Sacramento: A divided California Supreme Court grappled Tuesday with the application of the state's medical marijuana law in the workplace, debating whether an employee who uses pot to cope with pain or illness can be fired for violating federal drug laws.

The case of Gary Ross, a 45-year-old computer technician fired by a small Sacramento firm for failing a drug test, is the latest in a series of federal-state conflicts since California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing the medical use of marijuana if a doctor recommends it. At least 11 states have since adopted similar laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal government's authority to shut state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries and prosecute patients and their suppliers for violating federal laws that ban marijuana possession, cultivation and distribution. But the application of Prop. 215 to issues of hiring and firing depends mostly on the meaning of California law - the 1996 initiative, a follow-up legislative measure and a disability discrimination law - on which the state's top court is the final authority.

The state's voters intended to allow medical marijuana users "to fully participate in life regardless of any potential disability," Stewart Katz, a lawyer for Ross, told the court during Tuesday's hourlong hearing in Sacramento. That includes having a job, he said.

But several justices noted that although Prop. 215 protected medical marijuana users and their caregivers from state criminal prosecution, it never mentioned the workplace.

If the initiative was intended to give medical marijuana patients the same rights as other Californians to get and keep jobs, "don't you think it would be brought to the attention of the electorate?" asked Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar.

Another attorney for Ross, Joseph Elford of the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, replied that the law, like other initiatives, should be interpreted liberally to carry out the voters' intent and that it was often the court's job "to fill in the gaps of the statute."

"But not to rewrite it," said Chief Justice Ronald George.

Ross, according to his lawsuit, injured his back while in the Air Force in 1983 and suffers painful spasms for which he got no relief until 1999, when his doctor recommended marijuana.

He was hired as a computer administrator by the Sacramento firm, RagingWire Communications, in September 2001 and was fired 11 days later for testing positive for marijuana.

Ross said he took a copy of his doctor's note to the drug-testing clinic, never used the drug at work or was impaired by its effects on the job, and performed his duties competently. His suit accused RagingWire of violating a state law that prohibits discrimination against disabled employees and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations.

The state Supreme Court, which is scheduled to rule within 90 days, granted review of the case after lower courts ruled that the company had the right to fire Ross for using a drug that was banned by federal law.

Numerous medical and disability groups have filed written arguments on Ross' side, while business organizations have come to RagingWire's defense, noting among other things that companies that hire drug users might forfeit federal contracts.

An employer who hires a medical marijuana user is "arguably being complicit in an activity that's illegal under federal law," RagingWire's lawyer, Robert Pattison, told the court. He said the state law that requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations to the disabled shouldn't be interpreted to require accommodation of illegal drugs.

But Justice Joyce Kennard said that under Prop. 215, "it is not a crime when someone engages in the use of marijuana under supervision of a physician." Keeping Ross on the job would have promoted the goals of the disability law without exposing the company to prosecution, she said.

The case is Ross vs. RagingWire, S138130.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.
Website: SF Gate: San Francisco Chronicle

Wayne Hauge grows grains, chickpeas and some lentils on 2,000 acres in northern North Dakota. Business is up and down, as the farming trade tends to be, and he is always on the lookout for a new crop. He tried sunflowers and safflowers and black beans. Now he has set his sights on hemp.

Hemp, a strait-laced cousin of marijuana, is an ingredient in products from fabric and food to carpet backing and car door panels. Farmers in 30 countries grow it. But it is illegal to cultivate the plant in the United States without federal approval, to the frustration of Hauge and many boosters of North Dakota agriculture.

On Wednesday, Hauge and David C. Monson, a fellow aspiring hemp farmer, will ask a federal judge in Bismarck to force the DEA to yield to a state law that would license them to become hemp growers.

"I'm looking forward to the court battle," said Hauge, a 49-year-old father of three. "I don't know why the DEA is so afraid of this."

The law is the law and it treats all varieties of Cannabis sativa L. the same, Bush administration lawyers argue in asking U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland to throw out the case. The Drug Enforcement Administration says a review of the farmers' applications is underway.

To clear up the popular confusion about the properties of what is sometimes called industrial hemp, the crop's prospective purveyors explain that hemp and smokable marijuana share a genus and a species but are about as similar as rope and dope.

The active ingredient in marijuana is tetrahydrocannabinol, better known as THC. While hemp typically contains 0.3 percent THC, the leaves and flowers coveted by pot smokers have 5 percent or more, sometimes up to 30 percent.

"You could smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole," Hague said of hemp, "and it's not going to provide you with a high."

Experts on the subject say a headache is far more likely than a buzz.

In the small town of Ray, N.D., Hauge said people - his friends, mostly - make cracks.

"Usually it's something about whether or not the DEA is going to arrest me or if my phone is being tapped," Hauge said. "It's kind of difficult to provoke me. I'm also a CPA, and I have had a tax practice in Ray for 25 years. I was an EMT for 18 years. And I'm not a person who smokes. I don't smoke anything. I exercise a lot and I'm pretty healthy."

David Bronner is a vegan California businessman who uses hemp oil to make his Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap richer and smoother. He touts hemp milk as a challenger to soy and adds hemp seeds, full of Omega-3 fatty acids, to a snack bar called Alpsnack.

He says the hulled seeds look like sesame seeds and taste like pine nuts.

Bronner's company spends about $100,000 a year importing 10,000 pounds of hemp oil and 10,000 pounds of seeds from Canada. To do so, he first had to win a federal court battle with the Justice Department, which tried to ban the imports. One of his arguments was the prevalence and popularity of the crop elsewhere.

"In Canada and Europe, where industrial hemp is grown, no one is trying to smoke it and the sky is not falling," said Bronner, president of the Hemp Industries Association, a trade group. Likening hemp seeds to marijuana, he said, is like equating poppy seeds with opium.

Hauge is joined by Monson, a Republican state legislator who helped pass a law in 1999 that would permit hemp cultivation and establish limits to ease the federal government's worries. They have the backing of Vote Hemp, an advocacy organization, and state Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson, who personally delivered paperwork to the DEA in February on the farmers' behalf.

In a lengthy March 5 letter to DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy, Johnson quoted a university professor's conclusion that under "the most fundamental principles of pharmacology, it can be shown that it is absurd, in practical terms, to consider industrial hemp useful as a drug."

That's how Tim Purdon sees it. He is a Bismarck lawyer for Hauck and Monson.

"Some people call me up with the idea that my clients and myself are some sort of marijuana legalization effort," Purdon said. "My clients are farmers. They are looking for a crop they can make money on in the tough business of being a family farmer."

Hauge is feeling optimistic. He has signed up for a hemp cultivation seminar in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. It starts Friday.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2007 The Washington Post Company
Website: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

A state Senate committee heard heated testimony Wednesday morning at the Capitol both for and against medicinal marijuana.

The Committee on Health, Human Services, Insurance and Job Creation held a public information hearing about medical marijuana featuring testimony from three "expert witnesses" followed by responses from the public.

Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, who chairs the committee, said he was approached with the idea to hold the hearing "years ago" when he first took office, by Gary Storck, co-founder of Is My Medicine Legal Yet?

"I’ve asked questions of a lot of doctors and … a slim majority of them seem to think if that’s what’s going to make the patient feel better and control the pain better they’re not opposed to it," Erpenbach said. "Some are opposed to it simply because, as they put it, there is no scientific proof."

The two key witnesses in favor of medicinal marijuana were David Bearman, a practicing physician from Santa Barbara, Calif., and Chris Fichtner from Illinois. Fichtner is a psychiatrist who is the former head of mental health for the Illinois Department of Health and Human Services.

According to Bearman, one of the biggest problems with legalizing marijuana is the stigma that surrounds the substance. The federal government has labeled it a "schedule one substance" along with other drugs deemed not medically beneficial. Bearman said he believes there is plenty of research that proves this wrong.

"It’s still an uphill battle to remove that stigma," Bearman said.

Addressing concerns of the committee, Bearman said marijuana is not physically addictive, causing less dependency than coffee.

"The abuse potential is extremely low," Bearman said.

Following Bearman’s testimony, Fichtner said there is no outlet for the discussion of marijuana outside the realm of substance abuse. He said there needs to be legal research performed to make marijuana and all the chemicals in it specialized to treat different types of ailments — but such research is not allowed right now.

Fichtner also addressed a Yale study that linked marijuana use to increased psychotic brain activity. He called the findings of the study misleading and said the methods were flawed.

In response to a question from the committee, Fichtner addressed the argument that marijuana serves as a "gateway" for users to try other, more dangerous drugs.

According to Fichtner, alcohol has proven, in studies, to serve as a gateway drug at a much higher rate than marijuana.

"There is not good evidence for cannabis as a gateway drug," Fichtner said.

Storck and fellow IMMLY co-founder Jackie Rickert gave emotional testimony, as Rickert fought to hold back the tears as she described her physical ailments and how marijuana has allowed her to play with her grandchildren.

Donna Daniels, state coordinator for Parent Corps, a national drug prevention program, spoke in opposition to the idea of legalizing the substance for medical use.

"Research has shown that marijuana is an addictive substance," Daniels said. "Making medical marijuana legal is a stepping-stone to other legalization."

Source: Badger Herald (U of WI, Madison, WI Edu)
Copyright: 2007 Badger Herald
Website: The Badger Herald - University of Wisconsin-Madison