As the world welcomes 2024, marijuana users in California revel under a new umbrella of job protection. Thanks to two progressive laws that went into effect on January 1, 2024. The state of Washington also ushered in similar legislation that marked a significant stride in safeguarding the rights of cannabis users in the workplace. The law was introduced nearly a decade after the legalization of recreational marijuana sales.
One of the landmark legislations, Assembly Bill 2188 (AB 2188) was enacted in 2022. It received the imprimatur of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. This law is a critical step in protecting employees and job applicants from discrimination based on cannabis usage detected through urine or hair tests. Notably, the legislation does not prevent employers from utilizing alternative drug screening methods for detecting cannabis use, such as blood or saliva tests.
The goal of AB 2188 is to stop employers from terminating or disciplining employees if their cannabis test result comes positive. The law also extends protection to prospective employees to ensure they are not denied employment based solely on the outcomes of cannabis tests. However, there are a few exceptions tailored for employers in the building and construction industry to whom these employee protection laws are not applicable.
Despite these commendable steps to safeguard employees in the workplace, the legislation acknowledges practical nuances. Workers and job applicants seeking positions that mandate a federal background check or security clearance are excluded from AB 2188. This approach has harmonized state laws with federal prerequisites, reflecting the intricate landscape in which marijuana-related legislation unfolds.
Governor Newsom, who signed the bill amidst a suite of cannabis-related measures, has emphasized the persistent challenges posed by a rigid bureaucracy and federal prohibition. In a recent press release, the governor stated that these challenges persistently afflict both the burgeoning cannabis industry and its consumers. He believes this has created the need for progressive legislation to counterbalance the persisting hurdles.
Cannabis policy reform advocates have been criticizing the reliability of drug screenings based on hair or urine samples for a long time. Their grievance stemmed from the extended window during which these tests could yield positive results. This period generally spans for weeks after the individual has used cannabis. Significantly, these tests often fail to discern impairment at the time of the sample, further complicating the connection between job performance and cannabis use.
California stands at the forefront of this legislative initiative, and Washington’s simultaneous adoption of comparable laws also reflects a shift in societal attitudes towards cannabis use. Washington joins California in affirming that one’s off-duty cannabis activities should not affect professional prospects.
As California and Washington are making workplaces safer for employees with these pioneering legislations, the national discourse surrounding marijuana legalization and its implications on the workforce has gained traction. Despite their divergent socio-political landscapes, these two states have united on the common ground of safeguarding the rights of cannabis users, setting an example that may influence legislation beyond their borders.
Amidst this evolving attitude towards cannabis users, these legislative measures stand as a proactive shield to the challenges posed by traditional drug testing methodologies. As the workforce celebrates these welcoming changes, discussions on employee rights, cannabis legalization, and the intersection of the two continue, creating grounds for more legislative developments in the coming years.