# Marijuana now legal for cops?



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

SJC rules Mass. companies can't fire workers just because they use medical marijuana - The Boston Globe


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

No because it's still against federal law. Officers cannot violate state or federal laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

It'll be an interesting appeals case the first time it happens. Officers can't use illicit drugs and get an ltc under federal law. But at the same time, mass is openly ignoring the federal marijuana laws. So since there is no restriction in the majority of cba's, an officer would have a good defense that the department lacked just cause. Especially the state police, where they work directly for the state that in no uncertain terms made marijuana legal.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Rogergoodwin said:


> It'll be an interesting appeals case the first time it happens. Officers can't use illicit drugs and get an ltc under federal law. But at the same time, mass is openly ignoring the federal marijuana laws. So since there is no restriction in the majority of cba's, an officer would have a good defense that the department lacked just cause. Especially the state police, where they work directly for the state that in no uncertain terms made marijuana legal.


Rule #1 of just cause would clearly be lacking in this case
Just Cause - Using the Seven Tests


----------



## RodneyFarva (Jan 18, 2007)

I think most departments saw this coming and wrote a specific SOP's for this issue.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

RodneyFarva said:


> I think most departments saw this coming and wrote a specific SOP's for this issue.


From what I'm reading only a couple of departments have put anything in writing. I haven't seen anything at the state level either. Msp, environmental, doc, parole, etc


----------



## Mr Scribbles (Jul 7, 2012)

Drug use, even prescribed is Subject to conditions of employment in most if not all Departments...


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Mr Scribbles said:


> Drug use, even prescribed is Subject to conditions of employment in most if not all Departments...


But those conditions have not been outlined in most cba''s. Furthermore, I'd like to see a department fire someone for using prescribed narcotics after having their wisdom teeth out. Nevermind the requirements of the Americans with disabilities act. But either way, a one liner doesn't end the conversation, especially considering legal experts expect a drawn out legal battle.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Mr Scribbles said:


> Drug use, even prescribed is Subject to conditions of employment in most if not all Departments...


I was talking about off duty of course.


----------



## Mr Scribbles (Jul 7, 2012)

Rogergoodwin said:


> But those conditions have not been outlined in most cba''s. Furthermore, I'd like to see a department fire someone for using prescribed narcotics after having their wisdom teeth out. Nevermind the requirements of the Americans with disabilities act. But either way, a one liner doesn't end the conversation, especially considering legal experts expect a drawn out legal battle.


You missed the point. In my Department, Prescription drug use is allowed, BUT you have to notify the Department in writing, and the medical unit decides if you can continue working(ie drive a cruiser and carry a gun). It protects both the Officer and the Department. As far as pot goes, I'm just gonna stick with bourbon, less chance to flunk my conditional to employment yearly drug test.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Mr Scribbles said:


> You missed the point. In my Department, Prescription drug use is allowed, BUT you have to notify the Department in writing, and the medical unit decides if you can continue working(ie drive a cruiser and carry a gun). It protects both the Officer and the Department. As far as pot goes, I'm just gonna stick with bourbon, less chance to flunk my conditional to employment yearly drug test.


Same with my department. The difference is now that it's recreationally legal you wouldnt have to report it, much like your bourbon.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

It has nothing to do with state law and your CBA cannot trump federal or state law. Federal law will still win and you'll lose your job as it has nothing to do with recreational marijuana use. We already had this brought up at inservice last year. Remember that the court have already ruled in favor of departments in many cases regarding many issues because we are held to a different standard than the average citizen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

j809 said:


> It has nothing to do with state law and your CBA cannot trump federal or state law. Federal law will still win and you'll lose your job as it has nothing to do with recreational marijuana use. We already had this brought up at inservice last year. Remember that the court have already ruled in favor of departments in many cases regarding many issues because we are held to a different standard than the average citizen.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The question is, if federal law trumps everything, then why is the state ignoring federal marijuana laws? I wouldn't be surprised if the first person that gets disciplined wins his appeal.


----------



## Treehouse413 (Mar 7, 2016)

Rogergoodwin said:


> From what I'm reading only a couple of departments have put anything in writing. I haven't seen anything at the state level either. Msp, environmental, doc, parole, etc


MSP has it in their rules and regs that they can't use.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

j809 said:


> It has nothing to do with state law and your CBA cannot trump federal or state law. Federal law will still win and you'll lose your job as it has nothing to do with recreational marijuana use. We already had this brought up at inservice last year. Remember that the court have already ruled in favor of departments in many cases regarding many issues because we are held to a different standard than the average citizen.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And a CBA can trump certain laws. For example there are some contracts that don't allow employees to take their mandatory 30 min lunch break if the CBA agrees to take less than that. But either way, you could also make the argument that citizens are required to follow federal laws but that's clearly not the case given the new recreational law.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Legal or not, South Shore police chiefs say cops can't use pot


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

woodyd said:


> I think the best way to look at this is, do you really want to be the test case? There are many departments that would absolutely, 100% discipline an Ofc tomorrow for testing positive for class D.
> Could you maybe, possibly have a chance of winning at arbitration? Maybe. But there's certainly no guarantee. And arbitration is a long process, and a long time to be without a job, even in slam dunk cases. And this is no slam dunk case, even if you have a chance. Plus, if Trump follows through with his plan to enforce marijuana laws federally (which I hope he does), that could complicate a defense that relies entirely on state law.
> If it's that important to you to smoke weed, I'd look into a different line of work.


I'm in the opposite camp, I'd rather not waste federal funds to ruin people's lives that buy a dime bag or target children that use it to prevent seizures. Either way, the discussion (not argument ) was more about the likelihood of the first test case prevailing in an arbitration/court case. As a union steward, I can personally see a lot of valid 'just cause' defense's here and I would hope every union in mass gets behind the first case. Because not only "potheads" will be caught up in this, but also people that try edibles once on vacation. (knowingly or otherwise). And i personally don't believe someone that partake's on occasion should change his career based on some antiquated law, especially with the way things are changing. Also, I'm sure there were some rogue cops that drank during prohibition.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Treehouse413 said:


> MSP has it in their rules and regs that they can't use.


What section? It's not in the cba.


----------



## Treehouse413 (Mar 7, 2016)

Rogergoodwin said:


> What section? It's not in the cba.


Agreed not on their cba but rules and regs. No clue what section just going by what


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Treehouse413 said:


> Agreed not on their cba but rules and regs. No clue what section just going by what


Not sure where you heard that but it's not in the cmr's.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

Rules and Regs have nothing to do with CMRs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Treehouse413 (Mar 7, 2016)

Exactly.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

j809 said:


> Rules and Regs have nothing to do with CMRs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


CMR actually stands for Code of Massachusetts Regulations. The MSP are required to adhere to certain cmr's. But aside from that, there's literally nothing in the 10 MSP articles or in 22c that specifically mentions marijuana. It only mentions tobacco products.

This is beginning to sound more like the rumor mill at work again.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

Are you a cop? Because it sure sounds like you are not. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

j809 said:


> Are you a cop? Because it sure sounds like you are not.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Been on 7 years this April. Maybe it's more of a generational thing, but the stigma with weed isn't there anymore. Personal feelings on weed aside, I was viewing this from an appeals perspective.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Treehouse413 said:


> Agreed not on their cba but rules and regs. No clue what section just going by what


Where'd this information come from?


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Rogergoodwin said:


> But those conditions have not been outlined in most cba''s. Furthermore, I'd like to see a department fire someone for using prescribed narcotics after having their wisdom teeth out. Nevermind the requirements of the Americans with disabilities act. But either way, a one liner doesn't end the conversation, especially considering legal experts expect a drawn out legal battle.


You're going to have an uphill battle if you try to persue a case under the American's with Disabilities Act. The ADA requires that an accommodation be reasonable for an employee to perfrom the essential functions of the job. In order for an accommodation to be deemed reasonable it can not impose a burden on the employer. For example, I've seen a multi-billion dollar corporation beat an MCAD complaint because they argued that they did not have the staff to accommodate giving an employee a modified schedule (6 hr day with no lunch vs 9 hr day with mandatory hour lunch). If you're taking a prescription drug that comes with restrictions such as not operating machinery or driving a motor vehicle because they cause a cognitive impariment, it's going to be pretty easy for a department to argue that no reasonable accommodation could allow you to perform your essential duties as a police officer while under the influence of that drug. Short term use of narcotics, prescribed for a short time for a specific issue, will require anyone who works in any hazardous occupation to take medical leave while using that medication.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

HistoryHound said:


> You're going to have an uphill battle if you try to persue a case under the American's with Disabilities Act. The ADA requires that an accommodation be reasonable for an employee to perfrom the essential functions of the job. In order for an accommodation to be deemed reasonable it can not impose a burden on the employer. For example, I've seen a multi-billion dollar corporation beat an MCAD complaint because they argued that they did not have the staff to accommodate giving an employee a modified schedule (6 hr day with no lunch vs 9 hr day with mandatory hour lunch). If you're taking a prescription drug that comes with restrictions such as not operating machinery or driving a motor vehicle because they cause a cognitive impariment, it's going to be pretty easy for a department to argue that no reasonable accommodation could allow you to perform your essential duties as a police officer while under the influence of that drug. Short term use of narcotics, prescribed for a short time for a specific issue, will require anyone who works in any hazardous occupation to take medical leave while using that medication.


I 100% agree with you in that regard. I was specifically talking about using it off duty, either recreationally, or medicinally like an officer with ptsd that occasionally uses it as a sleep aid. I don't think any union would want to take on an officer high on duty case. But in this situation I'm referring too, it's more of an issue with the federal law that even the state doesn't acknowledge, rather than a concern about officer safety.
Even cigarette smoking wasnt banned in order to maintain officers fitness for duty, it was simply a requirement of the heart bill.


----------



## Bloodhound (May 20, 2010)

Rogergoodwin said:


> CMR actually stands for Code of Massachusetts Regulations. The MSP are required to adhere to certain cmr's. But aside from that, there's literally nothing in the 10 MSP articles or in 22c that specifically mentions marijuana. It only mentions tobacco products.
> 
> This is beginning to sound more like the rumor mill at work again.


You are looking for MSP's Rules and Regulations in the CMR's? Are you serious? Apparently you really miss smoking weed because you sure like to advocate for cops being able to.

http://masscops.com/threads/marijuana-and-hiring-employment.193873/


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Bloodhound said:


> You are looking for MSP's Rules and Regulations in the CMR's? Are you serious? Apparently you really miss smoking weed because you sure like to advocate for cops being able to.
> 
> http://masscops.com/threads/marijuana-and-hiring-employment.193873/


You sound like you have a lot of friends. And why would you think I stopped?


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

Bloodhound said:


> You are looking for MSP's Rules and Regulations in the CMR's? Are you serious? Apparently you really miss smoking weed because you sure like to advocate for cops being able to.
> 
> http://masscops.com/threads/marijuana-and-hiring-employment.193873/


When I worked for the doc, the cmrs were part of the rules and regs...
Either way, that guy was clearly full of shit when he said it was in the rules and regs. Probably heard it from "a close friend thats been on for years". 
Blow me


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

If you are a police officer you would clearly know that policy and procedure and rules and regulations are clearly totally distinct and different than code of Massachusetts regulations. Just saying 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Rogergoodwin said:


> I 100% agree with you in that regard. I was specifically talking about using it off duty, either recreationally, or medicinally like an officer with ptsd that occasionally uses it as a sleep aid. I don't think any union would want to take on an officer high on duty case. But in this situation I'm referring too, it's more of an issue with the federal law that even the state doesn't acknowledge, rather than a concern about officer safety.
> Even cigarette smoking wasnt banned in order to maintain officers fitness for duty, it was simply a requirement of the heart bill.


You're missing the point that a case could be made that the accommodation requested by an individual using medical marijuana is not a reasonable accommodation even if that person is using it on their off time. There are an awful lot of ifs, ands, or buts here. However, a plaintiff in this instance is going to have an uphill battle with an ADA complaint.

"Your honor my the plaintiff's request for accommodation under the ADA should be denied as it poses a serious burden to my client, XYZ PD. Should the plaintiff be involved in any type of vehivle crash or use of force incident while on duty, the perception of his impairment due to a positive drug test will open the department up to litigation and potentially substantial jury awards to the victims."

"Your honor, the use of medical marijuana off duty increases the plaintiffs likelihood of calling out sick if he still feels impaired prior to the start of his shift. My client, XYZ PD, does not have sufficient man power to accommodate repeat absences. They typically run at minimum staffing levels and these absneces will create the need for overtime and forced shifts for fellow officers. For those reasons, we request that the plaintiff's request for accommodation be deemed unreasonable and denied."

"Your honor, the only way my client, XYZ PD, would be able to accommodate the plaintiff's request would be to create a position of permanent desk officer, a position that does not currently exist in the department. The liability risk imposed by the plaintiff's use of medical marijuana prohibits the department from allowing him to work in a patrol capacity. A requet that requires a department to create a position that does not currently exist is unreasonable and should be denied."

I can keep going, but I think I've made my point. There is no reasonable accommodation that would allow officers on medications that impair cognitive function to work on the road. MSP, for one, requires that all troopers meet minumum requirements that include several duties related to being on the road even if that trooper is not currently assigned to patrol at a barracks. Many departments do not have house mice. If your intention is to take medical marijuana in any form, you better hope that your department has permanent house mice positions and also has an opening for a house mouse position. If they don't, you're shit out of luck with an ADA lawsuit or an MCAD complaint. Long story short, in HR I've seen people think they can beat the drug test by not using for a few days and test positive. Even pot friendly sites say that THC stays in your system 3-10 days for occasional use and up to 21 days for frequent use.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

HOLY SHIT, I stopped reading. I've got a nice buzz going this was going to give me a headache. The ONLY thing I'll add is, wasn't there a little squabble in this country a few years ago concerning STATE'S RIGHTS? Hmmm, I think it started in South Carolina or someplace around there!



Why the hell is the BIG GRIN, GREEN?


----------



## Bloodhound (May 20, 2010)

Rogergoodwin said:


> You sound like you have a lot of friends. And why would you think I stopped?


Um, good one.


----------



## Treehouse413 (Mar 7, 2016)

HistoryHound said:


> You're missing the point that a case could be made that the accommodation requested by an individual using medical marijuana is not a reasonable accommodation even if that person is using it on their off time. There are an awful lot of ifs, ands, or buts here. However, a plaintiff in this instance is going to have an uphill battle with an ADA complaint.
> Agree with what your saying but how about the guy using prescription oxy, etc. who does the same. I realize the script is legal but wtf at the end of the day it's so much worse.
> "Your honor my the plaintiff's request for accommodation under the ADA should be denied as it poses a serious burden to my client, XYZ PD. Should the plaintiff be involved in any type of vehivle crash or use of force incident while on duty, the perception of his impairment due to a positive drug test will open the department up to litigation and potentially substantial jury awards to the victims."
> 
> ...


----------



## Treehouse413 (Mar 7, 2016)

I agree , but what about the guy who had a script of oxy etc that abuses it and same scenario happens. I realize the script is legal but can be so much worse.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

Treehouse413 said:


> I agree , but what about the guy who had a script of oxy etc that abuses it and same scenario happens. I realize the script is legal but can be so much worse.


Does he have a script for Narcan?


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Treehouse413 said:


> I agree , but what about the guy who had a script of oxy etc that abuses it and same scenario happens. I realize the script is legal but can be so much worse.


From an employer perspective, the same could be applied whether he abuses it or not. I'm not going to argue that I know how departments handle officers who are on things like oxy. It has always been my understanding that they are not permitted to work while taking the medication, but I could be mistaken. All I'm saying is that it wouldn't be difficult for a department/city lawyer to argue against a requested accommodation on the grounds that it's not reasonable. We're not talking about John that gets up every day and goes into his job as an accountant or Timmy the bag boy. We're talking about a job that involves requires the ability to think and adapt quickly, react quickly and who's employees are under intense scrutiny. If someone wants to be the test case, good luck to them, but I don't see an ADA complaint being successful. Could I be wrong? Sure. However, let's look at it from a different angle. Would you want to have a mechanic that is on medical marijuana, oxy or any similar drug to do the brake job on your car? If I own a repair shop, I'd make the argument that a mechanic on these medications poses an increased liability risk.

Now if someone wants to argue that the use of CBD only without THC should allow them to continue working, that could be an interesting argument because CBD doesn't cause impairment. Unfortunately, from what I've read, you would still test positive for marijuana so I'm not sure how you'd prove that you're only using that component.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

"Whoa dude, you got a gun. Man, that's just UNCOOL! Maybe we can talk about this over a Twinkie, eh? How's that sound? Oh dude, you SHOT me. *VERY* UNCOOL! Oh, great, now you're running away. DUDE, I can't run after you like this! Shit. I guess I better use my radio and call for help. Oh man, I smell a pie cooking somewhere."

Worst case scenario.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Why in the world are we talking about this again!?!?


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

mpd61 said:


> Why in the world are we talking about this again!?!?


Someone loves weed apparently.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

Look in your rules and regulations manual, not CMRs and I'm sure it clearly states that you cannot violate federal or state laws. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

