Abstract
The majority of states now allow medical marijuana, and recent court decisions could influence workplace practice concerning its use.
Keywords
Until 1937, marijuana was widely prescribed for pain in the United States. Amid reports of adverse public health effects, increasing crime rates, and differing state laws, Congress proposed federal restrictions; the American Medical Association opposed and claimed a lack of evidence that marijuana was harmful (Galliher & Walker, 1977). Recent polls suggest 64% of Americans favor legalizing marijuana (McCarthy, 2017), and the American Nurses Association (ANA; 2016) favors allowing for therapeutic use. The majority of states have passed legislation for medical use (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2017); however, drug enforcement priorities from Washington influence federal marijuana-related investigations in these states (Neiman & Russo, 2018).
Similar to 1937, state marijuana legislation varies. Courts have upheld employee terminations related to medical marijuana (MM) use because it is still illegal under federal law, but recent decisions cloud the issue. A Rhode Island court cited federal legislation that restricts using federal funds to interfere with states’ MM laws, then ruled employers could not deny employment to a MM cardholder, but said restructuring jobs or modifying work schedules to accommodate workers was not needed (Nieman, Russo, & Skubas, 2017). A Massachusetts Supreme Court raised concerns about reasonable accommodations after ruling workers using MM may not be fired for a failed drug test (Champion, 2017). Policies that deny or terminate employment for a positive drug test from MM may be a concern after a Connecticut court ruled the federal Controlled Substances Act does not make it illegal to employ a marijuana user (Russo & Barry, 2017).
Despite these court decisions, employers can prohibit impairment from MM at work. Safety sensitive jobs, or that involve federal regulations, are unaffected by state laws. However, the concern is that legal precedents set by judges in these Northeastern courts could influence other court decisions where MM laws are untested and affect workplace practice. Employers should review policies on drug testing and procedures to manage reasonable accommodations for MM cardholders, request medical assessments by occupational health professionals, and consult workers’ personal providers to identify reasonable accommodations. A reliable measure for detecting marijuana impairment does not exist; therefore, arbitrators focus on behavior and work performance rather than drug tests for impairment (Nagele-Piazza, 2017). Thus, regular training with frequent updates on hiring, drug testing, performance reviews, and termination decisions for workers with MM cards is needed.
Although public support for its legalization continues to rise, impairment among workers from MM remains a valid concern for employers, occupational health providers, and public safety officials. Resources to inform occupational health professionals on MM are the National District Attorneys Association (2017) review of marijuana state laws and its effect on public health and safety, National Conference of State Legislatures (2017) updates on state MM laws, and National Families in Action (2017) marijuana-related news posts. Occupational health providers should collaborate with legal counsel familiar with state MM law to prevent any misinterpretation of patients’ rights and denial of legally allowed therapeutic marijuana use.
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest and received no financial support with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.