MISGUIDED, LEGAL

Gary Ross had back pain, and he treated it with marijuana. When Ross
failed a drug test, his employer - a Sacramento, Calif.,
telecommunications firm - promptly fired him.

Ross had proof his drug use was legal. He had a medical marijuana
card authorizing him to use the drug for treatment of pain from a
back injury sustained while serving in the Air Force. Despite his
condition and his card - and despite an injury sustained while
serving his country - the California Supreme Court last week upheld
the decision to fire him.

Marijuana arguably is a great drug for pain relief, and for some it's
safer and less mentally and physically draining than harsher
painkillers such as Vicodin and Percocet, commonly prescribed by
doctors and dentists and seldom the topic of employee/employer disputes.

The company Ross worked for - Ragingwire Inc. - argued federal law
does not recognize marijuana deregulation 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.

It's unfortunate the company based its case on a bad ruling. The
federal government has no business usurping state laws that allow
residents to use marijuana. If voters in a state are on board with
medicinal marijuana use, what gives the central government a right to
oppose them? Only bizarre and habitual abuse of the interstate
commerce clause. The U.S. Supreme Court's disrespect for state
marijuana laws nearly eliminates any pretense that we're a nation of
independent states.

But, private companies have the right to reject it. Companies have
rights to set standards for employees, some of which others may
disagree with. (Something for those opposing residency requirements
in Lima to consider.) The right of companies to determine which
qualities are best and worst in their employees must be maintained in
the interest of free and competitive enterprise. The voluntary
relationship between an employee and an employer is respected in the
First Amendment, which the courts have interpreted as a restriction
on governments to interfere with free association among adults. The
right to freely associate demands the right to freely dissociate,
which requires the right to hire and fire at will.

It's unfortunate that Ragingwire fired Ross for treating his pain.
But the decision belonged to Ragingwire. Good decision? Maybe not.
Legal decision? Absolutely.