Secret Service Drug Policy

On the Secret Service FAQ it says,

“ You can easily determine whether you meet the U.S. Secret Service’s illegal drug policy by answering the following questions.

  1. Have you used marijuana at all within the last three years?
  2. Have you used any illegal drug, including anabolic steroids since attaining the age of 23?
  3. Have you ever been involved in the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, processing or sale of any illegal drug for profit?
  4. Have you ever used an illegal drug (no matter how many times or how long ago) while in a law enforcement of prosecutorial position, or in a position of public trust, or while employed in a position requiring a U.S. Government security clearance?

If you answered “Yes” to any of these questions, you are not eligible for employment with the U.S. Secret Service.”

But on this PDF

it says “The date of application for employment should be at least 1 year since the last use or purchase” if the applicant is under 24 years old.

So which is it? 3 years or 1 year?

Are you under 24 years old?

If you are under 24 the 23 yrs old rule applies. That’s what they want, they want 3 years from before you turned 23 (so clean of all drugs since 20).

Yes, I’m under 24 years old.

There you go! You have your answer.

Something that stood out to me on the Secret Services’ drug policy was the specification of where (what state/jurisdiction) the marijuana was consumed. “Use or purchase of marijuana includes use or purchase for medicinal purposes or use or purchase in
jurisdictions (e.g., states or countries) where use or purchase is legal.” The FBI, ATF, DEA, and CIA only specify the minimum length of time between marijuana consumption and the date of the job application. One is automatically ineligible for employment with the Secret Service if they consumed marijuana in a non-legal state…regardless of ‘when’ consumed…making someone ineligible for life?? Yet, one could have consumed a hard drug like MDMA and be eligible to apply after 5 years… As such, their reasoning implies popping molly at a few concerts is better than consuming one edible in Wisconsin. Please help me understand their reasoning…