pretty rare. In my office at least, if you thought you'd have a problem getting the security clearance, you could just tell the boss, who would reassign the case with no consequence to you (or have another attorney handle the part of the case requiring the clearance).
This makes sense. Even if you join the DOJ as an AUSA, most AUSAs do not technically receive security clearances. They are just approved as eligible to receive a clearance. Only those AUSAs who are assigned to work on national security-related matters that actually involve classified materials receive clearances.

(To be clear, though, all AUSAs do have to go through the full clearance process, the same way any national security employee would for a "secret" level clearance.)

ruth7777

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:43 pm

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by ruth7777 » Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:22 pm

Michael Savage has an excellent podcast on this very topic, mid-Oct 2022.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:48 pm

ruth7777 wrote:
Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:22 pm
Michael Savage has an excellent podcast on this very topic, mid-Oct 2022.
This would be the guy who seriously believes that the former President of the United States from 2008 to 2016 was born in Kenya? I know that even broken clocks are right twice a day but what could he possibly have accidentally sputtered out about federal workforce policies regarding marijuana use that is useful to an educated audience?

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


ruth7777

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:43 pm

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by ruth7777 » Sat Nov 19, 2022 12:07 am

Well I guess there's a lot of dummies out there since the Michael Savage podcast is in the upper 1/2 of 1% in downloads, kind of like the Harvard Law of podcasts. I can only say why not listen to the podcast while you're making dinner or in the shower or driving to work. I guess the real elephant in the room would be why would anyone dabble in weed, since it makes you dumber and it's a fed law violation, when they are contemplating a career in law?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Nov 19, 2022 12:39 am

Ummm the partners in my practice group are constantly lighting up joints. Seems to be a common thing in California biglaw. I avoid it myself but there’s pressure to participate that’s similar to social drinking.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:15 am

ruth7777 wrote:
Sat Nov 19, 2022 12:07 am
Well I guess there's a lot of dummies out there since the Michael Savage podcast is in the upper 1/2 of 1% in downloads, kind of like the Harvard Law of podcasts. I can only say why not listen to the podcast while you're making dinner or in the shower or driving to work. I guess the real elephant in the room would be why would anyone dabble in weed, since it makes you dumber and it's a fed law violation, when they are contemplating a career in law?
There are a lot of things people "in the upper 1/2 of 1%" of society have done or said in the last several years that aren't terribly impressive. So yeah, dummies. Either way, a person who is incapable of understanding an American birth certificate of an American president should not be relied upon for understanding the nuances of narcotics legislation. The topic of this thread is what someone seeking federal employment should know about past or present marijuana use before applying.

ruth7777

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:43 pm

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by ruth7777 » Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:11 am

From Anonymous above:
"This would be the guy who seriously believes that the former President of the United States from 2008 to 2016 was born in Kenya?"
It was actually Jan 2009-Jan 2017 but I'm being overly nerdy.

Polls conducted in 2010 (before the April 2011 birth cert release) suggested that at least 25% of adult Americans said that they doubted Obama's U.S. birth, and a May 2011 Gallup poll found that the percentage had fallen to 13% of American adults (23% of Republicans). The fall was attributed to Obama's release of the long form in April 2011.

So some of the misunderstanding regarding the birth cert could be attributed to Obama's delay in releasing it.

Savage has a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in nutritional ethnomedicine. A fancy degree from a fancy school.

As you probably know, Savage is a big cheerleader for the GOP so that probably influenced his stance on the birth certificate. He's also in show business where outrageousness is rewarded.

But let's get away from all that and try to separate the politics of Savage from his very informative podcast about weed. It was basically about how today's weed is not your father's weed. There are very real health risks associated with it. Emergency rooms are filled with weed related psych issues.

From Anonymous above:
"The topic of this thread is what someone seeking federal employment should know about past or present marijuana use before applying."

I can summarize the thread in one sentence. You did something that was and is a fed law violation, now be honest with a potential employer and deal with the consequences.

The thread should not be about helpful tips to finesse your way out of a mess.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


chubbyrabbit

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:46 pm

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by chubbyrabbit » Sat Nov 19, 2022 3:59 pm

above
Impressively stated

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Nov 19, 2022 8:42 pm

ruth7777 wrote:
Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:11 am
Polls conducted in 2010 (before the April 2011 birth cert release) suggested that at least 25% of adult Americans said that they doubted Obama's U.S. birth, and a May 2011 Gallup poll found that the percentage had fallen to 13% of American adults (23% of Republicans). The fall was attributed to Obama's release of the long form in April 2011.
Polls also show that at least 25% of adult Americans are racist morons. (Emphasis on "at least"). Barack Obama's original birth certificate was perfectly normal and legitimate in the first place. It is not a coincidence that he is the only president in modern US history whose status as a possible illegal alien was actually questioned by a segment of society that does not engage in any critical thinking.

Seriously, if you are so fucking stupid that you needed the State of Hawaii to newly manufacture a "long form" birth certificate (most Americans including Obama have short forms; it was solely for the purpose of shutting idiots like Savage up that the White House requested the Hawaii Dept. of Health to create a brand new long form version), you are not in a position to be giving advice to law students about narcotics use with respect to federal employment. And by the way, that 13% figure you quote is being extremely generous. A clear majority of registered Republicans to this day continue to harbor doubt about our two-term American-born president who never lost the popular vote and was not a one term loser. If this comment triggers you, go listen to a Michael Savage podcast and feel better about yourself.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:34 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:48 pm
ruth7777 wrote:
Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:22 pm
Michael Savage has an excellent podcast on this very topic, mid-Oct 2022.
This would be the guy who seriously believes that the former President of the United States from 2008 to 2016 was born in Kenya? I know that even broken clocks are right twice a day but what could he possibly have accidentally sputtered out about federal workforce policies regarding marijuana use that is useful to an educated audience?
Yeah, I was blissfully ignorant about this dude until this thread and am now just annoyed that his podcast is part of my google search history.

ruth7777

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:43 pm

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by ruth7777 » Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:50 am

When Anonymous uses "f***g idiot" above, it detracts from the community atmosphere of TLS. Can we disagree in a reasonably polite way? I can sum it up clearly. Some of you are Democrats, Savage is a Republican, therefore any guest Savage interviewed in Oct 2022 on his podcast about weed, you will dismiss it since you can't get past the political differences. Irrational?

Just to respond to a claim above, Obama would not have been elected, twice, without the White vote, so I don't know how much racism is out there. Regarding Obama's birth cert controversy, never before has the father of a presidential candidate been a resident of Africa and never before has such a candidate been a resident of Indonesia. The demand for racism exceeds the supply.

The Savage podcast on weed is anti-weed. I'd guess 95% of the readers on this thread find that irritating. So I knew well in advance that my post above would be unpopular.

If you're a young person, listen to the Savage podcast on weed. Then years later you won't have any reason to click on this thread looking for a "workaround" to get the federal job you covet.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


nixy

Gold
Posts: 4446
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by nixy » Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:23 am

This thread isn’t about about the merits of using marijuana or even how to find a “workaround.” It’s just asking how the federal government as an employer views marijuana use. So please keep your moral panic to yourself.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Aug 18, 2023 1:44 pm

Reviving this dead thread, but can anyone weigh in about habitual marijuana use that stopped 10+ years ago with an isolated use 6 years ago? (I have a very limited window for applying to the USAO so I can’t wait another year.)

Also, aren’t they reforming SF-86 to only ask about 90 day usage for marijuana?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2023 1:44 pm
Reviving this dead thread, but can anyone weigh in about habitual marijuana use that stopped 10+ years ago with an isolated use 6 years ago? (I have a very limited window for applying to the USAO so I can’t wait another year.)

Also, aren’t they reforming SF-86 to only ask about 90 day usage for marijuana?
It looks like they are, I hadn't seen that, but I couldn't find anything with a specific date/timeline for adoption.

I'd be shocked if your history was a problem, though. I suppose maybe if "habitual" is hiding a multitude of sins, but even if the form isn't reformed by the time you need to submit it, mj use is still very much a discretionary thing, and given that the form is going to change, that seems an incentive to exercise discretion consistently with where the trend is headed, if that makes any sense.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428111
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Marijuana use/federal job

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Aug 19, 2023 10:37 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:24 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2023 1:44 pm
Reviving this dead thread, but can anyone weigh in about habitual marijuana use that stopped 10+ years ago with an isolated use 6 years ago? (I have a very limited window for applying to the USAO so I can’t wait another year.)

Also, aren’t they reforming SF-86 to only ask about 90 day usage for marijuana?
It looks like they are, I hadn't seen that, but I couldn't find anything with a specific date/timeline for adoption.

I'd be shocked if your history was a problem, though. I suppose maybe if "habitual" is hiding a multitude of sins, but even if the form isn't reformed by the time you need to submit it, mj use is still very much a discretionary thing, and given that the form is going to change, that seems an incentive to exercise discretion consistently with where the trend is headed, if that makes any sense.
That is what I was thinking too. Just curious if anyone who has been through the process if they think that my past usage alone would be disqualifying. I wouldn’t like to forego the opportunity I may have before me, but I recognize that waiting might alleviate any concerns about my record. (This all happened in high school, aside for the incident 5+ years ago in college that I mentioned above.)

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Public Interest & Government”