We pick up where we left off yesterday, which was with Question 2, the Nevada ballot initiative which would legalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for people 21 and over, and which Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition President John Packham faulted for its lack of specifics. "As written ... the ballot measure provides a minimalist approach to protecting public health. Worse, the initiative does not earmark one penny of anticipated tax revenue to the establishment and maintenance of a public health framework needed to restrict youth access, enforce clean indoor air statutes and reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, and address workplace and motor vehicle safety issues."
By contrast, the conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal editorialized in favor of the measure, writing in part, "Nevada voters have an opportunity to reset America’s costly drug war... It’s an important step forward in fixing a failed policy ... If you are presented with the petition, and you’re a registered voter, sign it."
State senators Patricia Farley and Tick Segerblom co-founded the Nevada Marijuana Council, which seeks to answer concerns like Packham's. "Our state has the chance to learn from the hard lessons of Colorado and Washington State, where the industry suffered because it failed to educate, inform, or develop connections with lawmakers and regulators. Money laundering and tax avoidance abounded, giving the marijuana industry a black eye and cheating the states out of needed tax revenue," they wrote.
"The diversity of Nevada’s cannabis industry gives it strength, and the NMC is designed to balance the many interests and give members a voice. By seeking alignment and forging consensus, we can demonstrate the ascendancy and sophistication of this industry," Farley and Segerblom conclude.
Also weighing on the issue is AAA's Foundation for Traffic Safety, which commissioned a study that found there was no reliable means of testing for impairment due to THC. "Just like alcohol, it affects everyone different depending on their weight, depending on their size, depending if they’ve had food before they [partake]. Everyone processes food and drink and liquids and drugs differently, so it’s a new frontier in traffic safety," said AAA's Cynthia Harris. Agrees Durrett, "I don't think there will be any limit on how much can be in your system under recreational marijuana laws because that all depends on a person's physiology. The amount in one system can have a different impact on one person than another and there's no way to regulate the amount in one's system."
Harris' statement was seconded by Releaf Dispensary Marketing Director Jacob Silverstein, who said, "One of the key things to come out of this study is that there's no standard for impairment. There's no scientific research to back a standard for level of impairment," potentially putting medicinal-pot users behind bars.
According to Durrett, who specializes in marijuana law, "We do have strict DUI laws which limit the amount in one's system to 2 nano grams or 5 ng of a metabolite, which is basically the lowest amount that can be detected in one's system. People often complain that this low amount can be found in one's system days or even weeks after they consume marijuana so it is not an effective way to determine who is under the influence of marijuana at the time of driving."
We probably won't have a definitive answer for over a year. If the recreational-marijuana initiative passes, it would still have to wait for the 2017 Legislature (or a special session) to be codified into law, so in the meantime that gives the powers that be additional time to devise a more efficient and valid means of determining and policing "safe" levels of THC in the bloodstream (but we’re not holding our breath).
As to how employers here will handle the legalization of recreational marijuana, again we'll have to wait and see, but according to the State of Nevada’s revised and expanded "Classes Approved for Pre-Employment Drug Testing," published last December, those jobs requiring candidates to pass a mandatory drug test (hair follicle and/or urine) prior to employment don’t just include the more-obvious occupations, like pilots, firefighters, shuttle-bus drivers, highway-maintenance workers, welders, and teachers, for example, but also extends to plumbers and painters, fish-hatchery supervisors and game wardens, and food-service workers and public-service interns (among many pages of others).
Bottom line, Las Vegas officially has a state policy of promoting an alcohol- and drug-free workplace. Still, while a positive result from a pre-employment test is an automatic "fail" when it comes to landing that job, or any other job on the list, the rules do not allow for random drug/alcohol testing once you’re employed, but only if there are actual grounds to think you’re intoxicated on the job, or if you have an accident that involves causing actual bodily harm to others or to property, or if you are returning to work after a leave of absence having previously failed a drug test (state policy also, in theory, is couched in terms of offering rehabilitation to substance abusers, in addition to disciplinary action). For an informed and lively discussion from the casino-employee perspective, check out this discussion on the "Vegas Locals" message board from the end of last year, which raises interesting questions and makes some salient points.
While many states are moving to legalize medical and/or recreational use of marijuana and cannabis, at the federal level it’s still a controlled substance and contrary to popular belief, Congress has not lifted the ban on medical marijuana. According to the official wording of the Alcohol & Drug Program For State of Nevada Executive Branch Agencies, a "state employee who is convicted of violating a federal [our emphasis] or state law prohibiting the sale of a controlled substance must be terminated as required by NRS 193.105, regardless of where the incident occurred." Furthermore, while "medical needs of [an] employee who engages in medical use of marijuana [are] to be accommodated by [the] employer in certain circumstances," it's also stipulated that "medical use of marijuana [is] not required to be allowed in the workplace" and (somewhat amusingly) that it "is not recommended to allow the actual use (e.g., consumption, smoking) of medical marijuana while an employee is on duty or on the 'premises of the workplace' based on subsection 2 of NRS 453A.800."
Currently, the wording of these guidelines would seem to indicate that incidents involving employees and the use of medical marijuana are being dealt with on a case-by-case basis, in the absence, at this juncture, of any clear-cut rules and procedures. "If a positive marijuana test result is received, contact the Alcohol & Drug Program Coordinator, (775) 684-0111 or [email protected], for current information and assistance before proceeding," is the current official advice, suggesting that we're still making it up as we go along.
Should recreational marijuana enter the fray, too, it remains to be seen where the lines will be drawn in terms of federal versus state law; civil liberties versus public safety; the influence of the Gaming Control Board (not to be underestimated: witness what happened to Daily Fantasy Sports following the Nevada ban!); and multiple other factors and variables. Whatever the final outcome, it should be an interesting process to observe; our first prediction is that "C P Hughes" may soon be in need of an assistant...
