MEDICAL POT USE CAN GET YOU FIRED

A California Supreme Court decision Thursday allowing employers to
fire workers for using medical marijuana has some local attorneys
disappointed and scratching their heads.

"To me, it's an absolute travesty that patients who receive doctors'
recommendations to use medical cannabis are discriminated against in
the workplace," said Greg Allen, a local attorney with experience
handling marijuana cases. "I'm pretty appalled at this ruling."

The high court upheld a Sacramento telecommunications company's
firing of Gary Ross, who flunked a company-ordered drug test but had
a medical marijuana card authorizing him to legally use marijuana to
treat a back injury sustained while serving in the Air Force.

The company, Ragingwire Inc., successfully argued it rightfully fired
Ross because all marijuana is illegal under federal law, which does
not recognize medical marijuana laws in California and 11 other states.

"No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical
purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law," Justice
Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the 5-2 majority.

Eureka attorney Neal Sanders, who specializes in medical marijuana
cases, said he doesn't see what federal law has to do with the case.

"This is a California case," he said. "It's dealing with California
employers, and this particular person was concerned about losing his
job in California. (Ross) didn't sue under federal law, he sued under
California law, under which people can use medical marijuana with a
doctor's recommendation. I don't see how federal law comes into play
in a California case."

Sanders comments seem to underline a battle that has followed
California's Compassionate Use Act -- also known as Proposition 215
- -- since its adoption in 1996.

A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision declared that medical marijuana
laws don't protect users from federal prosecution. The Drug
Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies have recently
been actively shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries throughout
California, charging their operators with felony distribution.

In Ross' case, Ragingwire said it fired him because, among other
reasons, the company feared it could be the target of a federal raid.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western
Electrical Contractors Association Inc. joined Ragingwire's case,
arguing that companies could lose federal contracts and grants if
they allowed employees to smoke pot.

Thursday's decision, Allen said, could place California on a slippery
slope, and employees on other medications could find themselves next
on the firing block.

"Remember, this case was clear and the facts were decided that this
guy's work performance wasn't affected in any way," Allen said. "If
you can do it with one medication, you can do it with another. ... It
does have the potential for opening up the flood gates on other medications."

For his part, Sanders said the decision also enters the dangerous
ground of employers controlling what employees do legally while away from work.

"People ought to understand that this issue isn't if someone should
be able to smoke marijuana at work or on their break," Sanders said.
"The only question here is whether an employer had the ability to
control what an employee does at home, which was legal under state law."

Americans for Safe Access, or ASA, a nonprofit marijuana advocacy
group that represents Ross, said in a press release that the group
has received hundreds of similar complaints of employment
discrimination since 2005. ASA attorney Joe Elford said the group
will now focus on getting the Legislature to pass a law protecting
medical marijuana users.

"Obviously, we are extremely disappointed by the ruling," Elford
said. "But we remain confident that there will be a day when medical
marijuana patients are not discriminated against in the workplace."

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.