Medical-marijuana ruling makes no sense

[Psycho4Bud]

On Jan. 24, the California Supreme Court upheld the firing of a medical marijuana patient from his job because he tested positive for marijuana in a company drug test.
For patients who do not have to undergo the onerous and humiliating ritual of providing a urine specimen in a cup or you will be fired or not hired, this ruling has no direct impact.

But for the many people whose livelihoods depend on being able to pass a drug screen, this is a serious blow to their health and welfare.

Like law enforcement's successful attempt to terrorize local elected officials by threatening to arrest them if they pass laws allowing medicinal marijuana in their communities, law enforcement has now succeeded in getting business owners to carry out their prohibitionist agenda by threatening them with loss of federal contracts, police raids and lawsuits if they allow their employees to use marijuana medicinally. At least that is what lawyers representing business owners in the case claimed in their legal briefs arguing that they had no choice but to fire a legal medical marijuana patient for testing positive for marijuana.

In a 5-2 decision, the California Supreme Court unfortunately bought into this absurd argument. I imagine their legal reasoning has some basis in jurisprudence, but that doesn't mean it's rational.
DailyBulletin.com - Medical-marijuana ruling makes no sense (http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_8166413)

Are these state Supreme Court Judges working for the state or the fed?

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Markass]

On Jan. 24, the California Supreme Court upheld the firing of a medical marijuana patient from his job because he tested positive for marijuana in a company drug test.
For patients who do not have to undergo the onerous and humiliating ritual of providing a urine specimen in a cup or you will be fired or not hired, this ruling has no direct impact.

But for the many people whose livelihoods depend on being able to pass a drug screen, this is a serious blow to their health and welfare.

Like law enforcement's successful attempt to terrorize local elected officials by threatening to arrest them if they pass laws allowing medicinal marijuana in their communities, law enforcement has now succeeded in getting business owners to carry out their prohibitionist agenda by threatening them with loss of federal contracts, police raids and lawsuits if they allow their employees to use marijuana medicinally. At least that is what lawyers representing business owners in the case claimed in their legal briefs arguing that they had no choice but to fire a legal medical marijuana patient for testing positive for marijuana.

In a 5-2 decision, the California Supreme Court unfortunately bought into this absurd argument. I imagine their legal reasoning has some basis in jurisprudence, but that doesn't mean it's rational.
DailyBulletin.com - Medical-marijuana ruling makes no sense (http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_8166413)

Are these state Supreme Court Judges working for the state or the fed?

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

definitely not representing the will of the people...the state's supposed to do that in a more direct sense than the feds...unfortunately...not anymore apparently..put it on a ballot and let the people decide, I bet it would be the opposite of what they decided...

[killerweed420]

This just throughs the ball back in our court again.
Educate yourself on how to beat the piss cops and be sure to get on juries so you can get a not guilty charge.
This is never going to change till get assholes out of office that keep corrupting the will of the people.

[8182KSKUSH]

On Jan. 24, the California Supreme Court upheld the firing of a medical marijuana patient from his job because he tested positive for marijuana in a company drug test.
For patients who do not have to undergo the onerous and humiliating ritual of providing a urine specimen in a cup or you will be fired or not hired, this ruling has no direct impact.

But for the many people whose livelihoods depend on being able to pass a drug screen, this is a serious blow to their health and welfare.

Like law enforcement's successful attempt to terrorize local elected officials by threatening to arrest them if they pass laws allowing medicinal marijuana in their communities, law enforcement has now succeeded in getting business owners to carry out their prohibitionist agenda by threatening them with loss of federal contracts, police raids and lawsuits if they allow their employees to use marijuana medicinally. At least that is what lawyers representing business owners in the case claimed in their legal briefs arguing that they had no choice but to fire a legal medical marijuana patient for testing positive for marijuana.

In a 5-2 decision, the California Supreme Court unfortunately bought into this absurd argument. I imagine their legal reasoning has some basis in jurisprudence, but that doesn't mean it's rational.
DailyBulletin.com - Medical-marijuana ruling makes no sense (http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_8166413)

Are these state Supreme Court Judges working for the state or the fed?

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

I read the whole article, and something is wrong. The entire presentation of the story makes me ? the source. I realize that the author is a long time activist, "anti-prohibisionist". I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea so please just be calm when you read this, the article that is supposed to be news, it is being presented as such, sounds dripping of biased. I don't believe we are getting the whole story about this specific case from the article. Maybe I am wrong! Maybe it tells the whole story, but it something about it smells skunky. Please I don't want to offend anyone, I am just trying to look at the whole story as objectively as possible. I will try to find more out about it, and would encourage everyone else to do so as well.

As for the company being able to do what they did, to be honest if I owned a company that was very valuable, and IF IF IF, I had a policy for pre-employment drug screening that screened specifically for marijuana among other drugs because I personally felt that use by employees had a negative impact on performance then I as an employer/business owner am entitled to do that!!

Would I personally make that decision, NO. NO. NO.
But we cannot allow that right to be taken away from anyone!!! That would be JUST AS BAD as what the Federal Government is doing to the state! Something else that concerns me comes from another article on the same case,

At a hearing in November, Ross' attorneys Stewart Katz of Sacramento and Joseph Elford of San Francisco told the Supreme Court that the Fair Employment and Housing Act requires employers to make "reasonable accommodations" for workers who have disabilities. They said that Ross' use of marijuana was part of a medical treatment for a disability.

This sounds like code speak to me, sounds like they were sueing because they could not use marijuana WHILE at work, I don't know if that's what the crux of the argument was, but that is sure the hell what it sounds like. Again, I think that it would be unconstitutional to force employers to allow this through legislation, ESPECIALLY while it is a Federal Crime. Even if I am wrong about the real intentions of the people involved as far as them using it while working, a decision in their favor would open the door for that, and while that would be fucking awesome for me and everyone else, it would be seriousely violating the rights of the people that own businesses.

The Court disagreed and supported arguments by RagingWire's attorney Robert M. Pattison who said that employees, by allowing medical pot use, will make themselves vulnerable to disruptive searches by federal authorities because the state's law continues to run afoul the federal Controlled Substances Act.

This is absolutely true. Anyone hear knows that. Why should I as an employer, invest my money into you when at any moment you could be incarcerated. Again not what I personally think.

Pattison has also cited arguments from the state's 3rd District Court of Appeal, which ruled against Ross in 2005, noting that drug use results in increased absenteeism from work, diminished productivity and greater health care costs -- all legitimate considerations for employers looking at job applicants.

This is just an opinion of a lower court, the article does not say that the supreme court concurred on this! This is just what some guy thinks, and is not true of course, well not for everyone!

In her dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard said the ruling "disrespects the will of California's voters" who passed the law never intending that it would affect the employment of medicinal marijuana users.

Oh, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!!! Why should we step on the rights of some people to accomodate some other people? This is a direct result of doing something half assed! Prop 215 and Sb 420 are not good pieces of legislation. This is what happens when you send a libral to do a mans job!!:D

It was not immediately clear early Thursday how the state court's decision would affect legal questions and case law in several of the 11 other states which adopted medical marijuana laws modeled after California's Compassionate Use Act.

Being a person that feels that my personal rights are being violated by the prohibition of marijuana, I am also highly sensitive to violating the rights of others. I do not and will not support irresponsible activism that does not support core fundamental american values for EVERYONE If you are willing to compromise others personal liberties and rights to make accomodations for yourself, then you are no better than the people you are criticizing and opposing. I believe that most of the anti-prohibitionist movement is made up of people like this, it will only serve to prolong prohibition not end it, while in the mean time supporting activist groups that DO MAKE MONEY AS LONG AS THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO FIGHT ABOUT!!! I am highly suspicious of special intrest groups period, and in regard to this there is no exception. I am sure that some of them have the best of intentions, but I am also sure there are those that are just in it to make a living and don't have any intrest in ending prohibition anytime soon.

I really really hope that what I wrote came out right, and I hope that it makes sense, if you disagree fine. I am not out to change your mind, I just have a different opinion. I hope you will consider it.:)

[8182KSKUSH]

It may help to read that last post "as if" you have never heard of marijuana and had a completely objective, CALM, mind.:D
Or it may not help at all, just don't yell at me!:D

[8182KSKUSH]

I believe that this is likely an example of what I think is wrong with the "Medical Marijuana Movement". :(

[8182KSKUSH]

Sorry for killing the thread.:(

[8182KSKUSH]

Ok, I'm sorry, you rule, I suck. Your smart I'm dumb. Your good looking I'm ugly.:wtf: