If you’re a police officer, a correctional officer, a probation/parole officer, a juvenile court counselor, or a juvenile justice officer, there’s something you need to know: using CBD products, even legal ones, may cost you your career.
You are subject to urinalysis. For all the professional categories mentioned above, a negative drug screen is required for certification according to the pertinent administrative rules:
- For police officers, see 12 NCAC 09C .0310 (providing in part that “[e]very law enforcement officer shall produce a negative result on a drug screen,” and mandating that positive results be reported to the Criminal Justice Standards Division); 12 NCAC 09A .0204 (providing that the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission may suspend or revoke an officer’s certification for a positive drug screen, unless the result can be explained to the Commission’s satisfaction); 12 NCAC 09A .0205 (providing that the period of sanction shall be five years, absent mitigating circumstances).
- For correctional officers and probation/parole officers, see 12 NCAC 09G .0211 (providing in part that “[e]very correctional or probation/parole officer shall have produced a negative result on a drug screen,” and mandating that positive results be reported to the Criminal Justice Standards Division); 12 NCAC 09G .0209 (providing in part that every probation/parole officer shall “have produced a negative result on a drug screen”); 12 NCAC 09G .0504 (providing that the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission may suspend or revoke the certification of a correctional officer or a probation/parole officer for a positive drug screen “where the positive result cannot be explained to the Commission’s satisfaction”); 12 NCAC 09G .0505 (providing that the period of sanction shall be not less than three years, absent mitigating circumstances).
- For juvenile court counselors and juvenile justice officers, see 12 NCAC 09B .0116 (same requirement of negative drug screen for court counselors); 12 NCAC 09B .0117 (same requirement of negative drug screen for juvenile justice officers); 12 NCAC 09A .0204 (providing that the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission may suspend or revoke a “criminal justice officer’s” certification for a positive drug screen, unless the result can be explained to the Commission’s satisfaction; the quoted term includes court counselors and juvenile justice officers); 12 NCAC 09A .0205 (providing that the period of sanction shall be five years, absent mitigating circumstances).
Although the rules cited above generally require a drug screen prior to certification, most law-enforcement-related jobs also require drug screens during employment. Some agencies conduct random tests, and many agencies also require any officer involved in a motor vehicle collision to do a urinalysis. Agencies typically report positive results on those tests to the Criminal Justice Standards Division, and the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission regularly suspends officers’ certifications based on positive test results that arise during employment.
Use of legal CBD products (or products advertised as legal CBD products) may cause a positive urinalysis. Hemp-based products that contain less than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis are not considered unlawful controlled substances. G.S. 90-94(b)(3). They are legal to use. I will call these “CBD products” in this post, because the majority of commercial hemp-based products that are marketed as legal products are advertised as containing CBD, but technically, the category is broader.
Consumers cannot be confident that a product labeled as “THC-free” or “drug test friendly” or “under 0.3%” is, in fact, a legal substance that is below the limit. Problems with testing, quality control, and labeling are pervasive in the CBD industry, with WebMd summarizing that “most CBD products sold online and in stores aren’t labeled accurately . . . . [S]ome have more or less CBD than advertised . . . some products contain THC even when labeled THC-free.” Consumers could potentially have their preferred products independently tested before use, which would mitigate this concern somewhat though at considerable cost and inconvenience.
Moreover, even products that contain legal levels of THC may cause positive tests. This toxicology article reports on an experimental study in which several users of CBD products tested positive. It concludes that “it is possible that hemp products containing low amounts of [THC] may produce a cannabis-positive urine drug test.” Likewise, Johns Hopkins Medicine found that even “a single vaping episode of cannabis that is similar in chemical composition to that found in legal hemp products could possibly result in positive results on urine drug screening tests commonly used by many employers and criminal justice or school systems.” Another study found that 16% of CBD users tested positive for THC at the 50 ng/mL level commonly used in law enforcement testing.
The Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission has not found claimed use of legal CBD products to be a satisfactory explanation for a positive drug screen. Over the past year or two, the Commission has heard several cases involving officers who sought to explain their positive drug screens by pointing to their use of what they believed to be legal CBD products such as oils and gummies. The administrative rules cited above provide for the possibility of a positive test being explained “to the Commission’s satisfaction.” But in each case, the Commission has suspended the officer’s certification, determining that the officer’s explanation was not satisfactory.
The specific facts of the cases varied, and the Commission often was not unanimous in its resolution of the cases, suggesting different viewpoints among the members of the Commission as well as a sensitivity to the particular facts at hand. However, it appears that a majority of Commission members believe that officers who use CBD products know, or should know, that they are taking a risk and are therefore accountable for the results. Some also may be concerned that allowing CBD usage to excuse a positive test would make it difficult to take action against officers who use marijuana, as the officers could always claim that CBD use caused their positive drug tests. Back in 2023, the Commission adopted a resolution stating that CBD use would not be accepted as an explanation for a positive drug screen. As far as I know, that resolution was not widely publicized.
Forthcoming communication from the Criminal Justice Standards Division. The Division functions as the Commission’s staff. At its most recent meeting, the Commission directed the Division to send an email to officers advising them that use of CBD products will not be an acceptable explanation for a positive drug screen. As far as I know, the email has not yet been sent, perhaps due to the need for several levels of review of such an official communication. [Update: the final communication is now available and may be viewed here.] In any event, the Division’s email list does not reach all certified personnel, so I thought that it would be helpful to provide similar information in this post. (An officer who wants to be sure to receive the Division’s communication, should ensure that his or her current email address is in the Division’s Acadis system. Instructions on checking, and changing, an email address in Acadis are available on the Division’s website.)
Agency policies. In addition to putting an officer’s certification at risk, CBD usage may also put an officer’s standing with his or her agency at risk. At least a few North Carolina law enforcement agencies have policies regarding the use of CBD products. For example, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department policy states that “CBD products may lead to a marijuana-positive drug test result; therefore, CMPD employees are prohibited from using CBD products.” Note that this prohibition would seem to apply even to usage that does not result in a positive drug screen.
Other states. This issue is not unique to North Carolina. Other jurisdictions have wrestled with it as well. This Time magazine article reports that there have been more than 60 cases in which federal law enforcement officers have tested positive in connection with claimed CBD usage. In Georgia, the police officer standards and training authority has issued a statement to officers warning that “the production of products containing CBD is not well regulated, and quality control can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer . . . . Any use of CBD by a peace officer could trigger a positive result for THC on a drug screen. The Georgia POST Council will treat any positive test for THC as a failure of a drug test and may take action on the officer’s certification, regardless of the claim that the user may have been using a legal CBD product.”
In New Jersey, an officer who was fired for a positive test sued, alleging that he was terminated based on his use of legal CBD products. He was not successful. See Matter of McGee, 2024 WL 4404145 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 4, 2024) (unpublished) (affirming final agency decision terminating New Jersey Transit officer for a positive drug test; officer admitted he “used various forms of CBD for inflammation, injuries, and sleep-related issues,” including at least one product that had levels of THC above the federal threshold). Cf. Matter of Shorter, 2020 WL 2119299 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 4, 2020) (unpublished) (affirming a lower tribunal’s determination that a 120-day suspension without pay, not termination, was the appropriate sanction for a correctional officer where “it was entirely possible that [the] positive [drug test] was caused by the CBD oil recommended to him by his pain management doctor”).
Lawful use of lawful products. North Carolina has a statute, apparently designed to protect tobacco users, that may have some relevance here. Under G.S. 95-98.2, no public employer may take an adverse employment action against a person “because the prospective employee or the employee engages in or has engaged in the lawful use of lawful products if the activity occurs off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours and does not adversely affect the employee’s job performance or the person’s ability to properly fulfill the responsibilities of the position in question or the safety of other employees.” However, an employer may “[r]estrict the lawful use of lawful products by employees during nonworking hours if the restriction relates to a bona fide occupational requirement and is reasonably related to the employment activities.” I can imagine an officer arguing that CBD usage is covered by the statute. However, the Commission doesn’t employ officers, it certifies them, so its actions may fall outside the scope of the statute. In any event, it may be difficult for an officer who tests positive to show that the CBD products he or she used were in fact lawful, in the sense of containing less than the legal threshold amount of THC. For a further discussion of this statute and a recent case interpreting it, see this post by my colleague Diane Juffras on CBD products and public employee drug testing generally. And for further reading on the myriad legal issues spawned by the legalization of hemp products, see my colleague Phil Dixon’s posts, the most recent of which are here and here.
Bottom line: If your work in law enforcement is important to you, think carefully about whether to use CBD products. Recent experience suggests that doing so may put your career at risk.