Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 678D - ADULT USE OF CANNABIS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 678D.510 (2026)

Effect of chapter

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 678D.510  Effect of chapter.

      1.  The provisions of this chapter do not prohibit:

      (a) A public or private employer from maintaining, enacting and enforcing a workplace policy prohibiting or restricting actions or conduct otherwise permitted under this chapter;

      (b) A state or local governmental agency that occupies, owns or controls a building from prohibiting or otherwise restricting the consumption, cultivation, processing, manufacture, sale, delivery or transfer of cannabis in that building;

      (c) A person who occupies, owns or controls a privately owned property from prohibiting or otherwise restricting the smoking, cultivation, processing, manufacture, sale, delivery or transfer of cannabis on that property; or

      (d) A local government from adopting and enforcing local cannabis control measures pertaining to zoning and land use for adult-use cannabis establishments, including, without limitation, a measure which prohibits the operation of adult-use cannabis establishments.

      2.  Nothing in the provisions of this chapter shall be construed as in any manner affecting the provisions of chapter 678C of NRS relating to the medical use of cannabis.

      (Added to NRS by 2019, 3836; A 2021, 2378)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: Ceballos v. NP Palace, LLC, 2022 NV 58 (Nev. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ceballos v. NP Palace, LLC, 2022 NV 58 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 18× “NRS 678D.510(1\a) provides that “[t]he provisions of this chapter’>—NRS Chapter 678D, decriminalizing adult recreational marijuana use—“do not prohibit.”
Freeman Expositions, LLC v. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 77 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “In Ceballos, we explained that the appellant did not have a claim for tortious discharge because in NRS 678D.510(1)(a), the Legislature expressly permitted employers to maintain and enact policies prohibiting or restricting their employees from using recreational cannabis.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 678D.510(1)(a) — 2 cases
Ceballos v. NP Palace, LLC, 2022 NV 58 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 678D.510(1\a) provides that “[t]he provisions of this chapter’>—NRS Chapter 678D, decriminalizing adult recreational marijuana use—“do not prohibit.”
Freeman Expositions, LLC v. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 77 (Nev. 2022). “In Ceballos, we explained that the appellant did not have a claim for tortious discharge because in NRS 678D.510(1)(a), the Legislature expressly permitted employers to maintain and enact policies prohibiting or restricting their employees from using recreational cannabis.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.