Cancer Patient Fired For Medical Mary Jane Use!

[Palehorse]

As more states legalize medical marijuana, they are faced with the question: Can employees be fired for legally using the drug?


(CNN) -- When a rare form of cancer invaded Joseph Casias' nasal cavity and his brain, his doctor prescribed marijuana to help alleviate the daily pain.
Casias lives in Michigan, where medical marijuana is legal.
But his employer, Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, fired him in November 2009 after he failed a drug test.
Casias, 29, says he never came to work high. He's got a medical marijuana card to prove he's allowed to smoke legally in the state.
"I was angry they did this to me because I always tried my best," said Casias, who was employed at Wal-Mart for five years. He earned an Associate of the Year award in 2008. "I want my job back. I thought I was part of the Wal-Mart family."
To date, 14 states have laws allowing the use of medical marijuana, which shield legal users from criminalization but don't protect them from them penalties enforced by their employers. As more people are being prescribed marijuana across the nation, they are wrestling with a caveat: They could be fired.
Without laws defending medical marijuana users from employers' drug policies, Casias and a growing number of medical marijuana users are being let go from their jobs, says Keith Stroup on the legal counsel team of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. He said his office, headquartered in Washington, receives about 300 e-mails and phone calls a year from medical marijuana users who have been fired or had job offers rescinded because of a failed drug test.
"Usually they talk about how they have lost their job," Stroup said. "And I tell them there's not a thing they can do about it."
States where medical marijuana is legal
Alaska
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Maine
Michigan
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
There is no national estimate of how many medical marijuana users are at risk of being fired -- or of not being hired -- for using the drug as part of their treatment. Many employees, who have been fired for using doctor-prescribed pot, often remain quiet because they fear the stigma or threat losing their next job opportunity.
In California, the first state to legalize medical marijuana, 37,000 medical marijuana cards have been authorized since 2004. In Michigan, where Casias lives, the Department of Community Health reports about 10,800 people have medical marijuana cards.
Michigan is an at-will employment state, which means employers can terminate a worker for any reason except for being in a federally protected class such as race, gender and religion.
But medical marijuana users are not considered a protected group. If a company has zero-tolerance drug policies, then they can fire someone who uses medical marijuana, attorneys say. Labor law experts say most states operate this way, unless the employee has a specific employment contract that makes exceptions for medical marijuana use.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court backed up employers, ruling a private company could fire an Air Force veteran whose doctor prescribed him marijuana for his chronic and disabling back pain. The veteran was hired by a telecommunications company but fired several weeks after he tested positive for marijuana. The landmark case has many medical marijuana users fretting about their employment prospects, legal experts say.
But Michigan may be an exception to most states. Part of Michigan's law, passed in 2008, does address employers, saying a patient carrying a medical marijuana card cannot be "denied any right or privilege" by a "business or occupational or professional licensing board."
Some attorneys say Michigan's law could be fertile grounds for a discrimination suit. Casias hasn't decided whether he will pursue a lawsuit.
Some attorneys say Wal-Mart acted within legal bounds in Casias' termination. Although some states have legalized medical marijuana, the federal government still bans the drug. Many employers like Wal-Mart argue they are following federal guidelines.
"It's just an unfortunate situation all around," said Greg Rossiter, a Wal-Mart spokesman. "We are sympathetic to Mr. Casias condition, but like other companies we have to consider overall safety of our customers and associates, including Mr. Cassias, when making a difficult decision like this."
James Shore, a labor attorney in Washington who represents employers, says companies are afraid medical marijuana users may perform their job while impaired.
"The key thing for employers is to make sure they review their drug testing and human resources policies from top to bottom," Shore said. "They need to make a companywide decision and be consistent about it."
Dr. Lester Grinspoon, a professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School, explained the impairment issue: The high from marijuana usually disappears after a few hours. For patients, who medicate with marijuana frequently, they build a higher tolerance against impairment.
Casias said he never smoked right before his shifts. He had been using medical marijuana for about four months before he failed the drug test.
The debate on whether employers can fire medical marijuana users comes at a time when more states are expected to legalize medical marijuana. At least 16 states are considering the legalizing medical marijuana during this legislative session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Even states once considered to be conservative on drug policies, such as Kansas and Alabama, are reconsidering.
The push toward legalizing medical marijuana is gaining clout.
Last fall, the American Medical Association asked the federal government to review the classification of marijuana and move the drug into a less restrictive category. The AMA has not taken a position on supporting states that have legalized medical marijuana. A state lawmaker in Colorado this week wants to draft a law that would allow veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to access medical marijuana with a doctor's permission.
Jonathan Hogue, 27, believes the workplace should allowing for legalized medical marijuana users. The Portland, Oregon, resident suffers from arthritis and relies on marijuana to ease his back pain. A physician wrote a prescription for him, he says, but a few months ago a nursing job offer was rescinded because of his medical marijuana use. CNN contacted the private nursing company but did not get a response.
"It's straight discrimination," Hogue said. "I was trying to be completely honest with them about not trying to hide it because it's not illegal."
Supporters of medical marijuana also argue prescription drugs such as Oxycodone can be just as dangerous and widely abused.
"If you are a medical marijuana user, you're treated like a drug addict or a second-class citizen," said Douglas Hiatt, a labor attorney in Seattle, Washington, where medical marijuana is legal. He's encountered dozens of medical marijuana patients who have lost jobs. "What other medicine out there causes this much trouble?"
Trouble is what Joseph Casias, a father who needs to support his family, is facing after Wal-Mart let him go. He's already accrued $10,000 of debt from unpaid medical bills. Living on unemployment checks, he constantly worries whether his cancer will get worse since he can no longer afford treatment.
This month, a group of supporters have come to his side, holding rallies and forming a Facebook group "Let Joseph Casias Talk." Casias is thankful for all the support, but ultimately, he said, he just wants his job back.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/24/michigan.medical.marijuana.fired/index.html?hpt=C1

Can this get anymore discriminatory that it is? I guess I shouldn't ask that question because I might get an answer!

Individuals that report to work every day under the influence of prescription drugs, legally prescribed by a medical professional, are allowed to work. But because that legally prescribed drug is Mary Jane, they are fired despite the fact that the drug was legally prescribed by a medical professional?

Each year millions of cancer patients do the weed and feed routine because it helps quell the nausea, relieves a measure of the pain, and most importantly generates an appetite to help rein in the weight loss that typically goes along with chemo / radiation therapy. Now on top of it they can be fired from their jobs for it?!

How much longer is this insanity going to go on? Legalize it, tax it, and watch how many hookahs come out of the attics and closets of America! Eliminate the drug dealers in weed, eliminate those stupid "big drug busts" that capture a few pounds of something that is only going to stimulate the junk food market at worst. Free the authorities to go after the crack heads and tweekers, and leave those docile chip eating tokers to their weed. . . 

[The Troll]

  Palehorse, this is why we have to stop the far right wing, taliban dumbass Chistain Teabagger party.

  A party that was started by Rupert Murdoch and Dick Armey.  Pushed by Glen Beck, Sara Palin and all of the hosts on Fox News.   

  Old Rupert a billionaire, who really doesn't have a party.  Wants to divide the vote up into 3 parts.  He figures that if he can keep the Republicans and the Democrats from winning he can slip his party in and WIN WITH 34% OF THE VOTE.  It's about the numbers and the power.  Talk about an Antichrist, good old Rupert, sure fills the bill.

  QUESTION:  Just what would it be like,  living under the Teabag Party?  Think you would like it Palehorse?

The Troll

 

[Henry Hawk]

Palehorse I agree with you on this, and Troll this is does not have anything to do with the teaparty what so ever....to say it is, is simply ignorance on your part....

I think it should be legalized, and handled just like alcohol....if you are driving while under the influence, you break the law and suffer the consequences....It would also remove many from the already overcrowed prisons, and reduce crime....and although I am not a fan of the over use of taxes, it would generate billions across this land.

As far as this Cavais guy, if he was doing his job to satisfaction, then he should be exempt from the drug testing...for medical purposes....

[Palehorse]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's official: Californians will decide whether legal marijuana should be used to plug the state's $20 billion budget gap.

California residents are expected to vote this year on whether legalization should be approved to raise nearly $1.4 billion in state revenue. That's based on an estimate from the State Board of Equalization, a tax administration agency.

"It would be another source of revenue for the state," said Anita Gore, spokeswoman for the board. The board has not issued an opinion on legalization as a means of easing the state's budget crisis, she added.

California Secretary Debra Brown confirmed on Wednesday that enough signatures had been collected to put AB 390, a marijuana legalization bill, on the ballot for Nov. 2. A press release from the secretary said that legalization proponents submitted 694,248 petition signatures for the bill, easily surpassing the required 433,791.

"The momentum for reform has grown exponentially since we introduced the bill last year," said Quitin Mecke, spokesman for Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, the lead sponsor of the bill. "We're excited about the prospect to reform drug laws again."

Mecke noted that California was the first state to pass legislation allowing medicinal marijuana, 14 years ago.


Unlike prior legislation that has passed in California and other states, this form of legalization is not restricted to medicinal use of marijuana. The bill proposes that marijuana be regulated and taxed in a similar way to alcohol.

According to the bill, people would have to be 21 years or older "to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use." Californians would not be permitted to use the drug in public or within the presence of minors, and would not be allowed to possess it on school grounds.

Most importantly, as far as the budget gap is concerned, the bill stipulates that the drug would be subject to a sales tax. An additional retail fee of $50 would be imposed on every ounce that's sold.

The State Board of Equalization estimates that the state could raise $1.382 billion in annual tax revenues from legal marijuana. The figure is based on estimated revenue of $990 million from the retail fees and $392 million from sales taxes.

"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense," Ammiano said in a press release when he first proposed the bill last year.

Also, Mecke said that legalization could prompt the state to "reallocate" more than $300 million in law enforcement spending away from non-violent drug activity to address violent crimes. 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/25/news/economy/marijuana_legalization_tax/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

FINALLY! Somebody gets it! Watch how quickly this bill will pass and see California go into the black. 

[LOsborne]

Geez, I can't believe I'm going to post this, but ...

If the company policy prohibits working with specific drugs or alcohol in one's system, then the company can fire you if you do it. The presumption is that the company has a business necessity to ensure the workers are not impaired.

I drug test new hires, and randomly screen current workers. I fire them for using prescribed medications if those medications are on the prohibited list. The fact that you need Lortabs to control pain does not trump my need for you to be clear-headed when operating dangerous machinery.

Most companies will allow a worker to take medical leave so he can take the Lortabs for pain while he gets better. But if a worker needs constant medication, he is not able to do the job safely.

It isn't judgmental. It's just business.

[Palehorse]

Geez, I can't believe I'm going to post this, but ...

If the company policy prohibits working with specific drugs or alcohol in one's system, then the company can fire you if you do it. The presumption is that the company has a business necessity to ensure the workers are not impaired.

I drug test new hires, and randomly screen current workers. I fire them for using prescribed medications if those medications are on the prohibited list. The fact that you need Lortabs to control pain does not trump my need for you to be clear-headed when operating dangerous machinery.

Most companies will allow a worker to take medical leave so he can take the Lortabs for pain while he gets better. But if a worker needs constant medication, he is not able to do the job safely.

It isn't judgmental. It's just business.

Impaired is the operative word in that policy, and the presence of THC does NOT indicate impairment, just its presence.
The fact of the matter is most "drug screens" do not test for quantity but presence of the chemistry.

The gold standard surrounding impairment for alcohol is .08, what is it for THC? Let me answer that for you, there is none.

Smoke weed on Friday night and the next Friday night you will test positive for it and be fired, despite the fact that it is in no way present in sufficient quantities to impair you physically or mentally in any way. In the case in question the man was fired over very similar circumstances despite the fact the drug was prescribed to him by a medical professional.

Quantitative measurement testing is what is required in order to justify the term impairment surrounding any substance, including prescription drugs. But rarely does any company engage in said testing because it is expensive and should it ever become legally mandated in order to separate an employee, they'd have to spend a fortune in testing.

Science has established the quantitative levels necessary for impairment for THC and every other drug out there. Quantitative testing is available. But they'd rather discriminate against cancer patients than spend the money necessary to prove impairment. . . despite the fact that had he smoked more than 4 hours before reporting for work the levels of THC within his system would have been well below the scientifically proven levels necessary for impairment.

[LOsborne]

Hey, I discriminate against people with fibromyalgia and arthritis too. And you wouldn't believe what I do to people with bad backs.

The issue is not that companies are targeting people who smoke dope. The issue is that our worker's comp and general liability carriers DEMAND that we do not allow people who test positive for prohibited substances to operate the equipment.

That's right, the bad guy is once again THE GREAT SATAN... that is, the insurance industry.

[Palehorse]

Hey, I discriminate against people with fibromyalgia and arthritis too. And you wouldn't believe what I do to people with bad backs.

The issue is not that companies are targeting people who smoke dope. The issue is that our worker's comp and general liability carriers DEMAND that we do not allow people who test positive for prohibited substances to operate the equipment.

That's right, the bad guy is once again THE GREAT SATAN... that is, the insurance industry.

Discriminate is the operative word, and that is exactly what you and the company do. The law should require quantitive testing in order to prove impairment for any substance. Period. The mere presence of a chemical does not indicate abuse nor impairment. But it only requires it for the boozers.

[LOsborne]

Discriminate is the operative word, and that is exactly what you and the company do.

If we don't follow the guidelines of our insurance carrier, we lose the coverage. If we can't get worker's comp and general liability insurance we can't operate. Then nobody has a job. How is that better?

We don't like it any more than you do. But the insurance contract is non-negotiable. Are you really asking us to toss four hundred employees onto the street in order to uphold a principle?

[Sandy Eggo]

It's legal in California as well. I don't know how it works in Michigan, but in California, the doctor gives you a RX card and as long as you have that in your possession you can go to special stores and buy it. Calfornia even authorizes growers as long as they're growing to supply these stores. But as far as I know, the RX card doesn't get you a pass on the drug test when applying for a job.  I may have to ask someone that. I do recall hearing something in the news about a guy who was denied a federal position in California and questioned the policy and the ruling was that marijuana for medicinal purposes is a state regulation and doesn't apply to federal positions.

[Palehorse]

If we don't follow the guidelines of our insurance carrier, we lose the coverage. If we can't get worker's comp and general liability insurance we can't operate. Then nobody has a job. How is that better?

We don't like it any more than you do. But the insurance contract is non-negotiable. Are you really asking us to toss four hundred employees onto the street in order to uphold a principle?

NO. What I am attempting to point out is that the policies are antiquated and discriminatory no matter who is imposing them, and moreover, should marijuana become legalized, as it has in the case in question here, then quantitative measurement must be utilized in order to validate any action toward separation due to impairment, as is done with those suspected of alcohol impairment.

Anything short of this is discriminatory, and just because it is a requirement of an insurance carrier does not relieve those endorsing and using the practice of liability. Sooner or later this will become a milestone case legally, and the closer marijuana comes toward legalization the closer that day of reckoning is to arrival.

If California becomes the first state to legalize marijuana, then you will see the requirement for quantitive testing raised shortly thereafter, in order for law enforcement to validate and prove cases of DWI involving marijuana. It should already be the case for employment testing. . .

[Sandy Eggo]

The fact that you need Lortabs to control pain does not trump my need for you to be clear-headed when operating dangerous machinery.

I think this is the key...mostly. I wouldn't disagree in cases where machinery (including aircraft and motor vehicles) and patient care are involved. However, how is it justified in cases where the position is perhaps data-entry or custodial where maybe the most dangerous piece of equipment is a vaccum cleaner?

I'm guessing it falls under "company policy" for all employees and varies from company to company based on insurance requirements/regulations. Did I answer my own question?

[Palehorse]

Another key component in all of this is the "at will" status that both Michigan and Indiana carry surrounding employment. Cali has no such status IIRC, and so the law is different. (And should Cali legalize and the rest of the states follow, that federal law will also have to change).

In at will states employers can fire you without having to provide any reason what so ever. The only stipulations are to federally protected classes, such as disability, race, sex, creed. If you happen to belong to one of those classes you are safer than those who do not. And why a person under the care of a doctor is not a federally protected class is beyond me. . .

But then, giving constitutional rights to corporations is beyond me too. . . 

[Palehorse]

And while we're on the subject of drug testing, I'll just point out the dirty little secret of the industry that manufactures those cups you pee in and the reagents/strips utilized in testing for the presence of illegal drugs and their byproducts - otherwise known as false positives. . .

Having worked in that very industry for 8 years I know first hand how unreliable these "detection" tests can be. So much depends upon the strict adherence to the manufacturing process, that false positives are virtually guaranteed. All that is necessary is for there to be one minute less mix time, or a mistake in the titering process for the reagents, or a contaminant within the mouse membrane, and you've got a false positive. There are a million possibilities for this to happen and it happens with great regularity.

The USPS used the cups we manufactured exclusively for its drug testing program nation-wide, and all they tested for was the presence of the drug or its byproducts. Period.

Those byproducts for example, can be created by food, over the counter medications, etc. Example: If I am a vegan and for breakfast I eat a salad smothered in poppyseed dressing, accompanied by a poppyseed roll or two, and I do this routinely, I will test positive for illegal drugs. Even if I've never touched the stuff in my life.

If I eat hot dogs or sandwiches that are served on poppyseed buns or eat poppyseed dressing, I can test positive for illegal drugs.

And how many has this happened to? How many have never used illegal drugs and still tested "positive" because of a false positive or due to the foods they eat on a regular basis? Or the fact they suffer from allergies and their insurance company will not cover the prescription and so they take OTC allergy medications, and probably over medicate, and test positive?

When you test for the presence of the drugs or its byproducts and do not perform quantitive testing that is what happens.

[The Troll]

   Palehorse, no matter how hard I try, I can think of the word the use, like a kid gets caught with a aspirin or a pair of pointy scissors, a little pocket knife the school supends the kid.  Is it no tolerance.  No thinking, no common sense.

   By having a rule they made, no matter how false or unscientific.  It's their law.  This the Authoritarian can  avoid using common sense, making their jobs easier and not having to use their brain.

The Troll