Calif. court: Medical pot not OK at work

[Gunny]

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jan 24, 6:10 PM ET

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.

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

Another example of the Fed usurping the states' authority.

 

[jillian]

Another example of the Fed usurping the states' authority.

I hate this issue... it's so stupid and puritanical. Everyone knows it should be legal, but the nutters can't bring themselves to let it be.

Was the State's high court deciding it though. But I always hated the Supreme Court case, too. Puritanical BS. Problem was it was the right wing Supreme Court that said the feds don't have to honor the state laws. Maybe complain to Scalito??? Or take Scalia duck hunting and get him some medical marijuana.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

State law can not EVER supercede Federal Law, thats the way it works. Drugs fall under FEDERAL laws. Thus the State can NOT override the Federal Government. I suggest the two of you reread the Constitution. And Jillian your a Lawyer, I can not help but notice once again your total lack of knowledge on the Constitution is appalling.

 

[jillian]

State law can not EVER supercede Federal Law, thats the way it works. Drugs fall under FEDERAL laws. Thus the State can NOT override the Federal Government. I suggest the two of you reread the Constitution. And Jillian your a Lawyer, I can not help but notice once again your total lack of knowledge on the Constitution is appalling.

Someone who's brain dead really like you really has no business insulting others. There was no reason the fed law and state law couldn't co-exist in that case. An exception could have been carved out for states to regulate their own medical practices.

It is good to know you acknowledge, though,that the states have no business trying to supercede the feds word on reproductive choice. Glad that puts the issue of state control over women's bodies to rest.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Someone who's brain dead really like you really has no business insulting others. There was no reason the fed law and state law couldn't co-exist in that case. An exception could have been carved out for states to regulate their own medical practices.

It is good to know you acknowledge, though,that the states have no business trying to supercede the feds word on reproductive choice. Glad that puts the issue of state control over women's bodies to rest.

Except it does not. That issue is far from dead, since the Supreme Court did NOT rule it was a Federal power but rather a "right" that had to be considered. As we all know "rights" have limits and the States can and do limit them unless a Federal law already exists. There is no Federal Law, Congress has not created any. Leaving it to the States to control it, impeded by an intrusive Federal Court that wants to create law from the Bench.

As for exceptions, the Federal Government was clear, it is opposed to medical exceptions for MJ. Unless and until the Congress or the Executive do something specific the States do NOT have any power to over rule the Federal Government, which IS the whole argument made by GunnyL and yourself, that somehow the Feds have overstepped their bounds.

You continue to amaze me with your total lack of understanding of our Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because a substance is legal should not prevent an employer from not allowing it on his premises. Cigarettes and cigars are legal but most employers prohibit it on the job. Alcohol is legal, but employers can fire your butt if you're drinking on the job. Prescription medicines used appropriately are legal, but some would make a person incompetent to do certain jobs and the employer can say no. Medical marijuana may be legal where you are, but it is no different than anybody smoking pot--it impairs judgment and reaction time and no employer should be required to allow it.

The Supreme Court got it right on this one.

 

[AllieBaba]

This morning I was watching the news, and there were three pot stories at the top of the hour.

One was that although it's legal, you can still get fired for using pot in Cali. Which is essentially the way it is here in Oregon. You can get a license for growing pot for the state legally, but if you're busted, you can still go to jail for growing pot. You can get a script to smoke weed, but if you get busted you're still going to get in trouble, likewise.

The second was that they're putting up vending machines to dispense medical ganga in Cali. Of course you have to have your pic and fingerprints taken before you access it...

And the third one was that some kids got busted driving erratically in Seattle. They were smoking pot. The cop asked them what the hell they were thinking of, and they said they thought it was legal to smoke weed (apparently while driving) in Seattle. That's why they moved there from Wisconsin, or Montana or wherever it was they were from. And the funny thing is...they were charged with DUII, but not with possession.

Go figure.

 

[Angel Heart]

I'm happy to hear that they got busted for DUI. As they rightfully should.

Prohibition didn't work in the 20's and isn't working now.

As for the topic. If it effects their job, fire them. Screwy thing with piss tests for jobs is the time it takes to come up clean. Unlike the truly deadly drugs (meth, coke, heroin...) that stay in your system for a max of 3-4 days, it stays in your system for up to 30 days. They need to come up with one that tells if you've used in the last few hours or even days. You could go to a concert and get contact and loose your job. How fair is that?

I'm totally for legalizing. Show me where the war on drugs is working?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We should, using your logic, legalize hose breaking, murder and a slew of other crimes since no amount of enforcement of the law stops them.

 

[Taomon]

This morning I was watching the news, and there were three pot stories at the top of the hour.

One was that although it's legal, you can still get fired for using pot in Cali. Which is essentially the way it is here in Oregon. You can get a license for growing pot for the state legally, but if you're busted, you can still go to jail for growing pot. You can get a script to smoke weed, but if you get busted you're still going to get in trouble, likewise.

The second was that they're putting up vending machines to dispense medical ganga in Cali. Of course you have to have your pic and fingerprints taken before you access it...

And the third one was that some kids got busted driving erratically in Seattle. They were smoking pot. The cop asked them what the hell they were thinking of, and they said they thought it was legal to smoke weed (apparently while driving) in Seattle. That's why they moved there from Wisconsin, or Montana or wherever it was they were from. And the funny thing is...they were charged with DUII, but not with possession.

Go figure.

Did that article say how slow the car was driving? Bill Hicks once made a great observation about legalizing pot: "Let's you get into an accident and you've been smoking pot. Well, your only going 4 miles an hour."

 

[AllieBaba]

My guess is they were going pretty slow. They didn't get a speeding ticket.

 

[Shogun]

I agree with Angel Heart.


If RGS wasn't so used to having his meds given to him by Gary the orderly he might realize that unlike MURDER, HOSE breaking and his slew of stupididty, an individual who is smoking pot bears absolutely no danger to anyone else moreso than our completely legal alcohol.


IN fact, I garentee that a person can overdose quicker on the cocktail of meds it takes to keep RGS alive than anyone ever could with smoking grass. Go ahead, RGS.. ask me why I'm so confident in the non-lethal nature of pot. I'll wait until you get done watching Matlock to give you the answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm happy to hear that they got busted for DUI. As they rightfully should.

Prohibition didn't work in the 20's and isn't working now.

As for the topic. If it effects their job, fire them. Screwy thing with piss tests for jobs is the time it takes to come up clean. Unlike the truly deadly drugs (meth, coke, heroin...) that stay in your system for a max of 3-4 days, it stays in your system for up to 30 days. They need to come up with one that tells if you've used in the last few hours or even days. You could go to a concert and get contact and loose your job. How fair is that?

I'm totally for legalizing. Show me where the war on drugs is working?

It isn't as simple as "IF it affects their job". The issue is whether it COULD affect their job. Any substance whether alcohol or pot or prescription pain killers or cough syrup that can impair judgment or slow reaction time can put the employee and/or others at much higher risk not even considering the damage that can be done to the business itself. If the employer allows the substance, however, the employer has no recourse if the employee hurts himself or somebody else or gets somebody killed. He is stuck with the work comp claim plus possibly disability benefits plus possibly a lawsuit if somebody's lawyer can make a case for gross negligence. Needless the say insurance companies are also conscious of these kinds of situations and can refuse to insure an employer who does not enforce sound personnel policies.

The policy has to be written into the personnel policy, but if its there, the employees in most, if not all states, are required to follow it or they can be fired.

The Supreme Court got it right.

 

[AllieBaba]

Okay, I'll bite.

What's hose breaking????

 

[Shogun]

yes.. and I agree to the extent of toking up AT work or when it will EFFECT work...

Hwever, I think the point that AH was making is that the testing method does not indicate the use of pot with any accuracy regarding specific inebriation. If I smoked 30 days ago then why should a positive test result get me fired if I have never been stoned at work? Testing for indication of use in the past 30 days is NOT the same as testing for inebriation at work. Sure, a drunk or stoned employee is a risk that businesses should not have to take.. BUT, off the clock recreational use that has been allowed by the state that is indicated by current testing methods is as erroneous as firing someone for drinking on the job even though they haven't touched a bottle in 30 days.

 

[Shogun]

Okay, I'll bite.

What's hose breaking????

he meant house breaking... or what non-stroke victims call Burglary. Clearly the same thing as personal recreational use of pot.

 

[mattskramer]

Because a substance is legal should not prevent an employer from not allowing it on his premises. Cigarettes and cigars are legal but most employers prohibit it on the job. Alcohol is legal, but employers can fire your butt if you're drinking on the job. Prescription medicines used appropriately are legal, but some would make a person incompetent to do certain jobs and the employer can say no. Medical marijuana may be legal where you are, but it is no different than anybody smoking pot--it impairs judgment and reaction time and no employer should be required to allow it.

Good point. As I said on another thread having to do with race, employers should be free to discriminate as they see fit.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ahhhhh.....well that makes more sense.

I thought it was some new or military term I wasn't up on...

 

[Foxfyre]

Good point. As I said on another thread having to do with race, employers should be free to discriminate as they see fit.

No, not as they see fit, but as it makes rational sense in all things - race, gender, sexual orientation, language, height, weight, or use of controlled substances, etc. There is a fine difference between the two.

 

[Shogun]

No, not as they see fit, but as it makes rational sense in all things - race, gender, sexual orientation, language, height, weight, or use of controlled substances, etc. There is a fine difference between the two.

rational sense to whome? I don't recall that criteria working out to well in the 60s