Committee backs ordinance limiting pre-employment cannabis testing for most city jobs; HR asks for implementation work

The Annapolis Rules and City Government Committee voted to recommend favorably on O35-24, an ordinance that would remove cannabis from the city’s definition of a controlled dangerous substance for employment testing purposes and bar pre-employment or routine employee testing for cannabis except where state or federal law requires it.

Sponsor Alderman Savage said the change is intended to prevent lawful off-duty cannabis use from disqualifying applicants or ending city employees’ careers based on urine tests that detect long-ago use rather than current impairment. “Urine tests do not detect a psychotropic component of THC,” Savage said, and “this test has no correlation on actual on-duty usage or impairment.” He built exemptions into the ordinance for categories that remain subject to state or federal testing requirements, including sworn public safety roles and employees who must hold commercial driver’s licenses.

Tricia Hopkins, the city’s human-resources director, told the committee the administration supports revisiting the policy in light of state legalization but asked for time to work through implementation issues. Hopkins raised several practical concerns, including state lab certification rules, federal drug-free workplace requirements, and the absence of a single, scientifically established test for real-time cannabis impairment. Hopkins asked for legal review and additional operational analysis before broad policy changes are implemented.

The committee heard expert testimony from Paul Armentano, a long-time cannabis policy researcher who said jurisdictions that have restricted cannabis testing for hires have not seen a measurable increase in workplace impairment or accidents. Armentano pointed the committee to cognitive-performance testing tools (for example, Druid or alert-meter style applications) that employers can use to assess on-the-job impairment by comparing an employee’s cognitive baseline to current performance rather than relying on toxicology that only shows past exposure.

Committee members sought clarity on scope and next steps. Several members — including Aldermen Gay and Arnett — asked HR and the city attorney to confirm how state executive guidance and federal requirements interact with local policy changes. The ordinance as presented explicitly exempts jobs that remain subject to state or federal testing requirements (for example, CDL holders and certain public-safety positions). The committee also asked staff to pursue information on impairment-evaluation tools and their potential costs and to coordinate with the Housing & Human Welfare committee, which had earlier postponed the item for scheduling reasons.

Alderman Arnett moved that the committee recommend favorably on O35-24; the committee approved the motion by voice vote. Members thanked the expert witness and directed HR and the city manager’s office to return with implementation details, including legal review and potential budget implications, prior to final council action.

Ending: The favorable committee recommendation advances O35-24 to the full council. HR will follow up with legal review, a list of job categories that would remain subject to testing, and a staff analysis of impairment-evaluation options and expected costs before the council takes a final vote.