Bill to clarify bias against medical pot users raises questions

PROVIDENCE — In 2017 a state judge ruled in favor of a woman who sued a Westerly fabrics company for not hiring her as a summer intern because she was a registered medical marijuana user and consequently had failed a drug test.

While finding that Darlington Fabrics Corp. had discriminated against Christine Callaghan, Superior Court Judge Richard Licht acknowledged, as argued by the company’s lawyer, that ambiguity existed in the state’s medical marijuana law: it didn’t specifically say those who felt discriminated could sue in court.

Still, Licht ruled there was only “one sensible interpretation” — that there was an implied right to sue because without one, discrimination protections outlined in the medical marijuana law “would be meaningless.”

On Tuesday evening, the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a bill that would make it clear that anyone holding a state-issued medical marijuana card who felt subjected to discrimination could seek a civil remedy in court.

But the bill, sponsored by Rep. Scott Slater, D-Providence, to clear up ambiguity, also introduced plenty of it when it came to discussing the bill’s other objective: protecting medical marijuana cardholders from being fired who test positive for the drug but who are not impaired.

The problem? The bill’s language left out reference to being impaired.

Therefore as written, the bill would actually protect employees who come to work high from being disciplined or fired.

Not surprisingly, there was some objection to the bill.

“I write to express serious concerns,” said Rhode Island State Police Col. James M. Manni in a statement given the committee. “By way of example, the proposed legislation will conceivably permit an E-911 telecommunicator to answer and direct emergency calls while legally impaired. Respectfully, this proposal will risk lives and potentially expose the state to civil liability.”

Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, brought the writing error to the committee’s attention: “There is some language, in the way the bill was drafted, it actually does the opposite of what was intended.”

But Brown said he supported the bill’s intent and had spoken to Slater who agreed to rewrite the language.

Unlike alcohol or drugs like cocaine that leave the body quickly, marijuana can stay in the body for weeks — long after the high is over. Therefore regular users can test positive for pot and not be impaired.

Employers who drug test as part of a federal government requirement, such as defense contractors or commercial truck drivers, who fall under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, would still choose not to hire, or fire, anyone who tested positive for marijuana; the federal government still considers any form of marijuana illegal.

There are also exemptions in the bill for police, fire and other public safety personnel as well.

Rhode Island lawmakers first approved the use of medical marijuana in 2007. Twelve years later about half of the nation’s states have similar programs.

Rhode Island has about 18,200 medical marijuana card holders and the state’s three medical marijuana dispensaries have also done business with about 5,000 patients with out-of-state cards, reports the Department of Business Regulation.

This year Gov. Gina Raimondo has proposed legalizing recreational marijuana. While that debate is just gearing up in the State House, each year lawmakers consider changes to the state’s medical marijuana program as well.

Another bill heard by the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday was a proposal requiring that the state’s three medical marijuana dispensaries post conspicuous signs warning of the dangers of marijuana when used by pregnant or breast-feeding women.

Dr. John Concannon, a Cranston pediatrician, told lawmakers that research had proven that marijuana use by pregnant women — no matter if smoked or ingested in edible form — “had adverse effects on these women’s babies.”

The doctor said a telephone survey of 400 dispensaries in Colorado — the first state to legalize recreational marijuana — found that 67 percent inaccurately told callers posing as pregnant women that marijuana use wasn’t harmful to them.