Among the charges that Ward 4 city councilman Pierre Beard pleaded guilty to on Tuesday in Gordo was possession of marijuana, which like the other charges is a misdemeanor.
The implications of being found guilty of marijuana possession cases such as Beard are well-established and clear.
But the implications of the use of marijuana and possession of medical marijuana are a lot more complicated. Medical marijuana is legal in 38 states. It has been legal in California for 28 years.
The terms and conditions applied to medical marijuana vary from state to state. Further confusing the issue is that marijuana remains a Schedule I narcotic, which means possession of marijuana remains a federal offense.
How marijuana is addressed in the workplace remains a complicated matter as well.
Although medical marijuana is not protected under the American Disabilities Act, 24 states do offer protections for those who used prescribed marijuana. Mississippi is not among those states, which means employers may choose not to hire someone who is legally using marijuana.
That decision is left to the employer, which can sometimes leave them open to liability in ways that an employee’s use of alcohol might not.
When an employee is suspected of being under the influence of alcohol, there are a number of tests to measure current impairment. But THC – the intoxicant found in marijuana – can remain in the system for up to 30 days. It is difficult for an employer to make a judgment on whether or not an employee is impaired when on the job because the body retains THC much longer than it does alcohol.
For example, an employee can travel to California and consume THC legally. They return to their factory job in Mississippi and get injured on the job the next week. Even if they weren’t impaired when the accident happened, a drug test – almost always required in workers compensation claims – would show THC usage.
The unique challenges that affect medical marijuana in the workplace has led to liability insurance policies that address these gray areas.
Employers who choose strict policies against medical marijuana face difficult decisions. Is it worth losing a long-time employee who needs relief from medical cannabis? Do you test new hires for cannabis even though the employee may have consumed it in any number of legal methods?
It would be far better for all if there were a standard established for dealing with medical marijuana in the workplace. That isn’t likely to happen until medical marijuana is legalized under federal law.
In the meantime, policy is established on a state to state basis or, more often than not, an employer to employer basis.
Having one standard would bring some much-needed clarity to matter and would ultimately benefit the employer and the employee alike.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 40 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 40 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
