No he’s correct. The cannabis law in NJ says it’s illegal to consume by anyone under 21 but it also made it illegal for police to tell parents that their juvenile children where caught smoking.
This article talks about it when the law was changed.
https://whyy.org/articles/n-j-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-notify-parents-of-childs-first-marijuana-alcohol-offense/amp/
Welcome to Canada then - not the land of the free, nor the home of the brave, so employers are not free to trod on the rights of employees. (I think it’s Quebec that even has anti-scab legislation). IIRC medical tests on hire are permitted, but not as a condition of ongoing work, except in a few very regulated industries. (Airline pilots?)
I figured Loach would be weighing in with the correct info regarding parental notification. I also spoke to a retired firefighter friend who enlightened my on the cancer/smoking logic. Even so, a law prohibiting the activity seems a bit much. Why not just say “If you smoke, the presumption of cancer being job-related does not apply to you. As a matter of fact, the cancer will be presumed to NOT come form your job.” Are firefighter cancers that prevalent?
It might not just be cancer- according to this , there are other disabilities that are presumed to be caused by employment - heart or respiratory conditions and various infectious diseases as well as cancer. And the presumption does not apply for cancers caused by tobacco use for municipal firefighters who use tobacco products - but there is no exception for disabilities caused by cardiac or respiratory disease or for county or state firefighters who use tobacco. Since that exception is in there , my guess is that it was not politically possible to extend it to the other situations.
To some extent , it’s not an exception to prohibit police officers from using marijuana. It isn’t legal under Federal law for anyone to possess or sell marijuana - and it is additionally illegal under Federal law for someone who uses marijuana to possess firearms or ammunition*. What I’m really wondering about is how New Jersey is going to get around this if they can’t impose negative consequences on officers who test positive. I mean, I suppose there may be assignments that don’t involve possessing a firearm - but wouldn’t such an assignment ordinarily be seen as a a negative consequence?
* This is exactly the reason my former employer gave for prohibiting medical marijuana use among officers.
I don’t think they need to “get around it”. New Jersey isn’t obligated to enforce Federal law. Of course, it’s theoretically possible that the Feds might decide that busting potheads is a good use of the FBI and USDOJ’s time, and then those cops would be screwed. But that’s essentially the same position any citizen of a legal pot State is in.
Which is why I gave my firearms and ammunition to my partner the day I got my Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana card in the mail. We went to a “gun store” and it took 10 minutes.
I think you misunderstood me - NJ absolutely does not have to enforce Federal law and doesn’t have to arrest pot-smoking cops. But that doesn’t mean they can have armed officers working who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm and ammunition. In some circumstances, you can have a police officer working who does not carry a firearm - you can put someone on desk duty while an incident is being investigated or if they are restricted for medical reasons from having a firearm and that might be a way to deal with this issue , if not for the prohibition on “negative consequences”. But if NJ can’t impose negative consequences on officers who test positive , then it seems to me they can’t put them on restricted duty and take remove their ability to carry firearms.
I haven’t seen a whole lot of coverage of this issue, beyond that it exists ,that at least one department will ignore the AG’s memo and still prohibit cops from using marijuana, and that there is already talk of amending the law. Nothing really about how NJ departments are expected to deal with the firearms issue.
Serious question: why can’t they have armed officers working who are prohibited by Federal law from carrying firearms? Assuming the Feds aren’t going to swoop down and arrest said officers, what is to stop them?
Won’t defense attorneys use this in an attempt to discredit testimony of said officers?
The number of zeros at the end of the settlement when a cop involved in a questionable shooting tests positive for marijuana. The test won’t tell you that s/he was high when the shooting happened - but it also won’t tell you that s/he wasn’t. In addition to that , some departments own the firearm and issue it to the officer - which might cause some additional problems under Federal law ( might- I don’t know Federal law that well). And it definitely brings up the issue of " How do you enforce other laws when you allow your own employees to ignore this one?"
Well, see, you had me confused. I thought you were speaking about my state, Wisconsin. Loach is in New Jersey.