Hawaii 2022 Regular Session

Hawaii Senate Bill SB64

Introduced
1/21/21  
Refer
1/22/21  
Refer
1/27/21  
Report Pass
2/19/21  

Caption

Relating To Medical Cannabis.

Impact

If enacted, SB64 will amend existing Hawaii Revised Statutes to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees or applicants based on their status as medical cannabis cardholders. The bill cites that employers may still require fit-for-duty tests under certain conditions, particularly in potentially dangerous occupations, ensuring that employer-safety concerns are acknowledged. Moreover, it exempts specific employment categories, including law enforcement and emergency services, from some protections of the bill, allowing for a nuanced approach to employment law in contexts vital to public safety.

Summary

Senate Bill 64, relating to medical cannabis, seeks to address employment discrimination faced by individuals who hold medical cannabis cards in Hawaii. Recognizing the legal status of medical cannabis since 2000, the bill aims to provide clearer protections for qualifying patients who may be at risk of losing their jobs solely based on their status as medical cannabis users. This is crucial in light of the ongoing confusion between state medical cannabis laws and federal regulations regarding drug policies in workplaces. The bill asserts that without explicit guidelines, there is an imbalance in protecting the rights of employees and ensuring workplace safety.

Sentiment

The sentiment toward SB64 is largely supportive within the legislative environment as it proposes to rectify significant gaps in protections for medical cannabis users in employment. Advocates for the bill argue that it is necessary to align Hawaii's laws with that of many other states that have already enacted similar protections. However, there remains a contention among some lawmakers regarding the exemptions included in the bill and whether these will adequately address safety concerns while still protecting the rights of medical cannabis users.

Contention

Key points of contention include the specified exemptions that limit the coverage of the bill for certain high-risk occupations. Critics of SB64 argue that these exceptions undermine the intent of the legislation, leaving many medical cannabis users vulnerable to discrimination in critical job sectors. The ultimate efficacy of this bill will depend on the balance it strikes between ensuring workplace safety while also affording necessary protections to those legally using medical cannabis to manage their health.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB831

Housing discrimination.

CA AB518

Discrimination: state employees: travel.

CA AB2389

Discrimination: state employees: travel.

CA SB16

Civil rights: discrimination: enforcement.

CA SB218

Employment: discrimination enforcement: local government.

CA ACR2

United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

CA SCR54

Dalit History Month.

AZ SB1138

Business; discrimination prohibition; social criteria