Overview
Title
To limit the consideration of marijuana use when making an employment suitability or security clearance determination, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The DOOBIE Act of 2024 is a plan to stop the government from saying no to a job or special permission just because someone used marijuana before. It makes sure the rules are updated to be fairer and wants to check how these changes might affect safety.
Summary AI
The DOOBIE Act of 2024 aims to change how past marijuana use is considered in government employment and security clearance processes. The bill prohibits making decisions on employment suitability or security clearance eligibility solely based on an individual's past use of marijuana. It mandates that federal agencies ensure their regulations align with the bill's provisions and requires an assessment by the Comptroller General to evaluate its implementation and impact on national security.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The "Dismantling Outdated Obstacles and Barriers to Individual Employment Act of 2024," informally known as the "DOOBIE Act of 2024," is a legislative proposal aimed at limiting the negative impact of past marijuana use on employment suitability and security clearance assessments. The bill is primarily directed at federal agencies and intends to reform how marijuana use is considered in governmental employment processes. Through various sections, it seeks to prevent the exclusion of candidates for federal employment, security clearances, or government-issued credentials based solely on their previous use of marijuana.
General Summary of the Bill
The core objective of the bill is to update federal employment and security clearance policies to reflect growing changes in societal and legal norms surrounding marijuana use. It specifies that prior marijuana use should not singularly determine a candidate's eligibility for federal employment, fitness for service, or ability to obtain necessary credentials. This is a response to a broader legal re-evaluation of marijuana at state and federal levels, aiming to reduce potential employment barriers that could arise from previous marijuana consumption.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the bill, beginning with its unconventional nickname, "DOOBIE Act," which may be interpreted as trivializing the legislative intent due to its informal connotations. While the bill addresses the stigma of marijuana use, there are significant ambiguities, particularly around the definition of "past use," which is not clearly defined in terms of timeframe or context. This lack of specificity could lead to inconsistent application across federal agencies.
The bill proposes removing marijuana from the "controlled substance" category for security clearances, which could potentially conflict with existing federal drug regulations. Furthermore, the term "covered person" is left undefined, creating confusion about who is protected under these new provisions. The broad phrasing employed could inadvertently clash with other federal laws that still classify marijuana as a controlled substance.
Additionally, the retroactive application of these changes remains unclear, particularly concerning individuals who have previously faced adverse determinations due to marijuana use. The guidance provision for agencies lacks detail, potentially leading to inconsistency and inadequate implementation.
Impact on the General Public
Overall, the bill reflects a continued legislative shift toward acceptance of marijuana use. By reducing employment barriers, it could broadly increase access to federal positions for individuals with past marijuana use, thus expanding the talent pool available for government roles. This could also lead to greater diversity in the workforce and reduce biases based on drug use history.
Impacts on Stakeholders
Positive Impacts:
Job Seekers: Individuals who have previously used marijuana may face fewer obstacles when pursuing federal employment. This change could enhance job prospects and alleviate worries about past use impacting future opportunities.
Federal Agencies: With a larger pool of applicants, agencies might benefit from increased diversity and a broader range of experiences, potentially enriching the workforce.
Negative Impacts:
Security and Regulatory Bodies: The redefinition of marijuana's status might complicate the task of maintaining coherent security standards across federal positions, potentially leading to concerns about lowering standards.
Individuals Previously Penalized: Those who were denied employment or credentials based on past marijuana use might seek redress or reconsideration, leading to increased administrative workload.
In conclusion, while the "DOOBIE Act of 2024" seeks to modernize and align federal suitability and credentialing policies with current social attitudes toward marijuana, the proposed changes necessitate careful consideration and clarification to avoid legal ambiguities and ensure consistent and fair implementation across all federal agencies.
Issues
The use of the abbreviation 'DOOBIE Act of 2024' in Section 1 could be deemed unprofessional or frivolous, potentially undermining the seriousness of the legislation. This might give rise to political or public perception issues.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each contain ambiguity due to the lack of a defined timeframe or context for 'past use of marijuana,' which could lead to varied interpretations and inconsistent implementations of suitability, security clearance, fitness, and credentialing determinations.
Section 4 attempts to eliminate marijuana from the definition of 'controlled substance' in reference to security clearances, which may conflict with other federal laws where marijuana is still considered a controlled substance. This could create legal ambiguities and potential conflicts.
The term 'covered person' in Section 4 is not specifically defined within the section, creating ambiguity about who the provisions apply to, which might impact who is affected by the changes to security clearance processes.
The phrase 'notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation' used in Section 4 might be overly broad, potentially leading to unintended conflicts with existing laws without accommodating existing legal frameworks.
There is a lack of clarity in Section 6 regarding whether the limitation on adverse credentialing determinations based on marijuana use applies retroactively, which could affect individuals who have already been denied credentials due to past marijuana use.
Section 7 lacks specificity regarding the details of assistance that the Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are supposed to provide to executive agencies, which raises questions about implementation and accountability.
Section 8 outlines a Comptroller General assessment but does not specify budget or funding for this assessment, potentially leading to issues related to resource allocation and financial planning.
While Section 8 sets a timeline for briefing the committees (18 months), there are no interim milestones or progress metrics, which could affect the oversight and efficacy of the legislation's implementation.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states its short title, which is the “Dismantling Outdated Obstacles and Barriers to Individual Employment Act of 2024,” also known by the acronym “DOOBIE Act of 2024.”
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines specific definitions for terms used within the Act, such as "executive agency" as defined by U.S. Code, "fitness" according to an Executive Order, "marijuana" by the Controlled Substances Act, "Office" as the Office of Personnel Management, and "suitability determination" per the Code of Federal Regulations.
3. Limitation on adverse suitability determinations based on marijuana use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that when determining if a person is suitable for something (like a job or a role), the Office or any agency authorized by the Office cannot make that decision based only on whether the person has used marijuana in the past.
4. Limitation on adverse security clearances and suitability determinations for covered persons based on marijuana use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 clarifies that marijuana is not considered a controlled substance for security clearance and suitability determination purposes. It also prohibits federal agencies from denying security clearances or suitability based solely on an individual's past marijuana use.
5. Limitation on adverse fitness determinations based on marijuana use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that when evaluating someone's qualifications for a job in the civil service, their past use of marijuana cannot be the sole reason for determining they are not fit for the position.
6. Limitation on adverse credentialing determinations based on marijuana use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the government is not allowed to deny someone's eligibility for a personal identity verification credential just because they have used marijuana in the past.
7. Guidance for agencies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are required to help government agencies follow the rules set by this Act and make sure their own regulations and guidance match the Act and its changes.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it may be referred to as the “Dismantling Outdated Obstacles and Barriers to Individual Employment Act of 2024” or simply the “DOOBIE Act of 2024”.
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section provides definitions for terms used in the act, including "executive agency," which refers to its meaning in U.S. law, "fitness" and "suitability determination," which relate to qualifications for government roles, "marijuana," as defined in drug law, and "Office," which refers to the Office of Personnel Management.
3. Limitation on adverse suitability determinations based on marijuana use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The law prevents any government office or agency from deciding if someone is suitable for a position just because they have used marijuana in the past.
4. Limitation on adverse security clearances for covered persons based on marijuana use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to clarify that marijuana is not considered a "controlled substance" for the purposes of federal security clearances. It also prohibits federal agencies from denying someone a security clearance solely because they have used marijuana in the past.
5. Limitation on adverse fitness determinations based on marijuana use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that a person’s past use of marijuana alone cannot be the reason for deciding if they are suitable for a job in the civil service.
6. Limitation on adverse credentialing determinations based on marijuana use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that the responsible government office must not make negative decisions about a person's eligibility for a security-related personal identity credential solely based on their past marijuana use.
7. Guidance for agencies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are tasked with helping executive agencies implement the Act and its amendments, and making sure their regulations and guidance are consistent with the Act.
8. Comptroller General assessment Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Comptroller General of the United States is tasked with evaluating how this Act and its amendments are being put into practice, particularly focusing on whether the necessary guidance has been provided, how the execution of the Act is being monitored, and its impact on national security. Furthermore, a briefing and report on these evaluations must be presented to specific Senate and House committees within a set timeframe.