Bipartisan CURE Act Would Stop Past Marijuana Use From Blocking Federal Jobs and Security Clearances

For years, qualified Americans have faced a strange contradiction: cannabis may be legal where they live, but admitting to past use can still cost them an opportunity to serve their country.

A new bipartisan bill in Congress aims to change that.

Representatives Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, and Zach Nunn, an Iowa Republican, introduced the Cannabis Users’ Restoration of Eligibility Act, better known as the CURE Act. The proposal would prevent federal agencies from using a person’s past marijuana use to determine whether that person is suitable for federal employment or eligible for a security clearance.

Just as importantly, the bill would create a path for certain people who were previously denied an opportunity because of cannabis to have their cases reviewed.

This is not full marijuana legalization, and it would not protect current cannabis use by federal employees. But it represents a meaningful attempt to replace an outdated blanket penalty with a policy focused on a person’s present qualifications, conduct and ability to do the job.

What Would the CURE Act Do?

Under the proposed legislation, past marijuana use could not be used in a determination about whether a person is:

• Eligible for a federal security clearance

• Suitable for employment with the federal government

The bill would also require federal agencies, within one year of enactment, to establish a process for reviewing certain past decisions involving employment or security clearances.

That review process would cover denials dating back to January 1, 2008. Agencies would be required to publish information explaining how affected individuals can request a review.

After receiving a request, the agency would have up to 90 days to examine whether the original denial was based solely on past marijuana use.

What the Bill Would Not Do

The CURE Act is narrower than its name may initially suggest.

It would not legalize marijuana federally. It would not automatically give every applicant a federal job or security clearance. It would not prevent agencies from considering other conduct, security risks or job-specific requirements. And based on the newly introduced language reported by Marijuana Moment, it would not protect ongoing marijuana use.

In other words, the bill would remove past cannabis use as a stand-alone barrier. Applicants would still have to satisfy every other qualification and security standard associated with the position.

Why Past Marijuana Use Can Still Affect Federal Employment

Cannabis laws have changed dramatically across the United States, but federal policy has not kept pace. An activity permitted under state law may still carry consequences when someone applies for a federal position or a security clearance.

That disconnect can shrink the federal talent pool. Skilled professionals in technology, cybersecurity, intelligence, health care and other specialized fields may decide not to apply—or may believe they are automatically disqualified—because they used cannabis years earlier.

Federal agencies should be able to evaluate whether an applicant is honest, responsible and capable of protecting sensitive information. But treating prior cannabis use as permanent evidence that someone cannot be trusted is not a sensible substitute for an individualized assessment.

The CURE Act Has Bipartisan Support—but It Is Not Law Yet

The introduction of the bill by a Democrat and a Republican matters. Cannabis reform is often portrayed as a strictly partisan issue, yet federal hiring and national-security policies affect agencies under administrations of both parties.

An earlier version of the CURE Act advanced through the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2023 after lawmakers narrowed it to focus on past marijuana use. The new proposal is similar to that committee-approved version.

The Senate has also considered related reform. The DOOBIE Act—short for the Dismantling Outdated Obstacles and Barriers to Individual Employment Act—advanced through the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in 2024. That legislation similarly sought to prevent federal agencies from basing suitability and security-clearance decisions solely on past marijuana use.

Still, committee action and bipartisan sponsorship do not guarantee final passage. The CURE Act must move through the legislative process and be signed into law before its protections can take effect.

Why This Matters to Florida Cannabis Consumers

Florida has a large medical marijuana program, and many patients use cannabis in compliance with state law. Yet state authorization does not erase the risks created by federal prohibition.

A Floridian who legally used medical marijuana under state law could later pursue work with a federal agency, federal contractor or another employer requiring a federal security clearance. The CURE Act would help ensure that prior cannabis use alone does not permanently close that door.

The proposal is also a reminder that cannabis prohibition reaches far beyond arrests. It can affect careers, professional licenses, housing, education, immigration and access to public service long after the conduct itself occurred.

Suncoast NORML’s Perspective

No one should be automatically branded untrustworthy or unfit for public service because they used cannabis in the past.

Federal agencies should hire the most qualified people and evaluate genuine security concerns using evidence—not decades of marijuana stigma. A person’s past cannabis use should not outweigh their skills, experience, integrity and record of responsible conduct.

The CURE Act will not fix every conflict between state cannabis laws and federal prohibition. It would, however, remove one unnecessary barrier that has kept capable people from federal careers and security clearances.

That is a practical reform, a workforce reform and a step toward treating cannabis consumers more fairly under federal policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the CURE Act?

The Cannabis Users’ Restoration of Eligibility Act is a bipartisan federal proposal that would prevent past marijuana use from being used to deny a person federal employment or a security clearance.

Does the CURE Act protect current marijuana use?

No. The newly introduced proposal focuses on past marijuana use. It would not broadly protect active cannabis consumption by federal employees or security-clearance holders.

Would the bill automatically grant a federal job or security clearance?

No. Applicants would still need to meet all other employment, suitability and national-security requirements. The bill would prevent past marijuana use from serving as the basis for denial.

Could a person challenge an old federal employment or clearance denial?

The bill would require agencies to create a review process for certain denials dating back to January 1, 2008. An agency receiving a request would have up to 90 days to determine whether its earlier decision was based solely on past marijuana use.

Is the CURE Act currently law?

No. It has been introduced in Congress and must still complete the legislative process before taking effect.

Stay Informed and Get Involved

Cannabis policy does not change on its own. It changes when voters stay informed, contact lawmakers and support organizations working to end marijuana prohibition.

Follow Suncoast NORML for updates on the CURE Act, federal cannabis reform and marijuana policy developments affecting Florida. If you believe responsible cannabis consumers deserve equal treatment, join us and help turn public support into lasting reform.

Source and Further Reading

• Tom Angell, Marijuana Moment: People Couldn’t Be Denied Federal Jobs or Security Clearances Due to Past Marijuana Use Under New Bipartisan Bill in Congress

• U.S. Government Publishing Office: 2023 CURE Act, H.R. 5040

This article is for educational and advocacy purposes and is not legal advice. Federal employment and security-clearance decisions are fact-specific. Anyone facing an employment or clearance issue should consult a qualified attorney.