A discussion took place on Tuesday afternoon at the Leitchfield City Council meeting regarding the city adopting a policy that would prohibit city employees from having medical cannabis cards.
When the issue initially arose, council member Tooty Cottrell said: “If it’s medical, I don’t see how that would be fair” to forbid city workers from having access to medical cannabis.
“If someone comes up with a … medical problem and they have to have something like this, then I think they ought to be able to get it if a doctor recommends it,” Cottrell later stated.
Noting that there are legal issues to consider regarding city employees owning medical cannabis cards, councilman Billy Dallas said: “It’s a liability issue is what it is.”
The discussion then shifted to the fact that the federal government has statutes in place prohibiting a high percentage of city workers from having medical cannabis cards.
Police officers, CDL drivers, some other city workers (e.g., heavy equipment operators), and gas workers are prohibited by federal statute from using medical cannabis, noted City Clerk/Treasurer Lori Woosley.
“It’s probably three-quarters of our workforce,” Woosley said.
Haycraft advocates for allowing city workers to have medical cannabis cards
In advocating for medical cannabis, councilwoman Terri Haycraft strongly promoted that city workers should have access to medical cannabis if they have one of the seven ailments that qualifies a Kentuckian to be eligible to be a cardholder.
“I don’t know if the city of Leitchfield or Leitchfield Utilities has any experience with employees having cancer, for example, (but) medical cannabis is a much safer alternative and less addictive form of pain medication than some of the other opioids, for example, that may be prescribed,” she said.
“I will not vote in favor of what’s being proposed here (prohibiting employees from having a medical cannabis card) simply because if our employees have one of these specific illnesses, and they are on medical leave, who are we to say that they cannot possess a medical cannabis card and receive the medication that their healthcare provider says is a better fit for them than a stronger, addictive medication,” Haycraft stated. “So, I will not be voting” to prohibit city workers from being issued medical cannabis cards.
Recognizing medical cannabis usage by city workers as a potential hot-button issue, Mayor Harold Miller outlined the difficulty of the decision.
“I know it’s a touchy subject,” Miller said. “We definitely don’t want to keep anybody from something that will enhance their quality of life. But as Billy said, we do have a liability issue and as Lori said, there are several people employed within the city that federal law does trump state law, so they wouldn’t be allowed to” use medical cannabis and remain employed by the city.
City Attorney Earlene Wilson then recommended passing a policy that prohibits city workers from having medical cannabis cards, as she noted that the Kentucky League of Cities suggests adopting a no medical cannabis policy for city workers.
Following the lengthy discussion, Tim Bocock made a motion to adopt a policy that bans city workers from having medical cannabis cards. The motion was seconded by Dallas.
The vote, though, was 4-2 to allow city workers to possess medical cannabis cards.
Voting yea to adopt the proposed policy were Bocock and Dallas, while voting nay were Haycraft, Cottrell, George Hack, and Clayton Miller.
Following the vote, the council discussed reevaluating the city’s stance as federal and other laws related to medical cannabis potentially change over time.
Miller noted that the issue would be revisited.
“And as I say, we can go back and re-look at this if it becomes a bigger issue for us. Obviously … we want to give our employees the benefit of the doubt. I think we owe them that much.”
State law
Kentucky Revised Statute 218B.040, which states employers are not required to permit or accommodate the use of medical cannabis by employees, went into effect on January 1, 2025.
The statute reads as follows:
(1) Nothing in this chapter shall:
(a) Require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, distribution, sale, or growing of medicinal cannabis in the workplace; (b) Prohibit an employer from implementing policies promoting workplace health and safety by:
- Restricting the use of medicinal cannabis by employees; or
- Restricting or prohibiting the use of equipment, machinery, or power tools by an employee who is a registered qualified patient, if the employer believes that the use of such equipment, machinery, or power tools by an employee who is a registered qualified patient poses an unreasonable safety risk;
(c) Prohibit an employer from including in any contract provisions that prohibit the use of medicinal cannabis by employees;
(d) Permit a cause of action against an employer for wrongful discharge or discrimination;
(e) Except as provided in KRS 218B.045, prohibit a person, employer, corporation, or any other entity who occupies, owns, or controls a property from prohibiting or otherwise regulating the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale, or growing of medicinal cannabis on or in that property;
(f) Prohibit an employer from establishing and enforcing a drug testing policy, drug-free workplace, or zero-tolerance drug policy; or
(g) Prohibit an employer from exercising his or her ability to determine impairment of an employee who is a cardholder. Good faith determinations of impairment permitted under this paragraph shall include behavioral assessments of impairment and a secondary step of testing an employee who is a cardholder for the presence of cannabis by an established method. If an employer determines, pursuant to KRS 218B.015(2)(c), that an employee who is a cardholder is impaired by the use of cannabis from the behavioral assessment and testing, the burden of proving non-impairment shall shift to the employee to refute the findings of the employer.
(2) An employee who is discharged from employment for consuming medicinal cannabis in the workplace, working while under the influence of medicinal cannabis, or testing positive for a controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive benefits under KRS Chapter 341, if such actions are in violation of an employment contract or established personnel policy.
(3) An employer shall not be penalized or denied any benefit under state law for employing a cardholder.
By Ken Howlett, News Director
Contact Ken at ken@k105.com
