As of Sunday, many New York City employers are no longer able to require pre-employment drug testing for marijuana as a part of the hiring process—though there are a series of exemptions to the policy, including some that are still being finalized.
The City Council approved the ban last year, and it was enacted without Mayor Bill de Blasio’s (D) signature. It stipulates that, generally speaking, companies in the city can’t conduct pre-employment tests for THC metabolites unless the position is safety sensitive.
What exactly constitutes such a position has been subject to debate. As originally written and passed, the bill included language carving out exceptions from the prohibition on testing for those applying to certain jobs such as police officers and people charged with supervising or caring for children, as well as positions “tied to a federal or state contract or grant.”
However, it also contains a provision that allowed the New York City Commission on Human Rights to expand the list of excepted jobs. And that’s what the body did last month with proposed regulations, which were open for public comment until April 27. The commission also held a virtual hearing on the issue on April 16.
Under the commission’s proposal, workers who use heavy machinery, spend a significant amount of time at a construction site, work with power or gas utility lines or use a motor vehicle on approximately a daily basis would still be subject to pre-employment drug testing for cannabis.
Effective May 10, 2020, drug tests for marijuana can't be part of the job application process for most jobs in NYC. Check out our factsheet to learn more: https://t.co/Uh1KTQ67os pic.twitter.com/wRuXrYcUwY
— NYC Human Rights (@NYCCHR) May 11, 2020
While those exemptions haven’t yet been finalized, the commission announced in a notice on Friday that “claims arising between May 10, 2020 and the date when the rules are finalized, the Commission will not be filing enforcement actions related to the above-listed positions.”
In other words, if a worker files a complaint that an employer required pre-employment drug testing for a position that fits a description under the commission’s proposed regulations, the body will not take enforcement action against the company even as those rules are still in the process of being finalized.
Reform advocates have widely celebrated the policy overall, applauding local lawmakers for taking steps to protect cannabis consumers against discrimination. But some—including the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)—argue that the exemptions are excessively broad.
“MPP understands that the City Council decided to exclude safety sensitive positions. However, MPP believes the proposed rule goes [beyond] what is required by” the bill, DeVaughn Ward, senior legislative counsel at MPP, said in written testimony to the commission. “We are particularly concerned by the inclusion of a limitation for anyone who drives daily, which would impact large number of working class New York City residents.”
“Science has proven that cannabis can stay in one’s system up to a month after consumption. This means a positive test for marijuana does not prove one is impaired while at work,” he added. “MPP urges the Commission to reconsider the proposed rule and narrowly tailor the exceptions to those expressly required by” the original legislation.
New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, who sponsored the legislation that created the ban, said he’s opposed to adding any exemptions to the law because he believes that “no individual should be tested for THC, and I stand firmly against any expansion of exemptions to Local Law 91.”
“Creating more exemptions and loopholes to this law will unjustifiably deter qualified employees from obtaining gainful employment,” he wrote. “Maintaining the original intent of the legislation, the City should be pushing to reduce the stigma around marijuana and working to restore justice for the millions of black and brown communities who have been the victims of marijuana criminalization and discrimination.”
Other groups expressed strong support for the commission’s list of additional exemptions to the testing ban.
The American Automobile Association (AAA) said the proposed rule would cover roadside technicians it employs, and they said approving the regulations would ensure public safety.
“AAA strongly believes maintaining pre-employment drug testing for emergency roadside technicians will ensure the safety of the public, our members and our roadside assistance employees,” the organization’s New York chapter said. “AAA currently employs 90 roadside technicians in New York City who are responsible for providing safe and reliable emergency service for disabled vehicles twenty-four hours per day and seven days a week, in every weather condition.”
A representative from Verizon also weighed in, stating that the the company’s “workforce of telecommunications technicians represent a substantial part of our embedded employee base that should be exempt from this rule.”
“Ensuring safety in these instances are of utmost importance and it is for that reason we respectfully request that telecommunications technicians be exempt,” Verizon said. “Understanding the need to keep our employees safe, and our infrastructure secure we believe these exceptions are imperative.”
The drug testing industry is, perhaps unsurprisingly, in favor of expanding the list of exemptions to the testing ban.
“Restricting an employer’s right to test for THC is the first step to prohibiting employers from all substance testing that puts accident, injury and fatality liability directly upon them,” the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) said, adding that it would “recommend, on behalf of our membership and the employers we represent, that this City Commission consider allowing ANY and ALL employers to choose a Drug Free Workplace for all.”
“Without exempting all employers or offering the ability to opt-in or out of Local Law 91 then a burden will be put on the shoulders of employers that would prefer to provide safe work environments by forcing them to accept applicants that are using a known impairing substance,” NDASA said.
Quest Diagnostics said it “is a strong advocate for an employer’s right to drug test applicants and employees as a component of maintaining a safe workplace.” And while the drug testing company said it doesn’t take a position on marijuana legalization, it “believes that any law or ordinance legalizing the recreational use of cannabis should protect an employer’s right to maintain drug-free workforce policies for safety-sensitive employees.”
Of course, cannabis remains illegal for recreational use in New York despite efforts from Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and legislators to enact it through the state budget over the past two years. But the City Council did draft the testing ban with the expectations that marijuana would eventually become legal for adult use in the state.
A top New York lawmaker said that last month that she’s still hoping to get cannabis legalization passed this year despite challenges presented by the coronavirus outbreak.
Nine Members Of Congress Tell DEA To Revise Proposed Hemp Rule On THC Content
Nine members of Congress sent a letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on Tuesday, urging the agency to revise its proposed hemp regulations.
DEA released an interim final rule (IFR) for the crop in August, and it said the regulations were simply meant to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized hemp and its derivatives. But stakeholders and advocates have expressed serious concerns about certain proposals, arguing that they could put processors at risk of violating federal law and hamper the industry’s growth.
Reps. David Joyce (R-OH) and Denver Riggleman (R-VA) led the letter and pointed specifically to a provision of DEA’s IFR that could impact processing hemp extracts. The agency stipulated that “any such material that contains greater than 0.3% of Δ9-THC on a dry weight basis remains controlled in schedule I.”
That’s problematic, the lawmakers said, because in many cases the process of extracting cannabinoids from hemp temporarily causes THC levels to increase beyond that threshold. And so while Congress intended to legalize those extracts, businesses that produce the materials could find themselves inadvertently breaking the law.
I sent a letter to the @DEAHQ asking them to protect hemp producers and clarify hemp regulations.
The DEA must specify their requirements and streamline hemp directives by clarifying the legal means of processing hemp products. Read more here, #VA05:https://t.co/wGabQePrts
— Congressman Denver Riggleman (@RepRiggleman) October 21, 2020
“Our offices have received countless calls from constituents involved in the hemp industry who are extremely fearful that simply following the provisions of the Farm Bill will result in criminal liability under the IFR,” the lawmakers’ letter states. “The IFR will likely have the effect of inhibiting these nascent state hemp programs thereby harming those American companies and workers who chose to pursue careers in the hemp industry and made significant investments to effectuate those aspirations.”
Therefore, the lawmakers are “requesting a resolution to this issue as quickly as possible,” adding that “DEA must revise the IFR to eliminate the ambiguities set forth above and provide peace of mind to all Americans who have chosen to pursue a career in the hemp industry.”
Reps. Rodney Davis (R-IL), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Don Young (R-AK), Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) also signed the letter.
A public comment period on DEA’s proposed rules closed on Tuesday. It saw more than 3,300 submissions, many of which focused on issues with the “work in progress” hemp THC issue.
“This IFR’s criminalizes work in progress hemp extract, a fundamental component of any consumer hemp/CBD product, and will negatively impact the hemp/CBD industry at a time when financial pressure is already high,” one commenter wrote. “Hemp and subsequent extracts are not controlled substances.”
Another issue identified by more than 1,000 commenters concerns delta-8 THC. The most widely known cannabinoid is delta-9 THC, the main component responsible for creating an intoxicating effect, but delta-8 THC from hemp is also psychoactive and is an object of growing interest within the market.
Because DEA’s proposed regulations state that all “synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances,” some feel that would directly impact the burgeoning cannabinoid, as its converted from CBD through the use of a catalyst—and that could be interpreted as a synthetic production process.
In any case, it’s not clear whether DEA deliberately crafted either of these rules with the intent of criminalizing certain hemp producers—but stakeholders and advocates aren’t taking any chances.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has faced separate criticism over its own proposed hemp rules, though it has been more proactive in addressing them. Following significant pushback from the industry over certain regulations it views as excessively restrictive, the agency reopened a public comment period, which also closed this month.
USDA is also planning to distribute a national survey to gain insights from thousands of hemp businesses that could inform its approach to regulating the market.
Read the congressional coalition’s letter to DEA on its hemp rule below:
Pennsylvania House Votes To Protect Medical Marijuana Patients From DUI Charges
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved an amendment on Tuesday that would protect medical marijuana patients from being penalized under the state’s DUI laws for using their legal medicine.
The proposal cleared the chamber as an amendment to a broader piece of legislation concerning motor vehicle policies. It passed in a 109-93 vote.
As it stands, registered medical cannabis patients can be convicted of driving under the influence of a controlled substance if THC metabolites are detected in their blood. That’s despite the fact that marijuana can remain present in the body well after someone is considered impaired.
The House-approved amendment, which is now attached to a bill previously passed by the Senate, exempts “marijuana used lawfully in accordance with” the state’s medical cannabis law from DUI statutes.
“I think that you can ask any veteran or anybody that’s using medical cannabis right now, if they took the prescription on Monday, [on] Wednesday, they’re not high,” Rep. Ed Gainey (D) said in a floor speech before the vote. “And if they got pulled over, they darned shouldn’t be charged for being intoxicated or under the influence of medical marijuana.”
Medical marijuana has helped the people of the Pennsylvania. But even if you have a medical card, you can still get a DUI even if you’re not high – if you have a trace of THC in your system. Today I fought to pass a bill that would end that. pic.twitter.com/uxj8IsuVO9
— Ed Gainey (@RepGainey) October 21, 2020
“I think we’re putting an undue burden on the people of Pennsylvania if we’re saying this is what we want to do after we fought so hard to pass medical marijuana and we know what it’s done to help the people of Pennsylvania,” he said.
The amendment is similar in intent to separate standalone legislation introduced by Sen. Camera Bartolotta (R) in June to end the “zero tolerance” DUI policy for medical marijuana.
While Pennsylvania legalized medical cannabis in 2016, with the first dispensaries opening two years later, the law has not caught up as it concerns impaired driving. A person can test positive for THC for weeks after last consuming marijuana, rendering traditional roadside tests incapable of determining active impairment.
Several legal cannabis states have enacted per se THC limits in blood, similar to blood alcohol requirements. However, evidence isn’t clear on the relationship between THC concentrations in blood and impairment.
A study published last year, for example, concluded that those who drive at the legal THC limit—which is typically between two to five nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood—were not statistically more likely to be involved in an accident compared to people who haven’t used marijuana.
Separately, the Congressional Research Service in 2019 determined that while “marijuana consumption can affect a person’s response times and motor performance… studies of the impact of marijuana consumption on a driver’s risk of being involved in a crash have produced conflicting results, with some studies finding little or no increased risk of a crash from marijuana usage.”
The modest cannabis DUI reform approved by the Pennsylvania House comes amid repeated calls from the state’s leaders to more broadly legalize marijuana for adult use.
Last week, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) in a speech stressed that marijuana reform could generate tax revenue to support the state’s economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and that ending criminalization is necessary for social justice.
That marked the third time in three months that the governor has held events focused on making the case for legalization. Last month, he took a dig at the Republican-controlled legislature for failing to act on reform in the previous session. And in August, he suggested that the state itself could potentially control marijuana sales rather than just license private retailers as other legalized jurisdictions have done.
Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D), a longstanding legalization advocate, has been similarly vocal about his position. In speeches and on social media, the official has expressed frustration that Pennsylvania has yet to enact the policy change, especially as neighboring like New Jersey are moving in that direction.
He said last month that farmers in his state can grow better marijuana than people in New Jersey—and that’s one reason why Pennsylvania should expeditiously legalize cannabis before voters next door in the Garden State enact the policy change this November.
Fetterman also recently hosted a virtual forum where he got advice on how to effectively implement a cannabis system from the lieutenant governors of Illinois and Michigan, which have enacted legalization.
While Wolf initially opposed adult-use legalization, he came out in support of the reform last year after Fetterman led a statewide listening tour last year to solicit public input on the issue.
Shortly after the governor announced that he was embracing the policy change, a lawmaker filed a bill to legalize marijuana through a state-run model.
A majority of Senate Democrats sent Wolf a letter in July arguing that legislators should pursue the policy change in order to generate revenue to make up for losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Montana Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Marijuana Legalization Initiative
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a marijuana legalization initiative that will appear on the state’s November ballot.
With weeks before the election, opponents asked the court to quash the measure, arguing that because it involves appropriating funds, it violates state statute on citizen initiatives.
The court didn’t weigh in on the merits of the challenge; rather, it said the petitioners with the campaign Wrong for Montana (WFM) failed to demonstrate “urgency or emergency factors” that would justify moving the case into its jurisdiction instead of going through trial and appeals courts first.
It left the door open for the opponents to take its challenge through the traditional process. Brian Thompson, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, told Marijuana Moment that they now intend to file the suit in district court “soon,” but he wasn’t able to provide an exact timeline.
“We express no opinion on the merits of WFM’s constitutional challenge, nor to its right to pursue this challenge in district court,” the justices wrote. “However, WFM’s claim does not present an appropriate basis on which to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction. Even if it did, WFM has wholly failed to establish that urgency or emergency factors make litigation in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate.”
Dave Lewis, policy advisor to the pro-legalization New Approach Montana, said in a press release that this “was an easy decision for the Montana Supreme Court.”
“At best, this lawsuit was a frivolous longshot,” he said. “At worst, it was an intentional effort to create confusion right before the election.”
The measure in question would establish that adult-use marijuana system. The lawsuit did not target a separate, complementary initiative that would specify that only those 21 and older could participate in the legal market.
It is the case that state statute says citizens “may enact laws by initiative on all matters except appropriations of money and local or special laws” and that the initiative does allocate cannabis tax revenue to certain programs. But prior measures that have appeared on the state’s ballot have done so as well.
Under the proposal, half of the public revenue generated from marijuana sales would go toward environmental conservation programs—a provision that earned the campaign key endorsements last month.
The initiative is already on the ballot and voting has started, so presumably if the court had sided with the plaintiffs, the votes simply wouldn’t have been counted or implementation would have been prevented. It is also possible that a court could rule that monies raised by legal cannabis sales under the initiative would simply into the state’s general fund instead of toward the specific programs delineated in its current text.
“We’re receiving strong support from voters across the state,” Lewis, who is a former Republican state senator and former budget director for three Montana governors, said. “Instead of making a coherent argument against the initiatives, our opponents tried to deprive Montanans of their constitutional right to a citizen initiative process.”
“Our opponents are desperately throwing everything at the wall in the hope that something sticks,” he added. “They’re resorting to fear tactics and misinformation because they know that a majority of Montana voters are ready to vote yes on legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana for adults 21 and over.”
In neighboring Nebraska, the state Supreme Court did rule last month that a measure to legalize medical cannabis that had qualified for the November ballot could not proceed because it violated the state’s single-subject rule for ballot initiatives.
Recent polling indicates that Montana voters are positioned to approve the legalization proposal. Forty-nine percent of respondents in a survey released last week said they support the policy change, with 39 percent opposed and 10 percent remaining undecided.
This story has been updated to include comment from Thompson.
Read the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling on the marijuana challenge and the original lawsuit below: