A new bill filed by Florida Representative Mitch Rosenwald (D-Oakland Park) seeks to safeguard government employees and job applicants in Florida who legally use medical marijuana. The legislation, titled HB 83, was introduced on Friday and is set to be considered during the legislative session beginning March 4.
The proposed legislation would prohibit government agencies from taking punitive actions, such as refusing to hire, firing, or demoting individuals who legally use medical marijuana.
The bill comes as a response to growing concerns about job security for medical marijuana patients, despite the substance’s legalization for medicinal use following Florida voters’ approval of a constitutional amendment in 2016.
While the bill aims to protect employees who rely on medical marijuana for health reasons, it also acknowledges the need for performance-based evaluations. Employers would have the authority to intervene if an employee’s marijuana use directly impacts their job performance.
Currently, Florida law does not offer explicit protections for medical marijuana users in the workplace, leaving many government employees vulnerable to disciplinary actions. HB 83 seeks to close this gap, offering clarity and protection for both employees and employers.
The provision allowing law enforcement agencies to prohibit marijuana use reflects ongoing concerns about the potential impact of marijuana on critical decision-making roles.
If passed, HB 83 could serve as a model for other states navigating the complexities of workplace protections in the era of legalized medical marijuana. It could also prompt private-sector employers to revisit their policies, even though the bill is limited to government agencies.
The bill, titled the Medical Marijuana Public Employee Protection Act, includes several significant measures:
The legislative session will begin on March 4, with HB 83 expected to be a topic of debate among lawmakers.
Advocates for medical marijuana patients and workplace fairness have expressed strong support for the measure, while opponents cite concerns about potential workplace safety risks and enforcement challenges.