Bills would halve workmen’s compensation if marijuana used

By Columbia Missourian via My Courier-Tribune

JEFFERSON CITY — The possibility of cutting workers’ compensation and death benefits by 50% for those injured while working under the influence of marijuana was discussed at a House hearing Wednesday.

HB 2135 and HB 1990, sponsored by Reps. John Voss, R-Cape Girardeau, and Sherri Gallick, R-Belton, respectively, would add marijuana to a list of substances, including alcohol, in the Workers’ Compensation Act’s drug-free workplace rule adopted by employers.

While the bills are largely the same, Gallick’s offers an exemption for those using medical marijuana. The bills are in response to the statewide legalization of recreational marijuana following a successful ballot amendment passed by voters in 2022.

“When marijuana was passed, there was a whole new gambit of things to worry about,” Gallick said at a House Insurance Policy Committee hearing on the bills. “All this does is put marijuana next to alcohol in the statutes now.”

Ray McCarty, the president and CEO of Associated Industries of Missouri, spoke in favor of the legislation. McCarty said afterward that the bills are needed because of the possibility of marijuana being made legal at the federal level and would ensure that it is treated the same as alcohol.

“What we do in the bill is that everywhere where alcohol appears in the law, we add ‘or marijuana,’” McCarty said.

McCarty said in testimony that the bills do not make a distinction between impairment versus being under the influence.

Rep. Richard West, R-Wentzville, raised concerns on this.

“We really don’t have the science to say, ‘at what point are you impaired,’” West said.

West also mentioned that alcohol dissipates from the body faster than marijuana, which could cause those who used marijuana days before a work incident to face a reduction in benefits.

Other concerns raised included how workers under the influence of marijuana at work, but involved in a work accident they weren’t responsible for, could be impacted. Rep. Jeff Coleman, R-Grain Valley, worried that it would punish those not responsible for an accident.

“We’re penalizing somebody for no fault of their own,” Coleman said. “If it’s determined to be no fault, I don’t think there should be a reduction of benefit regardless.”

McCarty said that this matter could not be legislated and would be up for courts to decide whether those under the influence in such situations should face a reduction of benefits.