CA Medical MJ Patients Rights Bill Introduced

SACRAMENTO, CA- In response to today's California Supreme Court ruling in Ross v. Raging Wire, Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) today announced his plan to introduce legislation protecting medical cannabis patients' right to employment

"Today's California Supreme Court ruling strikes a serious blow to patients' rights," stated Leno. "In the coming weeks I will introduce legislation that secures a medical cannabis patient's right to use their doctor recommended medication outside the workplace. Through the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996 and SB 420 in 2004, the people of California did not intend that patients be unemployed in order to use medical marijuana."

In September 2001, Gary Ross, a 45 year old disabled veteran, was fired for failing an employer-mandated drug test despite informing his employer in advance that he was using medical cannabis outside the workplace under his doctor's recommendation.

"All I am asking is to be a productive member of society," said plaintiff Gary Ross. "I was not fired for poor work performance, but for an antiquated policy on medical marijuana. This practice allows employers to undermine state law and the protections provided to patients."

In 2006, Assemblyman Leno and the other legislative co-authors of SB 420 filed an amicus brief with the Court in support of Ross and underscored that the legislature's intent was to permit the use of medical cannabis outside the workplace and that the Fair Employment and Housing Act "generally requires accommodation of medical cannabis use by disabled persons with medical conditions."

The Leno bill to be introduced will be sponsored by Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the largest national member-based organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists, and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research. Joe Elford is the Chief Counsel for ASA who argued the case. "We are grateful that Assemblyman Leno has come to the aid of patients by introducing a bill to prevent the kind of employment discrimination upheld by today's ruling."

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Gieringer [mailto:canorml@igc.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:47 PM
To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Cc: aro@drugsense.org; affiliates@mail.norml.org; Broome, Bart
Subject: CA Supreme Court Upholds Right of Employers to Fire Medical MJ Users

The California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that employers can fire workers for using medical marijuana. The court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Gary Ross under the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)that he had been wrongfully denied employment by RagingWire Telecommunications on account of testing positive for past use of marijuana on a urine test.

The court took a narrow interpretation of Prop. 215, ruling that it did not create a general right to use medical marijuana, but only protected patients from criminal sanction for possession or cultivation of marijuana. Sponsors of Prop 215 contested this interpretation. "Prop. 215 was intended to give patients the same right to use medical marijuana as other, legal prescription drugs," said California NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer, a co-author of the initiative.

In the meantime, the court's decision leaves the door open for discrimination against medical marijuana users via drug urine tests, even though not a single FDA study has ever proven that urine testing is either safe or effective in ensuring job safety.

"Plaintiff's position might have merit if the Compassionate Use Act gave
marijuana the same status as any legal prescription drug. But the act's effect is not
so broad. No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes
because the drug remains illegal under federal law (21 U.S.C. 壯 812, 844(a)),

Instead of attempting the impossible, as we shall explain, California's voters
merely exempted medical users and their primary caregivers from criminal
liability under two specifically designated state statutes. Nothing in the text or
history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to

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.
Nor is this cruel choice something that the FEHA permits. One of the
FEHA's stated purposes is "to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of
all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or

I agree with the majority, however, that because federal law prohibits
marijuana possession (21 U.S.C. 壯 812, 844(a)), discharging an employee for off-
duty, physician-recommended marijuana use will not support a claim of wrongful
discharge in violation of public policy (see Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Calif. Court: Medical Pot Not OK at Work
By PAUL ELIAS - 2 hours ago
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - 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 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.