Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel weighs shielding firefighters from discipline for lawful off‑duty medical cannabis use
Summary
Supporters including state firefighter unions and family members urged HB 797 to protect fire and rescue personnel who lawfully use medical cannabis off duty while preserving employer authority to prohibit on‑duty impairment; opponents pressed concerns about impairment testing and volunteer-system impacts.
Delegate Adrianne Bawafo framed HB 797 as a limited employment-protection measure: "This bill simply allows fire and rescue public safety employees to use prescribed medical cannabis while off duty and protects them from retaliation for that lawful medical use," she said, adding that the bill does not permit on‑duty impairment.
Professional firefighter unions and chiefs gave the committee detailed support. Jeff Buttle of Professional Firefighters Maryland said the bill "provides important employment protections for Maryland fire and rescue public safety employees," and Grant Walker of Prince George’s County described cases where firefighters declined medical cannabis during cancer treatments for fear of losing their jobs. A battalion chief from Pittsburgh and other out‑of‑state chiefs told the committee their departments have not seen incidents of on‑duty impairment after permitting medical-cannabis use under strict fitness-for-duty rules.
Opponents including the Maryland State Firefighters Association and county groups raised concerns about enforceability and detection of cannabis impairment in real time, the bill’s interaction with volunteer firefighters, and potential liability for local governments. Eric Smothers, representing volunteers, said there is "no good test" to determine recent cannabis impairment and warned the bill could undermine local policies. County representatives worried about new discrimination claims and litigation exposure.
Committee members pressed on how impairment would be detected, whether blood or breath testing would be required, and how the bill interacts with federal rules for certain vehicle operators and with local volunteer systems. Sponsors and supporters emphasized that departments retain authority to enforce fitness-for-duty standards and that certifying providers for medical cannabis must be licensed clinicians under state law. No final committee action appears in the transcript.
