MEDICAL MARIJUANA CREATES WORKPLACE DILEMMA

Steven Karapandza says his use of prescription marijuana to help ease
the pain of daily migraine headaches is none of his boss's business.

He never smokes pot on the job. He doesn't come to work high, and he
gets his work done without fail, he said.

"In my mind, it's like any other medication," said Karapandza, 28, a
Sterling Heights, Mich., resident and cell phone repairman. "You
wouldn't go up to your boss and tell him you've got a prescription for
Vicodin."

Karapandza is among 5,108 Michiganders registered as medical marijuana
users since a new law passed last fall by voters took effect in April.

Another 2,092 people have been approved as caregivers. About 1,100
applications have been denied under the law that permits marijuana
prescriptions for pain relief among people who are chronically and
terminally ill.

For employers, the issue is less clear-cut than the way Karapandza
sees it.

"It's hard enough to run a business," said Kurt Sherwood, an attorney
with Miller Canfield, a big Detroit-based law firm that held a seminar
last week addressing employment issues, including medical marijuana.
"I can see this creating a nightmare scenario."

Employers are facing tough issues as they try to navigate the state's
fledgling medical marijuana law, such as the difference between
"smoke" and "ingest."

Or whether company policies on drug testing still apply in a state
where 63 percent of voters approved a new law last fall allowing
medical use of marijuana.

During an employment seminar hosted last week by the Miller Canfield
law firm in Troy, business owners heard they're in limbo, at least for
now.

Since the law took effect in April, more than 7,200 people have been
registered either as users of medical marijuana or their caregivers.
So far, no employee or job applicant has filed a lawsuit saying he or
she was fired or denied a job because of a positive drug test.

"We check the filings every day," said attorney Kurt McCamman of
Miller Canfield. "We just don't know where Michigan is headed."

There are 13 states, including Michigan, that have approved
decriminalization of medical marijuana use. In the lawsuits filed by
employees fired for having positive drug tests - even though the
employees were approved as medical marijuana users - so far all have
been decided in favor of the employers.

Michigan's law is confusing, McCamman said, with conflicting language
on whether a medical marijuana user is protected against disciplinary
action.

One section of the law says a registered user can't be "subject to
arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner or denied any right or
privilege including ... disciplinary action by a business ... for the
medical use of marijuana."

Another portion of the law says "nothing in this act shall be
construed to require an employer to accommodate the ingestion of
marijuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the
influence of marijuana."

A third section says no one can possess or use medical marijuana on a
school bus or on school grounds, but smoking pot is expressly
prohibited only on public transportation or in any public place. It's
unclear, McCamman said, whether it's OK for a certified user to eat,
for example, marijuana-laced brownies in a public place.

"Our advice is you need to continue to enforce your regular rules
because if you don't you're opening up a Pandora's box," said Miller
Canfield attorney Kurt Sherwood.

Clouding the issue even more is a decision last month by the U.S.
Justice Department not to pursue criminal charges against medical
marijuana producers and users in states where it's legal.

"That's a very significant retreat from federal policy," said Mark de
Bernardo, executive director of the Institute for a Drug Free
Workplace. "Marijuana is a dangerous drug that detrimentally affects
the workplace. It has impacts on health care costs, productivity,
accidents and employee turnover."

Gary Francisco, executive director of the Michigan Medical Marijuana
Project, which pushed for passage of the law last year, said he's not
so concerned about the law's implication in the workplace.

"Nobody is arguing that we should be impaired in the workplace," he
said. "We're more concerned about uneven enforcement by police."