Two influential Utah state lawmakers have joined forces to advance legislation that would cut funding to cities that refuse to recognize medical marijuana as a legitimate medical therapy. 

Utah voters approved the medical use of cannabis in a 2018 ballot measure that passed with nearly 53% of the vote. Following the passage of the initiative, the state legislature approved a regulatory plan that essentially treats medical cannabis as a traditional prescription drug. Under the plan, cannabis is still considered a controlled substance but patients are allowed to use medical marijuana like they would any other prescribed medication.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, however, says that some local governments have refused to accept medical cannabis as a legitimate medical treatment and are discriminating against public employees who are registered medical marijuana patients. Escamilla says that some cities have questioned employees about their status as medical cannabis patients and disciplined those who say they have received a medical cannabis card.

“At the end of the day they are in violation of state law,” Escamilla told local media. “It’s very clear you don’t get to force people to tell you they’re using controlled substances as a prescription. This is a recommended, prescribed medication and they’re treating them differently. That’s what we’re trying to prevent.”

Escamilla is backing a bill that would make minor adjustments to the state’s medical marijuana program. To address employment discrimination by local governments, the legislation would also cut funding to cities that discriminate against medical marijuana card holders. The measure, Senate Bill 233 (SB 233), was advanced by the Senate with a voice vote on Tuesday after the measure’s third reading in the chamber.

Bill Has Bipartisan Support From Senate Leadership

The legislation is supported by Escamilla, the bill’s chief sponsor, and Senate Majority Leader Evan Vickers, a Republican, giving the measure substantial clout in the upper chamber of Utah’s state legislature. Medical marijuana advocates including the Utah Patients Coalition also support the bill. 

“Despite the clear legal framework supporting their rights, several public employees have still faced unwarranted discrimination and removal from positions for simply exercising their lawful right to access medical cannabis,” Desiree Hennessy, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “SB 233 provides a long-awaited mechanism to encourage compliance with state law through the potential withholding of funding, helping to shield state workers from discrimination regarding their medication.”

Despite the bill’s bipartisan support in the state Senate, SB 233 is now facing public opposition. The Utah Eagle Forum, an influential socially conservative group, has come out against the bill, saying the measure would jeopardize public safety.

“This bill would penalize state agencies and political subdivisions that try to enforce safety regulations against a medical marijuana card holder,” Gayle Ruzicka, the president of the Eagle Forum, wrote in an email to supporters. “This may allow a cardholder who may be impaired to work in positions, such as a heavy machine operator, a motor vehicle driver, or a child care provider. We must have exceptions and a way to protect the public.”

The statement from the group led to objections to the legislation from some lawmakers, including Senator Todd Weiler and Senator Mike Kennedy, both Republicans. However, Escamilla noted that there are provisions that prohibit workers from being under the influence of medical cannabis while on the job. She also noted that Utah’s medical marijuana laws do not allow police officers to register as patients because of conflicts with firearms laws.

Acknowledging the objections to the bill, Escamilla said that she is willing to negotiate with fellow lawmakers to modify the bill, including defining a specific percentage of funding cities would lose if they discriminate against medical marijuana patients.

Before SB 233 can become law, it must receive final approval in the Senate before heading to the Utah House of Representatives. If passed by the House, the measure would also require the signature of Republican Governor Spencer Cox.

The post Utah Bill Targets Cities That Refuse To Recognize Medical Pot appeared first on High Times.

The post Utah Bill Targets Cities That Refuse To Recognize Medical Pot appeared first on Paradise Found.

Applicants for employment in Washington gained new protections on Monday as a new law barring discrimination based on a worker’s off-duty cannabis use went into effect throughout the state. The legislation, Senate Bill 5123, was signed into law by Democratic Governor Jay Inslee in May 2023 after being passed by state lawmakers three weeks earlier.

Under the new law, employers in Washington are barred from taking action against newly hired workers for using cannabis off the job and away from the workplace. The prohibition also applies to new employees who have failed an employer-required drug screening for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites in their hair, blood, urine or other bodily fluids.

Pre-employment drug screenings for cannabis will still be allowed for workers applying for certain safety-sensitive positions. The legislation also includes exceptions for law enforcement officers, firefighters and other first responders, as well as candidates for positions in certain industries such as airlines and aerospace. Jobs that require a federal background check or security clearance are also exempt from the law.

Drug Tests Still Allowed for Current Workers

The new law also does not affect workplace policies that require current workers to undergo drug tests for cannabis use while off the job. As the bill was being considered by the Washington state legislature last year, Democratic Senator Karen Keiser, the bill’s sponsor, noted that the legislation does not apply to employees after the hiring process is completed. 

“If your employer wants to test you every week after you’re hired, they’re still able to do that,” Keiser said in a statement quoted by the Seattle Times. “This is simply opening the front door of getting into a job. Because too many people who see that they have to take a drug test to even apply, don’t even apply.”

Supporters of the legislation note that most currently available drug screenings for cannabis do not detect or measure impairment from marijuana use. Instead, they rely on detecting metabolites present in the system after a person uses weed. Burl Bryson, the executive director of The Cannabis Alliance, told lawmakers at a public hearing in January that potential job candidates can consume cannabis legally “and still test positive for weeks later.”

“If the same approach were applied to alcohol, employers would refuse employment to anyone who enjoyed a beer or glass of wine on the weekend,” Bryson said.

“It simply doesn’t make sense to base an employment decision on that kind of unreliable outcome and test,” Keiser told her colleagues on the Senate floor before they voted in favor of the legislation.

Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), said that laws for workplace drug screenings must evolve as cannabis is legalized in states across the nation.

“Urine screening for off-the-job cannabis consumption has never been an evidence-based policy,” he said in a statement from the cannabis policy reform advocacy group in May. “Rather, this discriminatory practice is a holdover from the zeitgeist of the 1980s’ war on drugs. But times have changed; attitudes have changed, and in many places, the marijuana laws have changed. It is time for workplace policies to adapt to this new reality and to cease punishing employees for activities they engage in during their off-hours that pose no workplace safety threat.”

“Those who consume alcohol legally and responsibly while away from their jobs do not suffer sanctions from their employers unless their work performance is adversely impacted,” Armentano added. “Those who legally consume cannabis should be held to a similar standard.”

NORML noted that numerous studies have shown that workers who use cannabis while off the job do not pose an increased safety risk compared with employees who do not consume marijuana. In a detailed review of the relevant data, the US National Academy of Sciences found that “There is no evidence to support a statistical association between cannabis use and occupational accidents or injuries.”

Washington is not the only state where laws protecting workers who use cannabis while off the job are going into effect with the dawn of the new year. In California, a new law to prohibit employers from taking action against employees who test positive for cannabis in a hair or urine test also went into effect on Monday.

Nevada and Michigan have also recently adopted legislation to protect new hires from pre-employment discrimination based on their use of cannabis. Other jurisdictions including Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Montana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island have expanded policies to limit cannabis testing for both new hires and existing employees. 

The post New Washington Law Protects Job Applicants Who Use Weed appeared first on High Times.

The post New Washington Law Protects Job Applicants Who Use Weed appeared first on Paradise Found.

A bipartisan pair of U.S. lawmakers last week introduced legislation to ease federal employment restrictions on cannabis use that deny employment opportunities for past and current marijuana users. The bill, titled the Cannabis Users Restoration of Eligibility (CURE) Act, was introduced on July 27 by Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina who has been an outspoken supporter of federal cannabis policy reform.

“Every year, qualified and dedicated individuals seeking to serve our country are unable to secure federal jobs and security clearances because the federal government has not caught up with the widely established legal use of medical and recreational cannabis,” Raskin said in a statement on Friday. “I am proud to partner with my friend Representative Mace to introduce the bipartisan CURE Act that will eliminate the draconian, failed and obsolete marijuana policies that prevent talented individuals from becoming honorable public servants in their own government.”

If passed, the CURE Act would prevent past or current marijuana use from being the basis for an applicant being found unsuitable for federal employment or the denial of a security clearance for federal workers. The legislation would also be applied retroactively, allowing workers or applicants who have been denied employment or a security clearance to appeal such denials.

“For too long, the federal government has been denying Americans civil service opportunities solely because of its outdated attitudes toward cannabis and those who consume it,” said Morgan Fox, political director at the cannabis policy reform group the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). “Denying these millions of Americans consideration for employment and security clearances is discriminatory and it unnecessarily shrinks the talent pool available for these important jobs. NORML commends the sponsors for working to undo this policy and replace it with fair and sensible hiring and clearance practices that will put America on much stronger footing on the global stage.”

Bill Endorsed By Justice Groups

The CURE Act has been endorsed by justice reform advocates and cannabis industry groups including the Drug Policy Alliance, the Due Process Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), NORML and the U.S. Cannabis Council.

“Millions of patriotic, conscientious Americans use cannabis legally each year, but they are consistently penalized by outdated federal regulations,” said Ed Conklin, executive director of the U.S. Cannabis Council. “We strongly support the CURE Act because it will bring federal employment policies into line with the views of most Americans. Cannabis use should never prevent a qualified candidate from serving his or her country as a federal employee.”

The bipartisan bill is not the first effort to ease employment discrimination against cannabis users seeking a job with the federal government. In 2021, the federal Office of Personnel Management, an agency that sets “suitability” standards to determine whether an individual is fit to serve in a federal position, issued new guidance to clarify that past marijuana use should not automatically disqualify applicants or appointees from most U.S. government jobs. However, the agency emphasized that marijuana is still considered a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Additionally, the Drug-Free Workplace executive order of 1986 requires federal employees to refrain from using illegal drugs at all times.

“An individual’s disregard of federal law pertaining to marijuana while employed by the federal government remains relevant and may lead to disciplinary action,” the OPM wrote in the 2021 memo. “It is important to note that it is also the policy of the federal government to offer appropriate prevention, treatment and rehabilitation programs and services for federal civilian employees with drug problems.”

Also in 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which sets security standards for access to classified information, issued new guidance to clarify that past marijuana use should not be the sole reason someone is denied a security clearance. The guidance stresses that the illegal use of any controlled substances “can raise security concerns about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness to access classified information or to hold a sensitive position, as well as their ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.”

However, the guidelines also instruct agencies that prior recreational marijuana use by an individual “may be relevant to adjudications but not determinative” in issuing a security clearance. The guidance references a 2017 security directive that tells agencies to apply the “whole person concept” to the decision for granting a security clearance.

“There are many talented and dedicated people who have used cannabis and want to serve their country,” said Terry Blevins, a former civilian investigator for the Department of Defense, Arizona police sergeant, and LEAP board member. “Compromising recruitment by our federal agencies with antiquated cannabis laws makes our nation less safe in the face of security threats we face globally.”

The post U.S. Lawmakers File Bill To Ease Federal Employment Restrictions On Cannabis Use appeared first on High Times.

The post U.S. Lawmakers File Bill To Ease Federal Employment Restrictions On Cannabis Use appeared first on Paradise Found.

The city of Amsterdam, New York owes nearly $200,000 after firing a medical marijuana patient for failing a drug screening for cannabis, a jury decided in a legal action filed by the dismissed city worker. The jury found that the city had discriminated against Thomas Apholz, a wastewater treatment plant worker who was suspended in February 2020 and later fired after testing positive for marijuana.

“They couldn’t fire him fast enough,” Kevin A. Luibrand, Apholz’s attorney told the Times-Union. “They gave him a termination letter on a Monday that fired him the prior Sunday so he couldn’t present his prescription card.”

New York legalized the medical use of marijuana in 2014 with the passage of the Compassionate Care Act, which went into effect in 2016. State law also grants registered medical marijuana patients disability status, which affords protection from employment discrimination for using cannabis.

Patient Fired After Failed Drug Screening

In 2017, Apholz tested positive for cannabis in a random drug screening but was allowed to keep his job under a “last chance agreement” he signed with the city. Under the terms of the agreement, he was subject to termination for future violations of the city’s drug policies.

Apholz tested positive for cannabis in a random drug screening again in 2020 and was subsequently suspended and eventually fired. He then filed suit in state Supreme Court in Montgomery County, alleging unlawful employment discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability as required by the New York Humans Rights Law.

A year before the second positive drug screening, Apholz had obtained a medical marijuana recommendation for lower back pain. In a five-day trial before Judge Rebecca Slezak, Apholz’s attorneys noted that he only used cannabis in capsule form “in the evening at home when his pain was at its worst” and had never used medical marijuana at work. According to court records, Apholz notified “agents” of the city that he was a certified patient in the state Medical Marijuana Program and had a valid Department of Health certification for a medical marijuana prescription at the time of the drug screening.

The city “was made aware of plaintiff’s prescription multiple times, and therefore his disability, before he was terminated,” court filings state. “Defendant has presented no evidence that plaintiff’s use of marijuana impacted his ability to complete his job duties in any way.”

“The evidence indicates that plaintiff was an effective worker while having his marijuana prescription, and that he can perform his job safely and satisfactorily, and defendant has failed to provide any evidence on the record that plaintiff’s use of marijuana has ever negatively impacted his job performance or placed anyone in danger,” court filings state.

Attorneys for the city argued that Apholz had not properly notified the city’s employee relations director about his disability and medical marijuana prescription as required by city policy. Instead, the city maintained that Apholz had notified city engineer Mike Clark of his medical marijuana registration on March 5, 2020, after he had already been suspended for the second failed drug screening. Additionally, the city’s attorneys claimed that Apholz never presented any affirmation the prescription would not interfere with his performance of his “safety sensitive position” involving the use of large machinery and handling hazardous chemicals.

Jury Finds In Patients’ Favor

The jury reached its verdict on June 30, finding that the city discriminated against Apholz for using medical marijuana and awarding him a judgment of $191,762. He is also eligible to request the judge to order reinstatement to his job and for the city to pay his legal fees.

“The jury found that senior Amsterdam city officials refused to provide Mr. Apholz an accommodation for his medical condition after he informed the city that he had a medical marijuana prescription following a random drug test, and summarily fired him on March 16, 2020 without a civil service hearing and without having any discussions with him about his medical condition,” according to a statement from Luibrand quoted by The Daily Gazette.

Aaron Bloom, the CEO of DocMJ, a medical marijuana physician practice that provides compassionate care to patients, says that the jury’s verdict underscores the importance of laws that protect medical cannabis patients.
“Respecting patients’ medical cannabis rights, particularly in the workplace, is of utmost importance. It is crucial to acknowledge the legitimacy of medical cannabis as a therapeutic option and ensure that patients who rely on it for their well-being are treated with fairness and understanding,” Bloom writes in an email to High Times. “Medical cannabis patients also have a duty to not show up for work under the influence of cannabis in a manner that violates workplace safety. By providing appropriate accommodations and respecting the rights of employees with valid medical cannabis prescriptions, we can create an environment that promotes inclusivity and supports individuals in managing their health conditions effectively.”

The post New York Town Owes Nearly $200,000 After Firing Medical Cannabis Patient appeared first on High Times.

The post New York Town Owes Nearly $200,000 After Firing Medical Cannabis Patient appeared first on Paradise Found.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence passed the FY24 Intelligence Authorization Act in a 17-0 vote on June 14, which includes a provision that prevents discrimination or denial of jobs in government intelligence agencies.

The bill was proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden, a senior member of the committee. “This bill includes historic bipartisan legislation reforming the country’s broken classification and declassification system,” said Wyden in a press release. “The bill also includes my provision to ensure that cannabis use will not disqualify intelligence community applicants from serving their country. It’s a commonsense change to ensure the IC [intelligence community] can recruit the most capable people possible. Finally, the bill includes critically important provisions to protect Intelligence Community whistleblowers.”

Previously in June 2022, Wyden filed an amendment that “prohibited any Federal agency from denying or revoking an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information solely because of past or present use of cannabis” last year. A second-degree amendment reduced to only intelligence agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and National Security Agency (NSA). The original text which described “past or present use” was changed to “pre-employment.”

Later in September 2022, Wyden’s proposal was met with opposition from Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. John Cornyn who objected to its inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

According to Chairman Mark Warner, the FY24 Intelligence Authorization Act “furthers the Committee’s efforts to reform the security clearance process, so that the IC can attract and expeditiously on-board a talented, diverse, and trusted workforce to meet the emerging challenges we face.”

On March 8, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines addressed the need for security clearance inclusions. “We recognize, frankly, that many states have legalized or decriminalized marijuana use and wanted to be sure that we’re not disqualifying people solely for that purpose in that context,” Haines said at the hearing.

“We obviously believe that we want to have the talent that exists in America—and when somebody is using it [cannabis] experimentally in a legal state that’s something that shouldn’t on its own essentially disqualify,” Haines continued. “We continue to approach this from a whole-person perspective. And we expect if anybody takes the job to comply with our policies and our laws in a trusted position.”

The discussion of security clearance for cannabis users goes further back to a memo from Haines in January 2022, following up from guidance signed in December 2021.

Other federal agencies have addressed cannabis consumption as well. 

Back in 2014, former FBI Director James Comey suggested that the agency should consider loosening employment rules for cannabis. “I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” Comey said, according to an interview with Wall Street Journal.

The FBI originally disqualified any applicants of they had consumed cannabis within the past three years of their application. Now as of July 2021, the rule applies to cannabis use within one year.

In March, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revised its rules so that anyone who has legally cultivated, manufactured or sold cannabis would still be considered for a job. However, those who did so in violation of state law would be disqualified.

In May, the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) updated its rules on cannabis use for applicants, stating that those who have used hemp-derived CBD products within one year prior to their application would be reviewed “on a case-by-case basis by adjudicative personnel.” Previously, the USSS based its rules around age, where 24 years or younger could apply after one year free of cannabis consumption, but 28 and older would not be eligible for at least five years after consumption.

The post Security Clearance Can’t Be Denied for Intelligence Agency Employees, According to Senate Committee appeared first on High Times.

The post Security Clearance Can’t Be Denied for Intelligence Agency Employees, According to Senate Committee appeared first on Paradise Found.

A new study from a government agency in Australia is highlighting how aboriginal people in the country are treated far differently than non-aboriginals when caught using cannabis by police.

The research, released earlier this month by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), was based on “a dataset of 38,813 observations involving 27,127 adult offenders proceeded against for a cannabis use/ possession incident between January 2017 and February 2020.”

Among aboriginal cannabis offenders, only 11.7% received “cautions” from police, compared with 43.9% of non-aboriginal offenders.

“If you don’t receive a caution, you are proceeding through the formal justice system,” BOSCAR executive director Jackie Fitzgerald said, as quoted by ABC New England in Australia.

According to the outlet, the research “found eligibility criteria for the state’s Cannabis Cautioning Scheme, which offers a diversionary pathway.”

“The scheme allows police to issue cautions using their discretion, but the offender must not be involved in any other criminal offen[s]e at the time and must have no prior convictions for drug, violence, or sexual offen[s]es,” ABC New England reported. “Another criterion is that the offender must possess no more than 15 grams of dried cannabis. But the report found only 39.5 percent of Aboriginal offenders eligible for a caution were issued one.”

As Fitzgerald told the outlet: “It’s hard to see how Aboriginal people would benefit from a program like this.”

Cannabis is illegal in Australia, but the new report comes at a time when there is a burgeoning political effort to legalize pot in the country.

The Greens, currently the minority party in Australia, are chiefly behind the legalization push, announcing last year that the party had received legal advice from a constitutional lawyer who said that parliament could supersede state laws and end prohibition on pot.

The Guardian reported at the time that the advice centered around “three commonwealth heads of power that would enable it to legali[z]e and regulate cannabis use, with the clearest pathway via a part of section 51, which relates to copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trademarks.” 

Legalization could bring a significant windfall Down Under. A study released earlier this year from the University of Western Australia suggested that legalization could generate $243.5 million annually in the first five years in Western Australia.

ABC Radio Perth reported at the time that the study, which was commissioned by the Legalise Cannabis WA Party, “quantified the revenue the state could make through llegali[z]ing cannabis,” and “considered data about the form and frequency of cannabis use, as well as the estimated cost of enforcing current laws that prohibit cannabis use.”

“We wanted to find out the actual truth on this, and we commissioned this not expecting any particular result,” said Brian Walker, leader of the Legalise Cannabis WA Party. “This is the first time anyone has shown their working, and set out exactly how their figures were arrived at. On the spending side we’ve got stuff like your police—for chasing a cannabis crime—the courts and the corrective services for managing that. Altogether, that’s about $100 million per year.”

The post Government Study Finds Aboriginal Australians More Likely To Be Charged For Pot appeared first on High Times.

The post Government Study Finds Aboriginal Australians More Likely To Be Charged For Pot appeared first on Paradise Found.

The Illinois Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office (CROO) announced on Feb. 7 that it launched its Cannabis Disparity and Availability Study, which tasks a contract group to find examples of discrimination within the local cannabis industry.

According to CROO, the study “will collect and analyze data and report on whether discrimination exists in the Illinois cannabis industry,” CROO states on its website. “If there is a finding that discrimination exists, the Disparity Study will evaluate the impact of the discrimination on the State and its residents regarding entering and participating in the State’s cannabis industry. The Disparity Study will include recommendations for reducing or eliminating any identified barriers to entry.“

The study will examine laws and court cases that involve cannabis and cannabis and disparity studies, conduct interviews and create focus groups for public input, and compile data in relation to the state’s cannabis application process and business information.

A final report is required to be sent to the General Assembly and governor within 12 months, including any “potential remedies” to amend current cannabis regulation. “This effort is a vital assessment of the state’s cannabis social equity licensing system,” said Acting CROO Officer Erin Johnson. “We look forward to seeing a final report that truly incorporates the voices of Illinois social equity applicants and our new cannabis businesses.”

This comes nearly one year since the state issued a request to find someone to conduct the Disparity Study in Feb. 2022. This led to the hiring of the Nerevu Group, which is a minority- and women-owned contractor group based throughout Illinois, as well as some out-of-state locations.

“Along with our partners, Nerevu is honored to support CROO, IDFPR and IDOA in building an even more inclusive and equitable cannabis industry,” said Nerevu Group Founder and President Reuben Cummings. “This study is essential in identifying potential disparities and suitable remedies. We are excited to initiate this project and look forward to connecting with the greater cannabis community.”

Legal adult-use cannabis sales began in 2020, and in July 2022, Gov. J.B. Pritzker announced that 149 condition state licenses would be issued and available for social equity applicants. “Illinois is leading the way in addressing the War on Drugs as no state has before, and dispensary ownership that reflects our state’s diversity is a product of that commitment,” said Pritzker. “These licenses represent a significant step toward accountability for the decades of injustice preceding cannabis legalization. Illinois will continue to deliver on the promises of putting equity at the forefront of this process.”

Just a few months later, two of the state’s first social equity cannabis dispensaries, Ivy Hall Damen and Green Rose Dispensary, opened in November 2022 in Chicago.

According to Nigel Dandridge, the co-founder of Ivy Hall Damen, it’s taken a long time for his business to open up. “We’ve been working to get a seat at the table for a while now, and we’re finally able to do that,” said Dandridge. “When this industry first opened up, we didn’t see anyone in our community benefiting, or even being able to participate. So it was kind of hypocritical. I think it’s important that we can show you what we’re doing. We want everyone to benefit. Our staff’s been working hard, and we’re just excited to share it with everyone.”

Falling in line with other states in the U.S., Illinois Rep. La Shawn Ford recently introduced House Bill 1 to legalize psychedelics in January. Ford’s bill would allow residents 18 years and older to seek out supervised psychedelic therapy. “I want to be clear that this is a health measure. My proposal does not allow retail sales of psilocybin outside of a regulated therapeutic setting and ensures that medicines purchased for therapeutic use at a service center must be used under medical supervision, and cannot be taken home,” Ford said. “Only licensed facilitators will be allowed to provide treatment at closely regulated and licensed healing centers, approved health care facilities, in hospice, or at a pre-approved patient residence.”

The post Illinois Announces Launch of Cannabis Disparity Study appeared first on High Times.

The post Illinois Announces Launch of Cannabis Disparity Study appeared first on Paradise Found.

California employers would be barred from discriminating against employees for cannabis use while off the job under legislation introduced last week. The measure, AB 2188, was introduced in the California Assembly by Democratic Assembly Member Bill Quirk on February 15.

If passed, AB 2188 would end discrimination based on drug testing for cannabis metabolites, which are non-psychoactive substances that can be detected in a person’s bodily fluids for up to several weeks after they have consumed cannabis. 

“The bill would make it unlawful for California employers to penalize or discriminate against a person when making decisions about hiring, termination, or other aspect of employment if the discrimination is based on the person’s off-duty cannabis use or the presence of non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites revealed in an employer-mandated drug screening,” Lauren Mendelsohn, an attorney with the Law Offices of Omar Figueroa in Sebastopol, California, explained in an email to High Times.

The legislation, however, has several limitations. Employers who are required to follow federal drug-testing mandates are exempt. AB 2188 does not require employers to permit employees to be high while working.

“The bill does not authorize employees to use or be impaired by cannabis while on the job, nor does it prohibit employers from administering impairment or chemical tests to determine whether an employee is impaired or has an active presence of THC in their system,” Mendelsohn noted. “Employers who are required to conduct screening tests for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites, or who would lose federal benefits if they did not, may do so.”

Quirk’s bill is supported by the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Cal NORML). In a statement, the cannabis policy reform advocacy group said that “testing or threatening to test bodily fluids for cannabis metabolites is the most common way that employers harass and discriminate against employees who lawfully use cannabis in the privacy of their own homes.” Cal NORML noted that a survey being conducted online shows that 33 percent of respondents have been denied  employment due to testing positive for marijuana, while 60 percent have stopped using cannabis because of drug testing by their employer or doctor.

Protecting the Rights of Cannabis Users

Attorney S. Edward Wicker of Wicker Law in San Diego believes that AB 2188 is necessary to protect the rights afforded Californians by cannabis legalization and noted that positive drug tests for cannabis use are not an effective method of determining if an employee is impaired on the job.

“This legislation is needed to bring fairness and science-based legal protection for California workers. Current California law allows adults to consume and possess cannabis,” Wicker, who is also the director of San Diego NORML, wrote in an email. “This liberty is at risk when employers use a non-scientific test to discriminate against workers for cannabis use. Cannabis law is evolving from prohibition as what still exists at the federal level to a policy of legalization supported by a majority of Americans. Policies based on prohibition rely on inertia and non-scientific data.”

Cal NORML noted that studies have shown that off-the-job cannabis use is not associated with an increase in work-related injuries or accidents and that jurisdictions with liberalized marijuana laws are associated with greater workforce participation, higher wages, lower rates of employee absenteeism, and declines in workers’ compensation claims.

“Testing bodily fluids for cannabis metabolites is another example of a non-scientific approach to cannabis policy,” Wicker continued. “The presence of cannabis metabolites is not indicative of whether a person is under the influence of cannabis. A person can test positive for cannabis metabolites days to weeks after any cannabis use. This is no indication of any impairment for any work-related purpose except for arbitrary discrimination.”

Five states including New York and New Jersey have passed laws to protect the employment rights of recreational cannabis users and similar legislation was introduced in the Colorado legislature earlier this month. Legislation to protect medical marijuana patients has been passed in 21 states.

“It’s high time California protected its workers’ rights also,” said Dale Gieringer, the director of California NORML.

The post California Bill Would Protect Cannabis Users From Employment Discrimination appeared first on High Times.

The post California Bill Would Protect Cannabis Users From Employment Discrimination appeared first on Paradise Found.