Calif. Court: Medical Pot Not OK at Work

F

fruitfly

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
8,071
SAN FRANCISCO - Employers can fire workers found to have used medical marijuana even if it was legally prescribed, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

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.

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calif. Court: Medical Pot Not OK at Work
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer
January 24, 2008

Link

[thanks to Findypoo for the link]
 
Naturally its ok to test positive for opiates or benzos at work as long as you have a prescription for them.8)
 
too bad prop 215 didn't include workers protections.. it's unlikely another medical marijuana initiative would pass i think

it's a shame there's no good way to tell if people are high on the job.. cause i could understand if the The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for example was concerened about losing grants if their bus drivers were found to be HIGH on pot while driving. but just employing someone who does use pot, medical or not, shouldn't be a reason to cut off federal grants.
It's not even an employers business what you're doing on your own time.. tests should only be used if they can show if you are high at work.
 
frizzantik said:
too bad prop 215 didn't include workers protections.. it's unlikely another medical marijuana initiative would pass i think

it's a shame there's no good way to tell if people are high on the job.. cause i could understand if the The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for example was concerened about losing grants if their bus drivers were found to be HIGH on pot while driving. but just employing someone who does use pot, medical or not, shouldn't be a reason to cut off federal grants.
It's not even an employers business what you're doing on your own time.. tests should only be used if they can show if you are high at work.
Click to expand...

You know I'm with you on this... I think California's med-pot users and others who are sympathetic can get a revised initiative on the ballot. But would this be at the risk of 215 as it now stands (more flimsily)?

Frizz, haha guess who filed amicus briefs on behalf of the Respondent? The SCVTA LMAO!!! Was this coincidence on your part, or did you read the opinion?

Below is a link to the text of the opinion. The dissenting opinion states (in part) that the decision is bad public policy and goes against the will of California's voters.

Ross v. RagingWire
 
mariposa said:
Frizz, haha guess who filed amicus briefs on behalf of the Respondent? The SCVTA LMAO!!! Was this coincidence on your part, or did you read the opinion?
Click to expand...

no, i read the article ;)

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.
Click to expand...
 
damn yo vicodins and percocets get me way fucked up more than weed. BUT OF COURSE THATS PERFECTLY LEGAL...
 
you'd think it'd be enough to get you canned from federal positions that don't recognize cali's law, but from local stuff? That doesn't seem right!
 
I'm all for medical marijuana but seriously if I owned a major corporation, say for instance Boeing, I wouldn't want motherfuckers building my planes while theyre high as fuck. We all know what weed does to your short term memory even after your high wears off, and when your working a job where you need to think clearly or it can affect someone else you definitely shouldnt be smoking weed.

Also, if you dont have the self control to stop smoking to pass a drug test you dont deserve the job anyways.
 
Last edited:
^ oh yeah you certainly can't have any engineers enjoying a spliff after work to wind down from the inanity spewed at them daily from their alchoholic oxy benzo addicted upper management. You don't know shit about aviation fo.
 
mobblunted said:
I'm all for medical marijuana
Also, if you dont have the self control to stop smoking to pass a drug test you dont deserve the job anyways.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not know what "Medical Marijuana" stands for.

Anyways, this is just another blatant eye opener of how the Government does NOT care what the people(society) want.

In the end, society can VOTE all they want, but that's pretty much it.
 
:X


i understand the whole state/federal thing, but come on.
this is the stupidest fucking law. what does it accomplish?

you got opiates/benzo/who-knows-what else patients working,
but if you happen to be medicated by marijuana you get fired?

it seems a lot of these laws move society backwards, not forwards
 
it seems a lot of these laws move society backwards
Click to expand...

there is no specific law.. it's a judge's ruling.

where the mistake was made was in prop 215, the original law which got medical marijuana legalized. it should have made it illegal to fire someone for using medical pot. really all prop 215 did was give people protection when being prosecuted. Cops in certain counties can and do still arrest people for medical pot and just let the courts figure it out
 
I can certainly see the point of not wanting airline pilots, air traffic controllers, firefighters, paramedics, and dare I say it COPS to be high on the job, regardless of what they are on. But I couldn't care less if someone wanted to have a joint or a bong rip after work. I wouldn't show up to my job intoxicated and I'm just a desk jockey.

This guy

Any drug can be harmful, but I've never known anyone who ruined their life with pot that wasn't growing it w/o a permit. I think it's ludicrous that pot is even an issue. I truly believe that the only reason pot is illegal is that the pharmaceutical companies don't have a hold on it.

Of note also is that users who possess permits under 215 are taxed on their pot, the rate is 8.75% (same as sales tax) in San Francisco County. Taxation without representation at its worst.

I believe an assemblyman is already introducing a bill about this, so don't worry - we're not the only ones who think it's a fucking outrage. Pot is probably the only drug I think should be legalized that is not already legal. (I do support decriminalization of personal amounts of other substances.) I'm glad the voters in my state recognize that pot is incredibly beneficial for a variety of conditions, and I hope the wishes of California voters are respected. What could come of this but more people collecting unemployment? No one wants that. People that use marijuana under 215 are not necessarily too sick to work - and I commend them for continuing to work despite being ill enough to require medication. Medical pot users for the most part use pot so they do not have to use more addictive drugs.

I also don't think drug testing should exist for employment purposes unless it's an occupation like those mentioned above. I think it is burdensome, expensive and invasive of privacy.

The guy who filed suit was an IT person, for what it's worth - think your IT guy/girl at work doesn't burn one up every now and then? Pot is not very socially stigmatized where I live and I don't care if my IT guy smokes. In my industry drug testing is near nonexistent unless someone files a worker's comp claim... all in all, to have this happen in my cozy bastion of progressive social policy smacks of error in many different ways.
 
mobblunted said:
I'm all for medical marijuana but seriously if I owned a major corporation, say for instance Boeing, I wouldn't want motherfuckers building my planes while theyre high as fuck. We all know what weed does to your short term memory even after your high wears off, and when your working a job where you need to think clearly or it can affect someone else you definitely shouldnt be smoking weed.

Also, if you dont have the self control to stop smoking to pass a drug test you dont deserve the job anyways.
Click to expand...
Seeing that marijuana can stay in you're system for a while, stop smoking isn't a reasonable solution for someone who has a legit need for medical marijuana. It does absolutely nothing with self control in this case. And, as others have pointed out, it's perfectly okay for someone to use opiates, amphetamines, benzos, etc at work if it's prescribed for a legit medical problem, why not medical marijuana?

People need to learn to differentiate between using marijuana that's prescribed by a doctor and using it for recreational purposes. We're not talking about people getting stoned at work in this case.
 
i honestly think no one should be high while at work. come on guys, save the smoking for after work. this includes all the benzo, opiate fiends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top