Is it easier to mitigate issues for a Moderate Risk Public Trust than for higher-tier clearances?

For context, there is some prior drug involvement that I’m disclosing on my SF85P form for moderate risk public trust. I’ve purchased marijuana twice before, both instances about 6.5 to 7 years ago. I’ve also used marijuana about 15-20 times total, the most frequent of which was a little over 5 years ago. All of this involvement occurred while I was in college. I’ve since graduated and I am no longer in that environment. I’ve matured a lot since then, and I’ve had a stable job for the last 3 years. I really regret all my involvement with it and will never be involved with it again in the future. I have no other red flags on my form.

Does anyone have an idea what my chances are? Since this is for a moderate risk public trust, is it easier to mitigate this than it would be for higher tier investigations?

You should be just fine. Yes, the standards are lower for Public Trust but you could pretty easily get a Secret with that history.

It depends. In theory, the standards for public trust positions are “lower” than for national security positions. The suitability determinations for public trust positions are subjective and not as transparent as those for security clearance positions.

So, it depends largely on the agency that you are apply for. For example, drug use/purchase is weighed more heavily with some Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security agencies. Those agencies could find you unsitable for a public trust position because of the prior uses and purchases.