Committee backs bill to bar random cannabis tests and stop using presence alone to show impairment

Senators on the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee voted 6–3 to give a do‑pass recommendation to Senate Bill 269, which would amend the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act to say an employee shall not be considered impaired solely because of the presence of cannabis and to prohibit random cannabis testing for cannabis for covered employees.

Supporters told the committee the bill responds to firefighters and other safety‑sensitive employees who say they avoid medically authorized cannabis because current testing methods show only the presence of cannabinoids, not impairment. Miguel Titman, president of I.S.S. Bridal 244 and vice president of the International Association of Fire Fighters (local chapter indicated in testimony), said many members use medical cannabis for post‑traumatic stress disorder, sleep problems and pain and “they’re scared to rub [CBD] oils on their bodies because they don’t want adverse employment action.” He asked the committee to allow lawful medical use off duty while creating better methods to identify impairment.

Titman: “We want to mitigate and limit the amount of times employment gets adverse employment action…we want a more reasonable and responsible method to test cardholders who are using medicinal cannabis on their days off.”

Union and firefighter witnesses backed the bill. John Lipschutz of the New Mexico Federation of Labor, AFL‑CIO, said labor stands “in strong solidarity” with firefighters. Jeremy Renda, a 25‑year Santa Fe County fire service veteran and member of IAFF Local 4366, described veterans and colleagues who he said rely on medical cannabis for sleep and pain management and urged testing that distinguishes impairment from lawful off‑duty use.

Committee members asked detailed questions about how impairment would be determined and about employer liability. Witnesses and several senators discussed existing tools: Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) used by law enforcement, saliva (cheek) swab tests with thresholds, and blood tests. Testimony cited a saliva (cheek) swab as providing proximity information (the witnesses described a practical detection window of roughly 10 hours for cheek swabs) and referenced Department of Transportation standards for CDL and federal funding carve‑outs affecting DOT‑regulated workers.

Witnesses acknowledged limits and practical hurdles. Titman said DREs are scarce in the state, making saliva testing the most viable near term option, and that county policies being developed (Burnley County was cited as an early adopter in testimony) use a cheek swab threshold as a first test with blood confirmation available at the employee’s expense. He also said random testing would remain for other substances; the bill would remove random testing specifically for cannabis because presence alone does not establish impairment.

Opponents and skeptical senators pressed the sponsor and witnesses on liability and insurance implications if an impaired employee caused an accident. Senator Black (asked whether employer or employee would bear legal liability) and other senators raised the concern that municipal or county insurers might increase premiums if a jurisdiction’s policy protected medical cardholders. Witnesses said they had not had direct conversations with insurers but cited examples from other states that have adopted similar protections and reported no loss of federal grant funds.

The committee recorded a roll‑call vote after debate. Senators who voted yes included Senator Nava, Senator Celia Lopez, Senator Hickey, Senator Lopez (first name not specified on the transcript), Senator Charlie and one other senator recorded as voting yes in the transcript; Senators Block, Boone and Gallegos voted no. The committee’s tally on the record was 6 in favor, 3 opposed. The committee chair announced the bill carries a do‑pass recommendation.

Next steps: the committee recommendation sends SB269 forward with its due‑pass report; additional committee referrals or amendments were discussed during the hearing but will depend on the next committee(s) that receive the bill.

Votes at a glance: SB269 — Do pass recommendation, committee vote 6–3.