A legislative compromise on cannabis plus a legal win for patients

The following is from our cannabis newsletter, Talking Joints Memo. You can subscribe for free at talkingjointsmemo.com

Before we get to the exciting (or at least somewhat comforting) news about progress on the Beacon Hill cannabis lawmaking front, it would be a shame to let those legislative headlines overshadow the important recent happening in Massachusetts courts that could affect anyone with a job who gets high.

In order to avoid confusion about said legal decision when an explanation can be easily lifted from the reliable Adam Gaffin, who covers the courts regularly, here’s a snippet from his writeup on Universal Hub:

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that voter approval of medicinal marijuana means employers can no longer simply fire workers who test positive for THC on a drug test if they can prove they were using the drug with a doctor’s prescription.

The ruling comes in the case of a woman who was consuming marijuana two to three times a week to help ease the pain of Crohn’s Disease and who tested positive for marijuana administered by her new employer, for which she handed out samples in supermarkets – and which she had informed about her usage.

Trotting out the victory for all to see, an attorney for the winning party from the Boston law offices of Vicente Sederberg released the following statement:

The Supreme Judicial Court today has given medical marijuana patients the same protections enjoyed by millions of other workers who use various medicines to enhance their physical well-being … With medical marijuana legal in most states, this ruling provides a critical step forward in defining employer actions regarding workers whose off-site legal use presents no workplace impairment issues.

As for that compromise bill in the State House …

Believe us when we say there will be many gripes about the rewrite of the recreational cannabis law, regardless of how much the specifics seem like wins considering the threats recently posed by prohibitionist lawmakers. The language being used by advocates is clearly cautious at the moment—not exactly blasting representatives, but not applauding them either. Jim Borghesani, the communications director for the Yes on 4 campaign, wrote in a public comment:

While we have yet to see the final bill, we are relieved that a compromise has been reached and the regulatory structure can soon start moving forward. The compromise alters the approach on taxes and local control contained in Question 4, but it falls far short of the onerous House language, which would have added untold difficulties to establishing an effective regulatory system. We urge the governor to sign the bill when it reaches his desk, and we urge him, the House and the Senate to ensure adequate funding to move the regulatory system forward.

Knowing what we know, at this time it feels most appropriate to deflect all accountability and refrain from editorializing until the dust settles. Still there’s plenty of important reading to do, and thankfully state Sen. William Brownsberger of Belmont posted all the information you need at williambrownsberger.com, including:

1 – The actual “Act to ensure safe access to medical and adult-use of marijuana in the Commonwealth” as it emerged from the Marijuana Conference Committee on Monday. (You can also read the official document here.)

2 – As well as Brownsberger’s excellent point-by-point breakdown, including explainers on everything from (the lack of) changes to possession and home cultivation rules to tweaks made to both local rules and regulatory structure.

We recommend reading up closely and following this one through—with us along to help you of course—but here are some summaries from Brownsberger that may be of immediate interest. Under the current rewrite, which still needs approval from Gov. Charlie Baker, there will be:

No reduction in the freedom to possess marijuana—in fact, it increases the amounts permitted without criminal sanction.

No reduction in the freedom to grow marijuana within a home—in fact in it eliminates criminal liability for home grow by persons under 21.

No change to the basic principle that the voters of each community, as opposed to the elected officials of each community, get to decide whether marijuana establishments will be able to operate in the community.

Finally, we’re going to do what we did last time there was major breaking marijuana news on Beacon Hill, and add a few unusual headline categories. Immediately after this editor’s note are HELPFUL HEADY LINES, which are links to articles that are still very relevant. Those are followed by a MASS HEADLINE DUMPSTER, which is full of all the articles you may want to check out but which are pretty much irrelevant at this point, and then back to the partitions as usual—from hyper-local headlines (ROAD RUNNER) to New England and national news.

Stay Tuned,

Chris Faraone, Editor-in-Chief