The DOOBIE Act Would Limit Government Discrimination Against People Who Have Smoked Weed
Under the law, the feds couldn't deny you a job or security clearance just because you've used marijuana in the past.

There is perhaps good reason to be skeptical of legislation that comes packaged in a campy acronym. I am willing to make an exception today.
Sen. Gary Peters (D–Mich.) last week introduced a bill to prohibit the federal government from deeming an individual ineligible for employment or for a security clearance based solely on past marijuana use. The legislation is named the Dismantling Outdated Obstacles and Barriers to Individual Employment Act of 2024, otherwise known as the DOOBIE Act. Heh.
Peters' proposal seeks to bring federal law up to date with President Joe Biden's 2021 guidance instructing the Office of Personnel Management not to deny someone's employment application simply because they previously used cannabis. The drug is now legal recreationally in 24 states and permitted as medicine in an additional 14 states. In May, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposed reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I substance—where it sits alongside heroin, meth, and crack cocaine—to Schedule III.
"As we work to build a highly skilled federal workforce, it's crucial that the federal government modernizes its hiring practices to reflect evolving laws and societal norms," Peters said in a statement. "My bill will take the commonsense step to align federal statutes with existing agency guidance and ensure that talented individuals are not automatically disqualified from service solely due to past marijuana use. By providing this much-needed clarity for agencies and applicants, we will ensure that the federal government can recruit and retain the best and brightest to serve our nation."
Peters' legislation pertains only to past cannabis consumption and would technically not apply to an individual who currently uses the drug, as it remains illegal under federal law. You should probably not follow my lead then and try edibles for the first time while in the Netherlands on a work trip with NATO, for which I had a security clearance. Oops! (I can confirm I did not compromise our national or global security.)
Federal agencies would still be able to consider an individual's past cannabis use when evaluating their application; it just should not be the determining factor precipitating an automatic denial, according to the proposal. Under Biden's recent guidance, agencies may still take into account how recently someone indulged in marijuana, for example, or how frequently they've done so.
The bill comes as attitudes toward draconian ramifications for past drug use have continued to soften across the political aisle. President Joe Biden in 2022 issued a blanket pardon for low-level marijuana offenders, an act of clemency he expanded late last year. Former President Donald Trump, for his part, signed the FIRST STEP Act in 2018, shortening prison sentences for thousands of people, the majority of whom were drug offenders. And last July, Reps. Jamie Raskin (D–Md.) and Nancy Mace (R–S.C.) introduced a bill similar to Peters' in the House, titled the Cannabis Users' Restoration of Eligibility Act, or the CURE Act. The acronym needs work.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Funny thing, at my clearance interview, I asked about the impact of a 'yes' answer, and was told they didn't care if someone had used the devil weed. He said they just cared if you were willing to lie about it. If you lied, it indicated you might be open to blackmail in the future, if you told the truth, you would not be as much of a risk.
Full disclosure, this interview took place in southern California.
Same experience, both in DC and in Missouri. Before it was legal in DC, after it was legal in MO.
This. I have a security clearance, and I smoked a lot of weed, and relatively recently to my clearance application. I admitted it, said that I understood that by agreeing to take the position and apply for a clearance I was agreeing to not do so in the future, and they gave me one. Hell, I admitted to using many more substances that the feds deem illegal than just weed, and still got a clearance.
It's not about having done the thing, in many cases. It's about being able to be blackmailed about having done the thing.
Which, of course, if they'd drop the drug war, would make substance use a thing that people couldn't be blackmailed about, but hey.
It worked that way for homosexuality.
Except that it didn't. "Might be blackmailed" was the excuse for banning homosexuals from many government positions, but flamboyant and open homosexuals would be rejected.
*ctrl-f gun 0/0*
Has anyone else noticed that the flagship libertarian magazine barely mentions gun rights any more?
I mean, they have a Sex and Tech reporter... imagine this magazine having a Guns and Tech reporter!
Yeah, the flagship Libertarian magazine barely mentions libertarianism anymore. Their priorities are:
-Drugs. Take a look around the country to see how drug legalization is “helping”.
-Endless illegal immigration. Without demanding the suspension of any monetary benefits FIRST. How libertarian.
-Boff Sidez. Did you know that Republicans are just as bad on tax hikes and runaway spending as Democrats? Me neither.
-Drugs. Wait, did I already mention that? Hard to remember because I’m so fucking high all the time. Enlightenment bro.
-COVID postmortem. We can now say the pandemic response was horribly anti-freedom and stupid. Literally, we can say it NOW.
The Doobie Act??!!
I thought it was about the Doobie Bros.
Will they pass a Scooby Doo Snack Act to prevent cities from banning the Big Gulp?
As relieved as I am after waiting for half a century to cut back on the devil weed BS,( even though I'm not a consumer myself), I’m not too happy to see one of the brothers in a Burger King at two in the afternoon assembling a blunt, prior to getting back in his car and driving off. Will we now have sixty years of abusive pot use like we had alcohol misuse after prohibition? That would suck.
I will defend to a moderately light outpatient injury people's right to smoke weed, but I am tired of smelling it all the time.
Well it looks like this legislation applies only to the rarified world of federal employees who famously do very little and are payed too much. So glad to hear that they can enjoy the medicinal benefits while zooming with no pants on and playing video games with their mouse jiggler set to 11. Meanwhile anyone who labors under the regulatory agencies run by these racketeers in private industry continue be subjected to random testing at any minute of any day. Looks to me like elitists buying votes from their cronies while leaving the WOD fully intact.
I would argue this, except I've seen the output of many of my coworkers. On the flip side, I think if the feds were less dickheaded about drugs, they could get a better class of employee. Ironically enough.
The DOOBIE act?
Sigh. They make it so easy to be cynical. People got paid to come up with that.