In response to Safety Solutions’ recent article, “Proposed cannabis-driving changes risk more road trauma, surgeons warn”, LaneWorkSafe believes this is an important discussion for employers to consider carefully. With 21 years of experience supporting safer workplaces across Australia, we understand the complexities that arise when road law reforms, prescribed THC use and workplace safety obligations intersect. While medicinal cannabis reforms continue to evolve, employers must remain focused on their duty of care, fit-for-work requirements and the practical risks within their own workplace environments.
THC, Driving Law Changes and Workplace Risk: What Employers Need to Know
Employers across New South Wales should review Drug and Alcohol Policies in light of evolving medicinal cannabis reforms and increasing use of prescribed THC products.
Road law changes do not override workplace safety obligations.
Medicinal cannabis containing THC is lawful when prescribed under the relevant Therapeutic Goods Administration framework. However, workplace obligations remain governed by work health and safety laws and fit-for-work requirements.
Recent NSW reforms are intended to reduce automatic penalties for some eligible medicinal cannabis patients who drive. Employers should not assume these changes automatically apply in workplace settings.
Why Employers Cannot Assume Road Rules Apply at Work
Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), employers must eliminate or minimise risks to health and safety so far as reasonably practicable.
Employers remain responsible for ensuring workers are fit for duty regardless of whether medication is legally prescribed.
Random testing programs and policy wording should be reviewed to ensure they reflect operational risks and lawful management processes.
Medical Cannabis and the Impairment Debate
The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) and senior trauma specialists have publicly expressed concern regarding policies that permit driving following prescribed THC use, citing difficulties in measuring real-time impairment.
Employers should recognise that uncertainty around impairment assessment reinforces the importance of workplace controls and fit-for-work processes.
Workplace Risk: Zero Tolerance Policies
Safety-critical environments continue to support stricter controls, while lower-risk environments may require more individualised assessment rather than automatic outcomes based solely on presence testing. For example, safety-critical roles like driving, operating machinery and high-risk construction roles may support zero tolerance whereas low-risk administration/office roles may not.
Recommended Policy Reviews
- Mandatory medication disclosure requirements, i.e. where an employee is prescribed medication or taking over-the-counter medication that may incur impairment, they must report this to their employer prior to commencing a shift, allowing the employer the opportunity to determine next steps.
- Fit-for-work assessment process.
- Removal of automatic dismissal language.
- Reasonable adjustment pathways for lower-risk roles.
Immediate Actions:
- Categorise roles into safety-critical and non-safety-critical.
- Consult workers and safety representatives.
- Obtain workplace relations and WHS advice before implementing any changes to current policy.
For more information or assistance with Drug and Alcohol policies contact:
Stephen Lane, Director, LaneWorksafe
+61 2 9558 3868
stephen@laneworksafe.com.au
or Chris Delaney, Director, Chris Delaney & Assoc. P/L
+61 412 124 147
cdanda@optusnet.com.au
Disclaimer
This publication is intended to provide general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It does not consider your specific circumstances, industry requirements or the particular needs of your workplace. Laws and regulations change, and their application may vary depending on individual situations. You should seek independent professional advice before implementing or relying on any information contained in this article.
