week 6 replies

1

5

100 words each reply

Reply 1 to lisa

A challenge presented by the legalization of cannabis in many states is managing off-duty cannabis use among law enforcement personnel. Since it is legal within the state, there might be an assumption that it is within the individual’s right to use it, or that it should be treated similarly to alcohol. The problem though is ensuring personnel are not reporting to duty while still under the effects or impaired by cannabis use. THC from cannabis remains in the body and is detectable days or even weeks after the effects have ended, and there is currently not a reliable method to determine immediate impairment. Alternatively, federal law still classifies cannabis as a controlled substance and prohibits unlawful users of any controlled substance from possessing a firearm, which the ability to possess and carry a firearm is a major component of an officer’s responsibilities. Recently, ATF has addressed and amended the definition of “unlawful user” in response to states legalization of cannabis and the issue as it relates to the Second Amendment. The new definition, however, only incorporates use with a lawful prescription prescribed by a license physician and does not completely exempt state legal use from federal prohibition ( Revising Definition of “Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance,” 2026). Organizations should react to this issue by updating policies and outlining expectations regarding the off-duty use of drugs. What is allowed or prohibited should be clearly defined and what is to be expected if the policy is violated should also be included so there is no confusion and deviations from the policy be handled and addressed accordingly.

I do not believe officers should be able to use cannabis off-duty. Law enforcement officers are granted a level of authority and in some way should be a role model and set an example. Not only is there the conflict between federal and state regulations as mentioned above, and officers still must follow federal law as most have sworn an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Also, the duties of law enforcement officers include making decisions that have to be done with clarity and precision otherwise it may put their or the lives of others in jeopardy (Dudley & Shults, 2024). Alcohol and substance abuse in law enforcement is already a significant problem that has not yet been fully remedied, so allowing off-duty use of cannabis could further contribute to the issue.

Dudley, J., & Shults, J. (2024).  State your case: Should off-duty police officers be permitted to use marijuana in legalized states? Police1. https://www.police1.com/state-your-case/state-your-case-should-off-duty-police-officers-be-permitted-to-use-marijuana-in-legalized-states

Revising Definition of “Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance.” (2026). Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/22/2026-01141/revising-definition-of-unlawful-user-of-or-addicted-to-controlled-substance

less

reply 1 to Janay

In 1975, Alice O’Leary Randall and her husband Robert were arrested for growing four marijuana plants to treat his glaucoma (Project CBD, 2017). After discovering the U.S. government had known about this medical treatment for years, the couple decided to fight the charges and a year later, they were found not guilty of marijuana possession and cultivation by reason of medical necessity (Project CBD, 2017). 50 years later after this landmark case, we are no closer to have concrete policies and laws regarding medicinal cannabis. Of the several issues created by the legalization of marijuana, this one is difficult to enforce and understand, especially in the workplace as policies and procedures are in the infancy stage of development. People with aliments such as PTSD, cancer, chronic pain from arthritis, fibromyalgia, and migraines, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, Alzheimer’s, HIV/AIDS, and epilepsy have all benefited by the use of marijuana (Cleveland Clinic, 2025).

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from asking about medical history or conditions that would not interfere with a person’s duties, so a law enforcement officer could have any of the previously mentioned conditions and legally use marijuana for treatment. However, if the officer were to have an on-the-job injury and have to take a drug test that could reveal their usage, that would be another issue all together. If there is no policy in place for allowable marijuana use, the only recourse would be for the officer to disclose highly personal information to save their career. Hypothetical situations such as this highlight why it is imperative for criminal justice agencies to establish sound doctrine on marijuana consumption.

Medical cannabis is legal in 38 states with almost half having policies to address anti-discrimination for medical cannabis patients while fewer of the states require employers to carve out accommodations for them (NCSL, 2025). This means most still operate under the blanket of a drug-free work environment but unfortunately that mindset is outdated. Yet there are some states that are being proactive and implementing guidelines for employees regarding this topic. In Virginia, state law makers recently passed legislation affording protection to public sector employees such as firefighters, police officers and teachers who are approved to use cannabis products to treat conditions or diseases, though employers would still be able to prohibit use of cannabis on the job and take action against any employee whose work is impaired because of cannabis use (Capital News Services, 2024). It is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.

Consumption of marijuana during personal time will continue to be a hot topic despite the fact that alcohol can do just as much, if not more, damage than a person who may have used recreational marijuana. Another difference is alcohol does not have the same lingering effect in a person's system as marijuana does. Consider this, a police officer takes a two-week vacation to celebrate with family and friends, then decides to use recreational marijuana during that time. They came back to work, and their behavior is not being impaired by the use of marijuana two weeks ago, however, their department conducts a random drug test which shows them positive for marijuana. Therein lies the dilemma since they used marijuana in the state where it is legal and they were completely off the clock. Should they still be held liable? The fact of the matter is becoming a law enforcement officer is a choice. People must go in with their eyes wide open and an understanding there are certain things they can no longer do even if they are legal.

 

Capital News Services. (2024, February 16).  Virginia Bills Advance to Protect State Employees Who Access Medical Cannabis.  https://virginiamercury.com/2024/02/16/virginia-bills-advance-to-protect-state-employees-who-access-medical-cannabis/

Cleveland Clinic. (2025, February 10).  Medical Marijuana. Health Library.  https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/medical-marijuana

NCLS. (2025, March 6).  Cannabis and Employment: Medical and Recreational Policies in the States. National Conference of State Legislatures.  https://www.ncsl.org/health/cannabis-and-employment-medical-and-recreational-policies-in-the-states

Project CDB. (2017, October 2).  The Court Case that Launched the Medical Cannabis Movement. Projectcdb.org.  https://projectcbd.org/policy/the-court-case-that-launched-the-medical-cannabis-movement/.

Reply 2 Janay

Police unions are a powerful force and will go to great lengths to advocate for police officers. The idea of random drug testing has been a point of contention between law enforcement and unions for decades. Several reasons have been given for this discord but none more prominent than the argument that random drug testing violates an officer’s 4th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. Through the process of collective bargaining, unions aim to ensure that drug testing is not used arbitrarily and that employees with no history of drug use are not embarrassed and have limited intrusions into their personal right of privacy (Linden and Miller, 1988). The unions believe the accuracy of the test is questionable and the manner in which it is given unconstitutional. It is no secret that drug tests via a urine sample do yield a higher result of false positives than a blood test would. Additionally, there could be other mitigating factors such as legal prescription drugs that could indicate a drug violation when there is not one. Another point of contention is about the handling of the specimen once it has been collected and making sure that there is no mixing up of the samples. This is why many unions prefer breath and saliva tests over the more traditional urinalysis.

Unions stand firm on the idea of the "Just Cause" limitation and they vehemently oppose random, indiscriminate testing over testing due to reasonable suspicion which they believe infringes upon employee privacy and has not been shown to benefit officers (Hickox, 2017). For these reasons and others many unions during collective bargaining will specifically outline the manner in which they will accept and support random drug testing for police officers. This becomes especially important if there is an officer involved shooting or other disciplinary action in which the determination of the officer’s impairment may come into question. Additionally, unions fear that officers could get caught in the net when departments do blanket drug testing to weed out a particular person who they may suspect of violating drug policies. Police unions are equally concerned with the fallout of an officer who test positive. Their goal is to make sure due process is being followed and that there are steps in place to assist the officer rather than an immediate termination.

As a former police officer who has been subjected to random as well as mandatory drug screenings, my fellow officers and I took it in stride as it was just part of the cost of doing business. Police officers are expected to hold a certain level moral and ethical standards. Having checks and balances in place such as random and/or mandatory drug tests should not be seen as punishment or entrapment but rather as a way to keep people honest and public trust high. Will there be exceptions to the rule where officers could test positive for drugs? Absolutely, as there are officers who work undercover and other positions where they may come in contact with drugs. However, in those situations there should be a paper trail to easily explain any discrepancy. Unions would like us to believe that officers could be trapped by random drug tests because things like legal marijuana or they may be taking prescription drugs for mental health or other ailments that could show a false positive. Again, those are situations that should be easily documented and cleared up. Police officers cannot be hypocritical and expect the citizens that they serve to follow the letter of the law while they would like exceptions because of the stressors they may have to endure while enforcing it.

 

 

Hickox, Stacy. (2017).  It’s Time to Rein in Employer Drug Testing. Harvard Law & Policy Review.  https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2017/07/Hickox.pdf

Linden, Russell and Miller, Bruce. (1988)  Drug Testing of Public Employees: The Union Perspective Drug Testing of Public Employees: The Union Perspective. The Journal of Law and Education. Volume 17 Issue 4.  https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2430&context=jled#:~:text=Unions%20have%20successfully%20obtained%20injunctions,)%20(Aarons%2C%20Arb.)

Reply 2 to eric

Labor unions for criminal justice workers would probably voice a number of objections to mandatory drug testing after hiring. Chief among these is employee privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. Courts have repeatedly held that drug testing by government employers is a search, and therefore must be reasonable. Unions frequently contend that overly broad testing policies violate officers' reasonable expectations of privacy and could be unconstitutional absent specific justification. They might also question whether the agency can prove a compelling government interest, especially for employees whose jobs aren't clearly safety-sensitive.

Furthermore, unions frequently raise concerns about due process and equitable treatment, including the risk of erroneous conclusions, inconsistent implementation, and the need for negotiated protocols through collective bargaining agreements. Labor organizations often advocate for protective measures, including confirmatory testing, confidentiality safeguards, and the opportunity to contest positive results. Cost considerations, employee morale, and the risk of managerial misuse of random testing authority are also common points of contention in negotiations. From a managerial standpoint, Lacher (2021) underscores the imperative for criminal justice leaders to reconcile workforce rights with the agency's responsibility to uphold operational preparedness and public confidence.

In my estimation, some degree of mandatory drug testing is justifiable for sworn personnel, given the inherently safety-sensitive nature of law enforcement and correctional functions.

 Officers are armed, required to make instantaneous judgments, and must consistently meet physical fitness standards. Nevertheless, random drug testing, rather than annual blanket testing, 

represents the most justifiable methodology. Random testing more effectively discourages substance abuse while circumventing the predictability and administrative challenges associated with yearly screenings. Legally, suspicionless testing has been validated when linked to safety-sensitive roles and substantiated by a significant governmental interest.

Consequently, agencies should adopt narrowly defined, collectively negotiated random testing protocols that safeguard both public safety and employee rights.

 

References

Lacher, D. (2021). Contemporary issues in criminal justice management (2nd ed.). Cognella.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2024). Federal laws and regulations for drug-free workplaces.

U.S. Congressional Research Service. (2015). Constitutional analysis of suspicionless drug testing.