Legal marijuana use still costs people jobs — a new bill takes on the issue

SACRAMENTO — California voters legalized pot in 2016. But for many seeking jobs in state government, cannabis use has become an obstacle to getting hired.

Now, a spike in the number of job applicants disqualified by state agencies after failing tests for marijuana use has spawned calls for new legislation and debate over whether employment rules should be relaxed given more widespread acceptance of the drug.

The number of applicants for state correctional officer jobs who were disqualified after testing positive for cannabis more than doubled from 503 in 2015, the year before legalization, to 1,053 in 2018. Last year, 813 prison guard applicants were disqualified for testing positive.

With more California job applicants in the private sector also failing marijuana drug tests and being disqualified, legalization advocates, including a legislator, are calling on the state to change employment laws.

“I do not think (a ban on cannabis use) is fair, or necessary to have a safe workplace,” said Ellen Komp of California NORML, which supported Proposition 64, the 2016 legalization initiative. “Our position is that people can legally and responsibly use marijuana off the job, as long as they don’t show up to work impaired or use it on the job.”

Assemblyman Rob Bonta, DAlameda, is taking a first step at addressing the issue. He introduced legislation Friday that would require employers in both the public and private sectors to accommodate workers and job applicants who use marijuana for medical purposes, which was legalized in California in 1996.

“To be discriminated against by your employer because of the type of medicine you use is both inhumane and wrong,” Bonta said. “Medical cannabis, as recommended by a doctor, should be given a similar reasonable accommodation as all prescription drugs.”

Bonta’s bill would not apply to “safety-sensitive” workers required by federal law to be drug free, including airline pilots, police officers and truck drivers, nor would it cover employers with federal contractors who are required to maintain drug-free workplaces.

He noted that 16 other states, including Arizona, New York and Illinois, have already adopted worker protections similar to the ones he is proposing.

But opponents of Proposition 64 say the law shouldn’t be eased, given that an increase in positive drug tests in the workplace was predicted after legalization.

“Widespread, regular marijuana use has been essentially promoted by our state government,” said Kevin Sabet, president of the national group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. “We are moving so fast towards complete acceptance of being high without understanding the public safety implications.”

Proposition 64 allows public and private employers to continue to mandate their employees to work under drug-free workplace requirements and allows them to terminate employees who do not follow these policies.

“Prop. 64 did not provide any protections for the use of marijuana in the context of employment,” said Tamar Todd, a lecturer on marijuana law at UC Berkeley School of Law and vice chair of the California Cannabis

Advisory Committee. “People can still be drug tested and disciplined based on a positive result even if they are using in compliance with state law, not at work, and not impaired at work.”

The tests are needed in part because marijuana users are more likely to be injured on the job, said Scott Chipman, a California resident who is vice president of Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana.

Employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more industrial accidents, 85% more injuries and 75% greater absenteeism compared to those who tested negative, according to a study published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

"There are plenty of workplace and public safety reasons to disqualify applicants who test positive,” Chipman said. “There are no reasons to relax the current rules.”