Maryland’s House of Delegates voted 100-31 Thursday to pass HB 797, legislation that would shield state and local government firefighters, EMTs, cardiac rescue technicians, and paramedics from employment discipline if they test positive for cannabis metabolites while holding a valid medical marijuana patient registration.

The bill now moves toward the governor’s desk. A Senate companion measure sponsored by Sen. Carl Jackson (D) cleared that chamber last month.

Del. Adrian Boafo (D), the House bill’s sponsor, told committee members earlier in the session that the legislation represents the latest push in a series of attempts over recent sessions to get protections on the books for first responders. The reform has come up repeatedly and failed to advance. This time, both chambers appear aligned on the core language.

Under HB 797, covered employers could not “discipline, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against the fire and rescue public safety employee with respect to the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” based on a positive cannabis test if that employee is a registered medical marijuana patient who used cannabis off duty. The bill amends existing state medical marijuana statute rather than creating a new standalone framework.

Boafo framed the bill around occupational health realities facing the first responder community. Firefighters and rescue workers, he said at an earlier committee hearing, “work long shifts in tense emergencies and high-stress situations every day.” The job produces predictable physical and psychological costs: chronic pain from repeated physical strain, injuries sustained on scene, and anxiety disorders documented across the profession. Those conditions are precisely the categories for which physicians regularly recommend medical cannabis.

The problem, as Boafo laid it out, is that current employer policy and existing law leave registered patients in an unworkable position. A firefighter who holds a valid medical marijuana card, uses cannabis legally while off duty, and then tests positive on a pre-shift screen can face termination or discipline under policies that don’t distinguish between impairment and metabolite presence. Cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in urine for weeks after use, meaning a positive test tells an employer almost nothing about whether an employee was actually impaired when they clocked in.

That testing reality has practical consequences. Boafo told lawmakers the current structure leaves first responders with two realistic options: work through chronic pain without treatment, or take opioids and other controlled prescription drugs that carry their own dependency and impairment risks but don’t trigger the same employment consequences. “That leaves many of these public servants with a difficult choice,” he said at committee. “Either continue doing their jobs in pain, or turn to stronger prescription drugs, often opiates, just to get through the day.”

Boafo was direct about what the bill does not do. “Nothing in this bill allows for impairment on the job,” he said, and workers who show up impaired “will still face serious consequences and will be reported” to state emergency medical services regulators. The protections apply only to off-duty, lawfully registered use. On-duty impairment remains a firing offense and a regulatory matter under the bill’s terms.

The 100-31 House vote suggests the argument landed with most delegates, though the 31 opposing votes indicate the measure is not without political friction. Employer groups and some fire department administrators have pushed back in previous sessions on the idea of limiting their authority to set drug-free workplace policies, particularly for safety-sensitive positions. Opponents have argued that a positive cannabis test, even without proof of impairment, warrants discipline when the job involves operating heavy equipment, responding to medical emergencies, or making life-safety decisions under pressure.

Those objections did not carry enough votes Thursday to slow the bill.

The broader context is worth understanding. Maryland legalized recreational cannabis for adults in 2023. Medical use has been legal in the state for years. Yet the legal framework protecting employees from adverse action based on lawful off-duty cannabis use has lagged behind the changes in cannabis law itself. Several other states have moved to extend employment protections specifically to first responders, carving out the public safety workforce for targeted legislation when broader employment protection bills have stalled or met legal complications tied to federal contractor requirements and safety regulations.

California passed broader employee cannabis protections in 2022 that took effect in 2024, barring most employers from discriminating against workers for off-duty use. Maryland’s HB 797 takes a narrower approach, targeting a specific occupational category with a specific medical use framework rather than extending protection across the labor market.

What the bill does not resolve is the absence of a reliable, widely accepted test for cannabis impairment at the moment of a shift. Breathalyzer equivalents for cannabis remain inconsistent and are not yet standard in workplace testing. Until that changes, any employment protection based on the distinction between past use and current impairment will carry an enforcement gap that employers and unions will have to negotiate around in practice.

Boafo’s floor statement closed on the equitable argument. “Our firefighters and rescue professionals dedicate their lives to protecting us. They should not be punished for seeking legal, medically prescribed relief for the physical toll of that work.” The House agreed, by a margin of more than three to one.