The U.S. House of Representatives could vote next week on amendments that would let marijuana businesses access banks and allow the city of Washington, D.C. to spend its own money on legalizing and regulating recreational cannabis sales.
That’s if Republican leaders don’t block their colleagues from even being able to consider the measures on the floor.
The House Rules Committee, led by ardent prohibitionist Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) has already stymied nearly three dozen cannabis amendments from advancing during the current Congress, as shown by a Marijuana Moment analysis earlier this week. Exactly zero marijuana-related measures have been cleared by GOP leaders for floor votes since the summer of 2016.
But that hasn’t stopped a growing bipartisan list of lawmakers who support cannabis law reform from continuing to try.
The two newly proposed amendments on banking and D.C. are being offered to a large-scale bill to fund parts of the federal government for Fiscal Year 2019. The legislation is expected to be considered by the Rules Committee next week before being sent to the floor.
The pending D.C. measure would allow the city to expand on its current voter-approved law that allows adults to legally use, possess and grow small amounts of marijuana. An ongoing federal appropriations rider has prevented officials from adding a system of taxed and regulated cannabis sales.
The amendment, filed by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), with the support of Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), would strip the marijuana regulation ban from the budget bill so the city could spend its own money enacting whatever cannabis laws it sees fit.
“I will expose any Member who interferes in D.C.’s local affairs so their constituents see them focusing on our business instead of theirs by trying to force a vote on the House floor on each and every anti-home-rule rider,” Norton said in a press release that also addressed other measures she filed to beat back congressional interference in the district’s lawmaking processes.
The second new cannabis amendment would prevent federal regulators from punishing a bank “solely because the institution provides financial services to an entity that is a manufacturer, producer, or a person that participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling marijuana or marijuana products and engages in such activity pursuant to a law established by a State or a unit of local government.”
A marijuana banking measure was approved on the House floor in 2014 by a margin of 231 to 192, but its language was not included in final enacted legislation that year.
The current amendment is sponsored by Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA), along with Rohrabacher, Blumenauer, Lee, and Norton. They are joined by Reps. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), Jared Polis (D-CO), Dina Titus (D-NV), Don Young (R-AK), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Jason Lewis (R-MN), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI).
That is by far the most cosponsors of any of the 229 amendments filed on the pending FY2019 funding bill so far.
Proud to join my colleague @RepDennyHeck on an amendment to the Financial Services Approps Bill to protect financial institutions working with legally-operating cannabis businesses. This is important for hundreds of businesses in Nevada. https://t.co/ju7DKvltJG
— Dina Titus (@repdinatitus) July 11, 2018
But huge bipartisan cosponsor lists haven’t prevented Pete Sessions and the Rules Committee from preventing floor votes on cannabis measures for the past several years. It remains to be seen if this time will be different.
Readers who support Marijuana Moment on Patreon can read the full text of the newly proposed cannabis amendments below:
Google Execs Told Marijuana Jokes To Lighten The Mood After Trump’s Election, Leaked Video Shows
Shortly after the 2016 presidential election, Google executives spoke at an all-hands meeting about the political ramifications of Donald Trump’s victory and fielded questions from employees about the path moving forward.
And to lighten the mood, they also cracked a few jokes about marijuana, which had just been fully legalized in California, the home of Google’s headquarters.
“Let’s face it, most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad because of the election,” Google co-founder Sergey Brin said at the beginning of the meeting. “But there’s another group—a small group—that we should also think about who are very excited about the legalization of pot.”
Employees are heard applauding and laughing in the video, which was leaked to Breitbart by an anonymous source. (The video cannot currently be embedded, but it appears at the top of the page linked above).
“I was asking if we could serve joints outside on the patio, but apparently these things take a little while to take effect,” Brin continued. “It was a huge, huge disappointment.”
“I’ve been bemoaning that all week, I’ll be honest with you.”
Of course, the meeting took on a more serious tone as executives discussed the policy implications of the incoming Trump administration and the role of Google in the modern political landscape. But the meeting didn’t wrap without one final nod to the passage of Proposition 64 in California.
Asked to weigh in on speculation that economist Jefferey Eisenach would be named as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Google’s chief legal officer Kent Walker brushed it off with his own marijuana joke.
“Anybody who thinks they know of the likely members of the Trump administration is taking premature advantage of Sergey’s favorite California proposition,” Walker said. “Nobody knows.”
Just as a matter of housekeeping, California’s adult-use marijuana law went into effect immediately after the proposition’s passage. So technically speaking, anyone 21 or older who would have consumed cannabis after the election wouldn’t be taking “premature advantage” of the law.
Perhaps to that end, Brin closed the post-election event by telling Googlers that “there’s food and drink on the patio,” but warned them to “be careful of the cookies.”
Workers In These Industries Are Most Likely To Consume Marijuana
It’s become increasingly clear that there’s no single “type” of marijuana consumer. But research has identified certain cultural trends, including a new study that examines the prevalence of cannabis consumption among workers in different industries.
The study, published this month in the International Review of Psychiatry, demonstrates that cannabis use is represented in a wide range of employment backgrounds—and some of the industries where using cannabis is most common might come as a surprise.
Let’s start with the numbers. Here’s a list of industries where workers use the most and least cannabis, which the researchers compiled based on 2013 and 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data. The survey asks respondents whether they’ve used marijuana at least once in the past year.
|Industry||% marijuana use|
Note: Not all industries are represented in this list, which is limited by the data submitted by NSDUH respondents. Also, the study does distinguish different “job categories,” but not within each specific industry.
The point of the study wasn’t simply to show what kind of workers are using marijuana, but also for what purposes. If a survey respondent reported using cannabis in the past year, their use was then categorized as either medical, recreational or mixed (i.e. some of their cannabis consumption was recommended by a doctor, but not all of it).
You can see that breakdown in the table below, but in general, the study reveals a diversity of use types among different industries. People in construction tend to be mixed-use consumers, for instance, and people in food services tend to skew recreational. It’s difficult to explain these sub-trends without more data, however.
That said, the researchers were especially interested in cannabis use among construction and mining employees.
“One key difference between the user groups is the higher percentage of medical cannabis users in the construction and mining industries,” they wrote. “This is likely due to the higher injury rates in these industries: construction and mining work require physical stamina, often involve irregular schedules, and expose workers to weather, dangerous tools, and equipment.”
The study notes that there’s conflicting research about marijuana use in these industries, with some arguing that frequent use can result in increased workplace injuries and others contending that the therapeutic use of cannabis “addresses pain and other health problems… that often result from work-related injuries.”
That latter point is also consistent with a study released last month showing “evidence that legalizing medical marijuana improved workplace safety.”
Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Worker Rejected For Medical Marijuana Use
A Connecticut woman’s rights under that state’s medical marijuana law were violated when a company refused to hire her on the basis of her legal cannabis use, and a lawsuit seeking damages against her would-be employer may proceed, a federal judge ruled.
In 2016, Katelin Noffsinger filed suit against Bride Brook Health and Rehabilitation Center, a federal contractor, after a job offer was rescinded following a positive test for cannabis on a pre-employment drug test.
Noffsinger had accepted a management-level position with the firm, which then scheduled a drug test. Prior to the test, Noffsinger informed Bride Brook that she was a qualified cannabis patient under Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act, and used the drug—namely, synthetic marijuana pills, consumed in the evening—to treat post-traumatic stress disorder following a 2012 car crash.
After learning of Noffsinger’s patient status, Bride Brook officials debated over email the best way to inform her that she could not be hired because of her marijuana use.
After the positive drug test and the subsequent rejection, Noffsinger filed an employment-discrimination lawsuit in state court. The case was elevated to federal court after Bride Brook used federal drug laws—including federal cannabis prohibition—to justify their actions.
Unlike some other states including California, Connecticut’s medical-marijuana law, passed in 2012, offers specific employment protections for cannabis patients.
Employers don’t have to accommodate cannabis use during work hours or employees who are intoxicated in the workplace, but any off-hours marijuana use by a certified patient following state law is protected.
In court filings, Bride Brook argued that the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act preempted such protections.
Because Bride Brook was a federal contractor, it was required to perform such drug tests—and had the firm still hired Noffsinger after the positive drug test, it would have been “defrauding” the federal government, the firm argued.
In a ruling issued last week, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer disagreed.
While Meyer rejected Noffsinger’s requests for summary judgment and attorney’s fees, his ruling means that Noffsinger can now seek monetary damages in a jury trial.
The federal Drug Free Workplace Act requires only that employers make a “good faith effort” to maintain a drug-free workplace, Meyer ruled.
Such efforts include posting warnings about drug use and setting an office policy.
A “zero-tolerance” policy that includes actively testing and then rejecting protected applicants on the basis of a test go above and beyond that threshold, Meyer wrote.
A previous ruling in Noffsinger’s case, also by Meyer, was the first instance in which a federal judge ruled that the federal Controlled Substances Act does not preempt state medical-marijuana laws that provide employment protections.
Other classes of workers, including workers in “safety-sensitive” positions and employees of the federal government, may have to wait for similar protections.