Cali med pot issue

[Pam]

This is from the DPA (Drug Policy Alliance) I'm posting it because it should be kept in mind when drafting a similar medical marijuana bill. It seems to be something they over looked. And it is very important.

 

 

California State Supreme Court Favors Employer in Medical Marijuana Employment Discrimination Case

Friday, January 25, 2008

 

 

On January 24, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer can fire a medical marijuana patient for a positive drug test, even if the patient is using medical marijuana legally under state law.

 

The ruling did not affect California’s medical marijuana laws, but clarified that the laws do not cover employment discrimination. The Court was unwilling to extend the law in a way that it felt was not explicitly stated in the Compassionate Use Act and its implementing legislation.

 

The case, Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., concerns Gary Ross, who treats his chronic pain and muscle spasms from a military injury with physician-recommended medical marijuana in compliance with California law. Mr. Ross provided the company with documentation of his legal status as a medical marijuana patient but was fired after eight days on the job because he tested positive for THC in a pre-employment drug test. Mr. Ross filed suit alleging wrongful termination but two lower courts sided with the employer, holding that the company did not discriminate against Mr. Ross based on his disability and chosen treatment. The California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decisions.

 

Daniel Abrahamson, director of DPA’s office of legal affairs, said, “We’re disappointed that the Court’s decision allows an employer to intrude into a doctor-patient relationship. It puts many patients in the difficult position of having to choose between their jobs and their doctor-recommended medical treatment.”

 

Justice Joyce Kennard stated in her dissenting opinion, “In a decision conspicuously lacking in compassion, however, the majority [decision] holds that an employer may fire an employee for such marijuana use, even when it occurs during off-duty hours, does not affect the employee’s job performance, does not impair the employer’s legitimate business interests, and provides the only effective relief for the employee’s chronic pain and muscle spasms.”

 

Justice Kennard continued, “The majority’s decision leaves many Californians with serious illnesses just two options: continue receiving the benefits of marijuana use ‘in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or [] other illness’ [] and become unemployed, giving up what may be their only source of income, or continue in their employment, discontinue marijuana treatment, and try to endure their chronic pain or other condition for which marijuana may provide the only relief. Surely this cruel choice is not what California voters intended when they enacted the state Compassionate Use Act.”

 

The Drug Policy Alliance filed an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief in support of Mr. Ross on behalf of leading national and state public health organizations. The brief argued that patients should not be forced to choose between the best course of treatment or employment, and outlined the sound evidence that marijuana is a medically appropriate treatment for chronic pain and other serious medical conditions. Signatories to the brief represented a powerful contingent of medical and public health organizations that speak for a broad class of patient-employees.

 

DPA’s participation in the Ross case continues the work DPA has undertaken for more than a decade to enact and implement California’s Compassionate Use Act. At the heart of the Act is the core principle that persons who can benefit from medical marijuana should not be discriminated against for their use of a medication necessary to their health, and that public policy regarding medical marijuana should be grounded in science, reason, compassion and justice.

[mull]

To true Gran.

 

Drug driver testing is next in line.

 

There's many pharmaceuticals not being tested for that people are under the influence of, driving and at work.

Most come with the simple warning - do not drive or operate heavy machinery, until you know how this medication effects you.

So the responsibility is on you to have self control. Not be forcibly controlled and disallowed to drive or work.

 

This ruling is as stupid as granting state medical licences, which aren't recogized federally.

[Pam]

Yep,makes no sense. I can drive a truck, a bus full of people or a fork lift and have taken Vicodin...and as long as I have a current precsription, I am considered fine.

So I cannot understand how the court could decide in favor of this ignorant employer.

I think we may hear more about this.

It's a sick sad world.

[ConvexConepiece]

Roadside drug testing is already in aus... Funny how in america its considered against personal privacy to even breath test someone driving you have to do a sobriety test (how one would fail one is beyong me, and if you did you TRULY dont deserve to be on the fkn road!). Here they pretty much jam the tube down your throat.

[Pam]

Oh they breath test here, but they also do the silly touch yer nose thing. I always thought they did that for fun....

 

The US does not do a road test for drugs yet though.

[Reverend]

What I found bizarre was that they had already employed the chap yet fired him for a "pre employment" drug test.

Have I missed something?

[BudlessB0b123]

should be decrim else where