The proposal falls under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. It would direct Acting Department of Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling to send state and local governments information on “evidence-based and promising practices” to mitigate economic harms related to SUD, including how to apply for relevant federal funding. And it would broaden eligibility for National Dislocated Worker Grants to include career training in SUD, mental health care and pain management in any jurisdiction “that, as a result of widespread substance use, addiction, and overdoses, has higher-than-average demand for such activities that exceeds the availability of State and local resources to provide.”

The legislation would add a new category of eligibility that’s specific to SUD, and would apply to dislocated workers; people who have been long-term unemployed; people who work or are looking for work as treatment providers for SUD, mental health or pain; and people who are  “unemployed or significantly underemployed as a result of widespread substance use in the area.”

McCormick’s office did not respond to Filter’s inquiry.

Drugs and the people who use them have long been scapegoats for economic underinvestment.

“If we’re going to help more people recover, we need enough skilled workers to provide that care,” McCormick stated in his announcement. “This bipartisan bill gives communities more tools to train that workforce so more people can get the help they need.”

Drugs and the people who use them have long been scapegoats for economic underinvestment, and the language used in the Act and by its proponents sort of conjures an image of a small town where the “scourge of addiction” has wiped out all the jobs. Or conceivably it could refer to people who are struggling to find work because first they need to access treatment, but aren’t able to due to overwhelming demand on the few providers in their area. Or to people who are unable to work because they’re surrounded by too much drug use to escape it. But one way or another, a lot of the workforce harms the legislation is concerned with probably don’t come from drug use so much as they come from drug-testing, and the larger drug war. 

While it’s certainly true that people have lost jobs because their SUD negatively impacted their performance or their behavior in the workplace, that’s also a stereotype obscuring the larger picture of people losing their jobs due to drug use. Often urinalysis testing is the barrier to remaining at or returning to work, rather than conduct or ability. Research indicates that workplace drug-testing is not an effective means of either reducing drug use or increasing productivity. A larger barrier to employment—and to recovery—is the criminalization of drugs and the unwillingness of many employers to hire candidates with felony records.

The proposal is the latest of many cosponsored by McCormick and Fetterman, who are often touted for their bipartisanship, although Fetterman has also prompted serious conjecture about whether he intended to switch parties and recently had an apparent Freudian slip in which he told NewsNation that he was a Republican. He did not make his own announcement about the legislation, but on August 5 did appear The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart to espouse some right-of-center views on socialism and the existence of genocide in Gaza.

Image via Coon Rapids, Minnesota

The post Federal Bill Would Add SUD Category to Dislocated Worker Grant Eligibility appeared first on Filter.

This is contributing to burnout, chronic stress, social distress and the loss of skilled staff from a sector that simply cannot afford to lose them.

Two recent Australian studies—published in Drug and Alcohol Review in 2024, and the International Journal of Drug Policy this September—examined how negative societal beliefs about people who use drugs spill over onto harm reduction workers, or “stigma by association.”

“Respondents characterized stigma as a pervasive social devaluation that shaped how workers were treated and how services were funded and supported,” said Dr. Theresa Caruana, a research associate and post-doctoral fellow at the Centre for Social Research in Health at UNSW Sydney, and part of the new Tackling Stigma in Healthcare network established there.

One worker who participated in the 2025 study, which Caruana co-authored, described it simply: “When the clients I work with are stigmatized, the work they do to better themselves is stigmatized. That includes the work that I do with them.”

“Workers who reported experiencing more of this stigma by association had poorer workplace wellbeing, greater levels of burnout and stronger intentions to leave.”

Harm reduction workers see this stigma play out in health care settings, including through reluctance to provide care, or provision of care that is impersonal or inadequate. Some study participants spoke about needing to accompany clients to hospital to prevent mistreatment, which increased their own emotional strain and workload.

Stigma also shapes how services are positioned within the health care system. Harm reduction workers reported that people who inject drugs were often viewed as “problematic” or a “safety risk.” That contributes to harm reduction services being kept separate from mainstream health care, making them harder to resource or improve. Which again, adds to the strain and workload. 

“Workers who reported experiencing more of this stigma by association had poorer workplace wellbeing, greater levels of burnout and stronger intentions to leave the sector,” Caruana told Filter.

One promising finding is that workers with lived and living experience appear better able to remain in their roles. But that’s not because stigma affects them any less, but because the work carries deep personal meaning, community connection and purpose.

“People with living or lived experience reported higher levels of job satisfaction and lower intentions to quit, but their experience of stigma by association is similar to the broader sample,” Caruana said. 

In other words, meaning offers motivation, but not protection.

For Sione Crawford, CEO of Harm Reduction Victoria and a co-author of the 2024 study, this is familiar.

The same qualities peer workers are hired for can be reframed as liabilities.

“Not all peer workers are treated poorly,” he told Filter. “But many frontline harm reduction peer workers who have been employed for their proximity to an illicit drug marketplace, and their connection with people at risk of overdose, are stigmatized at least twice, sadly often by their co-workers.”

Peer workers are hired for their community knowledge and trust, yet are sometimes treated as unprofessional or “too close” to the client population, especially if their drug use is not entirely in the past. The same qualities they are hired for can be reframed as liabilities.

“People with lived and living experience are often pitied or, worse, patronized for ‘making something of themselves.’ It’s the tyranny of low expectations,” Crawford said.

Workplace culture can make all the difference, however, when it strongly influences how deeply stigma affects workers.

“Organizational cultures that are supportive help workers gain meaning and satisfaction from their work, which can buffer against stigma and burnout,” Caruana said. “Understanding and reducing the impacts of stigma on workers will assist in attracting and retaining staff.”

This is echoed on the ground.

“Harm reduction peer workers often say they have good relationships within their direct teams, particularly when management has a strong understanding of harm reduction,” Nadia Gavin, who also works at Harm Reduction Victoria, told Filter. “Sadly, many peer workers report microaggressions when interacting with staff from non-direct service delivery areas or outside organizations.”

The dynamic can be even more difficult in services that are shaped by abstinence-based frameworks.

“If the management is from a recovery or abstinence background it can be quite a struggle to get their head around harm reduction,” Gavin said. “We have heard of peer workers being told they should be grateful that they are alive.”

“Because harm reduction supports people whether they want to stop using drugs or not, we are often seen as ‘enabling,’ or keeping people in a ‘bad place.’”

Sarah Whipple, co-director of the Yuba Harm Reduction Collective in California (and winner of the Jude Byrne Emerging Female Leader Award for her drug-user activism), sees the same pattern play out in the United States.

“Stigma has created a culture where people think abstinence is the only worthy way of living, where sobriety is the only worthy goal,” she told Filter. “Because harm reduction supports people whether they want to stop using drugs or not, we are often seen as ‘enabling,’ or keeping people in a ‘bad place.’”

That’s something that came across in the Australian research, too, with one study participant saying: “I’ve been told more than once by [people in the] general community that this role is ‘enabling and encouraging’ drug use, [… that] I am no better than a dealer.” 

“People are tempted to appease that mindset by saying things like, ‘We’re keeping people alive so they can recover,’” Whipple said. “But that is not what harm reduction is about. Harm reduction at its core is about autonomy of people who use drugs, whether they want to quit drugs or not. We show just as much love to people who never intend on quitting drugs as to people who want to quit today, or who quit 10 years ago.”

Amid all this stigma by association, what can help harm reduction workers feel able to continue in their critical occupations?

For Crawford, it is community connection that sustains him.

“What keeps me going? One hundred percent my peers,” he said. “It isn’t for ourselves, it’s for our community. And when things are going well, a lovely byproduct is that feeling of being part of a greater whole, despite the stigma and discrimination that surrounds us.”

But this resilience should not be mistaken for an unlimited resource. The fact that workers keep showing up does not mean that the conditions they work in are acceptable.

“Understanding and reducing the impacts of stigma on workers will help attract and retain staff,” Caruana said. “One way to begin is by routinely examining how stigma shows up in everyday practice—within teams and within service processes.”

Losing experienced harm reduction workers is not just a workforce issue. It is a public health threat.

But even with empathic and diligent leadership of this kind, structural disincentives for harm reduction workers persist.

“Usually, there is no clear career path or progression into higher roles for these workers,” Crawford noted. “We need drug law reform, with savings or profits being reinvested into harm reduction and community efforts.”

Whipple is also clear that the solutions must include material investment.

“We deserve wages that allow us not just to survive, but to thrive,” she said. “We deserve housing, health care, joy, and the ability to care for the people we love. We need to take care of our movement. It is irresponsible to hire marginalized people into work that involves trauma and not care for their wellbeing.”

Stigma by association doesn’t simply harm workers. It weakens the entire harm reduction system.

When workers leave due to burnout and distress, services lose skill, continuity and community trust. In the context of ongoing overdose crises around the world, losing experienced harm reduction workers is not just a workforce issue. It is a public health threat.

Photograph via Pickpik

The post Stigma by Association Is Driving Workers Out of Harm Reduction appeared first on Filter.

A study recently published in the journal Socius illustrates how subjecting prospective hires to drug screenings knocks many people with past justice-system involvement out of the running. Drawing on interviews with dozens of formerly incarcerated people who use drugs, the authors report that drug screens discouraged applicants from applying to high-quality jobs—and led many to abandon their job search altogether.

At first, the researchers were studying barriers to employment among people with criminal records in general. But after conducting 140 interviews across central Ohio, they noticed that interviewees with a history of substance use faced unique challenges.

“[T]here is an enormous overlap between having a criminal record and having a substance use disorder,” lead author Mike Vuolo, professor of sociology at the Ohio State University, told Filter. “So [drug screening] became another mechanism that we thought was important.”

“I’m overly confident, right? Regardless of my record, let me tell you what my skills are. But it also said you have to submit to a urine test …. so, I didn’t do it.”

To understand how drug screens factored into applicants’ job search strategies, Vuolo and his team focused on 43 interviewees who had faced challenges related to substance use. They found that these jobseekers exhibited two main reactions to drug testing: continuing their job search but restricting their aspirations, or dropping out of formal employment entirely.

The first reaction, deciding not to apply for a job due to the potential for drug screening, was common across the substance use spectrum. Whether using drugs recreationally or experiencing a substance use disorder, 65 percent of interviewees reported hesitating to apply for jobs where their substance use history might disqualify them.

“There are examples of people who are ready to overcome their criminal record, but select out anyway because they saw the drug screen,” Vuolo explained. “And sometimes it was simply for cannabis.”

One jobseeker described going in for an interview at an automotive chain, feeling confident that despite his background, having the skills to do the job well would count for more.

“I’m overly confident, right? Regardless of my record, let me tell you what my skills are,” he said, noting that he immediately hit it off with the hiring manager. “So, but nevertheless it also said you have to submit to a urine test. [I was smoking] weed real heavy at the time …. so, I didn’t do it.”

Situations like these, where an applicant got relatively far in the hiring process but quit once the employer required a drug test, were common. For some jobseekers, however, fear of employers’ reactions to their substance-use history prevented them from even applying.

Job applications “don’t give you a chance to explain yourself,” one interviewee explained. “I was intimidated by filling out applications because of that. I know that a lot of employers, and I’ve been told this, [are not] hiring me because of any type of drug conviction.”

Seventy percent reported having abandoned their job search at least once.

Besides writing off certain opportunities, the second common response to drug screening was to leave the formal labor market entirely. Many interviewees alternated between these two strategies, and 70 percent reported having abandoned their job search at least once.

“Their main reason is that addiction is all-encompassing at that point in their lives,” Vuolo said. “And so the idea of working is simply out of the realm of possibility, either because they just don’t feel it’s possible, or because they fear working while under the influence.”

While only a minority of the sample (11 interviewees) replaced their formal job search with under-the-table work, those who did felt that the money was more reliable. One applicant waited to hear back from prospective employers, but after receiving no response, “found another way to make money” in order to cover his daily needs.

“Selling drugs is what my other option was,” he told the interviewers. “It was quick money. Dollars every day.”

Whether avoiding certain jobs, giving up the job search, or cycling through both strategies, formerly incarcerated people who use drugs must contend with unique barriers to employment—barriers that conventional second chance employment policies have not adequately considered.

One proposed solution is to promote “recovery-ready” workplaces, which aim to “[d]evelop and implement innovative approaches for recruiting and onboarding people in or seeking recovery,” according to the Department of Labor, which currently endorses the approach.

“The US Department of Labor actually is suggesting that the recovery-ready workplace should be part of the second chance framework for criminal records,” Vuolo said. “We basically can’t separate them.”

Some states have already made attempts to integrate these two approaches. In 2018, Indiana created its Workforce Recovery Employer Guidelines, as one example of how employers could seek to incorporate recovery-friendly policies that might complement second chance hiring initiatives. Employees or job applicants who test positive for drugs are not automatically terminated or ruled out, but are instead offered connections to treatment and the opportunity to return to work—at least in theory.

“If we’re gonna have efforts like ‘Ban the Box,’ we need to also account for the fact that people have substance use disorders.”

The continuation of drug screens, the potential for treatment being coerced, and a return to work being conditional on abstinence are among the barriers that could persist under this model. Nonetheless, it’s one potential first step towards equalizing employment opportunities for people who use drugs.

“People would be able to get their foot in the door,” Vuolo said. However, he questioned whether the bureaucratic guidelines were effective. “[E]ven though Indiana has this, I don’t know how often it’s being used, to be completely frank.”

In future research, Vuolo hopes to assess whether employers implement recovery-ready workplace guidelines, and whether such initiatives actually succeed in promoting employment opportunities for people who use drugs.

For now, however, he hopes that his study will shed light on the employment barriers erected against formerly incarcerated people who use drugs, even as progressive employment policies claim to give them a second chance.

“If we’re gonna have efforts like ‘Ban the Box’ for criminal records, we need to also account for the fact that people have substance use disorders or past substance use disorders,” Vuolo concluded.

Photograph (cropped) by Amtec Photos via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Drug Testing Defeats the Purpose of “Second Chance” Hiring appeared first on Filter.

Many of the companies also conduct further drug-tests of existing employees, either at random or in specific circumstances such as after a work-related accident. The research highlights that even though over 40 states have passed either medical or adult-use cannabis legalization, many consumers are still far from protected in the workplace.              

The analysis, commissioned by NuggMD, a cannabis telehealth platform, shows that 78 percent of the Fortune 500—the biggest companies by revenue in the United States—continue to have pre-employment drug screening policies. This information has now been made available through the website JobLeaf.org, where you can search a company and and its drug-testing policies. The analysts used publicly available employer drug policies and online job sites, such as Indeed, to compile their data.

“No company should discriminate against lawful cannabis use. Unfortunately, we have found that a concerning majority of large and powerful companies do.”

“No company should discriminate against lawful cannabis use,” Alexandra Arnett, MS, NuggMD’s lead researcher and fact-checker, said in a statement shared with Filter. “Unfortunately, we have found that a concerning majority of large and powerful companies do.”

“We launched JobLeaf to force some transparency on this issue,” she explained. “A significant portion of the US adult population uses cannabis regularly, and they deserve the same opportunities as everybody else to find and keep well-paying, dignified jobs.”

“If you are in a safety-sensitive position—for example, an [inventory] stocker for Walmart, you’re probably more likely to be subject to a drug test especially randomly,” Arnett told Filter. “And even if these companies didn’t initially test for THC at hiring, there’s a possibility their employees are subject to random testing that includes THC even if they are just a cashier. That’s done for liability purposes; if you get hurt on the job and you test positive for THC, there goes your compensation for getting injured.”

Testing for THC and testing at Fortune 500 companies are only parts of the story. Nationwide, drug testing is a common feature of the hiring process, and of ongoing employment, for many jobs. It’s an example of how the drug war—most associated with arrests, policing and incarceration—has become institutionalized in other areas of our everyday lives.

And just as racism is inherent to the drug war, the same applies to workplace drug-testing practices. A 2023 study, based on 2015-2019 national data including nearly 122,000 workers, found that Black workers were more likely than their white or Hispanic counterparts to be drug-tested on the job. Both Black and Hispanic people were more likely than whites to be fired for a positive drug test.

There’s a chilling effect on people searching for work, according to a separate survey NuggMD administered to it users. The platform conducted a poll between October 31-November 3, in which over 83 percent of respondents said drug-testing policies made them less interested in working for a company. The survey was designed as a representative sample of over 35 million cannabis consumers in states with medical or adult-use cannabis, which NuggMD estimates is about 20 percent of the US workforce.

“It’s a hard choice between choosing your income and your medicine.”

Asked “How does a policy of pre-employment drug testing impact your desire to seek employment with a company?”, 74 percent of respondents said they would want to work for such a company “much less,” and another 13 percent said “a little less.”

“When it comes employees choosing where they can work, obviously not many people can make that decision as easily as others,” Arnett said. “For some people, Walmart is your only choice—you don’t have another grocery store in your town that doesn’t drug test. Same with other construction companies, or areas in southern states or the Midwest … It’s a hard choice between choosing your income and your medicine.”

The new analysis finds that over 97 percent of the 50 largest companies within the Fortune 500 have selective drug testing, meaning that not all job applicants are tested. By comparison, among the other 450 companies, only about 18 percent do selective drug testing. “Selective drug testing policies can result in the perception that executives are held to a lower set of standards than all other employees, which can be an indicator of poor management and culture that poses risk to shareholders,” NuggMD commented in a press statement.

Filter received the full data from the analysis, showing a company-by-company breakdown. As one example, Walmart conducts pre-employment drug testing, “reasonable suspicion” drug testing, and drug-tests selectively, depending on employees’ roles.

The retail corporation, NuggMD finds, “conducts a urine drug test for new hires (pre-employment drug test) as a part of their interview process, but not for all departments. Walmart runs a drug test only on candidates applying for certain positions … Walmart’s policy requires employees to undergo a drug test if there is reasonable suspicion that they are using illegal substances while at work. A supervisor or manager may initiate a drug test if an employee’s behavior or performance is at variance with the norm.”

Apple also does pre-employment testing, and is “committed to a ‘drug-free workplace’ policy, requiring all employees to be drug-influence-free pre-employment and during job hours.”

A small but growing number of employers worldwide are eliminating pre-employment drug tests.

But as another example, Bank of America does not do pre-employment drug testing: “Nevertheless, the company maintains a comprehensive policy for reasonable suspicion testing, ensuring that the safety and well-being of its workforce remain a top priority. Additionally, Bank of America reserves the right to conduct random drug tests and post-accident testing when necessary to maintain a secure and productive work environment.”

IBM doesn’t do pre-employment drug testing either: “Instead, the company evaluates candidates based on their skills, qualifications, and fit for the role,” however, “the company may conduct random drug tests as part of its ongoing commitment to employee well-being and safety.”

A small but growing number of employers worldwide are eliminating pre-employment drug tests to “attract and retain in-demand talent,” according to a 2021 analysis by ManpowerGroup, which estimated that about 9 percent of over 45,000 employers globally had taken this step.

“Why drug test when it doesn’t tell you anything?” asked Dr. Carl Hart, a Columbia University psychology professor, author and drug policy reform advocate, in a 2021 interview with TIME. “If we want to make sure people aren’t intoxicated in a workplace environment, that means looking at their performance. Urine drug tests certainly don’t tell you anything about levels of intoxication or a person’s ability to perform. They’re useless for that purpose.”

Cannabis, for example, is unusual because of how long THC can remain detectable in a person’s body—up to several days or weeks after they used it. Because of that, and with legalization spreading rapidly accross the US, many states—California, New York and Colorado, among others—have sought to pass laws specifically protecting cannabis users from workplace THC testing.

If people are using cannabis at home, that obviously doesn’t demonstrate that they’re showing up to work high. But the question of how to substantiate that distinction that has created controversy in states such as New Jersey, which relies on employers using a “Workplace Impairment Recognition Expert.” Advocates have argued that such subjective assessments could result in false findings and unfairly weigh against certain workers.

Arnett urged more of the biggest companies to show leadership by ending pre-employment drug testing, and pointed out how it could encourage others to follow suit.

“The companies that don’t drug test their employees for THC, I think coming out and making that very apparent in their marketing for job seekers would set a precedent for others to follow suit,” she said. “Many tech companies in the Bay Area don’t drug test for THC—you can assume many [people in that industry] would not pass a drug test.” She hopes that more other companies will start asking, “‘These are really successful companies and they don’t test for THC, why are we still doing it?’”

Photograph by Cambodia, P.I. Network via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Most Fortune 500 Companies Still Drug-Test Prospective Hires appeared first on Filter.

California Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D) introduced the “Cannabis: small producer event sales license” bill (AB 1111) in February 2023, but it only began to gain momentum in recent months. It passed a full Assembly floor vote on May 30, and on August 15 passed the Senate Appropriations Committee, with some amendments. The next step is a Senate floor vote.

Under California law, cities and towns can already approve and issue temporary licenses to cannabis retail businesses to sell product at off-premises public events. But the current bill would expand on this by creating a new state license for cannabis producers to sell their products at temporary events authorized and organized by the state. These events would likely be small-scale, and separate from traditional fruit-and-vegetables farmers’ markets. Gross revenues from the events would be capped at  $175,000 per seller per year.

The new options would apply only to cultivators who grow less than 10,000 square feet total, a maximum that could shrink depending on what kind of cultivation license you have. Two years after the law taking effect, the upper limit would increase to 1 acre.

Despite its limitations, the bill represents a shift in political attitudes in California, with lawmakers and regulators perhaps warming to the idea of public consumption. Earlier this summer, the California State Fair made history by permitting cannabis sales and consumption on site.

“Direct-to-consumer sales is a common and critical tool for small producers.”

California is not alone in this momentum. New York State, for example, has also taken steps toward allowing cannabis farmers’ markets. In June, state lawmakers sent a bill to Governor Kathy Hochul (D) to legalize them. The bill would allow the state to issue event permits to licensed retailers, who would work with cannabis growers or processors on events lasting no more than two weeks. Hochul has yet to sign it.

That came after New York temporarily authorized “growers showcase events” where cannabis cultivators sold products directly to consumers—a program that was suspended months after the first market opened in 2023. “By all accounts, the program was a success, bringing cultivators, processors, and retail licensees together in a way where they could directly interact with and educate consumers, build brand recognition, and orient consumers to the legal market’s offerings,” read an official memo from lawmakers.

Genine Coleman is the executive director of the Origins Council, a nonprofit cannabis advocacy group in California. Her organization was involved in lobbying for AB 1111. She explained how cannabis cultivators aren’t currently allowed to sell direct to consumers or retailers, but have to go through a licensed distributor.

“In other sectors where there are craft producers like wine, the smaller the producer the more important it is to have a diversity of access points,” she told Filter. “Direct-to-consumer sales is a common and critical tool for small producers. [AB 1111] is advancing the normalization of cannabis to make sure they have all the tools necessary for survival. It also expands access to cannabis products to consumers and patients.”

Coleman estimated that just 16 Californian municipalities currently allow public cannabis events under the existing law.

But many of the state’s small cannabis farmers are facing much bigger problems than AB1111 is likely to solve.

John Casali and partner Rose Moberly, of Huckleberry Hill Farms

John Lee Casali is a cannabis farmer in Humboldt County, where he owns Huckleberry Hill Farms, the same property he grew up on. Back in the 1990s, he went to prison on federal marijuana charges. His farm is now a state-licensed cultivator, but he has reservations about how much farmers’ markets could benefit his business.

“Any time a farmer can directly have a relationship with the consumer is going in a positive direction,” Casali told Filter. “You build trust and we do need those relationships. But most of us farmers have limited employees, so it’s really hard to get off the farm and participate in these things more than a few times a year.”

Many of California’s small cannabis farmers are at risk of going out of business, fearing a collapse in the market. In northern California’s “Emerald Triangle”—a region over 100 miles up the coast from San Francisco, including Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity Counties—a crash in cannabis prices has threatened the local economy.

The triangle has been a hub of cannabis growing—often illegally—for decades, going back to the 1960s counterculture revolution. In 1996, California made history by becoming the first state to legalize medical marijuana. Cannabis growing in the region then exploded, to the point where it’s critical to many people’s jobs and livelihoods.

“I think when California proceeded with the legal market and didn’t limit the amount of cultivation, that really was the death of the small farmer.”

As CalMatters described in 2023, “Things are getting desperate in this remote, mountainous community in far northern California, where cannabis is king—the economy, the culture, the everything. Over the past two years, the price of weed has plummeted and people are broke.”

CalMatters reported long lines for a food bank on the Trinity County fairgrounds, and anecdotes of longtime residents leaving the region, as local stores and restaurants shut down.

“I think when California proceeded with the legal market and didn’t limit the amount of cultivation, [that] really was the death of the small farmer,” Casali said. “Currently there are 4 million pounds [of cannabis] capable of moving through the licensed retail stores, but there’s over 20 million pounds being produced here. I don’t know how they expect the smallest of cultivators to survive in the market that’s so oversaturated.”

“The state is continuing to permit farms without any ability to get rid of the product, unless it’s a fight for the lowest price,” he continued. “Cultivators in the Emerald Triangle that grow in the mountains don’t have access to cheaper labor. It costs a lot more to produce a pound here, and we can’t compete.”

Casali’s farm uses a “regenerative” approach that is fully outdoors, growing without artificial lights and fertilizing, and harvesting by hand. But he’s competing with large, vertically integrated farms, predominantly in southern California. They use indoor grows, mechanized technology and chemical fertilizers, resulting, he said, in a product costing half the price of his own.

Statewide data back up the anecdotes: The California Department of Cannabis Control reported that over the course of 2022, nearly 1,800 licensed cultivators shut down—a loss of 19 million square feet statewide, nearly a quarter of the state’s cannabis farming acreage. Reporting from SFGate cited low wholesale prices and high taxes especially hitting small farmers.

By late 2023, trends seemed to be improving for farmers: Wholesale prices stabilized, and some growers reported selling out of inventory. “It’s crazy how much quieter our mountain road has gotten over the years, but this year we’ve seen more traffic (which means more workers on farms) on the hill than we have since 2017, which I’m taking as a good sign,” Kristen Stanek-Klawitter of Humboldt Canna Co. told SF Gate.

But things are looking worse again in 2024. Reuters recently reported that small farmers are continuing to shut down in California, as increased wildfires—fueled by a heating climate—damage crops, while prices continue to fall. Over the first quarter of 2024, active cultivation licenses have decreased 20 percent compared to the year prior. Wildfires have reportedly increased electricity, water and labor costs. Statewide, California lost $700 million in cannabis revenues in 2023 compared to 2021.  

“Direct-to-consumer sales through the mail would be an amazing step that would be life-changing for small farmers.”

Coleman said the state’s rush to license more growers than were initially needed is to blame for the farmers’ challenges, together with the issue of being a state-legal market under federal prohibition. And sales of hemp-derived cannabis products represent further competition, she added.

“Now we have intoxicating hemp-derived products being sold at gas stations and BevMo [a liquor chain],” Coleman said. “That’s a whole additional gray-market pressure. You’ve got jurisdictions that have unregulated hemp-derived products, but then they have a ban on licensed cannabis retail.”

Casali fears that California’s small cannabis farmers are facing an existential crisis, and that without aggressive action from the state, they will simply disappear. He has his own ideas about what would help.

“I go to a farmers’ market but then there’s no one at my farm taking care of the plants,” he said. “If I’m able to sell 10 eighths, it doesn’t do a whole lot for my farm. But direct-to-consumer [sales] through the mail would be an amazing step that would be life-changing for small farmers.”

As Casali explained it, a farm like his would then be able to grow and package its own cannabis, with customers subscribing to a mail order system—somewhat like a wine box program. This, he believes, would give small farmers a better alternative for unloading inventory, with less dependency on the current distribution and wholesaling system.

Photographs of Huckleberry Hill Farms by Ben Neff, used with permission 

The post Small Cannabis Farmers Are Under Threat in California appeared first on Filter.

Minton, a senior analyst at the Reason Foundation, was speaking at the Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN) in Warsaw, Poland, in June. She was referring to companies that refuse to hire people who use nicotine.

Her talk cited how U-Haul, for example, has a policy of not hiring drivers who smoke or otherwise use nicotine—even if it’s a smoke- and vapor-free option, like a patch or a pouch, which is helping a person to quit smoking.

It’s not only companies in the United States. The World Health Organization has a similar policy, adopted in 2005, which bars job applicants who smoke, or use chewing tobacco or snuff, and aren’t willing to quit.

“Whoever decided to put that policy in, doesn’t want people coming into the WHO” with “knowledge about what life was like using tobacco, and therefore compassion for the people who continue to use nicotine and tobacco,” Minton said in the GFN session, titled “Health and economic benefits of tobacco harm reduction.”

“Anti-nicotine hiring policies potentially allow employers to selectively discriminate against these groups under the guise of health concerns.”

“A no-nicotine employment policy really opens the door to discriminatory hiring,” Minton told Filter in a subsequent interview, “given that those applicants most likely to be nicotine users are in lower income brackets, those with mental health conditions and mood disorders, older people and ethnic minorities—Indigenous Americans, in particular.”

“Anti-nicotine hiring policies potentially allow employers to selectively discriminate against these groups under the guise of health concerns,” she added. 

“We are deeply invested in the well-being of our team members,” said U-Haul’s then-chief of staff when introducing the company’s policy in 2020. “Nicotine products are addictive and pose a variety of serious health risks. This policy is a responsible step in fostering a culture of wellness.”

U-Haul’s anti-nicotine hiring policy—like those of other US companies, such as Union Pacific and Alaska Airlines—applies to job applicants in those parts of the country where such discrimination is legally permitted. 

Twenty-one states don’t protect people from employment discrimination on the basis of nicotine use, including off-duty use. Among them are red states like Alabama and Utah, blue states like Massachusetts and Washington, and big states like Florida and Texas.

Tobacco harm reduction advocates say this is really about health-related cost savings and stigma.

“If employee health was truly the goal, employers would support smoking cessation programs,” said Minton, who has previously written for Filter. “Anti-nicotine policies do the opposite—penalizing even those using nicotine replacement products to quit smoking.”

Tobacco harm reduction advocates say this is really about health-related cost savings and stigma, piling onto other disadvantages for populations using nicotine. Research has found, for example, that jobseekers who smoked were 24 percent less likely to find a job within a year than those who didn’t. And for those who do have work, smoking has been associated with lower wages.

Stigma is something that people who smoke are all too aware of, and majorities of those who smoke in the US have told pollsters that they feel discriminated against in employment and public life. That discrimination, whether formal or more subtle, is perpetuated at many companies, large and small. 

Marc Slis is a former vape shop owner in Michigan, another of the states that permits employment discrimination based on nicotine use. He told Filter how he would help customers quit smoking due to “pre-employment nicotine testing.” 

“I worked with a client that I helped to quit smoking, [and] to then also quit vaping, in order to pass a nicotine test to obtain employment at a large bank,” he said by way of example.  

Proponents of the policies might point to this as an example of how they promote healthier choices. But many jobseekers—predominantly from marginalized backgrounds—aren’t able to quit smoking or nicotine, and will be denied opportunities as a result.

Though second-hand smoke may harm others, a simple policy against smoking in indoor workplaces would remove that risk. But it feels particularly absurd that people who have switched to safer, non-combustible nicotine options should be penalized for their efforts to improve their health.

“While it’s commonly accepted that smoking devalues things like company vehicles and indoor spaces, and remediation can be expensive, smoke-free products like vaping, nicotine pouches, smokeless tobacco and NRT don’t cost an employer anything, don’t damage property, and don’t pose a risk to bystanders,” Alex Clark, CEO of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, told Filter.

Clark acknowledged that people who smoke take more sick days, on average, than those who don’t. But if companies do insist on anti-smoking hiring policies, he said, then “employers can test for tobacco-specific nitrosamines” as a way of protecting people using low-risk nicotine products from that discrimination.  

Those tests are more sophisticated and costly than plain nicotine testing, he continued, “but if companies are going to actively discriminate against people who use legal products outside of the workplace, they should have to pay extra for that privilege. They will still save money, which is the real intent of these policies, and they don’t have to exclude [so many] talented people from the workforce.”

“Should corporations be able to refuse to hire employees who drink alcohol, use cannabis or eat fast food in their off-hours?”  

Minton similarly believes that concerns about loss of productivity and health care costs underpin companies’ anti-nicotine policies, rather than anything “altruistic.” And she warned that policies adopted in the name of employee health could open the door to other forms of discrimination.

“Policies can be a facade for discriminatory practices,” she told Filter. A comparable example might be refusing to hire people who are overweight, on the basis that obesity is linked with many health problems, and when it’s associated with poverty. 

The “serious ethical concerns” of such policies see issues like “personal freedom, privacy and employer interference in employees’ private lives” at stake, Minton continued. “Should corporations be able to refuse to hire employees who drink alcohol, use cannabis or eat fast food in their off-hours?”  

Refusing to hire people who smoke is “unethical,” stated a 2013 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

The practice “results in a failure to care for people, places an additional burden on already-disadvantaged populations, and preempts interventions that more effectively promote smoking cessation,” wrote the authors, led by medical ethicist Dr. Harald Schmidt of the University of Pennsylvania. 

“We believe that employers should consider more constructive approaches than punishing smokers,” they continued. They identified support and evidence-based smoking cessation programs as the “best approach” for employers, hailing those such as Walgreens which provided “free nicotine-replacement therapy and smoking-cessation counseling to employees.” 

As for hiring decisions, the paper stated, companies “should focus on whether candidates meet the job requirements; then they should provide genuine support to employees who wish to quit smoking,” and in doing so provide “compassion” rather than penalties. 

That chimes with Minton’s view. “No-nicotine hiring policies,” she said, “clearly constitute unfair treatment that denies equal opportunities based solely on non-job-related factors.”

Photograph (cropped) by WestportWiki via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter, has received donations from KAC Communications, the organizer of GFN. Filter’s Editorial Independence Policy applies.

The post Anti-Nicotine Hiring Policies Exacerbate Inequalities appeared first on Filter.

At issue are federal regulations adopted in 1988, mandating all federally contracted workers to refrain from the use of certain controlled substances, including cannabis. Despite the reality that most state governments have since legalized cannabis use under certain circumstances, neither Congress nor federal regulators have revisited the marijuana-specific provisions of Drug-Free Workplace Act.

These tests are not intended to assess whether drivers are under the influence of cannabis while on the job.

As a result, hundreds of thousands of commercially licensed drivers must routinely undergo random urinalysis screenings for cannabis use to maintain their employment. However, these tests are not intended to assess whether drivers are under the influence of cannabis while on the job. Rather, they are solely designed to detect whether one may have been exposed to cannabis several days, weeks or even months earlier.

That’s because urine screens detect the presence of carboxy-THC—an inert byproduct of cannabis that can remain present in urine for as long as 100 days post-abstinence. Because of this prolonged detection window, the Justice Department has long acknowledged that a positive test result “does not indicate abuse or addiction; recency, frequency, or amount of use; or impairment.”

Over the past several years, truckers and other drivers subjected to these tests have been testing positive in record numbers. Since 2020, over 139,000 truckers have tested positive for past cannabis exposure. That total is far greater than the total number of positives for all other drugs combined. Most of these drivers are refusing to reapply for work in the industry. Tens of thousands of additional drivers are skipping their tests altogether. In all, more than 150,000 licensed drivers have left the profession in recent years because of these zero-tolerance workplace drug testing policies.

Workplace policies, and those that regulate federal workers specifically, must cease punishing employees for activities they engage in during their off-hours.

A change in these discriminatory and counterproductive marijuana drug testing policies is long overdue. These outdated regulations are an artifact of the 1980s drug war zeitgeist. But times have changed; attitudes have changed, and in most states, the marijuana laws have changed. Workplace policies, and those that regulate federal workers specifically, must adapt to this new reality and cease punishing employees for activities they engage in during their off-hours that pose no legitimate workplace safety threat.

Several state governments, including California and New York, as well as major corporations like Amazon, have wisely amended their rules so that most public and private employees may no longer be terminated from their jobs solely because of a positive test for the presence of THC metabolites. In addition, performance-testing technologies like DRUID and Alert Meter are now becoming more widely available for employers who wish to assess whether their employees are actually impaired while at their jobs.

It’s high time that the federal government similarly update and amend its own antiquated marijuana testing regulations in accordance with cannabis’s rapidly changing cultural and legal status.

Photograph by PRA via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post End Discriminatory Marijuana Testing of Trucking Industry Workers appeared first on Filter.

Rep. Jamin Raskin (D-MD) introduced the legislation—titled the “Cannabis Users’ Restoration of Eligibility (CURE) Act”—on July 27, months after first previewing plans to advance the reform. It’s being cosponsored by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who signaled her interest in partnering with Raskin at a House Oversight subcommittee hearing last year, when the congressman announced his intent to act on the issue.

The bill says that “current or past use of marijuana by a covered person may not be used in any determination with respect to whether such person” is eligible for a security clearance or otherwise suitable for federal employment under existing code.

“The federal government has not caught up with the widely established legal use of cannabis.”

“Every year, qualified and dedicated individuals seeking to serve our country are unable to secure federal jobs and security clearances because the federal government has not caught up with the widely established legal use of medical and recreational cannabis,” Raskin said in a July 27 press release. “I am proud to partner with my friend Representative Mace to introduce the bipartisan CURE Act that will eliminate the draconian, failed and obsolete marijuana policies that prevent talented individuals from becoming honorable public servants in their own government.”

Within one year of enactment, all federal agencies would be required to create a process to review each past decision to deny security clearances or job opportunities over cannabis use going back to January 1, 2008, the bill says. They would need to maintain a website so that people could request a review of a decision made in their situation, and the agency would need to “reconsider such individual’s security clearance or employment application” within 90 days if they find that they were denied because of marijuana use alone.

If that person is still denied clearance or employment following the agency’s reconsideration, they would have 30 days to appeal that decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The board would then need to review the case within 120 days, and if it determines that marijuana use was the basis of the denial, it would need to “order the Federal agency to immediately redetermine the individual’s request for reconsideration.”

“For too long, the federal government has been denying Americans civil service opportunities solely because of its outdated attitudes toward cannabis and those who consume it,” said Morgan Fox, political director of NORML. “Denying these millions of Americans consideration for employment and security clearances is discriminatory, and it unnecessarily shrinks the talent pool available for these important jobs.”

“NORML commends the sponsors for working to undo this policy and replace it with fair and sensible hiring and clearance practices that will put America on much stronger footing on the global stage,” he said.

DPA is “excited to support legislation that can help end another pillar of the drug war and allow individuals to secure work.”

Maritza Perez Medina, director of the Office of Federal Affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) said that her organization is “excited to support legislation that can help end another pillar of the drug war and allow individuals to secure work.”

“Penalizing someone for drug use relies on an assumption that any drug use is problematic and that people who use drugs cannot be responsible employees,” she said. “We know this is false. We hope this bill is just the start of other critical federal marijuana reforms.”

The CURE Act represents an expansion of an amendment that Raskin filed as part of a House-passed cannabis legalization bill last year. That measure would have only covered security clearances, instead of also including overall employment decisions as is the case under the new legislation. However, the retroactivity would have required a review of denials going back further, to 1971, instead of 2008. The amendment was narrowly defeated on the House floor.

“Millions of patriotic, conscientious Americans use cannabis legally each year, but they are consistently penalized by outdated federal regulations,” said Ed Conklin, executive director of the US Cannabis Council. “We strongly support the CURE Act because it will bring federal employment policies into line with the views of most Americans. Cannabis use should never prevent a qualified candidate from serving his or her country as a federal employee.”

On the Senate side, the Intelligence Committee approved an amendment to an oversight bill last month that would prevent intelligence agencies from denying security clearances to applicants solely due to their past marijuana use.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) filed a broader amendment to last year’s version of the authorization legislation that would have prevented employment discrimination based on prior or present cannabis use at any federal department, not just those dealing with intelligence.

But the provision was scaled back under a second-degree amendment from the panel’s chairman before being adopted by the committee. And then the reform was ultimately quashed when two GOP senators objected to attaching the broader bill to the National Defense Authorization Act on the floor if it included the marijuana language.

A recent survey found 30 percent of people aged of 18 and 30 have declined to apply or withdrawn applications for federal jobs because of strict marijuana policies.

The director of national intelligence issued a memo in 2021 saying that federal employers shouldn’t outright reject security clearance applicants over past use, and should also use discretion when it comes to those with cannabis investments in their stock portfolios.

Meanwhile, the United States Secret Service recently updated its employment policy to be more accommodating to applicants who’ve previously used marijuana, making it so candidates of any age become eligible one year after they last consumed cannabis. Previously, there were stricter age-based restrictions.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has also revised its cannabis rules for job applicants. Applicants who’ve grown, manufactured or sold marijuana in compliance with state laws while serving in a “position of public responsibility” will no longer be automatically disqualified.

In 2020, the Federal Bureau of Investigation updated its hiring policies so candidates are only automatically disqualified from joining the agency if they disclose having used marijuana within one year of applying. Previously, prospective employees could not have used cannabis within the past three years.

Late last year, draft documents obtained by Marijuana Moment showed that the federal Office of Personnel Management was proposing to replace a series of job application forms for prospective workers, in a way that would treat past cannabis use much more leniently than under current policy.

The Biden administration instituted a policy in 2021 authorizing waivers to be granted to certain workers who disclose prior marijuana use, but some lawmakers have pushed for additional reform.

A recent survey found that 30 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 30 have either declined to apply or withdrawn applications for federal jobs because of strict marijuana policies required for security clearances.

Photograph by Terrance Barksdale via Pexels

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter, previously received a restricted grant from DPA to support a Drug War Journalism Diversity Fellowship.

The post Bill Launched to Ban Federal Hiring Discrimination Over Cannabis Use appeared first on Filter.

After moving through four committees, the legislation from Senator Steven Bradford (D) passed on the floor in a 29-9 vote on May 30, sending it to the Assembly for consideration.

It would build on existing employment protections enacted last session that bar employers from penalizing most workers for using cannabis off the job in compliance with state law.

“It is unlawful for an employer to request information from an applicant for employment relating to the applicant’s prior use of cannabis,” the bill text says.

Current law, as enacted last year, says that it is unlawful for employers “to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalizing a person, if the discrimination is based upon” off-duty marijuana use or drug tests that reveal cannabinoid metabolites.

There are exceptions to the policy for workers “in the building and construction trades,” as well as those that require federal background checks and security clearances.

Cannabis-related employment policies have been a major topic across the country amid the marijuana legalization movement.

If the bill that’s advancing this session is ultimately sent to the governor and signed, it would take effect January 1, 2024. That’s also the effective date of the earlier cannabis employment protections legislation that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed last year.

Cannabis-related employment policies have been a major topic across the country amid the marijuana legalization movement.

For example, Michigan officials recently proposed ending pre-employment drug testing for marijuana for most government job applicants, while also giving people who’ve already been penalized over positive THC tests an opportunity to have the sanction retroactively rescinded.

Last month, the governor of Washington State signed a bill into law that will protect workers from facing employment discrimination during the hiring process over their lawful use of marijuana.

That means Washington has joined Nevada in prohibiting discrimination against job applicants for testing positive for marijuana. New York also provides broader employment protections for adults who legally use cannabis during off-hours and away from work.

Four New Jersey police officers are preparing to sue Jersey City after being fired for testing positive for marijuana—despite being protected under the state’s cannabis legalization law and guidance from the state attorney general.

The US Department of Transportation (DOT) recently finalized a rule to amend its drug testing policy in a way that could have significant implications for truckers, commercial drivers, pilots and other federally regulated transit workers who use marijuana off the job.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has updated its employment policy to make it so applicants who’ve grown, manufactured or sold marijuana in compliance with state laws while serving in a “position of public responsibility” will no longer be automatically disqualified—although those who did so in violation of state cannabis policies won’t be considered.

The Secret Service also recently relaxed restrictions on prior marijuana use by prospective agents.

Late last year, draft documents obtained by Marijuana Moment showed that the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was proposing to replace a series of job application forms for prospective workers in a way that would treat past cannabis use much more leniently than under current policy.

The Biden administration instituted a policy in 2021 authorizing waivers to be granted to certain workers who disclose prior marijuana use, but some lawmakers have pushed for additional reform.

For example, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said at a congressional hearing on marijuana legalization last year that he intended to file a bill aimed at protecting federal workers from being denied security clearances over cannabis.

Last year, the nation’s largest union representing federal employees adopted a resolution in support of marijuana legalization and calling for an end to policies that penalize federal workers who use cannabis responsibly while they’re off the clock in states where it is legal.

The director of national intelligence (DNI) said in 2021 that federal employers shouldn’t outright reject security clearance applicants over past use, and should use discretion when it comes to those with cannabis investments in their stock portfolios.

A recent survey found that 30 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 30 have either declined to apply or withdrawn applications for federal jobs because of strict anti-marijuana policies around security clearances.

Photograph via RawPixel/Public Domain

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Bill to Stop Employers Asking About Past Cannabis Use Passes CA Senate appeared first on Filter.

The poll, published on the unofficial marijuana holiday April 20 by ClearanceJobs and the Intelligence and National Security Foundation (INSF), interviewed young adults about federal employment policies, focusing on cannabis.

Twenty-five percent say the government’s marijuana policy would prevent them from seeking employment requiring a security clearance in the future.

Participants were first asked whether they’d consider working in a federal position that requires security clearance, and almost 80 percent said they either would or might consider applying; 40 percent also said that they’ve used marijuana in the past year.

One of the most notable findings is that 20 percent of participants said they’ve declined to apply for federal jobs because of the government’s restrictive cannabis policies. Another 10 percent said they’ve withdrawn applications because of the marijuana rules.

The survey also found that 25 percent said the government’s marijuana policy would prevent them from seeking employment requiring a security clearance in the future. While 39 percent said they’d be willing to abstain from cannabis in order to secure a federal job, 18 percent said they wouldn’t. And 15 percent said that they wouldn’t stop using marijuana after getting a security clearance.

Interestingly, most of the panel didn’t have a firm grasp on what the government’s cannabis policy actually is. Sixteen percent said that any marijuana use automatically disqualifies applicants for security clearance, 37 percent said there’s no eligibility impact, 24 percent said it is one of several factors that are considered for clearance, and 23 percent said they didn’t know.

Similarly, there’s confusion about the policies for people who’ve already obtained security clearances, with 9 percent saying those individuals can use marijuana anywhere, 31 percent saying they can use in a legal jurisdiction, 33 percent saying cannabis use is prohibited, and 26 percent saying they didn’t know.

While marijuana employment policies under federal prohibition remain strict, various agencies have moved to loosen requirements as more states have legalized.

Only 4 percent of participants correctly answered both questions about what the federal government’s security clearance rules are for applicants and those who are already cleared.

The survey involved interviews with 905 adults aged 18-30 living in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, California, Florida, Texas and Colorado. The interviews took place in February. The margin of error is +/- 3.23 percentage points.

While marijuana employment policies under federal prohibition remain strict, various agencies have moved to loosen requirements as more states have enacted legalization.

For example, the United States Secret Service recently updated its employment policy to be more accommodating to applicants who’ve previously used marijuana, making it so candidates of any age become eligible one year after they last consumed cannabis. Previously, there were stricter age-based restrictions.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has also revised its cannabis rules for job applicants. Applicants who’ve grown, manufactured or sold marijuana in compliance with state laws while serving in a “position of public responsibility” will no longer be automatically disqualified.

Late last year, draft documents obtained by Marijuana Moment showed that the federal Office of Personnel Management was proposing to replace a series of job application forms for prospective workers in a way that would treat past cannabis use much more leniently than under current policy.

The Biden administration instituted a policy in 2021 authorizing waivers to be granted to certain workers who disclose prior marijuana use, but some lawmakers have pushed for additional reform.

For example, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said at a congressional hearing on marijuana legalization last year that he intended to file a bill aimed at protecting federal workers from being denied security clearances over marijuana.

The Department of Transportation has reiterated that the workforce it regulates is prohibited from using marijuana and will continue to be tested for THC.

Last year, the nation’s largest union representing federal employees adopted a resolution supporting marijuana legalization and calling for an end to policies that penalize federal workers who use cannabis responsibly while they’re off the clock in states where it is legal.

The director of national intelligence said in 2021 that federal employers shouldn’t outright reject security clearance applicants over past use, and should use discretion when it comes to those with cannabis investments in their stock portfolios.

The FBI also updated its hiring policies that year to make it so candidates are only automatically disqualified from joining the agency if they disclose having used marijuana within one year of applying. Previously, prospective employees could not have used cannabis within the past three years.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) also took a different approach to its cannabis policy in 2020, stating in a notice that it would not be testing drivers for CBD. However, DOT has more recently reiterated that the workforce it regulates is prohibited from using marijuana and will continue to be tested for THC, regardless of state cannabis policy.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) sent a letter to the head of DOT last year, stating that the agency’s policies on drug testing truckers and other commercial drivers for marijuana are unnecessarily costing people their jobs and contributing to supply chain issues.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also emphasized to its workers that they are prohibited from using marijuana—or directly investing in the industry—no matter the state law or changes in “social norms” around cannabis.

While the Biden administration did institute its waiver policy, it came under fire from advocates following reports that the White House fired or otherwise punished dozens of staffers who were honest about their history with marijuana.

Then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki attempted to minimize the fallout, without much success, and her office released a statement in 2021 saying that nobody was fired for “marijuana usage from years ago,” nor terminated “due to casual or infrequent use during the prior 12 months.”

Photograph of Federal Office Building in Seattle by Joe Mabel via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Many Young Adults Won’t Apply for Federal Jobs Due to Cannabis Policies appeared first on Filter.