![](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-144.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
A California Senate panel this week narrowed the scope of a bill that would roll back existing employment protections for people who legally use marijuana while away from work<\/a>. The revised measure, which advanced out of the committee on a 3\u20131 vote, would now remove those protections only for sworn law enforcement positions that involve certain specified duties.<\/p>\n The bill, SB 1264, from Sen. Shannon Grove (R), was initially introduced in February as a minor technical fix to the employment protection law, which took effect at the beginning of this year and prevents employers for discriminating against workers for pre-hire or off-the-clock marijuana use. But last month, the measure was significantly amended to roll back those protections for a wide range of public service jobs<\/a>, including not only police and sheriffs\u2019 deputies but also positions in animal control, law enforcement communications and public administration.<\/p>\n Under the new amendment adopted in the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee on Wednesday, the revised bill would remove the nondiscrimination protections for only five categories of sworn law enforcement employees: those involved in the apprehension, incarceration or correction of criminal offenders; those who handle civil enforcement matters; workers involved in evidence gathering and processing; and those providing coroner functions.<\/p>\n The amended measure now proceeds to the Senate Appropriations Committee.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen we introduced the bill, it was not my intent to wrap up anybody who was not a sworn officer,\u201d Grove, who welcomed the changes, said at the committee hearing. \u201cI just really do believe, from the depths of my soul, that law enforcement should be held to a higher standard because of the duties that they perform. We already have issues out there with law enforcement, and we don\u2019t want to make those things worse.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPeace officers are expected to overcome intense physical challenges and make split-second decisions in life and death situations, and those responsibilities are generally incompatible with the effects of cannabis use,\u201d she added. \u201cThis bill narrowly is drawn to provide targeted exemptions for just those sworn law enforcement applicants and employees who are or would be undertaking duties directly related to law enforcement.\u201d<\/p>\n The legislation has the support law enforcement groups, such as the California State Sheriffs\u2019 Association and the California Police Chiefs Association, but is broadly opposed by labor unions in the state.<\/p>\n Cory Salzillo, a lobbyist for the California State Sheriffs\u2019 Association, said the bill would provide needed clarity on whether law enforcement agencies can test applicants and workers for cannabis.<\/p>\n \u201cWe believed we were exempt under the language of that bill,\u201d Salzillo said of the employment protection bill that took effect in January. \u201cAnd since its passage and implementation and some more refined legal analysis, there is a little bit less clarity than we initially had. So we think this is a very targeted exemption.\u201d<\/p>\n Opponents, meanwhile, include labor groups such as the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW); the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); the California School Employees Association; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); and the California Employment Lawyers Association.<\/p>\n Drug advocacy groups such as the Drug Policy Alliance and California NORML also oppose the rollback bill<\/a>.<\/p>\n Kristin Heidelbach, a cannabis workforce development advisor and legislative advocate for UFCW, said the union is worried the change could lead to a slippery slope.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have major concerns with this bill even in its amended condition,\u201d she said<\/a>, \u201cbecause we feel that what this does is carve out a huge group of workers [and] that, next year, we\u2019re going to be fighting another group of workers, and the following year we could be carving out another group of workers.\u201d<\/p>\n During her 13 years in a labor union, \u201cI\u2019ve watched multiple workers harassed or discriminated against\u2026or threatened with a cannabis test,\u201d Heidelbach said. \u201cOur Black and brown brothers and sisters are disproportionately impacted by this, because they are subject to higher rates of testing.\u201d<\/p>\n Even under existing law, \u201ctwo facts remain,\u201d she added: \u201cYou cannot be under the influence of cannabis and go to work. Nothing in current law allows that. Additionally, you have the right to test your workers now.\u201d<\/p>\n Committee member Sen. John Laird (D) said he thought the amended bill struck an appropriate balance.<\/p>\n \u201cI always have a tough time with the slippery slope argument, because this seems like the right thing to do for this,\u201d he said. \u201cThere were very animated discussions between the committee and the author, and I think both gave on things that they didn\u2019t want to give on to get to the point of having amendments that the committee was comfortable with.\u201d<\/p>\n Sen. Lola Smallwood Cuevas (D) said that \u201cvoters voted for Prop. 64, and it is now part of our society,\u201d referring to the state\u2019s marijuana legalization law.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve got to figure out the ways in which we integrate cannabis into our workplaces,\u201d she said. We have to protect workers, particularly when we\u2019re talking about an activity that is now illegal, and at some point we\u2019re going to have to bring employers and unions and community together to figure this this piece out.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe just want to make sure people are not high at work,\u201d she added, \u201cbut we don\u2019t want to know what they did last weekend.\u201d<\/p>\n While Smallwood Cuevas said she thought the bill should require the use of saliva swabs, which she said was a more accurate test of recent use, but overall said that she believed \u201cwe have to hold police who are armed accountable. And with that, I\u2019m going to let the bill move forward today.\u201d<\/p>\n Meanwhile in California, a second Senate committee approved a bill this week that would legalize psychedelic service centers where adults 21 and older could access<\/a>\u00a0psilocybin, MDMA, mescaline and DMT in a supervised environment with trained facilitators.<\/p>\n That bill, the Regulated Therapeutic Access to Psychedelics Act, has been drafted in a way intended to be responsive to concerns voiced by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last year when he vetoed a broader proposal that included provisions to legalize low-level possession of substances<\/a>\u00a0such as psilocybin.<\/p>\n \u2014 Assemblymember Marie Waldron (R), the lead on the Assembly side, is sponsoring a separate psychedelics bill focused on promoting research and creating a framework for the possibility of regulated therapeutic access that has\u00a0already moved through the Assembly this year with unanimous support<\/a>.<\/p>\n Separately, a California campaign to put psilocybin legalization on the state\u2019s November ballot recently announced that it\u00a0did not secure enough signature to qualify in time for a deadline<\/a>.<\/p>\n Another campaign filed and then abruptly withdrew an initiative to\u00a0create a $5 billion state agency tasked with funding and promoting psychedelics research<\/a>\u00a0last year.<\/p>\n A third campaign also entered the mix late last year,\u00a0proposing to legalize the possession and cultivation of substances<\/a>\u00a0like psilocybin, LSD, MDMA, DMT, ibogaine and mescaline. People could buy them for therapeutic use with a doctor\u2019s recommendation. Advocates for that measure still have time to gather and turn in signatures.<\/p>\n The California Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office (LAO) has since released its review of that proposal, outlining not only the plan\u2019s policy implications but\u00a0also its potential fiscal impacts on the state<\/a>\u2014which the report calls \u201cvarious\u201d and \u201cuncertain.\u201d<\/p>\n Some California municipalities, meanwhile, are pushing forward with reform on the local level. The city of Eureka, for example, adopted a resolution in October to\u00a0decriminalize psychedelic plants and fungi and make enforcement of laws against personal use, cultivation and possession a low priority for police<\/a>. It\u2019s at least the fifth local jurisdiction in the state to embrace the policy change. Others include\u00a0San Francisco<\/a>,\u00a0Oakland<\/a>,\u00a0Santa Cruz<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Arcata<\/a>.<\/p>\n State officials last month also awarded $12 million in marijuana tax-funded grants to cities across the state<\/a> to support equity programs for people disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs.<\/p>\n Biden Campaign Says Trump \u2018Took Marijuana Reform Backwards\u2019 By Rescinding Enforcement Memo, Despite Current Admin Failing To Reinstate It<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n The post Amendment Narrows Scope Of California Bill To Remove Marijuana Employment Protections For Law Enforcement<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
A California Senate panel this week narrowed the scope of a bill that would roll back existing employment protections for people who legally use marijuana while away from work. The revised measure, which advanced out of the committee on a 3\u20131 vote, would now remove those protections only for swornContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":74708,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74707"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74707"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74707\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":74709,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74707\/revisions\/74709"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74708"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nMarijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,400 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills<\/a> in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters<\/a> pledging at least $25\/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don\u2019t miss any developments.<\/strong>
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-143.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/a>
\nLearn more about our marijuana bill tracker<\/a> and become a supporter on Patreon<\/a> to get access.
\n\u2014<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\nRead More: Amendment Narrows Scope Of California Bill To Remove Marijuana Employment Protections For Law Enforcement<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"