Being a Lawyer and Smoking Ganja Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

I doubt most NYC big lawyers are driving anywhere.

[RaceJudicata]

Just another opinion for the pile, in law school about half of my friends smoked, including quite a few top 15% and law review types.

I know secondhand that most of that group still does at least occasionally, but in a state where it isn't as big of a deal (CO, CA).

From my experience: No drug testing at any of my judicial positions/internships including federal judicial externship, but I interned at a corporation in-house legal department in California no less, and the paperwork I signed seemed to indicate that all salaried/full-time employees did have to take a drug test (even though I didn't). Maybe an outlier by CA standards, but supports the in-house thing.

Woo the pot smokers got good grades!! Do not believe for one second this is a true post. Modz plz

[rpupkin]

Just another opinion for the pile, in law school about half of my friends smoked, including quite a few top 15% and law review types.

I know secondhand that most of that group still does at least occasionally, but in a state where it isn't as big of a deal (CO, CA).

From my experience: No drug testing at any of my judicial positions/internships including federal judicial externship, but I interned at a corporation in-house legal department in California no less, and the paperwork I signed seemed to indicate that all salaried/full-time employees did have to take a drug test (even though I didn't). Maybe an outlier by CA standards, but supports the in-house thing.

Woo the pot smokers got good grades!! Do not believe for one second this is a true post. Modz plz

Relax. Even if CyberpunkAttorney's post is true, all those folks will soon be in jail for the crime of "driving while a drug is still in your system."

[Anonymous User]

All my friends in law school smoked, and still smoke. Yes, self-selection, but we all had good grades and are doing well.

[lawhopeful100]

Wonder how many of you guys are driving while the drug is still in your system.


Are you not worried about picking up a charge?

I wouldn’t drive after smoking in the same way I wouldn’t drive after drinking.

[XxSpyKEx]

Wonder how many of you guys are driving while the drug is still in your system.


Are you not worried about picking up a charge?

I wouldn’t drive after smoking in the same way I wouldn’t drive after drinking.

I don't think you understand. Many states have this idiotic law where it's illegal to be driving with even a trace of THC in your system. THC remains in your body for up to a month. This means if you smoke weed on Day 1, but then you don't smoke again, you could get a DUI for driving 29 days later (even though you're totally sober on Day 29). It's basically the equivalent of saying you're not allowed to drive a car for a month after having a beer at the bar. These DUI laws get a lot of heat when someone who's totally sober gets convicted for DUI just because they smoked weed weeks before the incident. Generally the incident is a car crash involving a death (in which situation, many states allow law enforcement to forcibly take your blood to see whether you were under the influence of anything). The DUI laws gets heat when the person who gets a DUI and held responsible smoked weed weeks before the accident and wasn't actually the person at fault for the accident. For example: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyh ... 141119086/ . (Basically, a guy got convicted of an aggravated DUI involving a death where distracted driver who was driving an overloaded pickup truck ran a red light and crashed into the guy at a high rate of speed, an accident that killed the guy's kid and several injured his other child. The guy was nonetheless responsible for the accident and the death of the kid simply because he smoked weed a month before the accident even though he wasn't intoxicated when the accident occurred.)

[lawhopeful100]

Wonder how many of you guys are driving while the drug is still in your system.


Are you not worried about picking up a charge?

I wouldn’t drive after smoking in the same way I wouldn’t drive after drinking.

I don't think you understand. Many states have this idiotic law where it's illegal to be driving with even a trace of THC in your system. THC remains in your body for up to a month. This means if you smoke weed on Day 1, but then you don't smoke again, you could get a DUI for driving 29 days later (even though you're totally sober on Day 29). It's basically the equivalent of saying you're not allowed to drive a car for a month after having a beer at the bar. These DUI laws get a lot of heat when someone who's totally sober gets convicted for DUI just because they smoked weed weeks before the incident. Generally the incident is a car crash involving a death (in which situation, many states allow law enforcement to forcibly take your blood to see whether you were under the influence of anything). The DUI laws gets heat when the person who gets a DUI and held responsible smoked weed weeks before the accident and wasn't actually the person at fault for the accident. For example: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyh ... 141119086/ . (Basically, a guy got convicted of an aggravated DUI involving a death where distracted driver who was driving an overloaded pickup truck ran a red light and crashed into the guy at a high rate of speed, an accident that killed the guy's kid and several injured his other child. The guy was nonetheless responsible for the accident and the death of the kid simply because he smoked weed a month before the accident even though he wasn't intoxicated when the accident occurred.)

Interesting. Had never heard of something like this. Pretty sure my state focuses on whether you are actually impaired while driving, but probably couldn't hurt to double check.

[BeeTeeZ]

This is somewhat dependent on practice group, IME. In some instances, consuming THC is necessary for partner track at a white-shoe firm.

Have friends in a v50's marijuana law group:

- Two junior associates have dreadlocks
- Hacky-sack in the office is routine
- Billable hour requirements are ~1100 for bonus
- Getting "blazed on the reg" is key element of "fit"

Have friends in same v50's M&A group, and they have had a very different experience. Virtually no hacky-sack in the office, and billable hour requirements are 1950 for bonus.

[foregetaboutdre]

This is somewhat dependent on practice group, IME. In some instances, consuming THC is necessary for partner track at a white-shoe firm.

Have friends in a v50's marijuana law group:

- Two junior associates have dreadlocks
- Hacky-sack in the office is routine
- Billable hour requirements are ~1100 for bonus
- Getting "blazed on the reg" is key element of "fit"

Have friends in same v50's M&A group, and they have had a very different experience. Virtually no hacky-sack in the office, and billable hour requirements are 1950 for bonus.

bruh it's mari[h]uana law

[RCSOB657]

I doubt most NYC big lawyers are driving anywhere.

That was my anon.


That's plausible for plenty that don't drive, sure. Honestly I don't know what the laws are in that region, only what it is around here. Around here, I'd be scared to drive period.


Ohio has a per se drugged driving law enacted for cannabis, cannabis metabolites, and other controlled substances. Additionally, case law has supported conviction with any amount of the drug in one's system if there is detectable impairment in the SFST and even traces of the drug in the vehicle.

Under Ohio's per se OVI law, motorists with detectable levels of THC in the blood above 2 ng/ml or detectable levels of THC-COOH in the urine above 15 ng/ml are guilty. This is one of the most common charges I've worked with so far. Starts at an M1 and goes up from there with a mandatory licence suspension on any drug use/pos or paraphernalia conviction. Granted, the state's prosecutor and judges generally allow state minimums on sentencing here, but even first offense is 3 days in jail or driver intervention program in lieu (which costs between 375 and 425 here)

[Danger Zone]

TLS