The Colorado House Committee on Business Affairs & Labor voted unanimously last month to kill House Bill 22-1152, a bill that would have prohibited employers from firing employees for their recreational cannabis use after work hours and even their medical cannabis use during work hours. The bill was ultimately replaced by the resolution to form a task force to study the relationship between employment and medical cannabis use. 

This is not the first time a bill advocating for cannabis users has been proposed in the state of Colorado, and it likely won’t be the last. However, like the bills before it, HB 22-1152 was overcome by concerns over safety, enforcement and the rights of employers. 

HB 22-1152 was sponsored by Rep. Edie Hooton, D-Boulder, a longtime advocate for medical marijuana users. 

“Many Coloradans still maintain that ‘reefer madness’ attitude, and it does everyone a disservice.” –Rep. Edie Hooton, D-Boulder

“I am very familiar with this community; I’ve worked with them for years,” Hooton said. “I have sympathy for them. I realize they have no voice at all at the capitol except for a handful of volunteer lobbyists, and they only have so much influence.” 

One significant qualm the committee and the business community had with HB 22-1152 was it contradicts Colorado employers’ rights to enforce a drug-free workplace. This right was upheld in 2015 following the Coats v. Dish Network verdict, when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that in a statute preventing people from being fired for lawful activities outside of work, the term “lawful” refers to activities under both state and federal law.

“People who use medical marijuana are not a protected class, so in a traditional employment relationship, the employer does get to set the terms and conditions of employment,” Rep. Shannon Bird, D-Adams, said.

Despite this decision being a triumph for Colorado employers, the verdict also left medical marijuana users open to facing potential consequences of consuming cannabis despite it being a legal substance in the state of Colorado. To mediate this challenge, Hooton amended the bill to initiate a task force; however, she did not get much feedback from the business community on the original or amended bill. 

“Part of the problem is that I had offered the bill concept mostly to the business community weeks before the bill had its first hearing, and I only got one response,” Hooton said. She felt it sent a clear message: “The constitution protects us from an obligation to employ medical cannabis patients. We are protected, and we are going to fight and oppose anything that may force us to consider another approach. That was the unified message.”

Concerns were also raised about how Colorado businesses would maintain relationships with the federal government if they permitted the consumption of medical THC during work hours.

“It jeopardizes a business’s ability to comply with federal law and maintain drug-free workplaces, which could have far-reaching consequences for employers who do business with the federal government, again putting into jeopardy hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal contracts flowing into the state of Colorado,” said Jess Kostelnik, government affairs manager for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

HB 22-1152 also caused worry on the county level regarding how employers would measure their employees’ level of impairment in the event of a work-related accident given the lack of reliable testing technology. Eric Bergman, policy director at Colorado Counties Inc. — which represents 61 of the 64 Colorado counties — elaborated in an interview. 

“We really don’t have a way to differentiate active THC versus background or remnant THC,” Bergman said. “Short of that, the liability concerns for Colorado employers are huge. Until such time that a test is developed, we really can’t move forward on this. I think we do agree that a conversation is warranted but it’s really hard to get at this until we have a test.” 

Hooton believes we won’t have a solution for this issue until Coloradans rid themselves of misconceptions about impairment and medical cannabis consumption.

“(Medical cannabis strains) control symptoms without impacting functioning, but so many don’t know that,” Hooton said. “They lump recreational and medical into the same category. Many Coloradans still maintain that ‘reefer madness’ attitude, and it does everyone a disservice.”

Reach Elizabeth White at cannabis@collegian.com or on Twitter @lihhhhhz.