Dropped charge drug felony...any chance?

[deleted748378]

I know similar questions have been asked previoiusly, but I have a very specific case regarding a drug possession felony and medical school admissions. About a year ago I was I got myself into a situation where I was charged with a possession of controlled substance felony. I applied to med school this past cycle, had my primary in before this happened, and the secondaries I sent it only asked about violent/sexual crime felonies so I did not have to disclose what happened. Alas, I was rejected from all of the schools I applied to, likely due to the criminal record.

Due to the circumstance of the crime, and a program I was accepted in the state because of my previous clean record I pled guilty to the felony. However, the program I am in is dropping the plea and the charges once I have completed it and I have a lawyer to work on the expungement after that. My question is, should I wait until the process is all over and it is expunged before I apply again? Or even if it is expunged I will likely face issues getting a DEA #, residency, etc and should just give up on medicine, the only thing I've ever really wanted to do with my future.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Womb Raider]

Felony is probably bad enough to ruin your chances, but felony drug charge? I'm not sure, but I doubt you'll be able to make it in medicine. You'll need to review exactly what you need to disclose to medical schools on your application. Plus, the state licensing boards will find out about your expunged record. Also, I believe government affiliated hospitals have access to higher level background checks, which also expose expunged records.

I'd suggest gathering all the requirements for what exactly you have to reveal in your applications and consult a lawyer. Perhaps some admission committee members can give more definitive answers. @Goro @LizzyM @gyngyn

 

[TBV]

Hm do I think this guy should have an Rx pad...

 

[deleted748378]

Hm do I think this guy should have an Rx pad...

I obviously understand this thought process, but everything would be off of my record other than that accessible by the FBI. So in theory, adcoms wouldn't have to think about that. I guess a lawyer would be my best bet regarding this and talking to people that I know have been on adcoms before. Any idea what type of lawyer should be contacted? I assume my criminal defense attorney doesn't know much about medical school applications.

 

[bananafish94]

I'm a non-expert, but it looks profoundly bad. I think that at the very least you'll have to put a LOT of distance between this and applying to medical school, and exhibit several years of exemplary behavior.

 

[bananafish94]

I obviously understand this thought process, but everything would be off of my record other than that accessible by the FBI. So in theory, adcoms wouldn't have to think about that. I guess a lawyer would be my best bet regarding this and talking to people that I know have been on adcoms before. Any idea what type of lawyer should be contacted? I assume my criminal defense attorney doesn't know much about medical school applications.

I was made to believe that you have to report it anyway.

 

[Squamous Eddie]

According to the AMCAS manual, you don't need to disclose this on your primary if it's been expunged or sealed. So I'd just wait until that happens before trying to apply again. Beyond that, you need to disclose it on secondaries that ask about that sort of thing, so read those carefully.

I should also add that, while it may or may not show up on your Certiphi background check, if the school you're hypothetically accepted to has a VA, I understand that their background checks are more in depth, and will uncover sealed or expunged records. So it's probably in your best interest to not omit something like this on a secondary even if you think the background check won't show it.

 

[ChrisMack390]

What was the drug? It matters.

 

[bc65]

In this case you should consider only sending in secondaries for those schools that ask about convictions, and not arrests.

 

[LizzyM]

I know similar questions have been asked previoiusly, but I have a very specific case regarding a drug possession felony and medical school admissions. About a year ago I was I got myself into a situation where I was charged with a possession of controlled substance felony. I applied to med school this past cycle, had my primary in before this happened, and the secondaries I sent it only asked about violent/sexual crime felonies so I did not have to disclose what happened. Alas, I was rejected from all of the schools I applied to, likely due to the criminal record.

Due to the circumstance of the crime, and a program I was accepted in the state because of my previous clean record I pled guilty to the felony. However, the program I am in is dropping the plea and the charges once I have completed it and I have a lawyer to work on the expungement after that. My question is, should I wait until the process is all over and it is expunged before I apply again? Or even if it is expunged I will likely face issues getting a DEA #, residency, etc and should just give up on medicine, the only thing I've ever really wanted to do with my future.

You pled guilty to felony drug possession. If any medical school gave you the time of day, I'd ask what they were smoking.

If you have any chance it will be 2026 or later presuming the deal you have gets your record expunged. Quite frankly, you need to look for another line of work. And don't choose pharmacy.

 

[ChrisMack390]

You pled guilty to felony drug possession. If any medical school gave you the time of day, I'd ask what they were smoking.

If you have any chance it will be 2026 or later presuming the deal you have gets your record expunged. Quite frankly, you need to look for another line of work. And don't choose pharmacy.

Lizzy, just curious - do you see no difference at all between a college student with a few tabs of acid or even a gram of cocaine (both felonies in my state) vs. someone with a much more significant quantity of, say, heroin?

 

[mimelim]

You pled guilty to felony drug possession. If any medical school gave you the time of day, I'd ask what they were smoking.

If you have any chance it will be 2026 or later presuming the deal you have gets your record expunged. Quite frankly, you need to look for another line of work. And don't choose pharmacy.

I agree.

Expunged records do not disappear. In the eyes of the court it is as if nothing happened, but you will still have to disclose if you were arrested or charged (if asked, few ask) and for licensing purposes, you will need to disclose this. These records still show up on background checks and is still a part of the public record.

 

[Goro]

Both rejected at my school, given the numbers of qualified applicants who never did such crimes. Not everyone deserves to go to med school.

Lizzy, just curious - do you see no difference at all between a college student with a few tabs of acid or even a gram of cocaine (both felonies in my state) vs. someone with a much more significant quantity of, say, heroin?

 

[mimelim]

Lizzy, just curious - do you see no difference at all between a college student with a few tabs of acid or even a gram of cocaine (both felonies in my state) vs. someone with a much more significant quantity of, say, heroin?

From a practical standpoint, we do not compare applicants like this. For starters, these incidents are few and far in between. But, more importantly, that just simply isn't how the application process works. We don't compare A to B. We compare A against the field and then B against the field.

From an argument standpoint, why do you change two variables? Why do you change the drug as well as the quantity?

 

[deleted748378]

You pled guilty to felony drug possession. If any medical school gave you the time of day, I'd ask what they were smoking.

Yes, but the plea is being dropped in 6 months so it will be as if I never took a plea. This is the point of the program I'm in, so that at the end of it I can answer no to questions asking if I've even been convicted or plead guilty. It won't show up on my record as pleading guilty. The only thing that will be visible after it is expunged is whatever record the FBI has to whoever it is that can/is willing to access that.

 

[LizzyM]

Yes, but the plea is being dropped in 6 months so it will be as if I never took a plea. This is the point of the program I'm in, so that at the end of it I can answer no to questions asking if I've even been convicted or plead guilty. It won't show up on my record as pleading guilty. The only thing that will be visible after it is expunged is whatever record the FBI has to whoever it is that can/is willing to access that.

Good luck with that. Come back and tell us how it works out for you.

 

[mimelim]

Yes, but the plea is being dropped in 6 months so it will be as if I never took a plea. This is the point of the program I'm in, so that at the end of it I can answer no to questions asking if I've even been convicted or plead guilty. It won't show up on my record as pleading guilty. The only thing that will be visible after it is expunged is whatever record the FBI has to whoever it is that can/is willing to access that.

Just because you can legally answer questions differently (ie not be charged with a crime). Doesn't mean that it will make getting into medical school any easier.

 

[Lawpy]

You pled guilty to felony drug possession. If any medical school gave you the time of day, I'd ask what they were smoking.

If you have any chance it will be 2026 or later presuming the deal you have gets your record expunged. Quite frankly, you need to look for another line of work. And don't choose pharmacy.

I agree.

Expunged records do not disappear. In the eyes of the court it is as if nothing happened, but you will still have to disclose if you were arrested or charged (if asked, few ask) and for licensing purposes, you will need to disclose this. These records still show up on background checks and is still a part of the public record.

I realize I mentioned this a while ago since i got confused in terminology. Expunged is basically useless since you have to report the results of the crime that happened. But what about if someone was exonerated of the felony drug charge (even despite the rarity of it occurring)? Would they be in the clear, because nothing happened?

 

[ChrisMack390]

From a practical standpoint, we do not compare applicants like this. For starters, these incidents are few and far in between. But, more importantly, that just simply isn't how the application process works. We don't compare A to B. We compare A against the field and then B against the field.

From an argument standpoint, why do you change two variables? Why do you change the drug as well as the quantity?

I was just wondering if the specific crime matters at all, or what level of specificity matters. I have not been arrested, I was just interested.

 

[mimelim]

I realize I mentioned this a while ago since i got confused in terminology. Expunged is basically useless since you have to report the results of the crime that happened. But what about if someone was exonerated of the felony drug charge (even despite the rarity of it occurring)? Would they be in the clear, because nothing happened?

Regarding expungement, I think that this is one of the easier to read sites: http://greenandassociates.blogspot.com/2011/02/medical-nursing-chiropractic-board.html Keep in mind of course that that site is a private law firm and it only pertains to California. But, if you read the other 20-30 easily accessible online resources, they say the same exact things, but I find that that one is the most succinct. I also don't think that it is as cut and dry as you say. You don't HAVE to report something that was expunged. In the sense that you can not be charged with a crime by lying. Lying is always an option. It is just usually a bad one.

Exonerated is different. Exonerated means that you were presumably arrested, charged, went to trial and were either found not guilty at that time or were convicted and that was reversed on appeal. You should still answer truthfully about being arrested/charged, but most would consider exoneration to essentially wipe the slate clean.

 

[Lawpy]

Regarding expungement, I think that this is one of the easier to read sites: http://greenandassociates.blogspot.com/2011/02/medical-nursing-chiropractic-board.html Keep in mind of course that that site is a private law firm and it only pertains to California. But, if you read the other 20-30 easily accessible online resources, they say the same exact things, but I find that that one is the most succinct. I also don't think that it is as cut and dry as you say. You don't HAVE to report something that was expunged. In the sense that you can not be charged with a crime by lying. Lying is always an option. It is just usually a bad one.

Exonerated is different. Exonerated means that you were presumably arrested, charged, went to trial and were either found not guilty at that time or were convicted and that was reversed on appeal. You should still answer truthfully about being arrested/charged, but most would consider exoneration to essentially wipe the slate clean.

Well the reason why I ran into confusion is that Certiphi and other background checks that happen regularly throughout the medical career (especially for applying for jobs) will have access to all the criminal convictions that happened. So expungement really doesn't do anything because the record will still be there despite being "destroyed". I'll read the link you provided, since I feel there should be some meaningful benefits of expungement.

So exonerated requires the accused to be found NOT guilty? Since OP actually pled guilty (which appealing really doesn't help here) to the crime, he's basically done for as the record cannot be wiped out.

 

[LizzyM]

I realize I mentioned this a while ago since i got confused in terminology. Expunged is basically useless since you have to report the results of the crime that happened. But what about if someone was exonerated of the felony drug charge (even despite the rarity of it occurring)? Would they be in the clear, because nothing happened?

Exonerated is different. Exonerated means that you were presumably arrested, charged, went to trial and were either found not guilty at that time or were convicted and that was reversed on appeal. You should still answer truthfully about being arrested/charged, but most would consider exoneration to essentially wipe the slate clean.

If the charges were found to be baseless and withdrawn (i.e. the state decided not to go forward with the case), then your slate would be wiped clean as well. That is also a way to be "exonerated". I could see that happening to someone who gets swept up in a raid on a store that is a front for drug dealing although they were only there to buy a quart of milk.

 

[mimelim]

I was just wondering if the specific crime matters at all, or what level of specificity matters. I have not been arrested, I was just interested.

Yes, specific crime matters. But, for the most part the broad categories of misdemeanor and felony are the guides.

My point was that your example is a little suspect. I would be very careful about which comparisons you try to use/draw. There isn't an appreciable difference between cocaine and heroine and yet because of how we legally and culturally see it, how we prosecute them historically has been very different.

 

[mimelim]

Well the reason why I ran into confusion is that Certiphi and other background checks that happen regularly throughout the medical career (especially for applying for jobs) will have access to all the criminal convictions that happened. So expungement really doesn't do anything because the record will still be there despite being "destroyed". I'll read the link you provided, since I feel there should be some meaningful benefits of expungement.

So exonerated requires the accused to be found NOT guilty? Since OP actually pled guilty (which appealing really doesn't help here) to the crime, he's basically done for as the record cannot be wiped out.

If the charges were found to be baseless and withdrawn (i.e. the state decided not to go forward with the case), then your slate would be wiped clean as well. That is also a way to be "exonerated". I could see that happening to someone who gets swept up in a raid on a store that is a front for drug dealing although they were only there to buy a quart of milk.

I don't think that you call charges that are withdrawn as being exonerated. Functionally the same thing, but not the same. The definition of exoneration either requires reversal of a conviction or "proof" that someone is not guilty of the accusation. Dropping charges I don't think fit. (I'm talking entirely semantics and definitions, not trying to make a real substantive argument)

 

[markcinnn]

I think it depends on so many factors:
1) Charges dismissed by the DA before trial (certainly the best)
2) Found "Not Guilty" or acquitted after trial
3) Trialed and found guilty, later exonerated, e.g. by new evidence (the rarest)

And I'm not an adcom but I would think any kind of legal explaining is a negative when many applicants don't have anything to explain. So if you're framed with drugs or if you anger a cop or whatever else that gets reduced/dismissed often - you might have sympathy but not necessarily an equal shot at most careers.

 

[LizzyM]

I don't think that you call charges that are withdrawn as being exonerated. Functionally the same thing, but not the same. The definition of exoneration either requires reversal of a conviction or "proof" that someone is not guilty of the accusation. Dropping charges I don't think fit. (I'm talking entirely semantics and definitions, not trying to make a real substantive argument)

The removal of a burden, charge, responsibility, duty, or blame imposed by law.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

In any case, it is different than making a plea of guilty and then having the record expunged as a way of making someone clean up their act in exchange for a clean record which carries with it civil rights (e.g. right to vote which is not extended to felons in some jurisdictions)

 

[Lawpy]

If the charges were found to be baseless and withdrawn (i.e. the state decided not to go forward with the case), then your slate would be wiped clean as well. That is also a way to be "exonerated". I could see that happening to someone who gets swept up in a raid on a store that is a front for drug dealing although they were only there to buy a quart of milk.

I don't think that you call charges that are withdrawn as being exonerated. Functionally the same thing, but not the same. The definition of exoneration either requires reversal of a conviction or "proof" that someone is not guilty of the accusation. Dropping charges I don't think fit. (I'm talking entirely semantics and definitions, not trying to make a real substantive argument)

The removal of a burden, charge, responsibility, duty, or blame imposed by law.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

In any case, it is different than making a plea of guilty and then having the record expunged as a way of making someone clean up their act in exchange for a clean record which carries with it civil rights (e.g. right to vote which is not extended to felons in some jurisdictions)

So because OP pled guilty, it is impossible for him to be exonerated of the crime and appealing to get the conviction reverse is just a waste of resources. Does that change had OP pled not guilty and fought all the way to appeals to get the conviction reversed?

It's counterintuitive because it seems that pleading guilty actually hurts you more as opposed to pleading not guilty. Sure there can be major counterevidence showing that you're guilty which is difficult to fight off in an appeal, but it's marginally possible to do so (with a very wily lawyer ) thereby escaping successfully.

I think it depends on so many factors:
1) Charges dismissed by the DA before trial (certainly the best)
2) Found "Not Guilty" or acquitted after trial
3) Trialed and found guilty, later exonerated, e.g. by new evidence (the rarest)

And I'm not an adcom but I would think any kind of legal explaining is a negative when many applicants don't have anything to explain. So if you're framed with drugs or if you anger a cop or whatever else that gets reduced/dismissed often - you might have sympathy but not necessarily an equal shot at most careers.

Well if the conviction were wiped out of the records completely, there would be no reason to explain anything because the crime never happened.

 

[darkjedi]

Disregarding the legal considerations of having a felony drug plea on your record or not, one should also consider the ethical implication of granting an MD slot to this person over someone who has an otherwise spotless record period. While of course we don't know the whole story, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. There are too many well qualified candidates already being rejected from medical school already.

 

[markcinnn]

Well if the conviction were wiped out of the records completely, there would be no reason to explain anything because the crime never happened.

Number 1 rule is that nothing gets wiped out completely. Even if the charges are dismissed, the fact that you were arrested and charged can still show up on a background check. So you will still have to admit to being charged/arrested and explain that it was dismissed. To which most people (including myself to be honest) will lower their opinion of you vs. the next applicant no matter what you write (in fact if you try to remove blame from yourself too much I'll probably think you are a liar because you are probably a criminal who wasn't caught.) Then there's the fact that the vast majority of people don't risk fighting for a dismissal- they plead to a reduced charge. Actual dismissals are very rare.

 

[ChrisMack390]

I don't think that you call charges that are withdrawn as being exonerated. Functionally the same thing, but not the same. The definition of exoneration either requires reversal of a conviction or "proof" that someone is not guilty of the accusation. Dropping charges I don't think fit. (I'm talking entirely semantics and definitions, not trying to make a real substantive argument)

Isn't that cultural use the appreciable difference?

Frankly, Ive never been one for drugs, but when I was in college if I went to a party or something and someone had cocaine I would think "that's a little sketchy" whereas if people were doing heroin I would be much more disturbed and leave.

 

[LizzyM]

Isn't that cultural use the appreciable difference?

Frankly, Ive never been one for drugs, but when I was in college if I went to a party or something and someone had cocaine I would think "that's a little sketchy" whereas if people were doing heroin I would be much more disturbed and leave.

You went to parties in college where people were doing heroin??

 

[Ismet]

I obviously understand this thought process, but everything would be off of my record other than that accessible by the FBI. So in theory, adcoms wouldn't have to think about that. I guess a lawyer would be my best bet regarding this and talking to people that I know have been on adcoms before. Any idea what type of lawyer should be contacted? I assume my criminal defense attorney doesn't know much about medical school applications.

We had to do an FBI criminal background check prior to matriculation at my school. Not sure if that's just because we can rotate at the VA or if that's routine for every school, but don't think that it won't be seen.

I agree with other posters in that medicine is pretty much out of the question, it may be a possibility if you put a LOT of time and demonstrated self growth between now and when you apply again.

 

[TBV]

You went to parties in college where people were doing heroin??

Believe it or not I've seen that one

 

[Law2Doc]

...
It's counterintuitive because it seems that pleading guilty actually hurts you more as opposed to pleading not guilty. ...

Not counterintuitive at all. You fight it you might end up doing hard time. There are people thrown in prison for years for felony drug charges. You plea, it gets expunged and you can live a free and normal life (just maybe not employable in every profession). So which of these settings really "hurts you more?".

 

[Law2Doc]

...I assume my criminal defense attorney doesn't know much about medical school applications.

Your defense attorney likely can put you in touch with local lawyer or firm that practices in this area. This is all really a matter of local law so a local lawyer is the only one who can advise you. Strangers on the net are not a good resource for this.

 

[ChrisMack390]

You went to parties in college where people were doing heroin??

No, absolutely not. That is what I was saying - that would be shocking!

 

[Lawpy]

Number 1 rule is that nothing gets wiped out completely. Even if the charges are dismissed, the fact that you were arrested and charged can still show up on a background check. So you will still have to admit to being charged/arrested and explain that it was dismissed. To which most people (including myself to be honest) will lower their opinion of you vs. the next applicant no matter what you write (in fact if you try to remove blame from yourself too much I'll probably think you are a liar because you are probably a criminal who wasn't caught.) Then there's the fact that the vast majority of people don't risk fighting for a dismissal- they plead to a reduced charge. Actual dismissals are very rare.

So exoneration doesn't destroy the charges, criminal history etc.? Like in an earlier example, you get caught in a drug raid at a grocery store but it turns out you were just shopping for milk. Would a background check show a report of the incident?

Not counterintuitive at all. You fight it you might end up doing hard time. There are people thrown in prison for years for felony drug charges. You plea, it gets expunged and you can live a free and normal life (just maybe not employable in every profession). So which of these settings really "hurts you more?".

I agree fighting it is too risky but i mentioned that in regards to the definition of exoneration mimelim provided. I was thinking that if someone was exonerated in any way, any conviction destroyed by exoneration wouldn't appear in background check so they dont have to be reported

 

[Law2Doc]

...
I agree fighting it is too risky but i mentioned that in regards to the definition of exoneration mimelim provided. I was thinking that if someone was exonerated in any way, any conviction destroyed by exoneration wouldn't appear in background check so they dont have to be reported

When a lawyer recommends a plea to a client he doesn't give a crap about med school -- he is trying to keep you out of prison. You don't gamble with freedom in hopes of getting exonerated.

 

[ridethecliche]

You went to parties in college where people were doing heroin??

In all seriousness, I wouldn't be surprised if this happened at atleast one of the house parties that I've been at in college. There's definitely an iota of a chance that it did. I know there was tons of coke everywhere, but I never saw it out or wanted to see it. I'm sure I've been around people that were on coke and might have even done it in a different room than the rest of the party.

I heard a rumor that a venue banned our school from having senior year events there because people were being insane and tons of people were doing lines in one of the room. Again, I only heard about this afterwards and didn't see anything when I was there, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I saw tons of kids high on shrooms/lsd/acid out in our quad all the time and people used to smoke weed out there too. I thought it was pretty typical for a hippie dippie liberal arts school in New England where there was metric crap ton of trust fund money flowing around freely.

It happens.

 

[TriggaTrey]

I know similar questions have been asked previoiusly, but I have a very specific case regarding a drug possession felony and medical school admissions. About a year ago I was I got myself into a situation where I was charged with a possession of controlled substance felony. I applied to med school this past cycle, had my primary in before this happened, and the secondaries I sent it only asked about violent/sexual crime felonies so I did not have to disclose what happened. Alas, I was rejected from all of the schools I applied to, likely due to the criminal record.

Due to the circumstance of the crime, and a program I was accepted in the state because of my previous clean record I pled guilty to the felony. However, the program I am in is dropping the plea and the charges once I have completed it and I have a lawyer to work on the expungement after that. My question is, should I wait until the process is all over and it is expunged before I apply again? Or even if it is expunged I will likely face issues getting a DEA #, residency, etc and should just give up on medicine, the only thing I've ever really wanted to do with my future.

Apply once your record is expunged and don't mention it anywhere. Honestly, ignore all the "moral high-ground people" in this thread. Premeds are a hypocritical patronizing self-righteous flock. A good portion of premeds/med students have dabbled into drugs, the only thing you did different was get caught.

Also the same people that would reject you probably dabbled in drugs during their adolescence.

 

[Law2Doc]

...A good portion of premeds/med students have dabbled into drugs, the only thing you did different was get caught...

I think this has less to do with moral high ground and more to do with whether OP can answer certain documentation honestly, survive background checks, get insured, get licensed. The people you apparently claim "dabble" won't face any of the same hurdles or scrutiny so there's no value comparing OP to them. He's not really being singled out because he dabbled in drugs, he's being singled out because he now has things in his record that are going to make it more difficult for him to go far in this career. In short the schools care less that he tried drugs and more that he has a drug related felony conviction. We can assume OP merely possessed the drugs and never ever even tried any or intended to and was just holding them for a friend, and the analysis is totally the same.

 

[TriggaTrey]

I think this has less to do with moral high ground and more to do with whether OP can answer certain documentation honestly, survive background checks, get insured, get licensed. The people you apparently claim "dabble" won't face any of the same hurdles or scrutiny so there's no value comparing OP to them. He's not really being singled out because he dabbled in drugs, he's being singled out because he now has things in his record that are going to make it more difficult for him to go far in this career. In short the schools care less that he tried drugs and more that he has a drug related felony conviction. We can assume OP merely possessed the drugs and never ever even tried any or intended to and was just holding them for a friend, and the analysis is totally the same.

Look at it this way. Plenty of premeds try drugs, and get accepted, if he never got caught this wouldn't be an issue. His record is just more proof of the failings of the war on drugs. Even a small possession of drugs that are harmless can amount to a felony, so essentially he may very well be up on the cross and up for condemnation for no good reason. It's stupid and broken, and OP should use every tactic he can to get where he wants to go without being labeled by this just plain BS.

 

[Law2Doc]

...Even a small possession of drugs that are harmless can amount to a felony, so essentially he may very well be up on the cross and up for condemnation for no good reason...

Or he may have had a suitcase full-- who knows. Or cares. Not relevant. He got nabbed and convicted (plead guilty)and now the felony is what's keeping him out of school, not his level of use (assuming he even ever used at all). Words like "harmless" and comments that plenty of people "dabble" certainly let us know where YOU are coming from, but these aren't really arguments that are going to be useful to OP. He is beyond the point of defense/justification and has progressed on to the consequences phase.

 

[TriggaTrey]

Or he may have had a suitcase full-- who knows. Or cares. Not relevant. He got nabbed and convicted (plead guilty)and now the felony is what's keeping him out of school, not his level of use (assuming he even ever used at all). Words like "harmless" and comments that plenty of people "dabble" certainly let us know where YOU are coming from, but these aren't really arguments that are going to be useful to OP. He is beyond the point of defense/justification and has progressed on to the consequences phase.

It's sad that's accurate. The system is broken. Imagine he was arrested for pot possession and it became legal in his state. These limitations imposed on him are beyond stupid, unless he's the equivalent of el chapo

 

[Law2Doc]

It's sad that's accurate. The system is broken. Imagine he was arrested for pot possession and it became legal in his state. These limitations imposed on him are beyond stupid, unless he's the equivalent of el chapo

The system is not broken -- it's working exactly as intended. You just don't agree with the underlying laws. And you don't win any argument by saying the laws are broken or stupid. They aren't. You need to write your congressman to get different laws but those too are going to be objectionable to someone who doesn't agree.

If he did something that was illegal at the time he knowingly broke the law-- that the law changed later is basically irrelevant. That happens all the time. It's no different than if someone got a speeding ticket going 65 mph on a highway that at the time was posted at 55 mph and has later changed--you don't get your money back -- you broke the rules as they existed at that time. You were on notice that what you were doing was illegal. So that was foolish of you, not the law.

 

[TriggaTrey]

The system is not broken -- it's working exactly as intended. You just don't agree with the underlying laws. And you don't win any argument by saying the laws are broken or stupid. They aren't. You need to write your congressman to get different laws but those too are going to be objectionable to someone who doesn't agree.

If he did something that was illegal at the time he knowingly broke the law-- that the law changed later is basically irrelevant. That happens all the time. It's no different than if someone got a speeding ticket going 65 mph on a highway that at the time was posted at 55 mph and has later changed--you don't get your money back -- you broke the rules as they existed at that time. You were on notice that what you were doing was illegal. So that was foolish of you, not the law.

The whole writing a congressman crap doesn't work, and voting won't change the status quo easily because the two-party system is broken and dominated by people who have gotten rich off of enforcing BS policies and laws like this.

If plenty of people do something, why should the few who get busted be put on the cross? A huge portion of the people who would reject him, also did drugs in their youth, yet still hold him accountable. That's the definition of self-righteous hypocrisy and a total lack of empathy and critical thinking.

 

[Law2Doc]

...A huge portion of the people who would reject him, also did drugs in their youth, yet still hold him accountable. That's the definition of self-righteous hypocrisy and a total lack of empathy and critical thinking.

Probably not true, but certainly a common mantra of a "dabbler" to try and justify his own use by rationalizing that everyone else must dabble too and are hypocrites. Good luck with that. Anyway I've called you out as a troll on the other thread. The OPs thread has been hijacked enough and you aren't really helping his cause lumping him in with every one else who uses drugs.

 

[Goro]

That sound you hear off in the distance is the banhammer being cocked. You'll feel some slight pressure between the eyes.

And the rest of you:

:troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll:

The whole writing a congressman crap doesn't work, and voting won't change the status quo easily because the two-party system is broken and dominated by people who have gotten rich off of enforcing BS policies and laws like this.

If plenty of people do something, why should the few who get busted be put on the cross? A huge portion of the people who would reject him, also did drugs in their youth, yet still hold him accountable. That's the definition of self-righteous hypocrisy and a total lack of empathy and critical thinking.

 

[TriggaTrey]

That sound you hear off in the distance is the banhammer being cocked. You'll feel some slight pressure between the eyes.

And the rest of you:

:troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll::troll:

How on earth is this trolling? it's well-established that the war on drugs is so stupid and inherently flawed. This situation the OP has is one of the projections of the war on drugs radiating outwards. You're an adcom, so assuming you dabbled in drugs in your youth, how could you possibly rationalize denying this application given the only difference between you and him is he got caught?

 

[deleted748378]

I appreciate the helpful responses. To make it more clear that I will not have a felony conviction at the end of this process, I've attached an image of the exact wording used by the program. They say " the state's attorney will vacate the guilty plea and dismiss the charges of the criminal case" at which point I will work with my lawyer to get the arrest expunged off of my record. This means that I will not have a guilty plea, will not have charges, and eventually will not have record of my arrest available to anyone but the FBI. So those of you who are saying that I won't ever get into medical school because of my felony conviction, I won't have one so please keep your comments to yourself. My question remains, what is the likelihood of this interfering with being able to do rotations in medical school, and eventually getting a medical license/ DEA #. I understand I should worry about getting in first, but I'd rather have some knowledge on whether I'll be wasting 4 years and $200k to be told I can't be a doctor before I decide to go through the trouble and cost of reapplying.