What's new

Calif. court: Medical pot not OK at work

thcbound

Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_re_us/marijuana_workplace



By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - Employers can fire workers who use medical marijuana even if it was legally recommended by a doctor, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday, dealing the state another setback in its standoff with federal law enforcement.

The high court upheld a small Sacramento telecommunications company's firing of a man who flunked a company-ordered drug test. Gary Ross held a medical marijuana card authorizing him to use the drug to treat a back injury sustained while serving in the Air Force.

The company, Ragingwire Inc., argued that it rightfully fired Ross because all marijuana use is illegal under federal law, which does not recognize the medical marijuana laws in California and 11 other states.

The justices upheld that argument in a 5-2 decision.

"No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the majority.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2005 that state medicinal marijuana laws don't protect users from prosecution. The Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies have been actively shutting down major medical marijuana dispensaries throughout California over the last two years and charging their operators with felony distribution charges.

Ragingwire said it fired Ross because it feared it could be the target of a federal raid, among other reasons.

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc. had joined Ragingwire's case, arguing that companies could lose federal contracts and grants if they allowed employees to smoke pot.

The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a friend-of-the-court filing that employers could also be liable for damage done by high workers.

Ross had argued that medical marijuana users should receive the same workplace protection from discipline that employees with valid painkiller prescriptions do. California voters legalized medicinal marijuana in 1996.

The nonprofit marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, which represents Ross, estimates that 300,000 Americans use medical marijuana. The Oakland-based group said it has received hundreds of employee discrimination complaints in California since it began tracking the issue in 2005.

Safe Access attorney Joe Elford said the group will now focus on urging the Legislature to pass a law protecting workers who use medical marijuana.

"We remain confident that there will be a day when medical marijuana patients are not discriminated against in the workplace," he said.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, a Democrat who represents part of San Francisco, said he will introduce legislation addressing those concerns in the next few weeks.

The ruling "strikes a serious blow to patients' rights," he said.

Eleven states have adopted medical-marijuana laws similar to California's: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The American Medical Association advocates keeping marijuana classified as a tightly controlled and dangerous drug that should not be legalized until more research is done.




Yet another setback for human rights...
 
G

Guest

Well I mean, there are two sides to the story. Would YOU want someone stoned outta their gourd working for you? I know I sure as hell wouldn't

But at the same time, these people that use it for medicinal purposes really need it and they also have to work.

That is 1 tough decision to make....
 

gramsci.antonio

Active member
Veteran
but... if i smoke weekends and NEVER on work... they could fire me... also if i'm working well....


Fire you just bcuz you smoke and not because you drug habit compromise your productivity it's not fair.
 
G

Guest

Its not a matter of worker safety or production,if the state doesn't provide real security against Fed. intervention against its citizens,how is the business community supposed to feel secure?I can and am "stoned out of my gourd" all the time and always have been and its never been an issue for my employers because they never felt it hit them in the pocketbook.The Feds can take their pocketbook away
 
G

Guest

Yeah, I didn't consider that situation, antonio. That's pretty unfair.
 
Last edited:

DIGITALHIPPY

Active member
Veteran
this still dosent settle any disputes by people who test positive for THC in a drug test, BUT have LAGITIMATE MARINOL 'scrips.....
marijuana ? what marijuana? i take marinol.....
 
J

JeffSpicoli

DIGITALHIPPY said:
this still dosent settle any disputes by people who test positive for THC in a drug test, BUT have LAGITIMATE MARINOL 'scrips.....
marijuana ? what marijuana? i take marinol.....

i think your right.. You have a marinol script. and you can fail your drug test, testing for THC no problem :fsu:
 

cabanetforester

Active member
There is a rather large white elephant here.

It's nothing less than medical fact yet is ignored time and time again.

Even in this information age of 'enlightened' individuals, some continue to set aside this fact simply because it impedes their agenda. It's nothing new, I know.

I see a day in the not too distant future where certain people using certain tests (UA) to determine whether or not someone is under the influence while at work are indeed held accountable for their accusations.

I see sweeping class action suits being filed on behalf of those who were accused of being stoned while at work by the use of such tests that only show metabolized, non psycho active? by product resulting from drug use at some point previous in time.

Short version is that UA's, piss testing to determine if someone was under the influence of MMJ at or during their 9-5 job will become a dead end road paved with anti-defimation, false accusation type lawsuits.

The great white elephent will die a slow painful death.

There are alternative methods to determine if someone is under the influence at the time of testing.

The longer these more accurate tests go un-used, the higher the degree of negligence even malice can be applied. The clock is ticking..

Think similar to the Duke University lacrosse case but on a vastly larger scale. One card will fall and the rest will follow. Damages could easily be in the hundreds of millions. It won't be pretty. My .02 CF

-edit

Do not rely on the Marinol strategy without knowing all the facts. It is likely not applicable for most.
 
Last edited:

blitz

Member
Basically, employers can fire employees for practically any reason, unless there's a specific law/issue preventing it (affirmative action, discrimination by race/gender). Plenty of employers fire smokers already, it just is at the whim of the business owner. I personally think if a person's habits outside of work (marijuana, alcohol, etc.) don't interfere with their work, it shouldn't be a problem, but many business owners (saw some real assholes interviewed on 60 Minutes) like to use their power for social engineering. I bet next they'll start banning employees participating in dangerous sports, for fear that those hours of training at company expense might be lost should the employee die...
 

_angst_

Member
Hopefully the company owners will see that their tyranny isn't producing results. I'm a graduate of sociology and I can tell you that I was against drug tests even before I started smoking pot. It's very controlling. You do your employer a favor by providing work for them. They compensate you for that. END OF TRANSACTION. They shouldn't "own" you after you go home... unless of course they want to start paying you for what you do on your own time, too.
 
Top